I've Seen The Light- UGF's SUCK

  • We are currently upgrading MFK. thanks! -neo
Allthough you guys are starting to leave me behind with the technical stuff, It is great stuff to assimilate for me to study further and I'm sure others must think the same.

vspec, do you have any further documentation of your system(s)? I would love to see your philosophies in more detail...

Also, I have been researching the concept of using a settling tank as the first mechanical stage. What to you guys think about the potential deadspot in the bottom of such arrangement when using a conical cylindrical tank? Obviously the idea is to remove it at regular intervalls but still... That is one of the reported cons of a traditional UGF as I understand it.
 
fg4608;4461570;4461570 said:
I have been researching the concept of using a settling tank as the first mechanical stage. What to you guys think about the potential deadspot in the bottom of such arrangement when using a conical cylindrical tank? Obviously the idea is to remove it at regular intervalls but still... That is one of the reported cons of a traditional UGF as I understand it.
Ahh..the septic tank..err..settling tank. It could work but I think it would have to be sizeable to function correctly. You would still have to clean it on a weekly basis as leaving the waste in the system in any location would defeat the purpose. Not sure how you are connecting this thought with a UGF. The con of a "conventional" UGF is it is continuously drawing the waste into the gravel bed. Conventional UGF's tend to have low volumes of flow with the potential for waste to build up under the plates. A settling tank in theory could work but with the flows seen in most systems I don't think there would be a long enough dwell time for the waste to fall out of suspension.

And don't feel like the lone wolf, my tech knowledge has been challenged/exceeded already in this thread.
_______________________________________________________

OK, I'm gonna lob out a curve ball.
I understand that what works for a septic system may not translate into something we can use in an aquarium, but, I have been using a system called a Pyrana http://www.pirana.biz/ in my septic tank for a few years now and wonder if there is an application for it in this sport. Probably not , but with this many tech experts looking I just had to throw it out there.
 
Im not trying to sway this thread ether way just so everyone knows ok. Nor blur its topic content.
Open to what ever anyone uses, cause its your own choices. So as long as youve researched its implications & your happy with it, then its all good!


ok, so in order to understand a chosen methodology, you have to view the journey that got you there. In my specific case, it started stereotypically - coldwater, basic com tropical, advanced com tropical, cichlid biotope, XL species native, marine , & now the reverse spectrum of acidic.

As with all of you, the path inevitably twists & turns through a full barrage of principles to absorb, & it hits in definite waves.

By allowing yourself to delve deeper into the hobby, the more you realise how much everything can be reactionary. You cant just impulse buy & then throw a golf ball into a glass filled shop & not expect to hit something you shouldn't of, you have to plan & visualise the path to throw accordingly.

Because everything is constantly in motion (shop keeper moving stuff around) you may have to correct the trajectory between bounces.
However due to the fact your not moving blind, the ball is where you expect it & its a simple case of slight adjustments to avoid a negative reaction. - It maybe a strange analogy, :popcorn: but it makes sense.


Being one to actively research & understand as much as possible, if i can physically replicate it, chances are i'll do it just so i can see the test results first hand. It personally allows me to understand a concept and more importantly, potentially gives the ability to test any boundaries. I didn't ask to become a forced student or chemist by choice, my times better spent going to the beach or something, but it comes with the territory.

You ask my views on UG filtering. My view is it serves a purpose for the user. Its an age old principle that has stuck with the freshwater crew & sometimes still deployed today. Its duel role is to suck down particulates from the water column & oxygenate the bed for aerobic bacterium.

In my opinion, it should have died out well and truly in the early 90's at least. However once again, its getting back to what i mentioned earlier about entire scope & preferences vs natural approaches. Id much prefer my overflows to cleanse the water column, & to leave my sugar grain sized sand beds to the will of natural selection. That way it at least attempts to provide towards a total cycle. So to me, in this light, UG filtering is a gimmick that is only giving me half a picture.

Diffusion happens without your input. In simplistic examples, think of a tissue end in water, pretty soon the whole tissue will be wet. Nature attempts to create a state of equilibrium by default. It happens to every element around you.
In your aquarium its everything from the cellular structures within your fish, to the layering of your bed. Im surprised your not finding anything in your searches. Try the marine side, considering we're talking beds here, its research is far more advanced than freshwater currently. I'll be more than happy to go further into this at a later stage if you'd like. Its purely just a different approach.

FG, my systems are 90% closed down currently. Few months back I had a financial blip i like to call redundancy which caused a refocus of priorities for abit. My partner was the only one with proper systems still running in the house, which i just downgraded this weekend in actual fact due to her wanting a dog instead. well actually, truth be known it was a trade off, realisticly she is a play hobbiest, and after the 50 billionth time of me telling her to step up, she relinquished everything for my agreement on a dog.
So im happy, my theatre room is now clutter free.

Im still keeping the A. trifasciata, Ancistrus hoplogenys and Corydoras sterbai. The rest of the animals are going & hopefully 70% of the gear. Its amazing, over the years you just collect like a shop. ive got an entire room exclusively for aquatic related tanks, spares, bits & bobs.

Ive got a major south american biotope project coming up soon, so you'll see my efforts then ok.
 
My searches has become much more successfull thanks to you guys, so thanks for that.

I got interested in the vortex settling chambers a while back and I have ever since pondered how I could apply it to aquarium filtration and such on a smaller scale.

CA-Delta, you are right when you are suspecting that the sheere volume volume of such contraption will be prohibitive:
http://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=356385

What I was aiming at when comparing to UGF's was the supposed dead spots that the plenum creates vs. what I envision as a similar dead spot in the center conic...

Hope I'm not derailing all of this too much. It is just the way my mind works, connecting things at random and leading em down new paths...
 
[QUOTE='vspec';446183;44618399]You ask my views on UG filtering. My view is it serves a purpose for the user. Its an age old principle that has stuck with the freshwater crew & sometimes still deployed today. Its duel role is to suck down particulates from the water column & oxygenate the bed for aerobic bacterium.
[/QUOTE]
This actually makes the point of this thread beautifully.
As the title of the thread say's, UGF's suck.
I am not proposing that anyone build a "conventional" UGF.
I just don't understand how anything remotely resembling a UGF in function can be discounted so quickly.
I am not sucking particulate matter down into a gravel bed. Quite the opposite actually.
Now for an honest question, should I be aiming for a balance of aerobic vs anaerobic bacteria and if so, how does my contribution negatively affect this balance ?
I have to admit, all BS aside, I want a bulletproof tank that is also cheap and easy to maintain.
All three requirements are equally important.
Your example of a tissue in water leaves me wanting.
The Okie engineer in me (sorry Chompers) would calll this wicking not diffusion.
I know I am wrong I just don't know why. School Me. :popcorn:

BTW : FG , no derail, think out loud and outside the box.
 
Id much prefer my overflows to cleanse the water column, & to leave my sugar grain sized sand beds to the will of natural selection. That way it at least attempts to provide towards a total cycle. So to me, in this light, UG filtering is a gimmick that is only giving me half a picture.

You know, I have been really trying to understand your posts.
Sorry, I`m not the quickest wheel on the wagon.
So, I keep trying to push all the flowers out of the way to get to the “dirt” of what you are saying.
Haven`t got there yet.
Still stuck amongst the stems.
I`ve always thought one of the true signs of intelligence was the ability to get an idea across to everybody in the room.
Must just be me.

I am a firm believer in the KISS principal.
Vortex chambers, de-nitrate coils, deep sand bed and a few others that I looked at have been put in the “'gimmick sh^t'“ folder for me.
They do nothing a simple water change and filter maintenance can`t take care of.
They are SW solutions to the problems/costs associated with a SW water change.

I am always on the hunt for faster, easier, simpler, more functional ways of doing things.
That is what caught my attention when I first saw the Un-Conventional Gravel system.
Yes, I still think it looks like a “turtle wash”.
 
Swirl pot! OMG! That's so applicable it's silly. I never even thought about that. I had visions of rows of narrow deep slots catching particulate. The vortex makes perfect sense. And then a little collection container attached to the center of the bottom you can drain at will. You wouldn't need pressure. This could be done with a bucket. Niceness. Adding it to my next sump project.
 
Now for an honest question, should I be aiming for a balance of aerobic vs anaerobic bacteria and if so, how does my contribution negatively affect this balance

If you pumping o2 rich water down into your bed, its safe to assume your predominately promoting aerobic only. Where as, if it was just a medium depth bed, with sugar fine sand, then over a period of time, your bed would balance itself and you would have both capabilities. It also doesn't get any cheaper, or easier to maintain.

And your right, it is wicking, i was just using it as a contrast example of what happens in your sand bed.


You know, I have been really trying to understand your posts.

I`ve always thought one of the true signs of intelligence was the ability to get an idea across to everybody in the room.
Must just be me.

Oh i like these comments, your flirting the boundaries of what you really want to say..lol

Sorry for any confusion, Im not really trying to make a point bud, literally just talking from the edges and somewhat careful not ruffle many feathers these days. And definitely dont consider myself intelligent by any stretch.

If its direct answers you seek, give me all the known variables coupled with what your trying to achieve, & i'll cough up a direct road map. If you can handle the fact Im heavily schooled in marine, and as such apply an awful lot of what i call simple approaches regardless of what environment i deploy, then we're on the same page.

Im not ashamed in any way by making a clear and distinct choice of maximising environment over intervention by default.

Aquatica is an instinctual art and a science all rolled into one. I set it up properly then leave it. The hippy in me say's nature handles most of the rest. I dont down play water changes or what you call filter maintenance, however you've got to ask the question as to specificly why your doing it, then ask the follow on question as to how the environment can work more efficiently for you, instead of you having to intervene every second day. You see what im saying??

I can preach the KISS principle now, however it's born from a sh^t load of research, trial & error, money spent of testing gear & a deep interest to understand whats ultimately important to me. - The environment itself.
 
Aquatica is an instinctual art and a science all rolled into one. I set it up properly then leave it. The hippy in me say's nature handles most of the rest. I dont down play water changes or what you call filter maintenance, however you've got to ask the question as to specificly why your doing it, then ask the follow on question as to how the environment can work more efficiently for you, instead of you having to intervene every second day. You see what im saying??

Sounds good to me.
How did you do this?
Please, go into as much detail as you want to share.
I wouldn’t mind having a system that mimicked nature to the point where my intervention was unneeded.
 
MonsterFishKeepers.com