Underground filters

[John DeBoo]

Years ago I had two of these and they worked well. What books I've read
(published 1995 to date) seem to say they are good inexpensive filters
to use. However, in my trips to WalMart, a local fish store, Petco &
PetsMart, they seem to have all disappeared - else I'm blind.

Are these little hummers still available? Thoughts & comments on them
welcome.

Grandpa John

[Tristie[_2_]]

On Sep 20, 11:34 pm, Tynk > wrote:
> On Sep 20, 11:25?pm, John DeBoo > wrote:
>
> > Years ago I had two of these and they worked well. What books I've read
> > (published 1995 to date) seem to say they are good inexpensive filters
> > to use. However, in my trips to WalMart, a local fish store, Petco &
> > PetsMart, they seem to have all disappeared - else I'm blind.
>
> > Are these little hummers still available? Thoughts & comments on them
> > welcome.
>
> > Grandpa John
>
> Hello there Grandpa John.
> Under gravel filters are still around, however filtration has come
> along way.
> If they are not used properly and taken proper care of, they end up
> being cess pools just waiting to set free a toxic gas bubble.
> Sounds pretty wild, I know. But that's the extreme worst thing that
> can happen with them.
> Mainly, they're a pain the butt and outdated.
> Depending on the size of the tank, better options would be:
> Sponge filters run by an air pump.
> Power filters. These hang on the tank and make a lot less noise than
> anything making bubbles.
> Canister filters for large tanks.
> Do you have tanks running now or are you getting back into the hobby?

Undergravel filters are rarely used anymore.
In a lot of stores they are hard to even find.....If properly
maintained and installed they work great. YOu would be have much
better luck with a hob (hang on back) type filter such as the work
horse Aqua Clear filters. They work for ever and do the job, and are
extremely easy to maintain. ||Even on a 29 gal tank I would go with
the largest model offered, which is the AC110 (old model 500) They
are fully adjustable and can be found online for $35 or less or if
there is a Petsmart store near you just print out the webpage on them
with the price and Petsmart will price match prices (you'll save
approx 50-60%| that way) as they sell it for close to $80 in the
stores. Canister filters are mnore excpensive and can form a bnitrate
factory very quickly. Media replacement is more costly too in a lot of
the canister types. The hang on the bac (|hob) such as the Aqua Clears
are extremely quiet and you will not hear any noise, unless you have
air trapped in the system. They just do not make noise and they last
forever. Media replacement is quick and easy and cheap and a lot of
varioius other media can be used in these hob filters than just the
stuff Aqua Clear sells for it. Trust me, your fish and you will
appreciate a good AC110 on a 29 gal tank.

Air powered filters are for the most part no where near as
effectiveas they lack any real circulation or filtration and yes
eventhough they do filter water, they certainly are not quick about it
or provide much current, which also helps in any tank. Air powered
filters anymore are usually used in breeder tanks and such.rarely in a
larger display tank. Who wants top hasbve top be putting their hands
and arms ina tank to clean filters etc. ||The hob Aqua |Clear is lift
lid, pull basket out, clean and reverse removal process and go!
Eviderntly Aqua Cl;ears are too "complicated " for some fokos so they
go the old air powered way.


And as much as I hate to do it, TYNK seen perfectly fit to trash RMs
other post as well as some I made. See what| I mean about TYNK needing
to be in charge and receive 110% of the attention . I could easily
trash this post, but I fortunately do not have the resident trolls
nasty habit of of being a hipocrite

[Reel McKoi[_10_]]

"John DeBoo" > wrote in message
. ..
> Years ago I had two of these and they worked well. What books I've read
> (published 1995 to date) seem to say they are good inexpensive filters to
> use. However, in my trips to WalMart, a local fish store, Petco &
> PetsMart, they seem to have all disappeared - else I'm blind.
>
> Are these little hummers still available? Thoughts & comments on them
> welcome.
>
> Grandpa John
=========================
Good morning John. I stopped using UGFs years ago. It was almost
impossible to get the crud out from under them and who knew what deadly
gasses were developing in the decomposing mulm (bits of food, plant matter
and feces) caught there. Trying to clean them was the pits. I finally
broke down every tank at the time and one by one removed them. I just use
gravel and a gravel vac now. I use HOB Aquaclears and have been very
satisfied with them.
--

RM....
Zone 6. Middle TN USA
~~~~ }<((((*> ~~~ }<{{{{(ö>

[John DeBoo]

Reel McKoi wrote:
>
> "John DeBoo" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> Years ago I had two of these and they worked well. What books I've
>> read (published 1995 to date) seem to say they are good inexpensive
>> filters to use. However, in my trips to WalMart, a local fish store,
>> Petco & PetsMart, they seem to have all disappeared - else I'm blind.
>>
>> Are these little hummers still available? Thoughts & comments on them
>> welcome.
>>
>> Grandpa John
> =========================
> Good morning John. I stopped using UGFs years ago. It was almost
> impossible to get the crud out from under them and who knew what deadly
> gasses were developing in the decomposing mulm (bits of food, plant
> matter and feces) caught there. Trying to clean them was the pits. I
> finally broke down every tank at the time and one by one removed them. I
> just use gravel and a gravel vac now. I use HOB Aquaclears and have
> been very satisfied with them.


Good advice, maybe I'll use whatever filter comes with the set up and a
gravel vac. I used one of them years ago with good success with the UGF
system I had then.

Grandpa John

[Larry Blanchard]

On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 22:25:35 -0600, John DeBoo wrote:

> Years ago I had two of these and they worked well. What books I've read
> (published 1995 to date) seem to say they are good inexpensive filters
> to use. However, in my trips to WalMart, a local fish store, Petco &
> PetsMart, they seem to have all disappeared - else I'm blind.
>
> Are these little hummers still available? Thoughts & comments on them
> welcome.
>
I don't like them, but if you insist get the reverse UGF. You're much
better off with an Aquaclear.

[Tristie[_2_]]

On Sep 21, 3:25 pm, Larry Blanchard > wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 22:25:35 -0600, John DeBoo wrote:
> > Years ago I had two of these and they worked well. What books I've read
> > (published 1995 to date) seem to say they are good inexpensive filters
> > to use. However, in my trips to WalMart, a local fish store, Petco &
> > PetsMart, they seem to have all disappeared - else I'm blind.
>
> > Are these little hummers still available? Thoughts & comments on them
> > welcome.
>
> I don't like them, but if you insist get the reverse UGF. You're much
> better off with an Aquaclear.

Undergravel filters can and do work well if they have sufficient flow
through them and to be honest the air line bubble type of flow is far
from being adequate. Stick an good Maxi jet or Mini Jet power head on
one and its good to go. IN saltweater setups they used to use a plenum
type affair which is similar to what a FW undergravel filter is, and
if it was provided with sufficient flow etc it too worked just fine.
However if it was not you had problems just oiek a FW under gravel
filter


The white bagged play sand sold ata home depot and that is typically
seen in cigarette ash trays outside commercial establishments works
great to mix in with and under fine gravel. Bout $3.50 a 50# bag.Its a
silica or actually a quartz based sand... I use a limestone sand sold
by Homedepot called Old Castle or southdown sand. Its the same sand
used by marine fish keeps. Its also about $3.50 a 50# bag, and its
perfect to use with mbunas or any of the malawi or rift lake fish.
This sand is uniform in size to what typical play or masonary sand is,
and is snow white in color but once in use it soon becomes a gran or
tan color. This sand is agreat buffer and it will not affect ph if
your ph is not too far out of wack normally. If its really on the low
or acid side it helps immensly.

[jd]

They are still aound, but not very popular any more. They got a lot of bad
press when fanmcier (and much more expensive) alternates came out.
Undergravel filters are still a great low-cost option for drastically
increasing your biofiltration capacity. In my experience, they excel in
freshwater tanks, but are mediocre in sal****er.

However, you need sufficient water flow through the gravel. A decent
air-lift will do great if you regularly vacuum or stir up the gravel to
prevent "mats" forming and binding the gravel together. The gravel should be
stirred or vacuumed every week or two to ensure that it hasn't matted. Some
people have reported problems using undergravel filters when they have live
plants - they either can't keep the plants alive or clog the UG filter. I
simply put my plants in
shallow pots - this gives the plants a place to anchor, and provides
boundaries for the vacuum (I don't vacuum the pots so I don't disturb the
plants roots). It also makes it a lot easier to apply fertilizer (if you
want to).

I always use UG filters in all of my freshwater tanks. My filtration typical
setup is an UG filter and a canister (for particulates not biofiltration). I
have tanks from 5 gal through 125, and haven't had any water quality
problems. I use two lift tubes per UG filter, and make sure that there is
good airflow (small bubbles provide more lift per volume of air - as the
stones clog, you need to clean/replace them).

My personal opinion regtarding the decrease in popularity of UG filters is
because the sellers simply don't make as much money on them, and many of the
aquariasts today want things with a high "gizmocity factor". A UG filter is
simple, doesn't require much maintenance, and does what is supposed tp. But
it doesn't look impressive or give bragging rights about the $X,000
filtration system.....

-JD


"John DeBoo" > wrote in message
. ..
> Years ago I had two of these and they worked well. What books I've read
> (published 1995 to date) seem to say they are good inexpensive filters to
> use. However, in my trips to WalMart, a local fish store, Petco &
> PetsMart, they seem to have all disappeared - else I'm blind.
>
> Are these little hummers still available? Thoughts & comments on them
> welcome.
>
> Grandpa John

[jd]

I guess it depends on how you use your filters. I do have a canister filter,
but it is only part of my filtration system - the UG filter is just as
important. The UG drastically increases the biofiltration capacity of any
tank (if properly maintained).
The idea that the canister filter performs "better" is simply inacurate. the
canister filter is designed to perform a different function. Yes, it does
provide some biofiltrtation, but then almost everything does (including the
walls, decorations, nd pretty much any wet surface in an aquarium).
An example of how important the filters are can be demonostrated by
observing the water quality. When the canister filter slows down, the water
qualioty does not change significantly. As a matter of fact, at one point
the canister filter failed, and I didn't get around to rebuilding it for
about 3 weeks - no change in water quality. However, when I had an airpump
fail, and the UG filters flow was drastically reduced, the water quality
started deteriorating in almost immediately - there were noticable changes
within 2 days.
I am not saying that a UG filter by itself is a good filtration system. I
would not set up a tank with UG alone. I would also not set up a tank
without UG. The extra protection that UG filters provide is a lot more
valuable than the small extra expense needed at setup.
As far as sound - I run some sort of aeration all the time - I wouldn't even
think about setting up a tank without it. The sound of bubbles coming from
the UG tube isn't any worse than the sound of bubbles coming from an air
stone. Of course, I use airstones in my UG tubes - the small bubble size
greatly increases the lift capacity of the air tubes...
The lift tubes are easily hidden by plants, so they don't effect the beuty
of hte tank, and there is no additional maintenance needed - I vacuum on a
regular basis anyway.

UGF may not be something that everyone wants, but they are an option that
have definite advantages. In my opinion, the advantages far exceed the
disadvantages. Of course, in my case, the only disadvantage is spending an
extra $30 or so when I set up a 125 gallon tank - pretty insignificant when
I usually spend about $2,500 - $3,000 setting up a new tank..
-JD


"Tynk" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Sep 28, 7:04?am, "jd" > wrote:
>> They are still aound, but not very popular any more. They got a lot of
>> bad
>> press when fanmcier (and much more expensive) alternates came out.
>> Undergravel filters are still a great low-cost option for drastically
>> increasing your biofiltration capacity. In my experience, they excel in
>> freshwater tanks, but are mediocre in sal****er.
>>
>> However, you need sufficient water flow through the gravel. A decent
>> air-lift will do great if you regularly vacuum or stir up the gravel to
>> prevent "mats" forming and binding the gravel together. The gravel should
>> be
>> stirred or vacuumed every week or two to ensure that it hasn't matted.
>> Some
>> people have reported problems using undergravel filters when they have
>> live
>> plants - they either can't keep the plants alive or clog the UG filter. I
>> simply put my plants in
>> shallow pots - this gives the plants a place to anchor, and provides
>> boundaries for the vacuum (I don't vacuum the pots so I don't disturb the
>> plants roots). It also makes it a lot easier to apply fertilizer (if you
>> want to).
>>
>> I always use UG filters in all of my freshwater tanks. My filtration
>> typical
>> setup is an UG filter and a canister (for particulates not
>> biofiltration). I
>> have tanks from 5 gal through 125, and haven't had any water quality
>> problems. I use two lift tubes per UG filter, and make sure that there is
>> good airflow (small bubbles provide more lift per volume of air - as the
>> stones clog, you need to clean/replace them).
>>
>> My personal opinion regtarding the decrease in popularity of UG filters
>> is
>> because the sellers simply don't make as much money on them, and many of
>> the
>> aquariasts today want things with a high "gizmocity factor". A UG filter
>> is
>> simple, doesn't require much maintenance, and does what is supposed tp.
>> But
>> it doesn't look impressive or give bragging rights about the $X,000
>> filtration system.....
>>
>> -JD
>
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Jd,...
>
> IMO, you're not having any water quality problems because you're using
> a cansiter filter.
> You're putting a little too much praise on the effectiveness of an
> UGF.
> It's not about looks or how much something costs, it's about the
> filtration system's effectiveness.
> When you put a canister up against an UGF....hands down the canister
> is a better filtration system.
> You get mechanical *and* biological filtration as well. Just like any
> other filter medium that isn't worn out, you rinse the canister's
> filter pad out in old tank water. Nitrifying bacteria are all over
> every surface in the filter too, so rinsing with old tank water is
> recommended.
> Refill with dechlorinated water.
> If you got rid of that UGF, you wouldn't have a dirty tank. You'd have
> an almost silent tank.
> You'd have no gurgle noises, no ugly tubes, more room for plants and
> fish to use, less work, a better looking tank, and best of all...no
> more air pumps to deal with!
> With your normal water changes and gravel vacuuming there would be no
> "cons", just "pros" without it.
>
>

[Reel McKoi[_10_]]

"jd" > wrote in message
. ..
> UGF may not be something that everyone wants, but they are an option that
> have definite advantages. In my opinion, the advantages far exceed the
> disadvantages. Of course, in my case, the only disadvantage is spending
> an extra $30 or so when I set up a 125 gallon tank - pretty insignificant
> when I usually spend about $2,500 - $3,000 setting up a new tank..
> -JD
====================
Use what works for you. Some people like UGFs and some don't.


--

RM....
Zone 6. Middle TN USA
~~~~ }<((((*> ~~~ }<{{{{(ö>

[Natsirt]

On Oct 8, 9:51 am, Tynk > wrote:
> On Oct 5, 7:44?am, "jd" > wrote:
> . As a matter of fact, at one point
>
> > the canister filter failed, and I didn't get around to rebuilding it for
> > about 3 weeks - no change in water quality. However, when I had an airpump
> > fail, and the UG filters flow was drastically reduced, the water quality
> > started deteriorating in almost immediately - there were noticable changes
> > within 2 days.
>
> IMO, the water quality deteriorated because your airpump failed, and
> bacteria were dying off. A cess pool was starting.
> That had nothing to do with the canister no wroking right or good
> enough.

And your opinion does not count TYNK. NO one really cares what the
hell you think TYNK,. We all know your a babbling idiot transexual
buffoon...........where ever you go you manage to drag in the trash
and disrupt the groups. Whats wrong, can you not compete with the
moderated TFA group posters....yea, I thought that was the reason, you
do not fit in as you do not have half a clue as to what your spouting
off about 99% of the time.Go get help Tynk, they have meds to help
idiots like you cope with day to daylife..No need to have a meltdown.

[Natsirt]

On Sep 21, 1:32 pm, John DeBoo > wrote:
> Reel McKoi wrote:
>
> > "John DeBoo" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >> Years ago I had two of these and they worked well. What books I've
> >> read (published 1995 to date) seem to say they are good inexpensive
> >> filters to use. However, in my trips to WalMart, a local fish store,
> >> Petco & PetsMart, they seem to have all disappeared - else I'm blind.
>
> >> Are these little hummers still available? Thoughts & comments on them
> >> welcome.
>
> >> Grandpa John
> > =========================
> > Good morning John. I stopped using UGFs years ago. It was almost
> > impossible to get the crud out from under them and who knew what deadly
> > gasses were developing in the decomposing mulm (bits of food, plant
> > matter and feces) caught there. Trying to clean them was the pits. I
> > finally broke down every tank at the time and one by one removed them. I
> > just use gravel and a gravel vac now. I use HOB Aquaclears and have
> > been very satisfied with them.
>
> Good advice, maybe I'll use whatever filter comes with the set up and a
> gravel vac. I used one of them years ago with good success with the UGF
> system I had then.
>
> Grandpa John- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

What a ****ing idiot you are old man. Must be a relative of TYNKs.

[Natsirt]

On Oct 5, 9:15 pm, "Reel McKoi" > wrote:
> "jd" > wrote in message
>
> . ..> UGF may not be something that everyone wants, but they are an option that
> > have definite advantages. In my opinion, the advantages far exceed the
> > disadvantages. Of course, in my case, the only disadvantage is spending
> > an extra $30 or so when I set up a 125 gallon tank - pretty insignificant
> > when I usually spend about $2,500 - $3,000 setting up a new tank..
> > -JD
>
> ====================
> Use what works for you. Some people like UGFs and some don't.
>
> --
>
> RM....
> Zone 6. Middle TN USA
> ~~~~ }<((((*> ~~~ }<{{{{(ö>

But Tynk said UGF are junk and do not work.................its not
nice to counter what the mioghty TYNK says...as she is liable to have
meltdown..........However I do agree with your statement RM.......its
a personal choice just like feed is a personal choice, and what works
for one may nro may not work for others, but there is no need to shove
crap down foks throats oke TYNK and a few others do since they are of
the belief its their waty or no way and thats the only way..

Happy ponding ........counting the days till we get back to CR again.I
miss it already!

[jd]

I think you misread my post - the water quality stayed the same when the
canister filter failed. When the airpump failed (another time), the water
quality crashed. That would indicate that the UG filter was doing a lot more
of the cleaning (at least bio) than the canister, and would even suggest
that it is the canister filter that is not needed.

The tank is very heavily planted, so there probably wasn't a huge drop in
disolved oxygen - the fish certainly didn't seem to mind. I would expect the
fish to react to lower disolved oxygen way before bacteria populations would
crash - unless of course, the failure of hte airpump also stopped the flow
of water through the gravel, which would cause localized lowered disolved
oxygen in the gravel bed - which is what I think happened. The death of
bacteria doesn't significantly change the water chemistry - what causes the
change is the loss of the bacteria's metabolic processing. So this is
another argument FOR an UG filter (and a spare airpump...).

What is interesting is that the canister was running when the airpump
failed, and still didn't keep the tank stable. When the canister failed, the
UG had no problem maintaining water quality. I've never had both fail at the
same time.....
-JD

"Tynk" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> On Oct 5, 7:44?am, "jd" > wrote:
> . As a matter of fact, at one point
>> the canister filter failed, and I didn't get around to rebuilding it for
>> about 3 weeks - no change in water quality. However, when I had an
>> airpump
>> fail, and the UG filters flow was drastically reduced, the water quality
>> started deteriorating in almost immediately - there were noticable
>> changes
>> within 2 days.
>
> IMO, the water quality deteriorated because your airpump failed, and
> bacteria were dying off. A cess pool was starting.
> That had nothing to do with the canister no wroking right or good
> enough.
>

[Natsirt]

On Oct 8, 5:17 pm, "jd" > wrote:
> I think you misread my post - the water quality stayed the same when the
> canister filter failed. When the airpump failed (another time), the water
> quality crashed. That would indicate that the UG filter was doing a lot more
> of the cleaning (at least bio) than the canister, and would even suggest
> that it is the canister filter that is not needed.
>
> The tank is very heavily planted, so there probably wasn't a huge drop in
> disolved oxygen - the fish certainly didn't seem to mind. I would expect the
> fish to react to lower disolved oxygen way before bacteria populations would
> crash - unless of course, the failure of hte airpump also stopped the flow
> of water through the gravel, which would cause localized lowered disolved
> oxygen in the gravel bed - which is what I think happened. The death of
> bacteria doesn't significantly change the water chemistry - what causes the
> change is the loss of the bacteria's metabolic processing. So this is
> another argument FOR an UG filter (and a spare airpump...).
>
> What is interesting is that the canister was running when the airpump
> failed, and still didn't keep the tank stable. When the canister failed, the
> UG had no problem maintaining water quality. I've never had both fail at the
> same time.....
> -JD
>
> "Tynk" > wrote in message
>
> ps.com...
>
>
>
> > On Oct 5, 7:44?am, "jd" > wrote:
> > . As a matter of fact, at one point
> >> the canister filter failed, and I didn't get around to rebuilding it for
> >> about 3 weeks - no change in water quality. However, when I had an
> >> airpump
> >> fail, and the UG filters flow was drastically reduced, the water quality
> >> started deteriorating in almost immediately - there were noticable
> >> changes
> >> within 2 days.
>
> > IMO, the water quality deteriorated because your airpump failed, and
> > bacteria were dying off. A cess pool was starting.
> > That had nothing to do with the canister no wroking right or good
> > enough.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Listen up old man.........its not nice to argue iwth our miss know it
all TYNK..........you got that? If not perhaps its best for you to
take a hike and decide who yuo really are JD or John Deedumbass or
just a crotchety old fart...I think its time for your fleet enema and
some geritol and maybe someone will make you a cup of warm milk and
tuck your decrepit ass into the bed. Oh yea don;t forget to take your
teeth out since you seem to be into and very knowledgeable about
"hummers" as I would hate to hear that you choked on them.............

[Reel McKoi[_10_]]

"Natsirt" > wrote in message
ps.com...
But Tynk said UGF are junk and do not work.................its not
nice to counter what the mioghty TYNK says...as she is liable to have
meltdown..........However I do agree with your statement RM.......its
a personal choice just like feed is a personal choice, and what works
for one may nro may not work for others, but there is no need to shove
crap down foks throats oke TYNK and a few others do since they are of
the belief its their waty or no way and thats the only way..

Happy ponding ........counting the days till we get back to CR again.I
miss it already!
========================
The crud that collects under the plates was what turned me off to them.
Plants did OK though. Roots would grow over and through the holes in the
plates. Trying to clean out that crud that collected was what turned me off
to them in the end.
--
RM....
~~~~ }<((((*> ~~~ }<{{{{(ö>

[jd]

Yeah, I can relate with the cleaning of the crud off th e plates, but I only
do that when I'm tearing atank down, which is hardly ever now. Since I'm not
doing commercial or research work any more, my tanks are all recreational,
and I don't have to tear them down unless there is a good reason. I have
tanks that have been going for 6 years without a teardown, and they're rock
solid.....
-JD





"Reel McKoi" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Natsirt" > wrote in message
> ps.com...
> But Tynk said UGF are junk and do not work.................its not
> nice to counter what the mioghty TYNK says...as she is liable to have
> meltdown..........However I do agree with your statement RM.......its
> a personal choice just like feed is a personal choice, and what works
> for one may nro may not work for others, but there is no need to shove
> crap down foks throats oke TYNK and a few others do since they are of
> the belief its their waty or no way and thats the only way..
>
> Happy ponding ........counting the days till we get back to CR again.I
> miss it already!
> ========================
> The crud that collects under the plates was what turned me off to them.
> Plants did OK though. Roots would grow over and through the holes in the
> plates. Trying to clean out that crud that collected was what turned me
> off to them in the end.
> --
> RM....
> ~~~~ }<((((*> ~~~ }<{{{{(ö>
>
>

[atomweaver]

Tynk > wrote in
ps.com:

> On Oct 9, 7:20?am, "jd" > wrote:
>> Yeah, I can relate with the cleaning of the crud off th e plates, but
>> I only do that when I'm tearing atank down, which is hardly ever now.
>> Since I'm not doing commercial or research work any more, my tanks
>> are all recreational, and I don't have to tear them down unless there
>> is a good reason. I have tanks that have been going for 6 years
>> without a teardown, and they're rock solid.....
>> -JD
>>
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> As you and RM mentioned...the crud under the plates is my biggest
> *con* when it comes to using them.
> (Pay no attention JD to the troll tailing me...we are simply
> discussing the pros and cons of them and he has to make it into
> something it's not...sorry *for* him).
> It's that crud that is basically a ticking time bomb. Often an area of
> it becomes a toxic cess pool that can release a toxic gas bubble into
> the tank.

I'm not big on fluid dynamics, but it seems totally plausible to me that JD
was holding such a bubble in a static location (a "dead" corner?) under the
UGF with the flow from his air pump, and the failure of the pump is what
allowed it to diffuse into the tank. THe rapidity with which his water
quality dropped (<2 days, IIRC) indicates more than just normal metabolic
action of some fish in a heavily planted tank. JD's story may actually be
another indictment of UG filters, as that rapid drop in water quality might
not have occurred if the UGF wasn't there, but I guess not enough is known
to say for sure.

DaveZ

[eekamouse]

On Oct 9, 1:30 pm, atomweaver > wrote:
> Tynk > wrote oups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 9, 7:20?am, "jd" > wrote:
> >> Yeah, I can relate with the cleaning of the crud off th e plates, but
> >> I only do that when I'm tearing atank down, which is hardly ever now.
> >> Since I'm not doing commercial or research work any more, my tanks
> >> are all recreational, and I don't have to tear them down unless there
> >> is a good reason. I have tanks that have been going for 6 years
> >> without a teardown, and they're rock solid.....
> >> -JD
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > As you and RM mentioned...the crud under the plates is my biggest
> > *con* when it comes to using them.
> > (Pay no attention JD to the troll tailing me...we are simply
> > discussing the pros and cons of them and he has to make it into
> > something it's not...sorry *for* him).
> > It's that crud that is basically a ticking time bomb. Often an area of
> > it becomes a toxic cess pool that can release a toxic gas bubble into
> > the tank.
>
> I'm not big on fluid dynamics, but it seems totally plausible to me that JD
> was holding such a bubble in a static location (a "dead" corner?) under the
> UGF with the flow from his air pump, and the failure of the pump is what
> allowed it to diffuse into the tank. THe rapidity with which his water
> quality dropped (<2 days, IIRC) indicates more than just normal metabolic
> action of some fish in a heavily planted tank. JD's story may actually be
> another indictment of UG filters, as that rapid drop in water quality might
> not have occurred if the UGF wasn't there, but I guess not enough is known
> to say for sure.
>
> DaveZ- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The biggest problem is ignorance in how and what makes a UGF work, and
unless the bio load is light you need much more than an air pump to
get decent flow under the filter grates. The only way is with a decent
powerhead in place of the airstone or bubblers. Reverse flow works
fine too.............air powered tend to have dead spots, forced flow
(powerheads) do not tend to have dead spots.

[Reel McKoi[_10_]]

"Tynk" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> When I had angels and betta spawns going, those mini power filters on
> the juvie male betta male tanks would have been so usefull!
========================
Depending on how many juveniles you have and what you can afford. These
little mini filters cost $5.99 each! =:-O
--
RM....
~~~~ }<((((*> ~~~ }<{{{{(ö>

[Larry Blanchard]

On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 18:18:08 -0500, Reel McKoi wrote:

>
> "Tynk" > wrote in message
> ps.com...
>> When I had angels and betta spawns going, those mini power filters on
>> the juvie male betta male tanks would have been so usefull!
> ========================
> Depending on how many juveniles you have and what you can afford. These
> little mini filters cost $5.99 each! =:-O

I use something called "dispose-a-filter" in my fry tank. They come in a
pack of 2. I don't remember the price, but they weren't expensive. I got
them at Petsmart.

You're supposed to replace them every 4 weeks, but that's just because of
the carbon, which I sometimes take out. In any case, after I use the pack
of 2 for 8-10 weeks, the fry are large enough that I can use an Aquaclear
with a sponge over the intake.

[jd]

I have to disagree. With glass bottom tanks, it is very easy to see what is
going on under the UGF. There are no air bubbles. The air stones are located
abotu an inch above the bottom of the lift tubes, so there isn't any way for
air to get under there anyway...
-JD

"atomweaver" > wrote in message
...
> Tynk > wrote in
> ps.com:
>
>> On Oct 9, 7:20?am, "jd" > wrote:
>>> Yeah, I can relate with the cleaning of the crud off th e plates, but
>>> I only do that when I'm tearing atank down, which is hardly ever now.
>>> Since I'm not doing commercial or research work any more, my tanks
>>> are all recreational, and I don't have to tear them down unless there
>>> is a good reason. I have tanks that have been going for 6 years
>>> without a teardown, and they're rock solid.....
>>> -JD
>>>
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> As you and RM mentioned...the crud under the plates is my biggest
>> *con* when it comes to using them.
>> (Pay no attention JD to the troll tailing me...we are simply
>> discussing the pros and cons of them and he has to make it into
>> something it's not...sorry *for* him).
>> It's that crud that is basically a ticking time bomb. Often an area of
>> it becomes a toxic cess pool that can release a toxic gas bubble into
>> the tank.
>
> I'm not big on fluid dynamics, but it seems totally plausible to me that
> JD
> was holding such a bubble in a static location (a "dead" corner?) under
> the
> UGF with the flow from his air pump, and the failure of the pump is what
> allowed it to diffuse into the tank. THe rapidity with which his water
> quality dropped (<2 days, IIRC) indicates more than just normal metabolic
> action of some fish in a heavily planted tank. JD's story may actually be
> another indictment of UG filters, as that rapid drop in water quality
> might
> not have occurred if the UGF wasn't there, but I guess not enough is known
> to say for sure.
>
> DaveZ

[jd]

I'm not sure I would call it ignorance, as I have spent alarge part of my
life designing large and small filtration units, and have an excelelnt
understanding of fliud dynamics and how filtration works.

In any case, while powerheads can increase the flow through an UGF, a
properly set up and maintained airstone can (and does) provide an excellent
water flow. as an example, in one of my tanks the air lift tubes creates a
little over 6" of lift (this is about average for my tanks). There are 6
lift tubes (it's a 125 gal), so summed together that is a lot of water flow.
Even though a power head may provide a bit more flow, more is not always
better, and I have ben very satisfied with the results at these flow rates.
I have played around with power heads, and unless I ma trying to create a
current in the tank, I don't see any significant advantage.
-JD


"eekamouse" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Oct 9, 1:30 pm, atomweaver > wrote:
>> Tynk > wrote
>> oups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Oct 9, 7:20?am, "jd" > wrote:
>> >> Yeah, I can relate with the cleaning of the crud off th e plates, but
>> >> I only do that when I'm tearing atank down, which is hardly ever now.
>> >> Since I'm not doing commercial or research work any more, my tanks
>> >> are all recreational, and I don't have to tear them down unless there
>> >> is a good reason. I have tanks that have been going for 6 years
>> >> without a teardown, and they're rock solid.....
>> >> -JD
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > As you and RM mentioned...the crud under the plates is my biggest
>> > *con* when it comes to using them.
>> > (Pay no attention JD to the troll tailing me...we are simply
>> > discussing the pros and cons of them and he has to make it into
>> > something it's not...sorry *for* him).
>> > It's that crud that is basically a ticking time bomb. Often an area of
>> > it becomes a toxic cess pool that can release a toxic gas bubble into
>> > the tank.
>>
>> I'm not big on fluid dynamics, but it seems totally plausible to me that
>> JD
>> was holding such a bubble in a static location (a "dead" corner?) under
>> the
>> UGF with the flow from his air pump, and the failure of the pump is what
>> allowed it to diffuse into the tank. THe rapidity with which his water
>> quality dropped (<2 days, IIRC) indicates more than just normal metabolic
>> action of some fish in a heavily planted tank. JD's story may actually
>> be
>> another indictment of UG filters, as that rapid drop in water quality
>> might
>> not have occurred if the UGF wasn't there, but I guess not enough is
>> known
>> to say for sure.
>>
>> DaveZ- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> The biggest problem is ignorance in how and what makes a UGF work, and
> unless the bio load is light you need much more than an air pump to
> get decent flow under the filter grates. The only way is with a decent
> powerhead in place of the airstone or bubblers. Reverse flow works
> fine too.............air powered tend to have dead spots, forced flow
> (powerheads) do not tend to have dead spots.
>

[jd]

I still have to disagree - the buildup of crud on the plates is actually the
bacteria colonies - they're a PITA to clean off the plates when a tank is
stripped down, but they don't cause any harm. While I have heard tales of
the "toxic gas buildup" caused by UGF, I've never experienced it, and
knowing the details of what it takes to cause it to happen, I find it very
unlikely (OK, practically impossible) for it to happen - even without
maintenance. No I know has experienced it either. Considering what it takes
for this scenario to occur in the natural world, it would be practically
impossible to hve it happen in a tank, even if you were trying to create it.
Also, the chemistry that is needed to cause the "toxic bubble" would kill
everything in the tank way before there was the possibility of enough toxic
gas developing to actually make a bubble....

Without maintenance, I can easily imagine an UGF getting matted an clogged
(actually, its the gravel that get clogged), but all that would really do is
make the filter inneffective - it wouldn't make the gravel any worse than it
would be without the UGF in place. Of course, as soon as the gravel was
vacuumed or stirred up, the filter would kick back in , and the bacteria
would repopulate the gravel pretty quickly.

I would also reiterate that a UGF is not meant to be the sole filter in a
tank. If that is how you were using them, I can understand why you would
have had problems with them. (even with a sponge filter, all you are really
providing is bio filtration - nothing else). Another factor that may be
causing you problems is the size of your tanks. Bigger tanks are always more
stable than small tanks, and a lot of the filter advances that have occurred
over the past decade or so relate to trying to make smaller tanks more
stable, making possible to have a larger carrying capacity (more fish per
gallon), and making it easier to keep both fish and plants in the same tank.
20 years ago, all of these were labour intesive, and prone to error - the
smaller the tank, the more likely it would be for an error to occur, and
quickly spiral out of control. The new technologies have made it much easier
to keep small tanks with lots of fish and plants, but they do not necesarily
perform better than some of the older technologies - it really depends on
what you want from your tank.

powerheads and high throughput canister filters are not very good for a pond
or lake setup - for fish that do not live in an environement with currents.
UGF and low-throughput filters are much better for these tanks, as they can
be run wothout creating alot of current. They ca move a lot of water through
the filter media (gravel) without introducing a current to the overall tank.

For a current environment (stream or river), powerheads and high throughput
filters are great - you want all of that flow to create the currents that
the fish "expect". In those environments, an UGF provides some ectra
buffering of the biological filtration (I am a proponent of the "more is
better" school of thought on biofilters).

I must admit that I have never bothered to keep small tanks (I consider a
5gal to be a fry tank). I would suspect that on the tiny 1,2,3 gallon tanks,
an UGF probably wouldn't make a huge difference - by the time you had a deep
enough gravel bed (2" min.), you would have taken up a lot of the tank
volume with gravel. In those tiny tanks, keeping the water volume as high as
possible is probably the most critical thing, so exxternal filtration would
probably be the way to go . Not only would the filtration not be taking up
tank volume, it would be adding ot hte total water volume by providing an
exterior "resevoir" in the filter itself....

"Tynk" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> On Oct 9, 7:20?am, "jd" > wrote:
>> Yeah, I can relate with the cleaning of the crud off th e plates, but I
>> only
>> do that when I'm tearing atank down, which is hardly ever now. Since I'm
>> not
>> doing commercial or research work any more, my tanks are all
>> recreational,
>> and I don't have to tear them down unless there is a good reason. I have
>> tanks that have been going for 6 years without a teardown, and they're
>> rock
>> solid.....
>> -JD
>>
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> As you and RM mentioned...the crud under the plates is my biggest
> *con* when it comes to using them.
> (Pay no attention JD to the troll tailing me...we are simply
> discussing the pros and cons of them and he has to make it into
> something it's not...sorry *for* him).
> It's that crud that is basically a ticking time bomb. Often an area of
> it becomes a toxic cess pool that can release a toxic gas bubble into
> the tank.
> Yeah, I know that sounds pretty stupid, but it does happen and it can
> kill fish.
> Now that doesn't mean they're all like that, as proper maintenance
> plays a huge part. However, in reality not too many are.
> Another *con* for me is when there is a breakdown (either pump
> failure, clog, or powerhead failure) and it can turn into a bigger
> problem.
> I wonder if it has to do with the crud under the plates in addition to
> dying bacteria?
> Maybe it's because the canister isn't actually inside the tank and a
> malfunctioning canister is somewhat contained.
> I like the canisters that also have a biowheel.
> For folks who don't want a lot of added noise in the same room as a
> large tank, such as a tv room or family room, etc...it's a better
> choice than an UGF.
> If noise and less equipment running isn't a concern, and they're
> properly maintained, then sure...they have their purpose. I can't deny
> them that.
> I just find them to be a pain in the butt, and there to be better,
> less noisy options out there.
> I remember years ago taking out the UGF in my 29g (back then my tanks
> were either run by an UGF or sponge filter or both), and taking that
> first step away from them.
> It was scary for me, as well as for many long time hobbyists.
> After realizing there was no downfall, no *con* without it, only good
> things...I've never used since. I actually toss out the new ones that
> come with tank set ups, and replace it with a power filter.
> Heck, even those have a long way too!
> Now they have mini power filters for tiny 1g tanks.
> Filtration has come a long way recently, and I just wish they would
> have done it years ago. = )
> When I had angels and betta spawns going, those mini power filters on
> the juvie male betta male tanks would have been so usefull!
>

[Reel McKoi[_10_]]

"Larry Blanchard" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 18:18:08 -0500, Reel McKoi wrote:
>> Depending on how many juveniles you have and what you can afford. These
>> little mini filters cost $5.99 each! =:-O
>
> I use something called "dispose-a-filter" in my fry tank. They come in a
> pack of 2. I don't remember the price, but they weren't expensive. I got
> them at Petsmart.

I assume they're powered by air?!?!?!

> You're supposed to replace them every 4 weeks, but that's just because of
> the carbon, which I sometimes take out. In any case, after I use the pack
> of 2 for 8-10 weeks, the fry are large enough that I can use an Aquaclear
> with a sponge over the intake.

I just use sponge filters with fry until they're large enough to be
comfortable with the small Aquaclears. Aquaclears are too large for Betta
bowls or tanks. A mini Azoo at $5.99 for each Betta tank can get costly
when you breed and raise them.
--

RM....
~~~~ }<((((*> ~~~ }<{{{{(ö>

[atomweaver]

(top-posting repaired...)

"jd" > wrote in
:
> "atomweaver" > wrote in message
>> I'm not big on fluid dynamics, but it seems totally plausible to me
>> that JD
>> was holding such a bubble in a static location (a "dead" corner?)
>> under the
>> UGF with the flow from his air pump, and the failure of the pump is
>> what allowed it to diffuse into the tank. The rapidity with which
>> his water quality dropped (<2 days, IIRC) indicates more than just
>> normal metabolic action of some fish in a heavily planted tank. JD's
>> story may actually be another indictment of UG filters, as that rapid
>> drop in water quality might
>> not have occurred if the UGF wasn't there, but I guess not enough is
>> known to say for sure.
>>

> I have to disagree. With glass bottom tanks, it is very easy to see
> what is going on under the UGF. There are no air bubbles. The air
> stones are located abotu an inch above the bottom of the lift tubes,
> so there isn't any way for air to get under there anyway...
> -JD
>

*shrug* Perhaps a UGF dead spot holds the toxics dissolved in water, then.
My own experience with UGFs is limited, and had poor results compared to
modern options.... But, people used UGFs for decades, and they kept FW
tanks just fine. It seems you can make UGFs work for you. Good on ya',
then. HOBs and cannisters are IME much easier, safer and effective, but if
you've got something that works, too, keep at it. Still, a big water swing
in two days with an active operating cannister filter is an indication that
something more was going on in your tank. Big die-off in the UGF bacterial
colony itself, maybe? Once you stop flowing water in the UGF, that
underplate area could go anaerobic pretty quickly, kill off your bacteria
colony, and then diffuse into the tank from there. (another) *shrug*...
like I said, not enough known to say for sure.

DaveZ

[jd]

actually, the most probably cause is the fact taht having the UGF lets me
"overload" the system pretty heavily - that is one of hte reaswons I like it
so much. What was really interesting was that when the canister tanked, the
water quality didn't really change, but when the UGF tanked, there was a
pretty fast crash. My guess is that the difference in surface area for
bacteria to love on is what really make sthe diff - the canister has a lot
less surface area for bacterial colonies than the huge gravel bed (a 125
tank, 2-4 inches of gravel, as opposed to a (roughly) 1.5 gallon canister.

I agree that UGFs aren't for evreyone, but (like almost any tool that can
work) eliminating them out of hand is foolish. If you've tried them, and not
had luck, they obviously aren't for you. My main point was that they have a
bad rep that, in my decades of experience, is undeserved. When I work with
newbies to set up tanks, I always start them out with a UGF as a component
of their filtration system. If they decide they don't like it, they can
always simply pull out the lift tubes. The space under the plates will fill
pretty quickly with loose gravel (no caps on the lift tube holes), and the
only real difference is that there is a bit of extra plastic inthe tank...

-




"atomweaver" > wrote in message
...
> (top-posting repaired...)
>
> "jd" > wrote in
> :
>> "atomweaver" > wrote in message
>>> I'm not big on fluid dynamics, but it seems totally plausible to me
>>> that JD
>>> was holding such a bubble in a static location (a "dead" corner?)
>>> under the
>>> UGF with the flow from his air pump, and the failure of the pump is
>>> what allowed it to diffuse into the tank. The rapidity with which
>>> his water quality dropped (<2 days, IIRC) indicates more than just
>>> normal metabolic action of some fish in a heavily planted tank. JD's
>>> story may actually be another indictment of UG filters, as that rapid
>>> drop in water quality might
>>> not have occurred if the UGF wasn't there, but I guess not enough is
>>> known to say for sure.
>>>
>
>> I have to disagree. With glass bottom tanks, it is very easy to see
>> what is going on under the UGF. There are no air bubbles. The air
>> stones are located abotu an inch above the bottom of the lift tubes,
>> so there isn't any way for air to get under there anyway...
>> -JD
>>
>
> *shrug* Perhaps a UGF dead spot holds the toxics dissolved in water,
> then.
> My own experience with UGFs is limited, and had poor results compared to
> modern options.... But, people used UGFs for decades, and they kept FW
> tanks just fine. It seems you can make UGFs work for you. Good on ya',
> then. HOBs and cannisters are IME much easier, safer and effective, but
> if
> you've got something that works, too, keep at it. Still, a big water
> swing
> in two days with an active operating cannister filter is an indication
> that
> something more was going on in your tank. Big die-off in the UGF
> bacterial
> colony itself, maybe? Once you stop flowing water in the UGF, that
> underplate area could go anaerobic pretty quickly, kill off your bacteria
> colony, and then diffuse into the tank from there. (another) *shrug*...
> like I said, not enough known to say for sure.
>
> DaveZ
>

[atomweaver]

(top-posting repaired (again). In Usenet, top-posting = bad manners.
Please keep your elbows off the table, jd. ;-) )
"jd" > wrote in
:
> "atomweaver" > wrote in message
> ...
>> (top-posting repaired...)
>>
>> "jd" > wrote in
>> :
>>> "atomweaver" > wrote in message
>>>> I'm not big on fluid dynamics, but it seems totally plausible to me
>>>> that JD
>>>> was holding such a bubble in a static location (a "dead" corner?)
>>>> under the
>>>> UGF with the flow from his air pump, and the failure of the pump is
>>>> what allowed it to diffuse into the tank.
>>> I have to disagree. With glass bottom tanks, it is very easy to see
>>> what is going on under the UGF.
>> Still, a big water
>> swing
>> in two days with an active operating cannister filter is an
>> indication that
>> something more was going on in your tank. Big die-off in the UGF
>> bacterial
>> colony itself, maybe? Once you stop flowing water in the UGF, that
>> underplate area could go anaerobic pretty quickly, kill off your
>> bacteria colony, and then diffuse into the tank from there.
>> (another) *shrug*... like I said, not enough known to say for sure.
>>
> actually, the most probably cause is the fact that having the UGF lets
> me "overload" the system pretty heavily - that is one of the reasons
> I like it so much.

Understood. You can crowd the tank, since you've got more surface area
of gravel with active bacteria.

> What was really interesting was that when the
> canister tanked, the water quality didn't really change, but when the
> UGF tanked, there was a pretty fast crash.

WHy is that interesting?

> My guess is that the
> difference in surface area for bacteria to love on is what really makes
> the diff - the canister has a lot less surface area for bacterial
> colonies than the huge gravel bed (a 125 tank, 2-4 inches of gravel,
> as opposed to a (roughly) 1.5 gallon canister.
>

Right. So when you do go down, you've got more biomass in bacteria dying
off, _and_ more fishies making number 2. Which is the greater factor in
water degradation? Dunno, myself...

> I agree that UGFs aren't for evreyone, but (like almost any tool that
> can work) eliminating them out of hand is foolish. If you've tried
> them, and not had luck, they obviously aren't for you. My main point
> was that they have a bad rep that, in my decades of experience, is
> undeserved.

Bad rep? No. They have advantages and disadvantages, and for many in
the hobby, those trade-offs don't line up with their preferences. Given
what you've said about over-stocking a tank, I'd guess it has to do in
part with system stability when the power goes off.

> When I work with newbies to set up tanks, I always start
> them out with a UGF as a component of their filtration system.

I hope you tell them about how easy it is to over-stock the tank... If
they (like me) have blackouts from time to time, its an advantage to have
tanks which can sustain themselves for a while, or at least know that
once the power goes off, you've got a situation on your hands.

> If they
> decide they don't like it, they can always simply pull out the lift
> tubes. The space under the plates will fill pretty quickly with loose
> gravel (no caps on the lift tube holes), and the only real difference
> is that there is a bit of extra plastic inthe tank...
>
Don't you use some sort of a screen mesh to keep the gravel above the
plenum?

DZ
AW

[gracerallson]

They are still aound, but not actual accepted any more. They got a lot of bad press if fanmcier (and abundant added expensive) alternates came out. Undergravel filters are still a abundant bargain advantage for drastically increasing your biofiltration capacity.