Underground filters

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.

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!

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.

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.............

"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

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

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

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.

"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

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.