I've Seen The Light- UGF's SUCK

[CA-Delta]

An exchange between myself, Pharoah and KaiserSousay in a recent thread brought me to this conclusion. After exchanging PM's with KaiserSousay and getting his go ahead I am going to share this discussion with all of you.Some might agree some surely will not.
Either way it should be entertaining.
It all started with this :

Come on Pharoah , share the wealth.
I have asked this question before to no avail.
What is the fundamental difference between a UGJ and a RUGF ?

Is this a RUGF or a series of UGJ's ? And why ?



Honestly, Im not trying to put you on the spot, I just never get a decent answer to this.

Pharoah's reply:

Basically, what you have pictured is a UGJ (Under Gravel Jet).

The only real difference between the two of them is the items that are used to make it and setups in which it will work effectively. I will explain.

First, an under gravel filter is a set up plates with uptake tubes, driven by air or by powerhead, that draw mulm through the substrate and down below the plates. So, in theory and RUGF (Reverse Under Gravel Filter), would be this exact setup with a reversed flow bias. **This setup can only work with gravel as a substrate.

Now, an UGJ (Under Gravel Jet) system is only setup using the reversed flow bias. It is typically made with PVC using a powerhead or water pump to flow water. **This setup would theoretically work with both sand and gravel substrates, but is typically used with sand.

Hope this makes sense.

KaiserSousay's reply :

I`m going to jump around some of the questions a bit.
Under Gravel Filter,
I would leave that in the basement.
Better yet, add it to your plastic re-cycle materials at the curb so it can be made into something more useful. Even with allot of gravel cleaning these things will accumulate gunk. There will be dead zones that get no flow. The finer the gravel, the worse they will work.
If you decide on sand, they won`t work at all.
Reverse Flow Under Gravel Filter,
The last gasp of folk trying to make these things into a quality filter. In some ways it made a marginal filter even worse. Gunk would enter the power heads, get chopped up by the impeller and blasted down tubes. Into the plates this macerated crud would go. Some would get trapped in the plates. Some would get trapped in the gravel. Some would make the trip through the power head again and again.
UGF/RFUGF
With allot of work on your part, they will end up being a piece of equipment you will be sorry you wasted your time with.
Note: To all who are running either of the above. You like their performance in your tank, fine. This is just my opinion and we all know what opinions are like…
Under Gravel Jets,
Some work well, most are OK at best.
After a great deal of work, laying out the plumbing. Adjusting angles, locations, force of flow you get it all working pretty good. Then you want to change the layout of your décor and you mess up all that previous work.
Up to you if you want to go through all that hassle.
...... Dawn….I mean CA,
That is one mass of PVC.
You must have killer water pressure to get flow out of all those holes.
Is that part of a drive thru turtle wash?
I can`t imagine how that could be used as either RFUGF or jets.
For the one you would have too many dead spots and for the other too many holes, in too many places to be effective.
It would take some serious pump action for that to be anything but interesting to look at.

Here is my PM to KaiserSousay :

Good morning,
I gotta tell ya, we may not always completely agree but I love the way you just spit it out and cut the BS.
I share your viewpoint about the availability of opinions.
Interesting thread and good answers by yourself and Pharoah.
You hit the nail on the head with your description of the many pitfalls of a "conventional" UGF/RUGF.
Pharoah gave a textbook description of "conventional" UGF/RUGF design and construction.
His attempt to differentiate a RUGF from a UGJ on the other hand is a little weak.
I have been cruising this forum for awhile now and have from time to time tossed out a few thoughts about UGF/RUGF based systems to gauge the feedback from the group and have come to the conclusion that "conventional" UGF/RUGF's are not worth the time and effort. Just the mere suggestion is enough to get the fire stoked.

Your post along with Pharoah's enlightened me to the mistake I/we are making. Because UGF/RUGF's are so problematic when constructed and used in a conventional manner any suggestion that some aspect of either system is of value is summarily dismissed.
CHOMPERS warned me this was going to happen, but, being stubborn it took me a little while to come to this conclusion.

That's the lead in , here's the meat.

I have a 240 with a completely non conventional UGF that has been operating successfully for 30+ years. Conclusion: IT SUCKS. I hate Gravel Vac's.
Some have said the time spent on maintaining their tanks is somehow of value. Hogwash.
I love my home , I don't enjoy scrubbing the toilets.
It didn't take me near as long to come to this conclusion.

As a result I set out to improve on what I have. After much research and considerable imput from this forum I decided to build a 100 gallon scaled down version of the 240 to test the theories I developed/plagiarized from Chompers.Here is the resulting product.
http://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/fo...d.php?t=325689

Quote:
Dawn….I mean CA,
That is one mass of PVC.
You must have killer water pressure to get flow out of all those holes.
Is that part of a drive thru turtle wash?
I can`t imagine how that could be used as either RFUGF or jets.
For the one you would have too many dead spots and for the other too many holes, in too many places to be effective.
It would take some serious pump action for that to be anything but interesting to look at.
This quote is just not representative of my results.
I have had it up and running now for four months and here are my observations/results.
The tank is stocked with 3 Rubber lipped Plecos and 20 + Red Faced Macs. Six are over 4", 10 are 3" plus the rest are 1-2"
I am currently using a Little Giant 2-MD (500 GPH).
Other than tuning the length of the 90's on the drains to eliminate vortex action the system is unchanged from day one.
I service the mechanical filters weekly.
I started gravel vac'ing weekly but there wasn't much to pick up so I increased this to bi weekly and finally to monthly. Still not much to pick up and I am not gentle when I vac. I watch carefully to see if some areas of the gravel bed are worse than others but see no particalarly bad areas.
I do a 50% w/c as neccessary, 12 to 14 days
All the while I'm testing for Nitrate, every 2-3 days. I will get a reading of less than 10 for the first week and then it will start to creep up to almost 20 after 12 to 14 days.

I'm not looking for an "atta boy" , however, I feel these results are pretty good.

Go ahead, be brutally honest. Is there room for improvement or would this be acceptable for other types of filtration as well ?

I am tempted to turn this into a thread, however, I don't know if enough members are open to unconventional ideas or not.
What do you think ?

KaiserSousays reply :

Would sure be dumb to argue against success.
A system that has run for that time period and gives results like you say, well done says I.
Just looking at the plumbing I never would have thought it could work as you describe.
I guess the mention of UGF conjures up a mass of plates with little meaningless flow dividers and slots.
Just like the use of whole house water filters, you do roam outside the box.
But, unlike many, your designs show an attention to detail and more importantly..they work.
Fire up a thread, sure, why not.
Some will get it, allot will not.
Sheesh, now I`m going to have to preface any comment on UGF with a “conventional” tag..
Thanks for the PM.
Look forward to any other projects you care to share.
John

Have I lost you yet?

The point of this thread is not to prove myself or Pharoah or KaiserSousay or CHOMPERS right or wrong. There is no right or wrong in this situation.
I don't care if you call it a RUGF or a UGJ. Both are correct. Sort of.
What it is is a hybrid. It uses the same principal as a UGJ and serves the same purpose as a RUGF. The value is in the functionality.
As a RUGF it provides a robust Bio filter.
As a UGJ it keeps the mulm from settling in the gravel.

The real world application for any fish keeper whose substrate is gravel and fish are not diggers is the reduction in need for gravel vac's. Did I mention I hate vacuuming gravel.
If you prefer your Bio filter in a sump or canister you still can enjoy the benefits of this system while freeing up space in your canister or sump for more mechanical filtration.
I will soon be undertaking a total overhaul of the Hybrid UGF based system in my 240 and converting it to a Hybrid RUGF/UGJ sytem like this one and will document it in a separate thread soon.
$ .02

 

[Pharaoh]

Weak? I guess I didn't finish my explanation. That's what I get for trying to post on my work breaks. UGF & RUGF are designed to pull or push water through the substrate, creating a bio filter. UGJ are used to generate current within the tank stirring up debris into the water column in order to remove it via mechanical filtration.

On another note, I would like to see some more info on your design regarding hole placement, pipe size, etc. I have always entertained the idea of a UGJ system, especially in a larger and deeper tank.

 

[CA-Delta]

That's what I get for trying to post on my work breaks.

I know what you mean.
I knew there was a danger this could happen but it is truely not directed toward you. I felt accurately repeating the posts was more important than potentially offending you. Sorry
If you would like my rationale for that comment feel free to PM as discussing it in this thread would only serve to derail the thread. As for any technical aspect of the construction, that is fair game. Give me a minute I'll post after dinner.

Remember, I type slow.

 

[CA-Delta]

OK, the final product is a result of using Chompers pipe sizing sticky and a little common sense to get to the end product. I should have documented this better (married to an IT chick(Dawn)), but I had no intention of selling it as a product or concept when I built it.
I sized the grid to potentially accommodate 1000 GPH.
All of the supply side is 3/4" PVC. The drain is a whole different subject.
I wound up with 5/32 holes 2" O.C. in two staggered rows angled down at 45 degrees. I think I wound up with 192 holes give or take. I was intentionally conservative with the number of holes on purpose. The idea being I could always add more.
The first design did not tie the ends of the branches together and was a dismal failure. Tying the ends together seemed to fix the flow equality issues nicely.
The photo in the thread is of the final product fed by a garden hose at a measured 650 GPH.
I was aiming for something less than 1/2 the PSI required to stall the pump's flow. This probably requires clarification. I have a pressure gauge installed between the pump and the mechanical filters. If the backpressure exceeds 1/2 the number required to stall the flow you will significantly reduce the amount flowed.
In my present application a Little Giant 2-MD stops flowing at 8-9 PSI. As designed I read 3 PSI with clean filters and service the filters when it reaches 6 PSI.

Purely for comparitive purposes my 240 uses a 5-MD @ 950 GPH. It stalls at 11-12 PSI, runs 5-6 PSI (I could probably open up the return wand a little) with clean filters and I service it at 9 PSI.

I choose not to concern myself with actual turnover rates unless and until it interferes with the actual function of the tank.
I hope this answers your question, If not let me know.

 

[CA-Delta]

I recieved a PM this morning from an interested party who felt that by including the results of Nitrate testing that I might be suggesting that "it" was somehow "reducing" Nitrate.
This couldn't be further from the truth (at least to my knowledge).
I included my Nitrate readings as proof that "it" wasn't having a negative impact on Nitrates. After all don't most knowledgeable aquarists grade their tank setup and feeding habits on how fast Nitrate builds up ?

I do a 50% w/c as neccessary, 12 to 14 days
All the while I'm testing for Nitrate, every 2-3 days. I will get a reading of less than 10 for the first week and then it will start to creep up to almost 20 after 12 to 14 days.

I understand that those of you with established tanks probably don't test this often. I am testing this setup regularly to see how it is reacting so as to determine it's effectiveness. How do these results compare to what you are seeing ? Good? Bad ? Average ? I don't know, you tell me.

 

[KaiserSousay]

I recieved a PM this morning from an interested party who felt that by including the results of Nitrate testing that I might be suggesting that "it" was somehow "reducing" Nitrate.

My Bad..
Have to learn to actually read what is written, not what I think I see.
From what I gather, this dog hunts quite well.
If I had a gravel bottomed behemoth tank, I do think I would have to give this a shot.
As usual, nicely done.
john

 

[CA-Delta]

Thanks, John
I wasn't gonna mention your name, really.

 

[KaiserSousay]

Just occured to me.
Really should have seen it right off.
If UGF's SUCK,
Then would a RUGF BLOW?

 

[Clay]

Just occured to me.
Really should have seen it right off.
If UGF's SUCK,
Then would a RUGF BLOW?

BOOOO! HISSSSS! lol. I guess there are only so many puns you can incorporate into a water movement/filtration conversation.

 

[KaiserSousay]

Really no excuse, either for the play on words, or conclusions jumped too.
Just unusual to see posting from someone who actually services filtration as a nitrate reduction tool.
All too often postings seem to brag about the infrequencies of filter service.
Once or twice a year are their claims along with a generic “water specs are perfect”.
I think the vast majority of MFK`ers understand the need to remove nitrate producers not just from the seen portion of their systems, but from the system itself.
Any tool that can move gunk to filtration for removal is a plus.
A tool that can be assembled cheaply and use only the return flow from existing equipment, well Bubba…
That is a winner to me.
Just too bad it won`t work for sand.
Well, maybe not all sand.
With a bit of tweaking it might work with some of the larger grained, heavier weighted sands.