Revival of RUGF including NNR ! !

[Paul B]

Barry, there is not much to tell. I have a large Vortex Diatom Filter and I put a little plastic restrictive thing on the outflow. It is one of those green plastic things that you get in a florist when they give you a carnation for your lapel if you are in a bridal party. Anyway, it makes it into a powerwasher with a lot of force. You have to be careful not to topple everything. I aim it at the rock (around the coral) an amazing amount of detritus comes out from all the tiny holes. I believe this really needs to be done. They I shoot it at the substrait. (how do you spell that anyway?)
I stir it up all the way down to the plates but of course only where I can reach. Most of it never gets cleaned. The fish seem to love it as do the corals, especially the gorgonians which stay open during this tsunami.
I let it clear and do it a few more times. It takes a couple of hours to accomplish. I do not think it harms the feather dusters, except of course the ones that get into the filter. I also see loads of spaghetti worms and tiny brittlestars, which I try to avoid removing. I have always done this and I would assume the places where I can't agitate become quite anoxic especially after many years. I also stick the intake tube of the diatom filter down the UG tubes for a while. This sounds like a lot of work but in reality it is only a few minutes of actual work. 90% of that time is watching TV waiting for it to clear. That is the extent of my maintenance except of course cleaning the glass and changing some water. I did this last week and I can still see dozens of tiny brittle stars, and if you can see these, there are hundreds that you can't see.
Paul

 

[wave98]

'Substrate' It sounds much as I have "envisioned". Especially the Anoxic where you can't get to it, therefore "channeling", Hypoxic, NNR, Blah-Blah, Etc.. Are you referring to feather dusters, "same as" tube worms ? Anyway Paul, It still represents a great system to me, and I'm just trying to improve on it. Maybe I will, and maybe I won't, we'll see. I think so, but it might take 10 to 20 years to prove. Oh well, I think the "less is more" philosophy needs to be promoted more. Lots of patience helps too. You've had plenty !

The one time you "cleaned" the system, could you tell if you had worms and critters in the areas you couldn't clean "as well" ? Were these areas "dead zones", or nearly as "inhabitated" as the "well cleaned" areas ?

Thanks again for all your help !

> Barry

 

[Paul B]

Barry I would be lying if I said I could tell if there was critters in those zones.
I do remember that in those zones it was packed with fine "sand" or detritus.
Some small areas were caked and stuck together and came up in clumps. There was no hydrogen sulfide at all though.

 

[liveforphysics]

If your goal here is simply N export, my reef with a high flow UGF gets dosed with N and P rich water (kinda for fun, kinda to stimulate growth). I keep an engineering goby in each of my tanks fuges to keep the corse crushed coral sand beds turning over well. This is all just to avoid NNR from occuring.

I cant get dectable NO3 on a salifert low range kit even when I tossed in a 8oz package of brine shrimp all at one time... This tank is only 55gal with a 20gal fuge filled with cheato which very very rapidly grows.

The way I look at it, if P could be broken down and exit the tank like N, then I would be all for NNR. However, P doesnt get that option. An algae baised export requires both N and P to grow, meaning you export them both at the same time. Im doing everything I can to avoid NNR, but the rock an cheato alone seem to be way too effective, because I simply cant get detectable N going, and I'm trying for it (to see where the limits are of my algae filtration).


So, I am struggleing to understand what the purpose of the bead bed is. Do you have dectable N or something? I completely understand wanting it for its beauty and for the animals that need it, but I dont see why you dont just hook up some serious flow to a normal UGF or RUGF and keep the sand from collecting detritus in that mannor, or what the purpose of the glass beads is. Glass beads will collect detritus no differntly than crushed coral, and if the crushed coral is all roughly the same size particle, neither option can compact together to block flow through it.

I've read the whole thread here a couple times, and I just cant see the purpose. Maybe I'm blind here, or maybe somebody could help me out.

 

[Maxx]

Originally Posted by Paul B
Another thing I would like to add about fauna. The last time (actually, the first time) I removed the UG filter plates to clean and see what was going on under there for 25 years I was amazed to see tiny tube worms entirely through the gravel along with some very large worms.

This might be slightly off the subject and I dont wish to be rude....

But how can you consider your tank to have been in operation for 35+ years when you've broken it down to clean the filtration system?

Nick

 

[Paul B]

Nick, you are not being rude. I took out all the rocks and stirred the gravel for a couple of hours then put everything back. The fish stayed in there and the coral was in buckets. If that means that the tank is only 25 years old then OK. Is it considered a new tank when I move the rocks around to re-aquascape every few years? Maybe it is.
Have a great day.
Paul

 

[Maxx]

I understand....wasnt trying to bust your balls, just curious. Besides, its not liek 25 years isnt a long time either.

Thanks for the info,

Nick

 

[wave98]

If your goal here is simply N export,

My goal here is to supply a "substrate" bottom, in order to house and observe a wide variety of animals that require such to prosper.

That is the primary goal. The secondary goal is to do so in such a fashion that is stable and reliable, is long lived and requires low maintanence.

The way I look at it, if P could be broken down and exit the tank like N, then I would be all for NNR. However, P doesnt get that option.

I believe skimming removes considerable amounts of Phosphate through various pathways. Then there are reactors. I am not that fond of reactors yet either. Some BB tanks have more Nitrate problems, than with P. That may not be typical.

An algae baised export requires both N and P to grow, meaning you export them both at the same time.

This makes good sense. I don't know about the ratios that are required for Macro Algae uptake, or that are generated in Reef tanks. I suspect they vary considerably for both. Inhibiton of calcifcaton in corals seems to be the main concern here.

So, I am struggleing to understand what the purpose of the bead bed is. Do you have dectable N or something?

The purpose of the bed is reliable long term Nitrate reduction. I understand that P can only be processed here by way of "sinking".

This is a "proposal" or an experiment. The tank has not been set-up yet. The proposed tank is a 150 gal.

I've read the whole thread here a couple times, and I just cant see the purpose. Maybe I'm blind here, or maybe somebody could help me out.

The glass beads are inert and do not dissolve. The CC dissolves, albeit more slowly than Araganite. I expect that the glass beads will reduce clogging to some degree, but I can't put a number on it.

I agree with the flow, and will have as much flow in the water column as the animals can stand to begin with. The flow through the substrate channels will be quite high also, for the benefit that you describe. By having the channels due to grain size differential, the Hypoxic boundaries between the two are preserved. This also helps to avoid large Anoxic areas that could produce Hydrogen Sulfide.

These channels only go up to the critter screen ( at about 2" deep ), more conventional, but still carefully graded natural substrate is used above this for the animals. ( beads might work at the surface, but would look odd, and would transmit a lot of light. )

I'm not convinced yet on avoiding skimming, but I am still listening.

> Barry

 

[Paul B]

I set up my tank with a UG filter because that was the way we all set up tanks a while ago. Since it looks natural and it seems to harbor beneficial and benign interesting fauna, it is the way the tank stayed. When it was run like a regular UG filter there was a lot of maintenance because the gravel would get filthy. The powerheads were not submersible then so we did not run UGs in reverse and no one that I heard of ran them that way. I also don't remember who invented the concept. (maybe I invented the thing)
If it processes nitrates that is a plus. I doubt it will for at least a year no matter what you do. I think it needs some detritus to work and I also think sphirical glass beads may make it take longer but of course that it just theory. As for disolving, CC disolves but I think we may be talking about a longer time than would make a difference. Since I see my dolomite every day I can't tell if it disolved at all but if it did, it was very minute and no way part of the equation. Even if this system processes some nitrate I don't think it will be able to eliminate all of the nitrate in even a very lightly loaded system. Not with todays technology. Maybe in a few years but not yet.
I still think that we need a few methods to accomplish this like live rock perhaps enhanced like my hollow homemade rocks, and algae filters.
I am fairly sure that eventually some media will be common like carbon which will just eliminate N, but in the meantime, we will keep these ideas bouncing around.
Paul

 

[liveforphysics]

Thanks Barry, you answered my questions about the project very well. I think a good old fashion UGF plate setup with a couple maxi-jet 1200s blowing into them (making it RGUF) should accomplish your goal very well for you.

The beads are an interesting idea, but I belive that if you are still going to use disolveable substrate on top of the beads, its still going to pack in with debris as the substrate particles (which unlike the detritus the water flow can lift) will sink into the beads and turn the bead array into something that doesnt function any differnt than just crushed coral on a RUGF (which works awsome BTW). I know the screan is suposed to prevent this, but Im my thinking is correct, any screan thats large enough to not turn into a giant mechanical filter which would rapidy plug with debris in the long run, would have a large enough pore size to enable the disolveing particles of crushed coral and substrate to enter that area and clog places and create the flow seams in other places just like crushed coral alone does (doesnt seem like a problem to me, just seems like extra work for little to no bennifit).


However, if you have an idea you like, and you belive you have thought it through very well, and the others that you mention it to who invaribly will play devils advocate with you cant shoot your idea down for you, then just give it a whirl. Experimentation is always a good thing, and its not like you can't spend a day or two of hard work and change things around again if you dont like your results when its all done, but I really think UGF or RUGF is the hot ticket, and I bet you will love having one, beads or no beads.

 

[wave98]

.

I think a good old fashion UGF plate setup with a couple maxi-jet 1200s blowing into them (making it RGUF) should accomplish your goal very well for you.

I was thinking about 750 gph or possibly more, whereas the Maxijets would flow about 600, but close enough I guess. The flow rate needs to be whatever fosters appropriate Hypoxic conditions, and that will be a result of experimentation. I prefer something other than powerheads, so I can use a flowmeter, and adjust flow to a "functional" level.

With the "channel method", the Hypoxic condition should exist at a fairly wide range of flow rates, and that is one of the big reasons for using the grain size differential, is to generate Hypoxic conditions evenly, and somewhat automaticly. This is the larger feature of the design, than is glass beads. :idea:

The beads are an interesting idea, but I belive that if you are still going to use disolveable substrate on top of the beads, its still going to pack in with debris as the substrate particles will sink into the beads and turn the bead array into something that doesnt function any differnt than just crushed coral on a RUGF.

Well Luke, I'm following your logic here, but there are a couple of things to consider.

Firstly, most peoples understanding of "sand" ( heaven forbid ) are closely tied to the many experiences of aquarists over the last 6-8 years, and that has been based largely on the "wildly popular" and supposedly optimum "southdown" and "oolitic" types of sand. This includes a considerable amount of "mud" sized particles, which dissolve very much faster than larger particles, and I believe, change the charachter of the material significantly. This stuff can clog just about as fast as you can pour water into the tank.

I continue to propose approx. .5 to 1.5mm araganite here for the pleasure and health of the animals. This is to be carefully rinsed and graded specificly to avoid what you describe to whatever degree results. I think it will be very significant. Also, 65% of the .5mm araganite will have to dissolve before it can pass thru the 1mm glass bead boundary layer beneath it.

Secondly, I assume by "debris", you mean the mineral portion of detritus that comes from live rock and animal "boring" activities. I believe this stuff is generally rather small, and much of it's composition is similar to or the same as araganite. If it finds its way to the small grain glass beads, it will be quite small and likely to be in a low pH zone in the substrate where it is likely to disslove fairly quickly and diffuse to the higher pH "flow water" and into the water column for buffering.

I know the screan is suposed to prevent this, but If my thinking is correct, any screan thats large enough to not turn into a giant mechanical filter which would rapidy plug with debris in the long run, would have a large enough pore size to enable the disolveing particles of crushed coral and substrate to enter that area and clog places and create the flow seams in other places just like crushed coral alone does (doesnt seem like a problem to me, just seems like extra work for little to no benifit).

The proposed screen is for critter control only and is specified as 6mm ( .240" or 1/4" ) openings. The control of particles into the glass beads is done with a layer of 1 to 1.25mm substrate, or glass beads, and is quite effective without any screen. The areas at the top of the "finer grain channels" will have small particles "migrate down" as described above, and the particles that get down to the top of the large grain bead ( or substrate ) channels will have a hard time clogging 3 to 6mm beads in a "High-Flow" channel.

Does that help any ? I know the idea of progessively LARGER grain sizes, blocking small particles is a bit counter intuitive, but it has been a staple of water filtration for decades, if not thousands of years. See my gallery.

Thanks for the vote of confidence.

> Barry

 

[aquariumdebacle]

gotta jump in on this

I have posted a couple threads on what I am doing with a DSB. I am using the oolitic "sugar-fine" sand as a substrate. I had it runing for two years and when I moved the sand was clean with no foul odor. I am going to put two plenums in and have them plumbed out the back. Two one inch PVC rings will cover most of the bottom and the will be wrapped in 100 micron fabric. I will then be able to have a reverse-flow plenum that I can greatly vary the speed of flow up through the sand. I plan on having a turn over rate based on a weekly or even monthly basis. I may from time to time crank up the volume and turn the whole bed arobic for a few hours and flush the bed as needed.

 

[MikeS]

Hi Paul...

I was thumbing through mojo Mike's gallery today and ran across these...is this your tank? how long ago were these taken?

 

[Paul B]

Mike, yes that was my lettuce farm. They maybe 10 years ago. (maybe 5, I have a terrible memory)
That last picture has a bunch of codium seaweed in it from Montauk Long Island.
It's unbelievable the amount of hair algae in there. It was one of my worst algae blooms. I couldn't wait for that one to leave. But it did.
It also amases me at how healthy the corals are during an algae bloom.
At that time, while I was adding all that local seaweed I was also doing an experiment with local mud. It didn't work out so well.

Here is a picture of the tank 25 years ago

 

[NaH2O]

Mike, yes that was my lettuce farm. They maybe 10 years ago. (maybe 5, I have a terrible memory)

Paul - those pics were posted on RC a little over 2 years ago (12/03) Live Sand, Live Sand with Plenum, or Little or No Sand at all??.

I'm curious as to what type of experiment were you conducting with local mud?

 

[Paul B]

Nikki, you made me curious so I looked and found it. That picture of my tank appeared in "Marine Fish Monthly" magazine in December 1995. It is on the inside back cover and I took the picture about a year before I submitted it to the magazine. That would make it 12 years ago. My memory is not as bad as I thought. I posted it on RC two years ago. I also posted some pictures of my tank from the seventees.
The experiment I was doing with mud was I had a tray of local New York mud with associated amphipods copepods worms etc. I put a tray of it in a spare tank connected to my reef. It was supposed to be a breeding ground for these animals. Our mud is not the best.
Have fun.
Paul

 

[Paul B]

OK now I see the problem. I made a mistake in my last post. I thought you were talking about the pictures that I posted on my last post which I said were 25 years ago. The top picture was in Marine Fish Monthly the lower picture is much older. The pictures Mike posted above that with all the hair algae I don't even remember when I took those. They were before digital camera's because I have the originals. They were from a film camera and I scanned them. They can't be older than ten because I still have the fire clownfish in one of those pictures and he is not much older than 10. I really should put dates on these pictures as I have about a hundred of them.
I must have taken those pictures to show how bad hair algae can get.
Paul

 

[Paul B]

While looking for those pictures I noticed I still have that bubble coral although it grew a lot since then and you can see that skinny gorgonian in the old picture is much fatter and larger now in the second picture. It is the thich one just to the left of the bottle. You can only see part of it but it is about 10" now and it has many more branches. And the other picture is that old fire clown.
Paul

 

[mojoreef]

Paul those are the pictures of your tank from a couple of years ago. I asked to see what your tank looked like at that time and you emailed them to so I could post them for ya. Or at least that is wht I remember,lol my memory can fade from time to time


Mike

 

[Paul B]

Mike, I remember you posted them because I didn't know how. I guess they were a couple of years ago. I remember telling you about all the hair algae.
It lookes like a lettuce farm. I can probably look them up on RC. It's a good thing the other picture in is MFM so at least I can check the date.
I think that was my last algae bloom (but with my memory I can't be sure either) Thanks Mike.
Paul