T4 closed loop Q

[SMS76]

If i use T4 on my new 37g for closed loop, do i need two one inch bulkheads holes or can i get away with only one hole with one inch bulkhead?

 

[Liam]

If i use T4 on my new 37g for closed loop, do i need two one inch bulkheads holes or can i get away with only one hole with one inch bulkhead?

Do you mean for supplying the pump?or return?
-Liam.

 

[SMS76]

Do you mean for supplying the pump?or return?
-Liam.

Supplying the pump, sorry i should have mention that.

 

[Daragon]

I have a 3/4" bulkhead supplying my T4, so you'll be fine with one 1".

 

[SMS76]

I have a 3/4" bulkhead supplying my T4, so you'll be fine with one 1".

Sounds good. Thank you

 

[nunofs]

FWIW, I'm using a 1" bulkhead (with plastic strainer) as the intake to my T4 closed-loop, it works fine.

Nuno

 

[Daragon]

For my intake, I have a 3/4" bulkhead w/ a 'T' attached and a strainer on each end of the 'T'.

My question is, would it make a difference if I got rid of the 'T' and only had 1 strainer attached to the bulkhead?

 

[nunofs]

I don't think it would make a difference, since it's getting restricted at the bulkhead anyway.

Nuno

 

[skatezen]

I like the idea of a 1" bulkhead with strainer like Nuno said. It does suck the water into the strainer as forcefully as a 3/4" would.

 

[NateHanson]

Putting a T with 2 strainers will decrease the suction through the strainer, so it's less likely to suck livestock (think $60 RBTA ) into the intake. I'd keep it if you've got room for it.

 

[Daragon]

Putting a T with 2 strainers will decrease the suction through the strainer, so it's less likely to suck livestock (think $60 RBTA ) into the intake. I'd keep it if you've got room for it.

Very goog point Nate, thanks!!

 

[NateHanson]

Very goog point Nate, thanks!!

I'm full of goog ideas.

 

[Matt L.]

For my intake, I have a 3/4" bulkhead w/ a 'T' attached and a strainer on each end of the 'T'.

My question is, would it make a difference if I got rid of the 'T' and only had 1 strainer attached to the bulkhead?

Actually yes, and I imagine you would get less flow through the closed loop. I'll talk about head losses during the April meeting, but you could resolve this problem by using a larger strainer. For the record, I, too, have a tee on my intake, split into two, foam-block covered strainers.

Matt

 

[nunofs]

Matt, I know you mentioned you'll cover head losses at the meeting, but could you just explain briefly why it would cause less flow? I'm curious now... if you want to wait until after the meeting that's fine.

Nuno

 

[Daragon]

I'm curious as well and I can't make it to the meetings due to work...

 

[Matt L.]

...could you just explain briefly why it would cause less flow? I'm curious now...

Okay, the short story is that you now have twice as much flow passing through one strainer, and strainers can be a source of high headloss (much more so than a tee). When you double the flow through something, you (just about) quadruple the headloss.

So while everything else in the system is the same with or without the tee, the portion of the system head the strainer contributed to has now been quadrupled. Assume the tee caused no losses.

Whether or not that is a big change, I don't know. In other words, if you have 10.1" of loss on your system with the tee (the strainer contributing 0.1" and everything else contributing 10"), you would get 10.4" when you go from two strainers to one. However, if the strainer caused 1" of loss and everything else caused 10", you've gone from 11" to 14"...

When you increase the head, you decrease the flow.

Matt

 

[nunofs]

Thanks, Matt, that makes sense.

Nuno