please, be friends, I will only go with ideas that everyone agrees with, so far no-one against ac110
please, be friends, I will only go with ideas that everyone agrees with, so far no-one against ac110Sand plus any HOB filter = dead filter. You can go wrong with an AC.Ullopincrate;2877811;2877811 said:You just can't go wrong with the AC110. That's my vote.
Decaying matter will create a finite amount of nitrogen, however, low water changes will cause high levels of nitrogen. Phosphates however will go out of whack fast, and continue to go up fast with decayed material.wow_it_esploded;2877663;2877663 said:An undergravel filter has no place in a cichlid tank (or in any tank, in my honest opinion). They do not work with sand, especially fine sand, because it will fall under the plates and not allow any water movement through. Even with gravel, I think that they are crap and trap the very same. The poo and other waste gets stuck under the plates, requiring frequent tank break downs and high nitrates. Even in a reverse flow system, where powerheads are used to force water through the plates and the gravel, a bunch of fish crap (somehow... I am not sure exactly how) gets trapped underneath and creates a mess of decaying matter, making it impossible to keep the nitrates down.
I had a single betta fish in a 5.5 gallon tank with an undergravel filter. It was reverse flow (pushing water into the gravel bed from the bottom up) and I thought that it would keep the crap out of the gravel and on the aquaclear prefilter. I was wrong. One day, I had to move the tank, when I saw underneath it I was shocked "Is all that fish crap". I didn't believe it, but I removed the plates and the water turned a nice chocolate-milk-brown. This was just after 4 months with a single betta. He was on a limited food supply (in an effort to keep the water clean), had weekly to biweekly 75% waterchanges, and thorough gravel vacuumings each time.
I always had high nitrates, until I removed the UGF and got a cascade 80 filter, fitting it with some bluebonded and 5 or 6 ceramic rings from another tank. After that maintenance was a breeze and I got all the crap out of the gravel, easily and quickly.
UGF are a good extremely low budget filter, however, they cannot compete with most HOB filters, canisters, sumps, or even foam filters. Dollar for dollar, a foam filter can accomplish far more than a UGF can.tcarswell;2877706;2877706 said:Ok sorry your under maintained UGF failedYou can always pop a cap and suck that crap out. A UGF is great with gravel I missed the part about sand so no it would not work. BTW if you vacuum your gravel enough (as I do ) then under your undergravel plates will be sparkling clean as mine have always been.
Maybe your right. It just does not change the fact that millions of people succesfully use UGF with no problems. Also under gravel filters provide more surface area for bio than sponge filters. Also who wants to look at two nasty sponges in their tank? Sponge filters have their upsides but honestly I would not want to look at them in a show tank.WyldFya;2877871; said:UGF are a good extremely low budget filter, however, they cannot compete with most HOB filters, canisters, sumps, or even foam filters. Dollar for dollar, a foam filter can accomplish far more than a UGF can.
Sand will enter the impeller shaft, and erode the chamber. Foam will restrict flow if not cleaned regularly enough, both can damage the filter.Padiwan cichlidiot;2878010;2878010 said:so if the ac110 sucks in sand, its dead? Will a normal sponge allow the filter to take in enought water without damage?