Plenums and the wasting "option"
- Thread starter barryhc
- Start date
"Umm fish?"
Premium Member
Hey! Has any of read the new Delbeek and Sprung book yet? I guess Delbeek had a plenum system and took simultaneous draws out of the plenum space and tank space over a period of time and had them lab analyzed. I'll try to track down the pages and give summaries.
Heh Fish, I haven't seen the book. I read the long version CDRom from Bob Goemans, and the explanation was "messy".
A lot of things were stated to "occur because", but almost nothing was checked or tested. It would be nice to hear from another source, and real testing as well.
I assume this is for a static plenum, which is a bit off from helping me directly, with high frequency wasting, but the new info. source has to be good for thinking in general, and if favorable would be much help for occasional wasters.
Do you actually have the book?
Thanks for the update, how's the tank?
> Barry
A lot of things were stated to "occur because", but almost nothing was checked or tested. It would be nice to hear from another source, and real testing as well.
I assume this is for a static plenum, which is a bit off from helping me directly, with high frequency wasting, but the new info. source has to be good for thinking in general, and if favorable would be much help for occasional wasters.
Do you actually have the book?
Thanks for the update, how's the tank?
> Barry
Paul B
Premium Member
Barry, Bob Goemans is a friend of mine. He came to my home a few years ago to see my tank. (Of course he did not come from Utah just for that) but he liked it and mentioned it many times in his articles. I haven't spoken to him in a few years but If I ever do I will have to ask him for an abridged version.
Paul
Paul
Thanks Paul, I read the "little book", which was rather short, but appropraite for a beginner, and setting up a tank.
The Cdrom version was excruciatingly long, and I read it carefully, but it is very difficult material for anyone short of a professional "I don't know what". It was 8 mos. ago, or more, and I should read it again. I may be able to deal with it better now.
Still, Bob Goemans views and abridged considerations might be exceedingly valuable.
Thanks again Paul, > Barry
"Umm fish?"
Premium Member
Sorry, I'm behind in everything and trying to buy a new car on top of it. Err. I owe you guys some summaries of Delbeek and Sprung, some reef pics.... There might be some new shots on the web page I put up. It's pretty lame (as far as cool design goes) so far, but it's just about getting the time....
http://65.102.221.68/reef_a_la_andy.html
Hey, what do you guys think? There are some pics in there of a coral that RTNd on me. I'm seeing polyp extension and I sure as h*** saw the tissue peeling off of that poor thing. Is there a possibility of saving it? I have it in a QT tank with a tubastrea at the moment, so there's lots of food around for it.
I just got to say, my QT tank is bare bottom. What a pain in the a**. There it is, my predjudice is out there.
http://65.102.221.68/reef_a_la_andy.html
Hey, what do you guys think? There are some pics in there of a coral that RTNd on me. I'm seeing polyp extension and I sure as h*** saw the tissue peeling off of that poor thing. Is there a possibility of saving it? I have it in a QT tank with a tubastrea at the moment, so there's lots of food around for it.
I just got to say, my QT tank is bare bottom. What a pain in the a**. There it is, my predjudice is out there.
Hey Fish, I'm sure sorry to hear about your RTN ordeal. These things will happen occasionally. I don't know enough to help you.
Another thought though. Recently, with all the "Imagining" that I do :lol: :lol: , I started seeing these "little funnels" like you had mentioned previously. Remember ?
We were talking about "channeling", whether it would or could occur, BUT, What if, IT "SHOULD" OCCUR ? ? In other words what would we have if we generated these "funnels" on purpose ? ?
Firstly, IF, the size, angle, and spacing, were "just right", we would have a WHOLE LOT MORE surface area at the Hypoxic ( low oxygen ) interface. That sounds good. The very close spacing that I have been promoting, would have to be spaced out considerably, and likely with holes on top of the tube, etc., to get the appropriate "size and shape".
Secondly, the Anoxic zone"s" in between the funnels, would have a limited "thickness" or ( angular ) "depth". This again could be made to be a great advantage, nearly eliminating Hydrogen Sulfide concerns.
Thirdly, these conditions would be fairly controlled "locally", meaning that if some disturbance by fish, sifters, etc. occurs, it would only be "local" area affected, and the remainder of the substrate area, would remain relatively "controlled".
Fourthly, GE-E-E-Z-E ! ! The next part is "just too wild", so I'll let you chew on this much first.
Comments ? > Barry :beachbum:
Another thought though. Recently, with all the "Imagining" that I do :lol: :lol: , I started seeing these "little funnels" like you had mentioned previously. Remember ?
We were talking about "channeling", whether it would or could occur, BUT, What if, IT "SHOULD" OCCUR ? ? In other words what would we have if we generated these "funnels" on purpose ? ?
Firstly, IF, the size, angle, and spacing, were "just right", we would have a WHOLE LOT MORE surface area at the Hypoxic ( low oxygen ) interface. That sounds good. The very close spacing that I have been promoting, would have to be spaced out considerably, and likely with holes on top of the tube, etc., to get the appropriate "size and shape".
Secondly, the Anoxic zone"s" in between the funnels, would have a limited "thickness" or ( angular ) "depth". This again could be made to be a great advantage, nearly eliminating Hydrogen Sulfide concerns.
Thirdly, these conditions would be fairly controlled "locally", meaning that if some disturbance by fish, sifters, etc. occurs, it would only be "local" area affected, and the remainder of the substrate area, would remain relatively "controlled".
Fourthly, GE-E-E-Z-E ! ! The next part is "just too wild", so I'll let you chew on this much first.
Comments ? > Barry :beachbum:
"Umm fish?"
Premium Member
I don't see why the holes need to be on top. The water's going to take it's path to the hole in the manifold no matter where the hole is.
You're thinking about it a lot more than I did, but yeah, that where my mind was heading....
You're thinking about it a lot more than I did, but yeah, that where my mind was heading....
"Umm fish?"
Premium Member
I really hadn't thought about the possiblility of these creating such small pockets of anoxic zones, but that's the logical conclusion. That really would limit the size of any H2S patches.... As long as none of the holes plug up. Hmmmm......
Did I make that argument in the thread or was it in one of the PMs? If it's in the PMs, do you still have it. I had to clear everything out a while back and I'm sure I don't any longer.
Did I make that argument in the thread or was it in one of the PMs? If it's in the PMs, do you still have it. I had to clear everything out a while back and I'm sure I don't any longer.
I think it was in a PM, and I have "lost it" as well. At the time, neither of us was that worried about it ( channeling ), but I did everything I could to eliminate the channeling concern of both others, and myself.
I believe I have done that, and I remain confident about high frequency wasting. However, I will remain continuously conservative and open-minded "simeltaneously", until i die.
Just try and tell me something "can't be done" ! :lol: :lol:
Anyway, Occasional wasting remains valid as well, it just is not my preference at this time. If the plumbing is there, we can adjust as we see fit.
The thing with these "funnels", is that we "could" even run the flow continuously, in reverse, NOT WASTING. Now it is a RUGF ! ! , BUT, with Anaerobic "reverse funnels" evenly spaced across the substrate, and like I said before, much larger Hypoxic surface area.
I'm not saying this is easy, but, It sounds like a terrific end result, if it can be "pulled-off".
> Barry
I believe I have done that, and I remain confident about high frequency wasting. However, I will remain continuously conservative and open-minded "simeltaneously", until i die.
Just try and tell me something "can't be done" ! :lol: :lol:
Anyway, Occasional wasting remains valid as well, it just is not my preference at this time. If the plumbing is there, we can adjust as we see fit.
The thing with these "funnels", is that we "could" even run the flow continuously, in reverse, NOT WASTING. Now it is a RUGF ! ! , BUT, with Anaerobic "reverse funnels" evenly spaced across the substrate, and like I said before, much larger Hypoxic surface area.
I'm not saying this is easy, but, It sounds like a terrific end result, if it can be "pulled-off".
> Barry
"Umm fish?"
Premium Member
Well, I have a feeling that pushing the water out would result in more diffusion of oxygen from the channel zones.
What would be the benefit of running a RUGF?
I have a feeling the jawfish would be ****ed at you. They supposedly don't like the constant swishing noise.
What would be the benefit of running a RUGF?
I have a feeling the jawfish would be ****ed at you. They supposedly don't like the constant swishing noise.
I agree, that is very possible.
You may not be able to oxygenate the substrate sufficiently with the sparse flow I've been promoting with High Frequency Wasting. ( without wasting more than you want for water changes )
With RUGF, your flow amount would only be limited by how much you want for oxygenation. Aside from the different "diffusion angle", as you mentioned, you could flow a lot more water past the coneshaped "Hypoxic funnels".
I need to run an experiment in a tiny tank with "one-pass" colored water, to see if the funnel shape is different depending on the direction of flow.
This isn't to say that just using wider spacing and standard "down-flow", could not be made effective as well.
What swishing noise? I'm only thinking 300 gph thru a 12 sq. ft. bed area in a 200 gal. tank. I run 350 gph thru a 4 sq. ft. bed area in my freshwater tank, and you can stop all pumps except RUGF, and cannot detect water motion in the tank. There would probably be more swishing noise from the same power head just pumping straight into the water column.
I was going to run 1 pint, or .0037 gal. per tank gallon per day, in the 27 gal. hex with "tight flow pattern", and many people thought I would over oxygenate the water.
PaulB runs 150 gph thru his RUGF, which is 45 gal. per tank gal. per day, which is 12,000 times as much as the proposed value for the little hex tank.
He also runs 0 Nitrates and has run the system for 25 years between cleanings.
So how much flow does it take to over oxygenate the water? With the correct "funnel spacing" you could run even more flow, and still not over oxygenate the "reverse funnel" Anoxic zones.
Loose "marbles" ? ? :lol:
> barry 
Here's one thing that I've always found unusual about our hobby. People will go to theoreticals and say that something CAN'T work but are never willing to test it.
There are certain "known" facts. However, I've often found that people who scream the loudest typically only understand the basics of a lot of issues. So when they go "theoretical" they are operating with limited knowledge and therefore their theoretical post is flawed from the beginning.
There are certain "known" facts. However, I've often found that people who scream the loudest typically only understand the basics of a lot of issues. So when they go "theoretical" they are operating with limited knowledge and therefore their theoretical post is flawed from the beginning.
"Umm fish?"
Premium Member
Barry,
I'm just telling you what I've heard about jawfish (it's not whether we hear it that matters, after all, but the fish). I've heard they don't like UGF because of the noise.
RUGF questions: Tank runs forever with no maintainance. What's the downside? There has to be one or everyone here would be running one. Is it that there's too much O2 for de-nitrification? Why aren't we all running these with remote DSBs?
Sorry, I just never did any research on RUGFs.
Who and what are you talking about, Curt?
I'm just telling you what I've heard about jawfish (it's not whether we hear it that matters, after all, but the fish). I've heard they don't like UGF because of the noise.
RUGF questions: Tank runs forever with no maintainance. What's the downside? There has to be one or everyone here would be running one. Is it that there's too much O2 for de-nitrification? Why aren't we all running these with remote DSBs?
Sorry, I just never did any research on RUGFs.
Who and what are you talking about, Curt?
I understand. Still, how does UGF make more noise than the same powerhead just flowing into the tank ? I don't get it. Another thought, is that, My 150 gal. when I got it 7 years ago, was running 3000 gph, UGF thru it, with many power heads. I don't think I even want to use a power head for the RUGF. I may only be considering between 300 to 900 gph. with that low a flow, in a 150 gal. tank, you would not be able to detect water movement with the other system pumps off.
I expect Paul might explain himself, but I will take a shot at it.
I don't think a remote DSB is necessary, but "they" are looking better as well. Paul has run a tank that was "set-up as RUGF" at least 25 years ago. It is still running very nicely today, and he only took it down and cleaned it just recently, after 25 years. It apparently didn't really need the cleaning, but he did it anyway, for "curiosity sake" if nothing else.
Paul has had very little in the way of SPS, so . . . . He has a lot of everything else, and he does use a good skimmer and an "algae tray" that helps with exports. His Nitrates are zero.
I'm sure Paul's point is that DSB and BB are not the only options, and never were. WE don't believe that either, do we ?
The biggest "downside" I can see, is that WE don't have a good "model" for this system. While Paul's tank is the best model out there, I don't think it was "created" to begin with. I think it "evolved" over a long period of time, thru very many stages, and ended up being a "Reef Tank".
I don't know when it "truly became a reef". I'm sure Paul will fill us in. Maybe it was 10 to 20 years ago. Paul ?
The other question though, is, what are the "up-sides" ?
Curt makes people think. He's making both of us do that now.
By the way, PaulB, myself, and Curt, have been "stumbling across" each other in several other threads, so it looks a bit like a "gang bang" here. Sorry about that !
You should probably visit the "DSB's work" thread that I started in "Reef discussions" It really is a particularly good read, according to others, and the war is "over" ( very nearly ). Try just the last 2 pages for a quickie.
Thanks > Barry
Paul B
Premium Member
I think Barry summed it up very well. I also believe that a RUGF is not old technology but it is very new. How many people here have one? Maybe three or four. The other 11,000 of you have DSB or BB with a few stragglers. People don't use RUGF's because they don't know how to use them and there is virtually nothing written about them because a regular UG filter is not really adaquate for a reef. I hear Bob Goemans mentioned a lot. He was at my home a few years ago and wrote some nice things about my tank in a few of his articles. I have only had a DSB once and since I had no information and only beach sand it crashed very shortly. A BB tank is a no brainer, there is little to go wrong but also little to help out either. There is some maintenance with a RUGF. But it depends on how good you strain the water being pumped under it and how fast you are doing it. No matter how good a filter you use on the intake, detritus will accumulate, some detritus is beneficial (with a RUGF) because on a micro level there will be a lack of oxygen between the grains of gravel to help with denitrification but not enough to cause hydrogen sulfide. Of course I can't see that small so it is conjecture but it comes from observing this thing since Nixon was president. I ran the tank for ten years or so with a regular UG filter because in 71 that was all there was, there wasen't even submersible powerheads. I forget exactly when it could be called a reef because there were no reefs then. It was fish only until they started selling anemones which was the only invert available except for shrimp and crabs. Corals came much later but when they became available thats when I got them.
Barry is also correct in that I have very few SPS corals, I just don't like them as much. I have one tougue coral for a couple of years but I find it very boreing. I like movement. Maybe SPS would not do well in my tank. I will get some when I get the time.
As for maintenance, I use a diatom filter (any canister will work) and I restrict the opening of the outflow to give me a strong blast.(actually I use one of those green plastic things that the florist gives you a carnation in when you are in a bridal party. I got hundreds of them if you want some)
I blast my rock and the gravel a few times a year. You would be amazed at what comes out of live rock. You can't see in my tank for a while just from blasting the rock. I think all tanks need this but it's hard with a DSB. My rock is very old, I collected or built all of it. I do not get that "Old Tank Syndrome" that some authors write about.
He is also correct that my tank evolved over about 40 years. It was brackish before salt was available and I kept adding salt.
People always ask me why I still use a UGF with all the new technology. It worked in the sixtees and seventees and it never stopped working. As far as I know there is no older tank with any other type of filtration. Maybe in the future DSB's will be found to last just as long, I hope so. But a RUGF is just one more alternative.
Here is an article I wrote about the history of my reef. I wrote it ten years ago and it has appeared here many times so I know many of you read it so since it has not changed don't read it again but since some questions were asked about when certain things happened I totally forgot and even I would have to re read the thing to remember what I did. I don't believe many people know what their salinity was 40 years ago. Most of you guys were not around. http://reefcentral.com/forums/attachment.php?s=&postid=2127079 But I am sure many of you will have tanks older than mine.
Have a great day.
Paul
Barry is also correct in that I have very few SPS corals, I just don't like them as much. I have one tougue coral for a couple of years but I find it very boreing. I like movement. Maybe SPS would not do well in my tank. I will get some when I get the time.
As for maintenance, I use a diatom filter (any canister will work) and I restrict the opening of the outflow to give me a strong blast.(actually I use one of those green plastic things that the florist gives you a carnation in when you are in a bridal party. I got hundreds of them if you want some)
I blast my rock and the gravel a few times a year. You would be amazed at what comes out of live rock. You can't see in my tank for a while just from blasting the rock. I think all tanks need this but it's hard with a DSB. My rock is very old, I collected or built all of it. I do not get that "Old Tank Syndrome" that some authors write about.
He is also correct that my tank evolved over about 40 years. It was brackish before salt was available and I kept adding salt.
People always ask me why I still use a UGF with all the new technology. It worked in the sixtees and seventees and it never stopped working. As far as I know there is no older tank with any other type of filtration. Maybe in the future DSB's will be found to last just as long, I hope so. But a RUGF is just one more alternative.
Here is an article I wrote about the history of my reef. I wrote it ten years ago and it has appeared here many times so I know many of you read it so since it has not changed don't read it again but since some questions were asked about when certain things happened I totally forgot and even I would have to re read the thing to remember what I did. I don't believe many people know what their salinity was 40 years ago. Most of you guys were not around. http://reefcentral.com/forums/attachment.php?s=&postid=2127079 But I am sure many of you will have tanks older than mine.
Have a great day.
Paul
RUGF- Revisionist Under Ground Filter technology? I'm going to need you Paul to explain that to my Newbies on the Filter this thread I've got going on.
