I will be putting in a 10X15X4 goldfish pond this spring. My plans are at:

http://powlusr.tripod.com/Pond/Pond.htm

I would love feedback, comments, suggestions....

--
Robin
The Poconos, PA

"PoconoRobin" powlusr at ptd dot net wrote in message
...
I will be putting in a 10X15X4 goldfish pond this spring. My plans are at:

http://powlusr.tripod.com/Pond/Pond.htm

I would love feedback, comments, suggestions....
==================================
It looks OK to me but I put my ponds in 10 years ago. Everything was bought
individually and we have the 60 mil Tetra liners. They show no signs of
wear or deterioration.
--

Koi-Lo.... frugal ponding since 1995...
Aquariums since 1952
My Pond & Aquarium Pages:
http://bellsouthpwp.net/s/h/shastadaisy
~~~ }((((o ~~~ }{{{{o ~~~ }(((((o

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 19:59:12 -0500, "PoconoRobin" powlusr at ptd dot net
wrote:

I will be putting in a 10X15X4 goldfish pond this spring. My plans are at:

http://powlusr.tripod.com/Pond/Pond.htm

I would love feedback, comments, suggestions....

Hi Robin,

What kind of goldfish are you considering? Some of the fancies don't do
well in a pond deeper than 2 feet.

I applaud your research. Seeing how you are close to my age (and we're not
getting any younger, dang it) did you consider vortex filters at all? The
reason I ask is they are SO much easier to keep clean. Your filter choice
is going to be similar to what I put up with on my homemade job, pulling
out heavy filter material. I know they're more expensive then your current
set-up, but so are doctors and drugs to fix back problems. Not to mention
the pain and suffering. ~ jan

----------------
See my ponds thru the seasons and/or my filter design:
www.jjspond.us

~Keep 'em Defrosted~
Tri-Cities, WA Zone 7a
To e-mail see website

I got acquainted with a maddox when I had to dig clay. The wider
blade worked better for me than a pick.
Hal

I must have missed that, so Robin is digging in clay? That would be a good
reason to nix vortex, as one has to go deep.

Robin, you mentioned the black foam. All the rocks around my pond and in
the waterfall, etc. are dry stacked. No foam or mortar. This has given me
the freedom of changing things easily. So before you do anything permanent,
dry stack and run first, imo. ~ jan

---------------
~Power to the Porg, Flow On!~

"~ jan jjspond" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 19:59:12 -0500, "PoconoRobin" powlusr at ptd dot net
wrote:

I will be putting in a 10X15X4 goldfish pond this spring. My plans are
at:

http://powlusr.tripod.com/Pond/Pond.htm

I would love feedback, comments, suggestions....

Hi Robin,

What kind of goldfish are you considering? Some of the fancies don't do
well in a pond deeper than 2 feet.

I applaud your research. Seeing how you are close to my age (and we're not
getting any younger, dang it) did you consider vortex filters at all? The
reason I ask is they are SO much easier to keep clean. Your filter choice
is going to be similar to what I put up with on my homemade job, pulling
out heavy filter material. I know they're more expensive then your current
set-up, but so are doctors and drugs to fix back problems. Not to mention
the pain and suffering. ~ jan

----------------
See my ponds thru the seasons and/or my filter design:
www.jjspond.us

~Keep 'em Defrosted~
Tri-Cities, WA Zone 7a
To e-mail see website

Thanks for your input. I haven't started researching goldfish yet. I may
add an additional filter in the future if it seems necessary, but I have no
extra money right now.

--
Robin
The Poconos, PA

Hal wrote:

I got acquainted with a maddox when I had to dig clay. The wider
blade worked better for me than a pick.

Not flaming spelling, but it could be hard for someone to find a maddox -
it's a "mattock". In Nova Scotia, it's a grub hoe. You can dig in
anything with this tool.
--
derek

Robin,
The only thing I would reconsider is the pump. The one you've selected is an
electricity hog. Payback in less electricity used vs higher initial cost of
a more efficient pump could be LESS than one year. After that, it's just
money saved. In general, submersible pumps are less efficient and have a
shorter lifespan than non-submersible ones and will NEVER leak oil into the
pond. Sequence pumps made by MDM, (
http://www.mdminc.com/Sequence_Standard.htm ) are one of several brands of
very efficient pumps. I have a MDM pump that has run for 8 years non-stop,
except for when I clean the leaf trap out.
Just my $0.02, and of course, all the usual disclaimers apply.
Have fun with your new hobby,
Paul


"PoconoRobin" powlusr at ptd dot net wrote in message
...
I will be putting in a 10X15X4 goldfish pond this spring. My plans are at:

http://powlusr.tripod.com/Pond/Pond.htm

I would love feedback, comments, suggestions....

--
Robin
The Poconos, PA

I'm a little concerned about the noise from the pump, since it will be right
next to my quiet patio. I know our above ground pool pump is extremely
noisy and can be heard inside the house with all the windows shut. Will the
sound of a small waterfall cover up the noise from this pump?
--
Robin
The Poconos, PA


"Paul in Redland" wrote in message
...
Robin,
The only thing I would reconsider is the pump. The one you've selected is
an
electricity hog. Payback in less electricity used vs higher initial cost
of
a more efficient pump could be LESS than one year. After that, it's just
money saved. In general, submersible pumps are less efficient and have a
shorter lifespan than non-submersible ones and will NEVER leak oil into
the
pond. Sequence pumps made by MDM, (
http://www.mdminc.com/Sequence_Standard.htm ) are one of several brands of
very efficient pumps. I have a MDM pump that has run for 8 years
non-stop,
except for when I clean the leaf trap out.
Just my $0.02, and of course, all the usual disclaimers apply.
Have fun with your new hobby,
Paul

Robin,
My best answer is .......probably. Depends on how big the pump is and how
small ( and how quiet ) the waterfall is. These pumps are , for the most
part, pretty quiet. The pump I have, a Sequence, is in a pump pit directly
under a ground level deck. The sound of the waterfall all but covers up the
sound of the pump, although if I am on the deck and specifically listen for
it, I can hear the pump making a soft humming sound, not at all obnoxious
though. Hope this helps.
Paul




"PoconoRobin" powlusr at ptd dot net wrote in message
...
I'm a little concerned about the noise from the pump, since it will be
right next to my quiet patio. I know our above ground pool pump is
extremely noisy and can be heard inside the house with all the windows
shut. Will the sound of a small waterfall cover up the noise from this
pump?
--
Robin
The Poconos, PA


"Paul in Redland" wrote in message
...
Robin,
The only thing I would reconsider is the pump. The one you've selected is
an
electricity hog. Payback in less electricity used vs higher initial cost
of
a more efficient pump could be LESS than one year. After that, it's just
money saved. In general, submersible pumps are less efficient and have a
shorter lifespan than non-submersible ones and will NEVER leak oil into
the
pond. Sequence pumps made by MDM, (
http://www.mdminc.com/Sequence_Standard.htm ) are one of several brands
of
very efficient pumps. I have a MDM pump that has run for 8 years
non-stop,
except for when I clean the leaf trap out.
Just my $0.02, and of course, all the usual disclaimers apply.
Have fun with your new hobby,
Paul

"PoconoRobin" powlusr at ptd dot net wrote:

I'm a little concerned about the noise from the pump, since it will be
right
next to my quiet patio. I know our above ground pool pump is extremely
noisy and can be heard inside the house with all the windows shut. Will
the sound of a small waterfall cover up the noise from this pump?

Well, you can get much more efficient submersibles. I can't remember the
one I used to use (but googling this group would find it and others) but it
used 215W for 5000gph at 3', iirc. More power than I'd ever like to use
now that I live off-grid, but very efficient for a submersible.
--
derek

Robin: If you want some free Koi and Goldfish in the Spring for your pond
contact me and you can have all you want.I have way too many fish and i will
be giving them away.I live about 20 miles from you in Moscow Pa..Rick




Thanks for your input. I haven't started researching goldfish yet. I may
add an additional filter in the future if it seems necessary, but I have no
extra money right now.

Thanks Rick. I would like some goldfish. I'll hang on to your e-mail.
--
Robin
The Poconos, PA

"Rick Yerke" wrote in message
news
Robin: If you want some free Koi and Goldfish in the Spring for your pond
contact me and you can have all you want.I have way too many fish and i
will
be giving them away.I live about 20 miles from you in Moscow Pa..Rick




Thanks for your input. I haven't started researching goldfish yet. I may
add an additional filter in the future if it seems necessary, but I have
no
extra money right now.

Derek wrote in
:

Well, you can get much more efficient submersibles. I can't remember
the one I used to use (but googling this group would find it and
others) but it used 215W for 5000gph at 3', iirc...

One seasonal advantage of a submerged pump, relative to a pump that sits
outside the pond, is that all the electrical energy that goes into the pump
is dissipated as heat into the water. So in the winter, if your pump is
drawing 100 watts of power, you are adding 100 watts of heat to the pond.

Obviously, depending on your climate and other variables this heat factor
can be a negative in hot weather.

Where I'm located, in central Wisconsin, the pond freezing over in the
winter is a much bigger concern that the water getting too hot in the
summer.

Rich

Richard Tanzer wrote:

One seasonal advantage of a submerged pump, relative to a pump that sits
outside the pond, is that all the electrical energy that goes into the pump
is dissipated as heat into the water. So in the winter, if your pump is
drawing 100 watts of power, you are adding 100 watts of heat to the pond.

Actually, that would only be true if you had the world's most
inefficient pump, i.e., one that moved no water. A certain
amount of energy is 'wasted' as heat, but hopefully only a
small fraction of that consumed by the pump.

Dan wrote in :

Richard Tanzer wrote:

One seasonal advantage of a submerged pump, relative to a pump that
sits outside the pond, is that all the electrical energy that goes
into the pump is dissipated as heat into the water. So in the
winter, if your pump is drawing 100 watts of power, you are adding
100 watts of heat to the pond.

Actually, that would only be true if you had the world's most
inefficient pump, i.e., one that moved no water. A certain
amount of energy is 'wasted' as heat, but hopefully only a
small fraction of that consumed by the pump.


Dan, I believe you are mistaken. Even if I had the world's most
efficient pump, all the energy that goes into moving the water around is
lost to friction, i.e. drag forces. Otherwise the water would keep
accelerating as you continued to add energy.

Because the water very quickly reaches a more-or-less constant velocity,
whatever kinetic energy is imparted to the water by the pump must be
converted to thermal energy in the pond.

Consider two 100 watt electric pumps submerged in a fish pond. The first
motor is highly efficient, 90 watts of energy go into pumping water and
10 watts are lost as heat in the motor. The second motor is far less
efficient, 10 watts of energy go into moving water and 90 watts are lost
as heat in the motor. From the perspective of heating the water, the
motors are equivalent. The only difference is whether the heat is
generated in the motor itself, or in the pond in turbulent friction
(vortices and eddies).

Ahh .. the wonderful world of thermodynamics.