freakin UGF creates massive bubbles!
- Thread starter kelley
- Start date
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
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
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)
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.
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.
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.
If thats the case then devices like this wouldnt work.
http://www.geyserpump2.com/new_page_6.htm
Causes air surges to lift water.
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....
Last edited:
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
