View Full Version : freakin UGF creates massive bubbles!
kelley
02-11-2004, 11:41 PM
Okay, I have this 10 gallon tank with an undergravel filter system hooked up to an air pump for a 10 gallon tank. It's covered in a thin layer of gravel, and I've left spots open (no gravel) here and there behind plants.
about every ten minutes a massive amount of bubbles come up near where the two filter plates meet. The two little fish in there must think I'm out to get them..
Is the pump too big? If I hook up my air stone to it will that help? Did I install in incorrectly?!
Besides this I have the standard whisper filter system that came with the tank.
Thanks! Kelley
blitzen25bm
02-12-2004, 12:57 AM
you problaby have too much air going through it or the pumps outlet is too low, and yes you would need a diffuser or airstone on it, try it with the stones and see if it stops. plus you need a thicker layer of gravel and no open spots for it to work right. if your whisper is working fine we would all probably recommend you to stop using the undergravel, its just pulling all the debris under the plates which will accumlate underthere.
kelley
02-12-2004, 11:10 AM
There are airstones attached to the tubes right now. I used to have one of those bubble stones in there---if I added that to the same pump, do you think it would help, or should I just take the whole thing out? I don't quite understand the point of the undergravel filters anyway, but all three fish stores I've frequented recommended them to me.
More gravel? Bubble stone added? Argh...thanks for helping me out!
Kelley
slipknottin
02-12-2004, 11:49 AM
actually big bubbles are better than small ones. They move alot more water. In airlifts people try to get the largest bubble size possible to move the most water.
kelley
02-12-2004, 3:06 PM
I'm guessing you like the band "slipknottin"? Dig the picture, too
okay, so about the tank....will these massive bubbles and appear like Old Faithful freak out little fish?! we just have two in there now--we were cycling and all that fun stuff. I'd like to put a little school of something in there soon..just want to get the darned filters all good to go.
Kelley
Aquarius0015
02-12-2004, 4:21 PM
You could always go RUGF... But I like my HOB's. I would never convert, unless maybe I got a really big tank, then I would go canister.
daveedka
02-12-2004, 10:07 PM
UGF's,
I am a big fan but they are easily mis understood, and often lead to problems. Your LFS should have explained things better, but I'm not suprised. You mentioned you didn't understand the need for one, to be brief, it creates a bacteria bed to biologically filter your tank. Gravel should be more than an inch thick over the entire plate. The RFUg mentioned above is far better than airstones, Reverse flow is done with a powerhead, and pushes the water down the tube and up through the gravel. this prevents build-up of dirt under the filter and keeps you gravel much cleaner it also feeds more oxygen to your bacteria and therefore they work better. Be sure to put a sponge filter on the intake of your power head to prevent dirt from buliding up under the plates. If you use the pump and airstones, try raising the stones an inch or two in the tubes to keep air from going under the plates. You are really only trying to create water flow with the air, as the bubbles move up the tube, the water is forced to do so as well. If possible, try to get all the air out from under you plates as the filter will work better without trapped air. On a 10 gal I wouldn't call an undergravel necessary if you have a good HOB but I never set up a tank without a UGF installed.
125gJoe
02-12-2004, 11:25 PM
The bubbles need to come out ABOVE the plates or some bubbles will gather under the plates. Move your air hoses up some.
Someday you may want to try different types of filtration....
Good luck..
sowensby
02-13-2004, 5:26 AM
Pull the airline up farther in the tube. Had the same problem, the air stone was putting air under the gravel and it would accumulate on an uneven side of the tank (old house) where when it got big enough it would rise to the surface regularly in a big bubble scaring the crap out of everyone in the tank.
I disagree with the idea that large bubbles move more water than small. IME it is exactly the opposite.
OrionGirl
02-13-2004, 9:59 AM
It's important that you level the gravel--if there are areas of the plate that are not covered, the majority of the water will pass through here, instead of traveling through the gravel as intended.
kelley
02-13-2004, 12:30 PM
ah, makes sense to me now! I'm adding more gravel, raising the airstones (even the darned directions say to put the stones low so they go partway under the plates)...don't know how I could add a sponge to the tubes without taking the fish and out making a big mess??
the UGF has two tubes with the charcoal holders attached to them, which is what the majority of the air comes through--do I need anything else??
thanks for explaining what the heck these things do:)
Kelley
slipknottin
02-13-2004, 2:05 PM
AES (aquatic eco-systems)says in their catalog that large bubbles result in less slip bewteen the bubble and the water. Larger bubbles create much more suction and will move more water than small bubbles if there is any head. An undergravel filter does require more suction.
As for airlifts that dont have any head, bubble size is irrelevant to how much water it moves. Bubble consistency is much more important. (per Stephen Spotte, The Captive Enviroment)
The airlift tube does not function on the bubble physically lifting water, it functions by the fact that a column of air mixed mixed with water weighs less than a column of water alone. Just like a balace scale - the heavy side, the tank water column, pushes the light side, the airlift tube air+water column, upward.
If you want to test it, run SW where you can get a maximum variation in bubble size. But the lift principle is the same in both FW and SW, you just can't get super fine bubbles in FW.
slipknottin
02-13-2004, 8:28 PM
yes. and the amount of air injected effects water movement more than bubble size does.
Only within rather easily checked limits - beyond a certain mixture, larger volumes of air will actually reduce the volume of water moved per unit time as the bubbles are displacing water. Your statement is way to broad.
slipknottin
02-14-2004, 1:13 AM
Originally posted by RTR
Only within rather easily checked limits - beyond a certain mixture, larger volumes of air will actually reduce the volume of water moved per unit time as the bubbles are displacing water.
If thats the case then devices like this wouldnt work.
http://www.geyserpump2.com/new_page_6.htm
Causes air surges to lift water.
125gJoe
02-14-2004, 1:59 AM
Originally posted by RTR
Only within rather easily checked limits - beyond a certain mixture, ..... PLease....
On this application, larger bubbles "do" move water through the tubing. There is a "happy medium", medium sized bubbles, small, or very tiny.... "Medium" works on these devices..
Tiny bubbles don't work with Under Gravel Filters, is all I have to say...
It's wrong for LFS owners to "push" UGF as I have seen recently,
and in the past.... (Under Graverl Filters are poor "filtration" devices at best.)
EDITED:
I deleted the word "antique" and put "poor" in it's place....
Joe, I think you may be too new at this game; today's three common types - HOBs, canisters, and UGs all came into production and common usage about the same time. DIY W/D was not far behind (although it would not be recognizable to many hobbyists today, they were tank-top). Fluidized bed filters are significantly newer than the others. Antique filtration methods would be 1) none 2) plants only 3) internal box filters with gravel or charcoal and spun glass. The last was the most commonly used. The first of those, none, exists today mainly in special application of the second. The second in pure form is uncommon but present, although commonly with some pump(s) for circulation. The third antique type has been replaced by sponge filters, thankfully.
All three basic filtration types (omitting the much newer fluidized beds) shared original development periods in part due to the need for safe and effective small magnetically linked waterproof motors. The first Eheim canisters I had used air-cooled motors, as one example.
All the familiar filtration types have had radical changes in ease of use and efficiency.
IMHO and IME, all three of the standard and common formats are still quite useful, none of them alone can cover all possible tank requirements without compromise, and all have their own maintenance requirements. Much of the argument and discussion on these boards about filter types come from folk not really understanding all the types, their strengths, weaknesses, and applications fully. Any of the three common types can cause problems improperly used and maintained.
125gJoe
02-14-2004, 3:46 PM
Originally posted by RTR
Joe, I think you may be too new at this game;.. .... ... ... .... Actually, I'm way ahead of the game! UGF's are old (in my book, and with years of seeing and using aquarium products..) Maybe I'm too futuristic for you. You see hopefully in the near future most aquarists will realize UGF's are not good at all at filtering the water. Out with the old ideas! They are excellent at holding crud in the gravel. And, when it builds up under the plastic plates, there is a real big problem to deal with - mainly, taking the whole tank apart to start over...
You are somewhat right that "antique" was not the best word choice.. I will try harder. :D
Joe - give me your thoughts on:
http://www.aaquaria.com/aquasource/rtrrfug.shtml
TIA
Joe - give me your thoughts on:
http://www.aaquaria.com/aquasource/rtrrfug.shtml
TIA
But so are canisters and HOBs excellent at holding the crud. Any filtration device which is not properly maintained is a time bomb. The only devices I know which will not hold the crud are dedicated biofilters (which may be FBF, canister, W/D, RFUG, or plant refugia) and if they are not properly prefiltered, even some of those will build up crud. People should not select devices they don't maintain.
125gJoe
02-14-2004, 5:10 PM
I will read your article in a bit...
My point is that UGF's store crud in the substrate.
Substrate in not filter floss, or sponges. I don't like the idea of having substrate as a "filter"..
125gJoe
02-14-2004, 5:57 PM
Originally posted by RTR
Joe - give me your thoughts on:
http://www.aaquaria.com/aquasource/rtrrfug.shtml
..........Good article.. I like the idea of Reverse Flow UGF...:)
Thanks, I'm glad that you can see that not that all UG/RFUG is a bad thing by its nature, but only by its execution and handling (or lack thereof). I suspect that if HOBs were still limited to Dynaflow filters (which were quite good in their day), HOBs would not be so popular either. Or for that matter, neither would my antique air-cooled Eheim canister - which was the best at the time (over 30 years ago).
125gJoe
02-15-2004, 1:48 AM
(..looking for the 'Thumbs Up' emoticon..)
It is true about the 'care' of the UGF that matters.. But, it's way to easy to set it up and forget it! I'm guilty of that... And I'd hate to see others go thru it too.. I just despise the UGF's so much, and hope others get HOB's, canisters, or a combination of filters. UGF's are almost like setting up "new" aquarium keepers for failure. I have seen this with a friend of mine who was very stubborn, and took the loss of fish as something other than lack of filtration and water changes.. His UGF, well, was not maintaned.. This was a 35 gallon tank (less than a 55 anyway.. not sure on exact gallons). http://aquaticadvice.com/vbullet/images/smilies/new_shocked.gif
daveedka
02-15-2004, 9:29 AM
Joe,
It's funny how we develop opinions after experiences, I was never able to keep fish alive untill a friend of mine introduced me to the UGF, years ago ( he had a marine tank with 8 year old fish and invertibrates). He educated me on whata UGF was , how it worked, and all of the pro's and con's. At that point in my life I could barely afford fish food, so an inexpensive highly effective bio-filter appealed to me. I have had such good luck with UGF's I refuse to set a tank up without plates under the substrate. To me it seems that the maintenance is almost non-existant compared to any other filter. Also it should be said very clearly that I never use a UGF or any other filter by itself. I run all tanks with two or more filters, but have learned to love a UGF as a staple in every tank. Knowledge is the key as with everything. I much prefer and almost always use the RFUG set-up, but have had UGF's with air lift work for well for long periods of time. Just my Humble opinion, and I certainly enjoy your Posts. something else to remember with standard UGF. Most tank stand leave you a view of the underside of the plates, it is easy to monitor any build-up, and I have never had to tough of a time when I needed to vaccum out from under the plates. Just stick a 3/8 hose down through the lift ube and suck out any build-up. With RFUG this is never a concern.
125gJoe
02-17-2004, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by daveedka
.. .... I much prefer and almost always use the RFUG set-up....... Just stick a 3/8 hose down through the lift ube and suck out any build-up. With RFUG this is never a concern.
Because I have live plants, I'm still concerned about roots getting in the plastic plates. But should I ever want to have that type of filter it will be "reverse flow".. Never "regular" UGF's...
Joe - I have no problem with that at all - everyone needs to know, or find out, what equipment types fit their own personal "style". I am a compulsive water changer and substrate vacuumer. Even conventional UG is not an issue for me, but I am more comfortable with RFUG or my OE-RFUG variant. I do know well that it is not for everyone.
If you have buddies at the LFS, ask them about folks who bring back HOBs and canisters that "stopped working"... because they had never been cleaned. It is one of the complaints about Eheim canisters - they don't generally stop flowing no matter how dirty! This is not a joke - some folks seem to think no effort is needed if water is still flowing. I do not have a come-back for that one.
:sad
Tom Barr got me to try RFUG with plants (he has done multiple, prefers conventional substrates, but says they can and will work). So I set one test about a year ago with no problems to date. I have never been as much a water column feeder as a rich substrate grower, so I had to learn that technique. I will probably set a second tank that way sometime this year for part of the test, but I have had no issues to date with the technique. Crypts (several types), Val, and a sword are all fine - the val has been divided 2-3 times, the Crypts all at least once. There is a deep substrate, ~4" above the plate. On that stand I cannot see the bottom glass. The next one I definitely will set on an open stand so I can watch.