undergravel filtration question

Honestly, what works for one person doesnt work for another. I just seems like you are ruling out the option of a UGF because of your less than ideal experiences with them rather than share your imput and let the OP decide. Not everyone can afford canisters and sometimes UGFs are the most cost effective method of filtering. And I think that it is obvious that not everyone has had poor results with them.
 
They are more expensive though. If you have to buy a HOB anyway, why not buy a slightly bigger model and be done with it rather than also buy the UGF and the powerhead(s)?

I want to share my experience. When someone posts something that I think is incorrect, I will respond to it. If you have given your input but then I make a claim that you think is completely wrong, you should respond to it to make sure that the correct information is getting out there. That is the whole point of forums. Debates simply make the forum stronger. They require each side to support their point and it really analyzes the issue. General statements of x is better than y are not very helpful. When you actually support either side it makes everyone more informed.

And I agree, they do work. And for some they seem to work better. But in my experience other filters work for much more people, myself included, so that is why I suggest them.
 
reptileguy2727 said:
How big?
What do you want to go in it?
Click to expand...

Ain't got either one of theses one figured yet.

My current thinking is 400 to 600G and either a cichlid or community aquarium and I am really hoping that I can do this next year.

reptileguy2727 said:
My 150 has just a Fluval FX5. It is doing very well, but as the fish continue to grow I will probably need another filter, just to be safe. These are definitely the way to go, unless you can afford the high end Eheims.
Click to expand...

I anticipate wet/dry. During an emergency I purchased an Eheim (as I understood that they were high end) and they may pump "just fine with virtually no head" but they do not pump well at all against a 5 foot head.

TR
 
I haven't used them but I think there is a difference in the 'lower end' Eheims and the higher end ones. Just from what I have seen with the layouts and construction of the lower end ones I am not impressed. But based on the reviews of them in general I am assuming the higher end ones are better. Keep researching and keep us posted.
 
In actuallity the O levels in air and water don't seek to reach equal levels. What they do is seek to maintain O levels in the water at the maximum saturation level for any given temp. If the water is under saturated, O from the air will work its way into the water. If the O level of the water exceeds the saturation level, then it will outgas into the air.
 
Exactly. And since water has nowhere near the carrying capacity of gasses as air, there is nowhere near as much oxygen in the water. Which is why wet/dry filters work so much more efficiently per volume and per surface area.
 
If anybody really wants to be suckered in on a UGF trapping debris, they shouldn't be keeping fish.
A UGF can not trap nitrates, nitrates or nitrites. It does the same thing as anyother filter does. Traps solid particles and provides a surface area for bacteria to grow on.

You can't have greater ammonia/nitrite/nitrate issues with a UGF/RUGF, than you have with any other filter. Those items are a function of your bio-load, not the filter.

If you are blantantly going to disregard UGF, then logically, you have to rule out and not recommend any sponge filter...and any floss application in an HOB.
 
It is not an immediate spike in nitrates that is the problem or what is suggested. It is the long term buildup of debris which is not removed that will breakdown at a later point, after buildup, and THEN you have nitrate problems. This can happen in other filters too, and it takes just as much time. The difference is the ability to remove the debris from the other filters as opposed to the ability to remove it from an UGF. UGFs are harder to maintain, and harder to maintain as well. For people who are used to it, of course not. Just like people used to keeping discus and stingrays will say they are not hard to keep, people who use UGFs tend to not find them difficult to maintain. But compare it to the easier alternative and they are more difficult.
 
there is no build up...nio more so than in any other filter...especially with all the foolish folk who say they only clean their canisters every two or three months or their HOB pads when they clog. The biological breakdown rate is the same, regardless of the type of filtration, plain physical fact.

They are not harder to maintain. Other filters are easier to ignore the issues. The chemistry is the same in all filters.
 
Debris will breakdown into nitrates, but it takes longer. Yes, if you leave a HOB or canister unmaintained they will do the same thing. So if you leave debris in there it will eventually cause a spike in nitrates (UGF, HOB, canister, wet/dry w/ bioballs (something reef keepers are usually well aware of), etc.). The normal nitrogen cycle is not what is question, that is always the same. It is the potential for debris buildup, which will cause a lot of extra nitrates, that is in question. UGFs have more potential for this than other filters. And if people are undermaintaining other filters, why suggest one that requires even more diligent maintenance?

Other filters are easier to counteract past actions of undermaintance. As in, if my UGF tank has nitrate problems from debris buildup, just like my HOB or canister filtered tank, it will be easier to remove the excess debris from the other fitler types and counteract the problem, as opposed to the UGF.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
AquariaCentral.com
Top Bottom