New 55G, filtration questions...

[Keith Hatfull]

Hi,

I have a new (used) 55G that I am setting up. After reading and reading
I have decided that the best filtration for me would be a combination of
an RUGF and a power or canister filter. A couple of questions:

- Is driving a RUGF with the output from a canister filter a reasonable
thing to do? Would the plumbing be hard to come up with?
- Concernng the UGF plate...what's considered the best? Also, product
photos on the web are hard to find...anyone know of plates that have the
molded in lift tube sockets to prevent gravel from getting under the
plates? I know Lee's makes one, any others?
- I've read abut putting polyester mat batting between the plate and the
gravel. That really work to increase surface area for bacteria, would
flow be a problem with an RUGF?

TIA for any guidance. It's been 25 years sinbce I kept a tank...sheesh
things have changed.

-Keith

[NetMax]

"Keith Hatfull" > wrote in message
...
> Hi,
>
> I have a new (used) 55G that I am setting up. After reading and
reading
> I have decided that the best filtration for me would be a combination
of
> an RUGF and a power or canister filter. A couple of questions:
>
> - Is driving a RUGF with the output from a canister filter a reasonable
> thing to do? Would the plumbing be hard to come up with?
> - Concernng the UGF plate...what's considered the best? Also, product
> photos on the web are hard to find...anyone know of plates that have
the
> molded in lift tube sockets to prevent gravel from getting under the
> plates? I know Lee's makes one, any others?
> - I've read abut putting polyester mat batting between the plate and
the
> gravel. That really work to increase surface area for bacteria, would
> flow be a problem with an RUGF?
>
> TIA for any guidance. It's been 25 years sinbce I kept a tank...sheesh
> things have changed.
>
> -Keith

For a snapshot of what has changed, I compiled a list here (with help
from others on the ng).
http://www.2cah.com/netmax/basics/changes/changes.shtml

Driving an RUGF with a canister or powerfilter is fine (it works). It's
easy to plumb. I'd wonder about what benefits you perceive from the
arrangement, (not to say that there is anything wrong with it, but rather
to be clear on your expectations, and be able to discuss pros/cons on
alternate methods to meet the same expectations). Canisters already
provide a tremendous biological capability under normal circumstances,
and adding the RUGF would provide additional redundancy, and greater
environment diversity to promote more types of bacteria. The higher your
non-planted fish-load, the more valuable this characteristic is. With
natural plants (or modest fish-loads), the benefit ratio decreases. I
hit the basic filter designs here:
http://www.2cah.com/netmax/basics/filters/filters.shtml hth

cheers & welcome back to the hobby.
--
www.NetMax.tk

[Keith Hatfull]

NetMax wrote:


> Driving an RUGF with a canister or powerfilter is fine (it works). It's
> easy to plumb. I'd wonder about what benefits you perceive from the
> arrangement, (not to say that there is anything wrong with it, but rather
> to be clear on your expectations, and be able to discuss pros/cons on
> alternate methods to meet the same expectations). Canisters already
> provide a tremendous biological capability under normal circumstances,
> and adding the RUGF would provide additional redundancy, and greater
> environment diversity to promote more types of bacteria. The higher your
> non-planted fish-load, the more valuable this characteristic is. With
> natural plants (or modest fish-loads), the benefit ratio decreases. I
> hit the basic filter designs here:
> http://www.2cah.com/netmax/basics/filters/filters.shtml hth
>
> cheers & welcome back to the hobby.

Thanks!

I expect that with that arrangement, I can use the gravel, which I need
to vacuum periodically anyway, as biological media. Using a RUGF rather
than a standard UGF should keep less gunk from building up between
vacuuming and keep the gunk higher in the gravel. I don't plan to have
a planted tank, at least not this one, so I think this arrangement will
make the best use of everything in the tank. My fish load would
probably be normal to heavy. My original thought was to use a standard
UGF and airstones to drive it, along with a canister or power filter.
That way there's true redundancy...if I have an air pump fail, I still
have some sort of filtration, if I have a canister or power filter fail,
I still have some sort (albeit biological only) of filtration. I'm a
network administrator by trade so redundancy is a big thing with me ;-).
In that vein I'll probably run two smaller heaters. I have 3Kva of
UPS capacity in my home server closet...that could be used for fish in a
power outage...an air pump and/or power filter at least and maybe a
heater for a little while. Anal huh? ;-)

[Charles]

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 22:01:12 -0500, Keith Hatfull >
wrote:

>NetMax wrote:
>
>
>> Driving an RUGF with a canister or powerfilter is fine (it works). It's
>> easy to plumb. I'd wonder about what benefits you perceive from the
>> arrangement, (not to say that there is anything wrong with it, but rather
>> to be clear on your expectations, and be able to discuss pros/cons on
>> alternate methods to meet the same expectations). Canisters already
>> provide a tremendous biological capability under normal circumstances,
>> and adding the RUGF would provide additional redundancy, and greater
>> environment diversity to promote more types of bacteria. The higher your
>> non-planted fish-load, the more valuable this characteristic is. With
>> natural plants (or modest fish-loads), the benefit ratio decreases. I
>> hit the basic filter designs here:
>> http://www.2cah.com/netmax/basics/filters/filters.shtml hth
>>
>> cheers & welcome back to the hobby.
>
>Thanks!
>
>I expect that with that arrangement, I can use the gravel, which I need
>to vacuum periodically anyway, as biological media. Using a RUGF rather
>than a standard UGF should keep less gunk from building up between
>vacuuming and keep the gunk higher in the gravel. I don't plan to have
>a planted tank, at least not this one, so I think this arrangement will
>make the best use of everything in the tank. My fish load would
>probably be normal to heavy. My original thought was to use a standard
>UGF and airstones to drive it, along with a canister or power filter.
>That way there's true redundancy...if I have an air pump fail, I still
>have some sort of filtration, if I have a canister or power filter fail,
>I still have some sort (albeit biological only) of filtration. I'm a
>network administrator by trade so redundancy is a big thing with me ;-).
> In that vein I'll probably run two smaller heaters. I have 3Kva of
>UPS capacity in my home server closet...that could be used for fish in a
>power outage...an air pump and/or power filter at least and maybe a
>heater for a little while. Anal huh? ;-)
>


Using the canister to feed the RUGF requires that the cannister filter
pump be working. If it fails, then there is no circulation through
the gravel.

I use powerheads (Penguin 660R) for the RUGF, and a separate power
filter (Aquaclear) hanging on the back. If one fails due to whatever,
there is something else working.
--

- Charles
-
-does not play well with others

[Charles]

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 12:38:44 -0400, "NetMax"
> wrote:


>
>For a snapshot of what has changed, I compiled a list here (with help
>from others on the ng).
>http://www.2cah.com/netmax/basics/changes/changes.shtml
>
Another change somewhere in the last 40 to 50 years, power filters
(the hang on back kind) seem to prime much better than they did in the
days of yore. I remember fighting with them to get the water to
start, now all of them work much better.
--

- Charles
-
-does not play well with others

[NetMax]

"Charles" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 22:01:12 -0500, Keith Hatfull >
> wrote:
>
> >NetMax wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Driving an RUGF with a canister or powerfilter is fine (it works).
It's
> >> easy to plumb. I'd wonder about what benefits you perceive from the
> >> arrangement, (not to say that there is anything wrong with it, but
rather
> >> to be clear on your expectations, and be able to discuss pros/cons
on
> >> alternate methods to meet the same expectations). Canisters already
> >> provide a tremendous biological capability under normal
circumstances,
> >> and adding the RUGF would provide additional redundancy, and greater
> >> environment diversity to promote more types of bacteria. The higher
your
> >> non-planted fish-load, the more valuable this characteristic is.
With
> >> natural plants (or modest fish-loads), the benefit ratio decreases.
I
> >> hit the basic filter designs here:
> >> http://www.2cah.com/netmax/basics/filters/filters.shtml hth
> >>
> >> cheers & welcome back to the hobby.
> >
> >Thanks!
> >
> >I expect that with that arrangement, I can use the gravel, which I
need
> >to vacuum periodically anyway, as biological media. Using a RUGF
rather
> >than a standard UGF should keep less gunk from building up between
> >vacuuming and keep the gunk higher in the gravel. I don't plan to
have
> >a planted tank, at least not this one, so I think this arrangement
will
> >make the best use of everything in the tank. My fish load would
> >probably be normal to heavy. My original thought was to use a
standard
> >UGF and airstones to drive it, along with a canister or power filter.
> >That way there's true redundancy...if I have an air pump fail, I still
> >have some sort of filtration, if I have a canister or power filter
fail,
> >I still have some sort (albeit biological only) of filtration. I'm a
> >network administrator by trade so redundancy is a big thing with me
;-).
> > In that vein I'll probably run two smaller heaters. I have 3Kva of
> >UPS capacity in my home server closet...that could be used for fish in
a
> >power outage...an air pump and/or power filter at least and maybe a
> >heater for a little while. Anal huh? ;-)
> >
>
>
> Using the canister to feed the RUGF requires that the cannister filter
> pump be working. If it fails, then there is no circulation through
> the gravel.
>
> I use powerheads (Penguin 660R) for the RUGF, and a separate power
> filter (Aquaclear) hanging on the back. If one fails due to whatever,
> there is something else working.
> --
>
> - Charles
> -
> -does not play well with others

Along the lines of redundancy, put a dc powerhead in line with your
canister. On an ac failure, a relay (which is held open by ac) closes to
a 12V battery which drives the powerhead which keeps water flowing
through the canister and RUGF. Use a 120Vac relay, run ac through the
drive coil, connect the battery to the COMM, connect the powerhead
(marine bilge pump) to the NC connection, connect the dc grounds
together.
--
www.NetMax.tk

[Keith Hatfull]

NetMax wrote:

> Along the lines of redundancy, put a dc powerhead in line with your
> canister. On an ac failure, a relay (which is held open by ac) closes to
> a 12V battery which drives the powerhead which keeps water flowing
> through the canister and RUGF. Use a 120Vac relay, run ac through the
> drive coil, connect the battery to the COMM, connect the powerhead
> (marine bilge pump) to the NC connection, connect the dc grounds
> together.

OOoohhh...a man after my own heart. Yet another thing to tinker with ;-)

Thanks!

Keith

[The Outcaste]

On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 22:33:56 -0500, Keith Hatfull >
bubbled forth the following:

>Hi,
>
>I have a new (used) 55G that I am setting up. After reading and reading
>I have decided that the best filtration for me would be a combination of
>an RUGF and a power or canister filter. A couple of questions:
>
>- Is driving a RUGF with the output from a canister filter a reasonable
>thing to do? Would the plumbing be hard to come up with?
I'm running a Fluval 304 and a 404 into a 30 gal. The output hose from
the Fluval's are a snug fit inside the 1" riser tubes, so a short
piece of riser tube as an adapter seems to work fine. The only problem
I've had is the riser sockets in the UGF plate in this tank are not at
the back edge of the plate (I think it's a whisper UGF). This means
the hose holder for the Fluval has to be mounted fairly high on the
glass, which can allow the fish to knock the hose out of the socket
(I'm blaming my 5" pl*co).

I'm told that a threaded 3/4" PVC nipple will screw in tightly, but
haven't tried it yet. 3/4" PVC pipe is just a little too big, but
could probably be sanded down enough to make a tight fit.

A piece of 1" ID clear vinyl hose can be used to join the 1" riser to
3/4" PVC, just dip one end in very hot water and it'll stretch en
ought to fit over the PVC.

>- Concernng the UGF plate...what's considered the best? Also, product
>photos on the web are hard to find...anyone know of plates that have the
>molded in lift tube sockets to prevent gravel from getting under the
>plates? I know Lee's makes one, any others?

The whisper does, but they are inset about 3/4" from the back edge of
the plate. The do have a built in "egg crate" top to prevent fish from
uncovering the plate.
Perfect-A-Flo also has raised sockets which are right at the back
edge. Their web site doesn't have that great of a picture, but here it
is: http://www.perfectomfg.com/misc.htm#ugf
Big Al's has some better pictures, here's the link to their category:
http://www.bigalsonline.com/catalog/category.xml?pcid1=2885;category_id=1727

>- I've read abut putting polyester mat batting between the plate and the
>gravel. That really work to increase surface area for bacteria, would
>flow be a problem with an RUGF?

Even with the reverse flow, debris will get down into the gravel, but
it is quite a bit less than with a "standard" UGF. Still, over time
gunk could build up on the mat which would restrict the flow. It would
be very hard to clean without removing it from the tank.

If you are going to have any fish that dig in the gravel, a piece of
"egg crate" (plastic grid lighting diffuser) laid on top of the plate
will keep the fish from exposing the plate.

>TIA for any guidance. It's been 25 years sinbce I kept a tank...sheesh
>things have changed.
>
>-Keith
I've been trying this out to see how it would work. I like the idea of
redundancy. I figure if something happens to the canister, I can
always throw in an airstone or powerhead to run the UGF. However, you
have to be there when it fails in order to do this. Netmax's idea of a
DC powerhead would be an ideal solution, at least for a power failure,
but wouldn't help if the canister's motor died, or the impeller
jammed. Perhaps a flow sensor to turn on the DC pump if the flow
stops...

My biggest question is whether or not a bacterial colony will be able
to develop in the gravel. The bacteria need food (ammonia and nitrite)
and oxygen, so the question is, is there enough in the output of a
canister to support a biofilter in the gravel?

The whole idea is to have the bio-filter split between the canister
and the RUGF. As the bacteria can double in under 24 hours, if either
filter needs to be removed, the remaining filter can handle the full
load in just a day (assuming there is enough surface area). However,
the output of the canister filter should ideally have 0 ammonia and
nitrite. Obviously, this will be dependent on the bioload, the flow
rate through the filter, and the amount of media in the canister. I
suspect with most canisters, the flow rate is high enough that it
takes several passes to completely remove ammonia/nitrite, but I've
yet to find any documentation to confirm this.

Some things to consider:
With a slow enough flow rate, or a low enough bioload, there will not
be any ammonia to feed bacteria in the gravel.

As the bioload increases, the bacteria in the canister will grow to
meet the supply of ammonia until a limit is reached -- either surface
area or O2 levels; more bacteria means less O2 in the output. No O2
means no bacteria in the gravel.

If the surface area is the limit, there will be ammonia in the output
so bacteria will be able to develop in the gravel. However, O2 levels
may be so low that the bacteria won't be able to take advantage of the
full surface area of the gravel.

If you increase the flow rate enough so that it takes more than one
pass through the canister/RUGF to remove ammonia, the canister will
have a larger portion of the bio-filter, as it gets first crack at the
food and O2. But I have no idea if this would mean a 55-45 split, or
95-5 split

My original thought in using the canister to run the RUGF was cost
savings -- for the 67 gal I'm planning, it will use 2 separate UGF
plates, which means 2 powerheads, one for each plate. By using the
canister output, the 2 powerheads would not be needed. I'm thinking
now one small pond pump might be a better option, plus, I can plumb it
to 2 riser sockets on each plate for a more even flow.

If anyone has any info to support or refute my assumptions, don't
hesitate to share:-)

Jerry

[Limnophile]

"Keith Hatfull" > wrote in message
> NetMax wrote:
<snip>
>> connect the battery to the COMM, connect the powerhead
> > to the NC connection, connect the dc grounds
> > together.
> OOoohhh...a man after my own heart. Yet another thing to tinker with ;-)
> Thanks!
> Keith

Or if you want LOTS of water movement powered by a 12 volt battery, my local
hardware store has trolling motors on sale ...

(just kidding, no flames please)

Keith J.
aka Limnophile

[NetMax]

"The Outcaste" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 22:33:56 -0500, Keith Hatfull >
> bubbled forth the following:
>
> >Hi,
> >
> >I have a new (used) 55G that I am setting up. After reading and
reading
> >I have decided that the best filtration for me would be a combination
of
> >an RUGF and a power or canister filter. A couple of questions:
<snipped UGF info out>

> I've been trying this out to see how it would work. I like the idea of
> redundancy. I figure if something happens to the canister, I can
> always throw in an airstone or powerhead to run the UGF. However, you
> have to be there when it fails in order to do this. Netmax's idea of a
> DC powerhead would be an ideal solution, at least for a power failure,
> but wouldn't help if the canister's motor died, or the impeller
> jammed. Perhaps a flow sensor to turn on the DC pump if the flow
> stops...

The flow sensor would need a bit of logic, or the dc motor would be
constantly turning itself off ;~) A simple chip would do it (D
flip-flop) or I think you could do it with relays (logic with pedals ;~).
Basically, the flow sensor/relay circuit would be in parallel to your ac
detector, and it would require an operator reset once it was tripped. If
I was feeling smarter, I might even figure out the schematic. Probably
something like 2 relays in series, so the 2nd relay feeds ac back to the
first so when the flow resumes, the 2nd relay now keeps the first
energised until this path is interrupted by a push-open button.

> My biggest question is whether or not a bacterial colony will be able
> to develop in the gravel. The bacteria need food (ammonia and nitrite)
> and oxygen, so the question is, is there enough in the output of a
> canister to support a biofilter in the gravel?
>
> The whole idea is to have the bio-filter split between the canister
> and the RUGF. As the bacteria can double in under 24 hours, if either
> filter needs to be removed, the remaining filter can handle the full
> load in just a day (assuming there is enough surface area). However,
> the output of the canister filter should ideally have 0 ammonia and
> nitrite. Obviously, this will be dependent on the bioload, the flow
> rate through the filter, and the amount of media in the canister. I
> suspect with most canisters, the flow rate is high enough that it
> takes several passes to completely remove ammonia/nitrite, but I've
> yet to find any documentation to confirm this.

Agreed, but the supposition sounds perfectly sensible.

> Some things to consider:
> With a slow enough flow rate, or a low enough bioload, there will not
> be any ammonia to feed bacteria in the gravel.
>
> As the bioload increases, the bacteria in the canister will grow to
> meet the supply of ammonia until a limit is reached -- either surface
> area or O2 levels; more bacteria means less O2 in the output. No O2
> means no bacteria in the gravel.
>
> If the surface area is the limit, there will be ammonia in the output
> so bacteria will be able to develop in the gravel. However, O2 levels
> may be so low that the bacteria won't be able to take advantage of the
> full surface area of the gravel.
>
> If you increase the flow rate enough so that it takes more than one
> pass through the canister/RUGF to remove ammonia, the canister will
> have a larger portion of the bio-filter, as it gets first crack at the
> food and O2. But I have no idea if this would mean a 55-45 split, or
> 95-5 split
>
> My original thought in using the canister to run the RUGF was cost
> savings -- for the 67 gal I'm planning, it will use 2 separate UGF
> plates, which means 2 powerheads, one for each plate. By using the
> canister output, the 2 powerheads would not be needed. I'm thinking
> now one small pond pump might be a better option, plus, I can plumb it
> to 2 riser sockets on each plate for a more even flow.

If you *really* want to be frugal, connect a powerhead between a UGF and
an RUGF ;~)

> If anyone has any info to support or refute my assumptions, don't
> hesitate to share:-)
>
> Jerry

I have no info to refute or support, so I'll just add my own ramblings.
Do you agree that
a) the bacterial population is balanced to the waste production, and
b) waste production is not a steady linear function (it immediately
follows digestion which typically occurs twice a day).

So, if those 2 statements are true, then the waste processing capability
must be less than the peak waste generating capability, so the filtering
process must take more than one pass through a biological filter. The
waste processing period cannot be greater than 100% (or ammonia levels
would be detected). It shouldn't be greater than 50% (fish sleep). It's
probably not 100% efficient during daytime hours (so less than 50%).
Applying the most crude approximations, (fish sleeping time, bacteria
dormancy, number of meals/day), the waste processing period might be
between 10% (2 one hours periods a day), and 25% (just a higher guess of
50% efficiency on 50% cycle).

10%= 2.4 hours.
25%=6 hours.
canister typically runs x3 tank volumes per hour
UGFs typically run x3 to x5 tank volumes per hour

Using x3, the tank's volume will flow past a canister between 7 and 18
times per day to clear the waste. Because this is an exponential decay,
most of the waste would be in the first 10-20% of the period, but that's
makes the worst case 14 minutes, which wouldn't do an entire tank once
(takes 20 minutes), plus all the mixing which is always going on suggests
that the rate is not very exponential, but much more gradual. This
suggests that the length of the filtration path of a canister will not
reduce the waste to zero in a single pass, so the RUGF will certainly be
a significant part of the formula. I would expect the bacteria to simply
spread itself out over all the media available, canister, hoses, gravel
etc) as a function of O2/waste concentration (highest at filter hose
input), speed (I believe biological filtration favours lower speeds,
which gives the RUGF a slight advantage) and total area (which favours
the canister).

Like I said, just ramblings. Even I can drive a truck through my logic,
for example, if the bacteria's period of dormancy is shorter than the
longest period between waste generation (overnight), then there might be
nightly population adjustments occurring, which factor in by adding a 14
hour lag to the required numbers every morning (improving our bacterial
distribution efficiency hypothesis :o).

The bottom line is that with a canister/RUGF combo, that in any
circumstances of stress to the bacteria, they have a hugely larger base
(space and environment types) from which they can multiple and adjust
their densities, so that provides the redundancy I think we are trying to
achieve, rather than calculating the actual distributed efficiency across
the system. Does that make any sense?
--
www.NetMax.tk