# RFUG - A Blast from the Past - DIY



## CL (Mar 13, 2008)

Very cool! I look forward to seeing this in use and its affect (effect?) on the plant growth


----------



## pandapr (Nov 10, 2008)

Sounds very interesting !!

If it works many of us will try it ! I'm one of them


----------



## Tex Gal (Mar 28, 2008)

I'll be interested to see how this works. This is a spin off my 6' spray bar in the back of my tank. A few ????

1. Will the CO2 get to the leaves? Isn't it the leaves that need the CO2?
2. Will the flow be so little as to keep the mulm and such from clouding up the tank or causing a new tank cycle issue?
3. What if anything will this do to the nutrifying bacteria that needs O2 to grow and thrive.
4. Will this get in the way of planting and roots?
5. Would it have been better to have this lay on the VERY bottom and elbowed ports come up every 5 square inches to avoid questions 1-4.

Don't really know if these are any issues but I do wonder.


----------



## oldpunk78 (Nov 1, 2008)

that's a really good idea!

have you ever had to unclog a line from a leach field from a septic tank? for some reason (and i think it might may apply here) roots and debris seem to really like to get into those holes and clog them up... is that something that's likely to happen? maybe a screen for the holes? i might just be tired...


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

Of course I don't know how well this will work, and I know there are potential problems. Texgal, this will sit on the bottom glass, with about 3 inches of substrate on it, which means non of this will be within 2 inches of the surface of the substrate. The CO2 will be in the water arriving from the canister filter and external reactor, so it wil have no place to go but up under the leaves, whether still in solution or released as gas bubbles. The flow shouldn't be high enough to affect the mulm at all, I think. But, at worst it might cause more of it to migrate to the canister filter inlet and be filtered out.

The purpose of nitrifying bacteria is to neutralize ammonia, but I plan to use a zeolite sand as a substrate, and that will adsorb some of the ammonia, and the plants should take care of the rest of it. It may interfere with some plants and roots, and roots may grow into the holes, at least partially blocking them, but I hope the flow through the holes is strong enough to help stop that.

The reason for releasing the CO2 enriched water down in the substrate is to use the substrate as a diffuser to spread out the flow more uniformly. 

I enjoy trying new things, even if they are old things.


----------



## mistergreen (Dec 9, 2006)

interesting experiment.. Root feeders might not do so well with current in the substrate.


----------



## marrow (Feb 4, 2007)

Will the CO2 be on 24/7 or on a timer/controller? Some things perhaps worth noting along the way are weather there is an increase in substrate acidity. I am unsure why you decided to use a zeolite substrate. Doesnt Zeolite release back into solution ammonia once it reaches capacity? In a glass bottom tank, it may be worthwhile to have a peek on the underside of the tank if it is on a stand that allows this to note root growth. My experience in the days of yore was that UG filters grew great roots but not terribly good plants in total. But most of all a big thank you for going to the extra work of documenting and sharing this trial.


----------



## frasertheking (Jun 15, 2007)

interesting idea i look foward to seeing your results.
dont you worry that after the can takes most of the oxygen out of the water and with the lower flowyou might encourage anaerobic bacteria ?


----------



## EdTheEdge (Jan 25, 2007)

Very nicely done and also very interesting. Kudos to you for trying this!!!!

The only problems that I see is:

1. CO2 lock in the tubes. 
2. Also some holes may get blocked causing uneven CO2 distribution.

I look forward to hearing about your progrsess on this!!!

BTW what size tank will this be going in and how are you going to determining the effieciency and/or CO2 levels in the tank?

Thanks for sharing!


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

Marrow, the CO2 will continue to be on a timer, but, of course the water flow from the canister filter will be continuous. Zeolite absorbs and holds cations, including NH4+, but I can see no mechanism for it releasing it, except to plant roots. I'm sure that it will eventually, and maybe quickly, get saturated so no more adsorption takes place. But, it is a relatively cheap substrate, the cheapest easily available that has a very good CEC. My tank is about 45 gallon size, with a solid plastic support under the bottom glass, so I can't see there. It is about 30 inches by 20 inches high, by 15 inches front to back - curved front glass, so a maximum of about 17 inches front to back. Tom Barr reported back in 1999 that plants did indeed grow very good root systems with RFUG, and those plants did very well, but plants not growing good roots didn't do that well. But, he didn't distribute CO2 with the RFUG, so how that will affect plants is unknown, as far as I know. The very few cases I found where people tried this in the past never included results - a bad omen because people always report good results.

Fraser, I have no idea at all about how this will affect Oxygen in the substrate. I asked Tom about it causing a lower pH in the substrate, and he responded that substrates are such good buffers that it shouldn't cause a problem.

Ed, initially I will try to supply this only with water with dissolved CO2, not with CO2 bubbles or mist. I think CO2 mist would not be a problem, other than the microbubbles perhaps coalescing into big bubbles in the substrate and burping out. Big bubbles in the water would possibly collect at the top where the pipe goes over the top of the tank, but those should be swept along by the water flow, and might burp out of the substrate - if nothing else that would be interesting to see. I will continue to use a drop checker to monitor the amount in the water, knowing how inaccurate that reading will be.

When you try something new or unusual you can always get surprises.


----------



## EdTheEdge (Jan 25, 2007)

Hoppy said:


> When you try something new or unusual you can always get surprises.


Sometimes pleasant surprises!


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

mistergreen said:


> interesting experiment.. Root feeders might not do so well with current in the substrate.


No, they do extremely well, eg Crypts and Swords became monsters/
I used tese for 10 years and is why I got into plants, they produced extremely excellent Sword plant growth to the likes I'd never seen.

I started using them back in the 1980's after seeing a LFS using "Excelon" in typical down flow operation(Not Reverse) and I wanted the sand not to clog the typical plates folks used, so I decided to run it in reverse(less vacuuming as well) since the holes would blow out and always be unsticking the holes, not clogging them, sort of like a low flow Fliudized bed filter(FBF).

The bacteria cycle like mad also(huge surface area) and you produce zones of low redox and high redox with this set up, shaped somewhat like an "egg crate", with more positive Redox(and higher O2) around the outflow and regions of lower Redox around the lower regions away from the out flow from each hole. This gives far far far more experimental flexibility and measures than you can ever hope to get from Heat cables or certainly a GREAT DEAL more than ADA power sand. I can change and vary the flow rate from nothing all the way up to high movement FBF if I want, eg.....moving sand......

Redox is the best in situ measure of flow rates and O2 for plant roots, you can make several spots or push one probe up and down through a range of flows and measure and quantify. By making your own redox probes, you can leae them in the tank over time and measure the redox by simply swapping the Redox meter BNC connector for eahc location. DIY redox probes are often used in wetland sediment research. Tropica also did this back in the 1990s and I discussed it with Claus, who was about the only person I'd met that had a clue.

The same arguements used back then are still the same old myths used today:redface:

Some things never change and nothing ever gets answered.
If you believe something, make a test and see if it's true and explore both sides of the coin, not just the side the marketing company sells you:thumbsup:

RFUG's are easy and cheap to make. I know there's no use in adding more flow because the optimal flow rates are normal diffusion rates without any added flow(Cables, RFUG, ADA PS etc). 

So I no longer use them.
They are good for Vaughn's idea however, adding CO2.
You can make a spray bar along the bottom, just above the sediment blasting from the rear back wall towards the front bottom of the tank for a similar effect without going to a RFUG. You will still need some surface movement with this, so you need additional flow also to move the surface and add O2 etc. You can drill a few holes in the CPVC at the top to accomplish that.



Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

marrow said:


> Will the CO2 be on 24/7 or on a timer/controller? Some things perhaps worth noting along the way are weather there is an increase in substrate acidity. I am unsure why you decided to use a zeolite substrate. Doesnt Zeolite release back into solution ammonia once it reaches capacity? In a glass bottom tank, it may be worthwhile to have a peek on the underside of the tank if it is on a stand that allows this to note root growth. My experience in the days of yore was that UG filters grew great roots but not terribly good plants in total. But most of all a big thank you for going to the extra work of documenting and sharing this trial.


Zeolite fills up and can do this, but often, by then, it's well colonized by bacteria, that's it main function for filtration in pools etc, higher surface to volume ratio, and it looks the NH4 at the start, it makes an ideal filter media though and it's cheap.

Once a large colony of bacteria are going and cycling, the system is very stable. Unlike many methods for sediment, you can move plants all over without issues since the system is pretty aerobic and very responsive to organic nutrients and NH4.

It's like having a huge sand filter.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## mistergreen (Dec 9, 2006)

from what I've read, a medium redox is preferred by roots. High redox will let micronutrients stay in its oxidized form and plants can't use it. Circulation in the substrate would cause a high redox or more likely, higher than usual.


----------



## frasertheking (Jun 15, 2007)

Hoppy said:


> Fraser, I have no idea at all about how this will affect Oxygen in the substrate. I asked Tom about it causing a lower pH in the substrate, and he responded that substrates are such good buffers that it shouldn't cause a problem.


im just saying since a can is a closed filter then the oxygen available to the bacteria is only what is already in the water so once it passes through the can the oxygen level will be decreased and the fact the flow of water is spread through out the entire gravel bed the flow will be rather low and with the low oxygen may create an anaerobic bacteria bed like in a nitrate filter. would be food for a non planted tank but could convert the nitrates into gas sso it is not available to the plants.
im not basing this on anything other than the small bits Ive picked up from reading so im just speculating.


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

By having a Koralia powerhead mounted fairly high in the tank, providing a circular flow around the tank and slightly disturbing the water surface, I hope I will have good O2 level in the water. That oxygenated water will be what goes through the canister filter and out through the gravel. I'm just not educated in this subject well enough to speculate on the effect this could have on the substrate or the water in the substrate. But, I realized when I decided to try this that it is possible to get a result that isn't favorable. At worst I will disconnect the RFUG, leave it in place, and go back to a regular canister filter output fitting. I don't expect to have to do that, but that is just because of my optimism.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

You can easily control the flow rate separate from the cnaister, no need to slow the canister down. Simply have a small line going to the RFUG grid and most of the water shoot out like normal with a valve to adjust the % going to the RFUG, if you want, you can place warmer water under the sediment as well and place a small titanium stick heater inside the PVC tube heading down to the RFUG grid. I'd use a small as possible diameter one and crank the temp. 

This works like a heating cable, a bit faster or the same rate depending. Some folks sent hot water through the grid and had no holes. Whatever.......:icon_roll

Anyway, bleed off most of the flow for normal filtration etc and then pipe a little down there(or a lot depending on your interest).

Yes, it can become a denitrifying filter, but only if you get low enough flow rates and have enough organic matter.

What the heck do you think occurs with normal planted tank's sediment without any flow???????????????

A lot more than occurs here, but less NH4=> NO3 and organic breakdown rates. So there's trade off there. If anything, RFUG reduce denitrification at higher rates.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

mistergreen said:


> from what I've read, a medium redox is preferred by roots. High redox will let micronutrients stay in its oxidized form and plants can't use it. Circulation in the substrate would cause a high redox or more likely, higher than usual.


Okay, let's stay with that idea. Why would heating cables help then? Or power sand? They claim it increases the O2 and that's why you should buy their products, then this monkey business about long term stability.

If water and detritus are coming in from above and being pulled in, where does it go? It accumulates, does break down at the same rates for every tank? No. That accumulation rate is going to make a large difference in the Redox over time. The flow rate alone is not the whole story nor part of the long term stability. The loading rate is. 

BTW, what is an "optimal redox" in millivolts for plant roots? Do you know?
Would you think they are all the same for all plant species?

What is an optimal flow rate through a sediment that would provide an ideal mv reading? How much diffusion needs to take place from above into the sediment? Would grain size matter? How about detritus loading rates?

How do the plant roots themselves influence the redox and the availability of Fe and reduced compounds when the Rhizosphere around the root itself has high O2?

That is a paradox.
The folks that espouse such talk never measure this stuff.
They never discuss this stuff, yet it is very basic to any discussion with wetland plants and sediment. Talk talk, yakayak, try and dismiss anyone saying something that might not sell more of their product.

I've never heard otherwise in 20+ years. It really shows they have not thought much about it nor looked into it in any real depth. Still, think all that horse manure that's spoon feed to aquarist about roots and providing current, flow, O2 etc is really that simple as they make it out to be without even discussing what the plants themselves do and are subjected too?

I don't.

How about the individual grains that are still accessible to roots in soft clay rather than in layers based on depth alone? The outside of each small grain has less negative mv's while the internal grain has more negative mv's, but the root can still access them.

What about soil sediments and why do they work well also?
No flows through them either.

I think anyone looking to compare a wide range of flows and situations can see there's much less to this than many think.
What matters is the loading rate of organic material, specifically reduce carbon into the sediment/aquarium, the status of the roots and whether they are well established or not, a % thereof etc.

The plants define the system and the rate of decaying matter.
They will modify and adapt most sediments to their liking. Main thing is make sure the sediment is somewhat mineralized prior(natural sediments in wetlands obviously have a lot of time to do so.........). Keep the % organic matter down(maintains a decent redox)- so cleaning out the sediment, pulling up and replantings every so often to purge some of the detritus out is helpful.
But, do not mess it all up at once, do sections and allow the roots to come back before hacking back another section. Allow them to modify and set the sediment up for their liking. The RFUG works well even if you do not do that.
So it's very forgiving in that respect. Why? Perhaps less organic matter, less NH4 present and rapid mineralization of any NH4 also since you have basically a gaint sand filter. 

You cannot simply ignore how the plant's roots modify things nor the bacterial colonies. 

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## helgymatt (Dec 7, 2007)

plantbrain said:


> What the heck do you think occurs with normal planted tank's sediment without any flow???????????????
> 
> A lot more than occurs here, but less NH4=> NO3 and organic breakdown rates. So there's trade off there. If anything, RFUG reduce denitrification at higher rates.


Agree. 

The water column should not be anaerobic if there is other flow in the tank. Plus, remember that the plants are releasing lots of oxygen during photosynthesis 

I'm subscribed, this is interesting!


----------



## frasertheking (Jun 15, 2007)

ah right thanks guys you have cleared that up for me cheers :thumbsup:


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

helgymatt said:


> Agree.
> 
> The water column should not be anaerobic if there is other flow in the tank. Plus, remember that the plants are releasing lots of oxygen during photosynthesis
> 
> I'm subscribed, this is interesting!


It's actually old hat to me. Years ago I had similar debates with folks, mostly the heat cable crowd. So I took them at their word and asked why not use RFUG if more current was so great? I'd been doing it for years already and had very nice examples to prove it.

Then they said, "well, you only need very slow movement", so I asked how much? Give me some numbers dangit............
Never happened:icon_roll
Been 15 years or so now...........still have not got any answers from them.

I should be able to adjust the RFUG to see and see what is optimal right?
Of course. But the the supporters often get real quiet if you ask real questions and want hard data. 

Why is that?
"Not too much, but not too little" is not telling you anything.
I can say that about diet, exercise, drinking coffee, scratching myself.........anything. 

Say 150mv to 100mv (between 10 cm depth and 6 cm depth) for Egeria densa grown at 200 micro mols, 12 ppm of CO2 under non limiting nutrient conditions (because limiting conditions will influence the growth of roots and stems etc- you have to set things up to address these issues). Then say how you measured light, CO2 and nutrients. 

Now that is a somewhat decent answer. 
That's work, and it's easier to poo poo a critic that might not help your sales and such evidence might hurt the item you are selling even if you did do the research to see. So they never bother and sell/promote and the myth lives on. 

"Let the hobbyists decide what is right for them"

Now that's a saleman/marketing person talking there in response to critic.
Appealing to your sense of fair play.

Why not buy my delta soil? After all, _Let the hobbyists decide what is right for them"_ it does come from a highly productive wetland that has high plant biomass, so it's proven by nature herself!

19.99$ a pound.

Come on, you know you wanna try it and see.:redface:
I sent some to LeftC(but for free), sorry, not much of a salesman am I?

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

frasertheking said:


> ah right thanks guys you have cleared that up for me cheers :thumbsup:


Are you in Scotland there? Know about UKAPS?
You should join if not already.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## frasertheking (Jun 15, 2007)

yeah im in scotland but have not heard of it what is it ?
ah no matter a google search found it. ive joined now looks great cheers 
Fraser


----------



## CL (Mar 13, 2008)

frasertheking said:


> yeah im in scotland but have not heard of it what is it ?


United Kingdom Aquatic Plant Society maybe?


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

frasertheking said:


> yeah im in scotland but have not heard of it what is it ?
> ah no matter a google search found it. ive joined now looks great cheers
> Fraser


Look and join my friend:
http://www.ukaps.org/forum/index.php?sid=c4b1fbbb6edd20199bec6b66328ad987

There's a a very active group with many good people that can help and you will save a lot of $. Cost nothing to register and chat and get together, order, trade etc. You will get a lot out of it. 

Also, here's some research supprt for what I've been saying since the mid 1990's:

http://md1.csa.com/partners/viewrec...dox+aquatic+roots&uid=793193180&setcookie=yes

Even tells you how to measure it etc and what to look for etc.

And more:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=aaa8323832e112391dc2c6403ffb16b2

I've never seen a single reference from any cable or Powersand propoents to date. And it's certainly not like I have not asked or they have not had the opportunity to discuss it. 

These are just two pulled off the web at a glance.

This is more specific to cold weather's impact on prcoessing, but gives a basic look and is open source:

http://jeq.scijournals.org/cgi/reprint/31/3/1010

Here's one where it really does not matter what the Redox is for this palnt:
http://www.amjbot.org/cgi/content/full/92/9/1457 

Some plants modify things so much it does not matter that much.

A write up from Ole:
http://www.bio-web.dk/op/pdf/TAG20-4p7-12.pdf

See how bad the pondweed did, but the other plants did not?

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## daverockssocks (Dec 1, 2008)

query: Could you not instead of using the individual PVC fingers use a 1/2" ID silicone water tube with similar holes but simply coil it around the bottom of the tank like radiant floor heating?

That would eliminate the bends and flow restrictions and allow even more thorough distribution.

Just thinking out loud here (and I have some silicone 1/2" ID tubing sitting around from a pond project...)


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

In order to get near uniform flow from all of the holes in a device like this, the inside cross section area of the tube has to be substantially greater than the total area of the holes. That tube has to act as a manifold, a source of pressurized fluid for all of the holes. And, if that tube is long, with a lot of holes in it, clearly the incoming water will be replenishing the source only for the holes closest to the entrance to the tube - very little new water will ever make it down to the last hole. I think a system that has parallel tubes, with each of those being manifolded together, would work much better. In my device, there are only ten holes per parallel tube, so ten percent of the water has to flow all the way to the end. If I had 100 holes per tube, only one percent would flow to the end of the tube.

I could well be wrong about this, but having designed water cooled stuff some years ago, I learned the importance of this stuff for getting good water flow to all parts of what I was trying to cool.


----------



## bpimm (Aug 2, 2007)

My only thought is that the distribution grid might have a gas bubble form in it reducing it's ability to function as a manifold. You might want to drill one small hole in the top of each branch to release any O2 or CO2 that may build up.


----------



## airborne_r6 (May 2, 2008)

daverockssocks said:


> query: Could you not instead of using the individual PVC fingers use a 1/2" ID silicone water tube with similar holes but simply coil it around the bottom of the tank like radiant floor heating?
> 
> That would eliminate the bends and flow restrictions and allow even more thorough distribution.
> 
> Just thinking out loud here (and I have some silicone 1/2" ID tubing sitting around from a pond project...)


To get equal flow from all of the holes in a system like this you would need to start with a large size tubing and then after so many holes change to a smaller size tubing and then after a number of holes go to an even smaller size tubing. Even then you made need a way to regulate the flow individually at each hole. The same as in the air ducts or plumbing pipes in a building. The simplest way to get approximately even flow is to do a manifold like he did.

However, since it would be coiled in a spiral from outside to inside if you put more holes per inch toward the end and coiled it tighter together in the middle the more holes in the middle area of the tank may make up for less flow per hole. 

Never any harm in trying or asking about an idea.


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

This is fun to play with, so you could make just about any type of distribution system, then test it like I did, with a garden hose poked into the supply line, and with the holes all pointed up. That way you can see how uniform the flows are by the height of the "fountains" from the holes.

If I were to try a hose, I think I would connect both ends to a tee, and the third branch of the tee to the supply, then arrange a "coil" that wouldn't crimp the tube anywhere. That would minimize the difference between the length of tubing going to each hole. And, with the variety of tubing sizes available you could come up with a smaller one that wouldn't take up so much room. Remember though, substrate can weigh down the tubing and possibly close it off, so it can't be really thin wall tubing.


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

I ran into a snag yesterday, trying to purchase "zeobest" zeolite sand. There is a distributor here, but apparently no retail dealer. I could have purchased "zeosand", but I don't really like the greenish off white color of it, and the only other zeolite sand, "zeobrite", has only one dealer here that I found, and he only had a single 25 pound bag - I needed two bags. The good news was that that dealer did have regular pool filter sand at only $13 a bag, about half the cost of zeolite sand. So, I gave up using zeolite sand and bought the regular filter sand.

Today, with 7 hours of back breaking work, I got the tank switched over. First, a picture of the RFUG in the bare tank:









Then, with the filter sand in place:









And, finally, with plants and water in the tank:









The filter seems to work just as I expected. I was able to bleed the air out with the bleed valve, and after a few burps of air from the substrate, it seems to be working.

I only bumped the RFUG tube once planting it, so there is plenty of sand above it for planting. Of course the water is still cloudy, so tomorrow will be a better "test". And, I know it is rather lightly planted, but I just was too exhausted to plant any more today.


----------



## EdTheEdge (Jan 25, 2007)

Oooooo nice! Can't wait to see the results!!!!


----------



## eyebeatbadgers (Aug 6, 2007)

Neat write up Hoppy. Do you have all the water from the canister going through the grid, or is some diverted into the tank? Just wondering how much flow it would take to start a sand-storm


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

All of the canister filter return water goes through the grid. With 50 holes, no one hole has a lot of flow from it. I can't see any disturbance of the substrate surface. The last time I watched it, a few minutes ago, an occasional small bubble would rise from the substrate, but that could just be trapped air. The water is clearing up very well, too, which I would expect just from the canister filter. So far my drop checker isn't showing any CO2 in the water, after about 2 hours. I will increase the bubble rate tomorow.

Along with this I also modified my external reactor a bit, to make it see much smaller CO2 bubbles, up near the top of the reactor. The reactor is now full of a swirling mass of water and bubbles, something I haven't seen before.


----------



## Naja002 (Oct 12, 2005)

Regardless of the outcome...this is a very cool project...:thumbsup:


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

Naja002 said:


> Regardless of the outcome...this is a very cool project...:thumbsup:


Since this is a "hobby" I like to have fun with it! And, trying things like this is where I get a lot of fun, plus sore back, headaches, etc.


----------



## tazcrash69 (Sep 27, 2005)

Hoppy said:


> Along with this I also modified my external reactor a bit, to make it see much smaller CO2 bubbles, up near the top of the reactor. The reactor is now full of a swirling mass of water and bubbles, something I haven't seen before.


Maybe not a topic for this thread, but I'm interested in the mod you did to the reactor. 
From the description sounds like a nicely tuned protein skimmer.


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

tazcrash69 said:


> Maybe not a topic for this thread, but I'm interested in the mod you did to the reactor.
> From the description sounds like a nicely tuned protein skimmer.


No, my external reactor was one of my overdesigned, poorly thought out projects that didn't work at all like I hoped. I had the CO2 entering at the bottom, through a piece of 1/2 inch clear PVC tube to act as a bubble counter. But, the bubbles came out as big ones, even as big as 1/2 inch. So, they shot to the top of the reactor and just collected there. All I did was seal off that CO2 entrance, and drilled a hole in the side of the reactor tube, as Rex advises, and glued in a piece of 3/16" acrylic tubing. This releases approximately 1/16" bubbles, in the center of the reactor, near the top, where the swirling water suspends them, seemingly forever.


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

24 hours later, the tank water is crystal clear, the drop checker is still blue, even with a stream of CO2 bubbles going into the reactor. All of the fish seem to be in good shape. This morning I had a tiny leak at on the reactor where I drilled a hole and glued in a CO2 tube, but I patched it with epoxy made to repair water plumbing. (Great stuff!)

I will keep jacking up the bubble rate until I get a green drop checker or some fish act up.


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

Well, now I'm conflicted! I installed a separate bubble counter, so I can more easily adjust the bubble rate, then raised it up to around 5 bbs. The drop checker barely went to blue green. So, I raised it again, to where I can't count bubbles at all. The drop checker is still blue green, but perhaps a bit greener. But, my Yoyo loaches seem to be distressed. They always hang around the bottom, where the CO2 concentration will be the highest, and they just stopped moving, huddled on top of each other, and their colors began to fade. So, I backed off on bubble rate again. But, still nothing approaching a green drop checker. Maybe another hour will change things.


----------



## CL (Mar 13, 2008)

Try adding a powerhead near the substrate to move the water with high co2 throughout the tank


----------



## EdTheEdge (Jan 25, 2007)

Hoppy said:


> Well, now I'm conflicted! I installed a separate bubble counter, so I can more easily adjust the bubble rate, then raised it up to around 5 bbs. The drop checker barely went to blue green. So, I raised it again, to where I can't count bubbles at all. The drop checker is still blue green, but perhaps a bit greener. But, my Yoyo loaches seem to be distressed. They always hang around the bottom, where the CO2 concentration will be the highest, and they just stopped moving, huddled on top of each other, and their colors began to fade. So, I backed off on bubble rate again. But, still nothing approaching a green drop checker. Maybe another hour will change things.


Are your plants pearling at all?


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

I have a Koralia powerhead mounted up near the surface, pointed slightly up, to ripple the surface a little. The flow from that is strong enough along the substrate that the fish line up facing left at all times down there. Now, one of my Yoyo loaches has vanished somewhere. I assume he is bedded down amid some plants, but I sure can't find him. The other one is back to swimming around a bit, but the other fish are mostly at the surface, and I'm back to 3 bbs, with a blue to blue green drop checker, now located about 2 inches above the substrate.

My plants are crypts, narrow leaf java ferns, and anubias, so I don't expect much, if any pearling, and certainly not any before the plants recover from the stress of the big refurbishing process. Later I plan to test the KH of my 4 dKH water, to make sure it isn't way above that, from evaporation, not that I see any evidence of evaporation.


----------



## lauraleellbp (Feb 3, 2008)

Have you tried moving the drop checker up and down along the tank wall to see if the CO2 concentration changes with height in the tank?


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

I had the drop checker about a third of the way down from the top, then moved it to a couple of inches above the substrate. Finally, late in the afternoon it finally turned fully green. The missing Yoyo loach reappeared, having been hiding in a tunnel he or his buddy had dug under a piece of wood with Java ferns on it. The loaches are acting normal now, but most of the other fish are still up near the surface.

I think my "problem" was compounded by the slow reaction time of the drop checker. It took over 2 hours for it to finally go green and stay there, long after I had dropped the bubble rate back to about 3 bbs. I'm not quite so uptight about this now:redface:


----------



## Hilde (May 19, 2008)

What fish do you have? Could they just be stressed out by fluctuations of ph? Would adding stress coat help them? 

This is confusing. For since you don't have a lot of plants I don't understand why the co2 isn't consistant? Is there a way to insert the Co2 in both ends of the tank, R & L?


----------



## lauraleellbp (Feb 3, 2008)

Actually, I'm still curious if you measure any difference between the CO2 levels down near the substrate versus up close to the surface with the injection rate stable.

I'm wondering how much difference there is in the CO2 level that leeches from the substrate versus what's absorbed by plant leaves and outgassed at the surface. I wonder if the drop checker would be sensitive enough to tell, or would it take Tom's fancy digital CO2 meter?

I guess your flow rate would impact that pretty strongly, too...

I also keep wondering if it would have improved the CO2 distribution within the substrate to set up a sort of "reverse French drain" with larger gravel around the tubing. I guess that it would take a pretty fine divider between the gravel and smaller substrate on top to keep them separated, but I think there's some screens that would work.

I'm really interested in how this project works out for you, Hoppy!


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

Hilde, pH fluctuations from CO2 don't stress the fish as far as I have seen or heard. So, stress coat would do nothing for them. CO2 itself, in too high a concentration, will kill the fish. The reason the CO2 isn't consistent is because it is off at night, and comes on a half hour before the lights in the morning. But, today I was working on the system, adding a bubble counter, which meant I had no good reference to where the CO2 bubble rate was before, and I am still trying to find the best bubble rate for this RFUG configuration. I had no idea if I would need a lot more than I used to use, a lot less, the same or just slightly different. I now have a vague idea that it will be about the same as before, but I still need to do more experimenting.

Drop checkers take about 2 hours minimum to stabilize their indication consistent with the ppm of CO2 in the tank. But, introducing CO2 under the substrate, with considerable surface ripple, means there will be a gradient in CO2 concentration from substrate level to surface. At least that is what I expected. Today I discovered just how much water flow is at the substrate level, by studying how the fish react, and watching when they were feeding to see how the particles of food moved in the flow. It is a lot of flow, so the Koralia sets up a flow across the top of the tank, swirling towards the front of the tank and sinking to the bottom, to return just about parallel to the front glass, turning just short of the end of the tank back to the Koralia. I couldn't begin to guess what the CO2 concentration gradients in the water are with that.

I do have a lot of plants, but most are small now, on purpose, but right after planting them it takes awhile for them to readjust and start growing again.


----------



## Hilde (May 19, 2008)

Sorry, I meant I am confused as to why the Co2 not the same through out the tank? You probably are too. 

I have read that most people leave the co2 on all of the time. Why are you turning yours off at night?


----------



## lauraleellbp (Feb 3, 2008)

Hilde said:


> Sorry, I meant I am confused as to why the Co2 not the same through out the tank? You probably are too.
> 
> I have read that most people leave the co2 on all of the time. Why are you turning yours off at night?


Hilde, as Hoppy just said, the CO2 is both being absorbed by the plants, and will outgas at the surface of the water, so the closer to the surface of the tank you get, generally, the lower the CO2 concentration when the CO2 is being injected through the substrate.

Also, many people do not run their CO2 at night. It's not needed at night, since in the absence of light plants actually release CO2 and aborb O2. Because of this, there's a risk at night of the fish becoming both O2-depleted, and CO2-poisoned, depending on the conditions in the tank. This is why many people run airstones at night.


----------



## Hilde (May 19, 2008)

Oh, I missed that point. Thanks for the clarification.

If there is good water circulation, as from a powerhead, is an airstone still necessary?


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

The goal is to have the water surface rippled to increase the surface area, to get rid of surface films, and generally to make it absorb as much O2 there as is possible. I have the Koralia set up so it provides that ripple. An air stone works mostly by doing the same thing. So, either way of getting that surface disturbance works.

Recently, Tom Barr bought his $$$$CO2 meter, and discovered that there are large variations in CO2 concentration in the tank, even with vigorous water circulation and good surface rippling. Also, he found that pH of the water doesn't match the CO2 concentration very well at all, apparently because it takes time for the chemical reactions to occur that make carbonic acid to alter the pH. That probably means none of us have anywhere near uniform distribution of CO2 in our tanks. And, that was one reason I wanted to try the RFUG idea. At least this way I start with somewhat uniform distribution down near the plants.


----------



## daverockssocks (Dec 1, 2008)

I can't wait to see what this all does for the plants.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

A 1/2 way method is to have a spray bar along the rear back wall and have CO2 mist shoot out horizontally towards the front gravel edge.

No RFUG, but excellent flow pattern. This causes the bubbles to rise up from the top of the gravel and get caught on the leaves as they rise from below.

I use to run tanks that way as well. I no longer run the spray way, and just use more current to mix the stream of CO2 rich water.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## Hilde (May 19, 2008)

Thanks for the info about the water surface rippled.

I had the powerhead flow as slow as possible. I incresed the flow and raised the powerhead towards the surface. The fish love it.


----------



## Left C (Nov 15, 2003)

Hi Hoppy

Has your opinion changed on that tubing Azoo UGF that I gave you the link to from AES?

Thanks,
Left C


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

Left C said:


> Hi Hoppy
> 
> Has your opinion changed on that tubing Azoo UGF that I gave you the link to from AES?
> 
> ...


No, I still like the idea of making one from PVC fittings and tubing much better. But, it would be interesting to try some flow experiments with the Azoo one, setting it up outside and using a water hose to check the approximate flow from the holes. It is hard to beat the simplicity of the Azoo device.

My tank is looking great, with the clearest water I have ever had in an aquarium. I'm not at all sure how long this will last as a "second stage" water filter, before some type of substrate cleaning is needed, but for now it is spectacular.

I have what I consider to be good rippling of the water surface now, and my CO2 bubble rate seems about right, since the drop checker goes green a couple of hours or so after I turn on the CO2. But, I posted a question on the Barr Report about the ripple, with photos of what I have, here: http://www.barrreport.com/general-plant-topics/5085-how-much-surface-ripple.html#post31824. I don't think this topic has been discussed in much detail before.


----------



## Naja002 (Oct 12, 2005)

What about soaker tubing or dripper tubing? Same pvc manifold, but with soaker/dripper tubing for the runs/legs across the bottom. Not sure a canister would generate enough pressure to handle it (soaker tubing), but it's something I've been pondering since the start of this thread....

Above links are just examples....many variations.


----------



## Naja002 (Oct 12, 2005)

Hoppy said:


> But, I posted a question on the Barr Report about the ripple, with photos of what I have, here: http://www.barrreport.com/general-plant-topics/5085-how-much-surface-ripple.html#post31824. I don't think this topic has been discussed in much detail before.



Bookmarked! Excellent thread, Hoppy. Yes, your tank pix look to be enough, but that really depends upon your lighting, C02, etc. But the other guy's looks good all-around.

It's just a balancing act that comes with adjusting it until you gain the experience to have a good idea...then usually there is still _some_ tweaking involved.

BTW, those pix are Golden--Thanx!


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

Naja002 said:


> What about soaker tubing or dripper tubing? Same pvc manifold, but with soaker/dripper tubing for the runs/legs across the bottom. Not sure a canister would generate enough pressure to handle it (soaker tubing), but it's something I've been pondering since the start of this thread....
> 
> Above links are just examples....many variations.


I looked at soaker tubing for quite awhile before going to the PVC. I have used that tubing before to water plants and trees along a fence when I had a house. It was only good for a couple of years before I had to replace it. I wonder how it would stand up to CO2 rich water, under water, continuously. Then, there is the problem that roots might be able to grow into the plastic, which is porous. As I recall, the thing that convinced me to give it up was reading about bad results that commercial farmers have with it, because of its limited life and variable porousity. But, I do hope someone tries it, just to see if it would work well.


----------



## daverockssocks (Dec 1, 2008)

the people demand pictures!


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

I will take some pics tomorrow. The light is off now and the fish are in dreamland.


----------



## chuukus (Jun 17, 2008)

Hoppy what size drill bit did you use to drill the holes in the pvc? Another question can you tell me what canister filter your using with this device? how much GPH is the canister filter?


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

chuukus said:


> Hoppy what size drill bit did you use to drill the holes in the pvc? Another question can you tell me what canister filter your using with this device? how much GPH is the canister filter?


The holes are 7/64 inch, I use a Rena Filstar XP3, and its flow is something less than 180 gallons per hour - the spec is 187 gph with media in it, or 350 gph with no media. I'm guessing at the 180 gph.

I just took a couple of pics of the tank:









This one shows the water clarity and the surface ripple I now have. My drop checker is greenish yellow now, down near the substrate.

This one just shows the overall appearance. One of my next "projects" will be to do something about the black background - the plastic has gradually loosened and that let water get behind it to dry and leave white marks.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

You need some more background plants/or some more wood in the back with more ferns etc, and some denser starting planting here. 

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

It has been two weeks since this was set up. Still no problems that are evident. Plant growth is happening, but is slow, which I expected after such a major replanting. 



















The Marsilea minuta is putting out a few new leaves, some with 4 leaflets, more like emersed leaf shape than submersed. And, the new growth is yellow green. I'm not sure if that is normal, or what? I am only fertilizing at one half of EI recommendations, but that should be more than enough with the growth rate I have.









I plan to leave this as is for at least a month, before considering any changes, such as more plants, or more light, or a fertilizing change. So far no algae problems at all. A few leafs of one crypt were showing BBA on the leaf edges, so I pruned them off today. The mass of Java Fern has old BBA on the wood at the bottom, but it is slowly getting smaller. I dose 10 ml of Excel a day too, and squirt it right on the BBA areas, but without shutting off the water flow while doing so. None of the Anubias have any BBA that I can see yet, and that is a major change for me.


----------



## Hilde (May 19, 2008)

Looking at it I can't tell there is anything under the substrate. Did you put something between the pipes and the substrate?


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

Hilde said:


> Looking at it I can't tell there is anything under the substrate. Did you put something between the pipes and the substrate?


Look at the earlier posts, where I first set it up. I put the RFUG down first, the put ordinary pool filter sand on top, nothing else. It is a completely inert substrate, so the plants rely entirely on the fertilizers I add to the water, but that water is pumped up through the sand, so there are also nutrients in the substrate.


----------



## Hilde (May 19, 2008)

Well that sand doesn't look like my pool sand, so I thought maybe you had left out something. Oh, I didn't see anywhere you mentioned the size of the tank. What is it?

How did you cycle this tank? How long was it after you set it up that you added the fish?


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

Hilde said:


> Well that sand doesn't look like my pool sand, so I thought maybe you had left out something. Oh, I didn't see anywhere you mentioned the size of the tank. What is it?
> 
> How did you cycle this tank? How long was it after you set it up that you added the fish?


Pool filter sand is cheap stuff, so it will always be produced pretty close to where you buy it. It should be quartz or another rock type that does not leach carbonates or calcium, because the purpose of a sand filter is to remove stuff not to add stuff to the water. Mine was produced about 100 miles from here, and is a mix of different colored apparently quartz sands.

The tank is a 45 gallon (roughly) size, 30 inches long and about 20 inches tall. I never cycle a tank. In this case I tore down my existing setup, including the substrate. I tossed most of the plants, and dipped most of those I kept in 1-20 bleach to water dip. The big clump of Java Ferns I left as it was, no dipping, hoping to keep the bacteria alive. Then when I cleaned out the canister filter I didn't touch the biomedia. So, the tank should have had some bacteria colonies from the beginning. Beyond that I just relied on the plants and the hose colonies of bacteria to remove any ammonia the fish generated. And, the whole setup took about 7 hours, including putting the fish back in, after acclimating them.


----------



## Hilde (May 19, 2008)

Well perhaps I need to invest in a canister filter or make 1. For I broke down my 29 gallon a few weeks ago and it still doesn't seem stable enough to add diy Co2. For filteration I am using a powerhead with a sponge filter on the end. The sponge is old. My gravel layed out for a week before I put it back in the tank.


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

Yesterday I ran into the first algae "problem", light green dust algae on the glass. I wiped it off. If it does the usual trick of coming back in a couple of days or less I will try letting it go through a life cycle before wiping it off next time. Still no problem at all with BBA. A few small spots that were there from the beginning, but no new growths. I trim off leaves that I find with even tiny amounts, but it is extremely hard to find it all in the mass of Java Fern.

I have some Isoetes Iacustris growing in the back corner, which quickly and persistently became heavily infested with BBA in the previous setup, and which I "fixed" by shearing off all of the infested quills. It is growing well now, with no BBA.


----------



## Hilde (May 19, 2008)

Pics!! Love to see what is going on.


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

It looks the same as it looked 4 days ago.


----------



## lauraleellbp (Feb 3, 2008)

Is there a reason you don't have any stems in there? Seems like since they grow more quickly it might be easier to tell if there's a difference with this CO2 setup (plus maybe help with the algae...)


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

lauraleellbp said:


> Is there a reason you don't have any stems in there? Seems like since they grow more quickly it might be easier to tell if there's a difference with this CO2 setup (plus maybe help with the algae...)


Yes, the reason is that I got tired of the constant pruning of stem plants. I decided to go with low light, plus CO2, and slower growing plants. My purpose in trying this is primarily to try to find a good way to get CO2 distributed well around the tank, without the constant water circulation problems that plant growth leads to. I had a never ending battle with BBA, even with my roughly 1 watt per gallon lighting.

If this works out well for me, I suspect I will go back to stem plants, at least for awhile to see how it works with them.


----------



## lauraleellbp (Feb 3, 2008)

Makes sense to me! :icon_smil


----------



## redman88 (Dec 12, 2008)

so is it staying as clear as it was the first few days. i am thinking about doing something very much like this soon.


----------



## Hilde (May 19, 2008)

Hoppy said:


> My purpose in trying this is primarily to try to find a good way to get CO2 distributed well around the tank, without the constant water circulation problems that plant growth leads to. I had a never ending battle with BBA, even with my roughly 1 watt per gallon lighting.


I have a chronic problem with BBA too. I think I have it under control now, even though I am not injecting Co2. Soon will though. Off the beat how low can the ph get with the diy Co2? I can't remember if you said 5 or 4.

I wonder if soft water makes the tank more likely to get algae, that is in an indirect way. For with soft water the plants are lacking nutrients.


----------



## daverockssocks (Dec 1, 2008)

I was in HD last night and 10' of 1/2" pvc is only $1.69....


tempted...


----------



## redman88 (Dec 12, 2008)

Still wondering how clear the water is staying and now i am wondering if this setup would work with SMS oil dry.


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

Here is an update, after almost 5 weeks: The water remains absolutely clear, the clearest I have ever seen in an aquarium. The only algae I have had is a light case of green dust on the glass, which I wipe off every week or so, and residual BBA from spots I didn't get removed when I set this up. I don't think any of those are still alive now, and for sure, no BBA is growing. One crypt planted in the back left corner had BBA around the leaf edges, and it didn't go away, so I removed and tossed the plant. I think that area is outside the area of the substrate that is over the RFUG, so it may have been CO2 starved. 

All of the plants are growing as I expected, slowly, because of the low light intensity, about 50 micromols over almost the entire substrate ( one 55 watt AH Supply light with a GE9325K bulb, raised about 6 inches above the tank.) The Marsilea minuta is spreading out very nicely, and slow enough that it can't get out of control. I don't bother with the drop checker now, but have slightly increased the bubble rate on the CO2 a couple of times. One night several fish were clustered at the top, but the Yoyo loaches, which seem most sensitive to the CO2 looked and continue to look fine.

Here are pictures I just took:





























> Still wondering how clear the water is staying and now i am wondering if this setup would work with SMS oil dry.


, from Redman88. This should work very well with SMS type substrates, and any other substrate that doesn't have nutrients in it. I wouldn't try it with ADA Aquasoil or mineralized topsoil, because the upward flow of water would bring the nutrients out into the tank.


----------



## redman88 (Dec 12, 2008)

that was what i was thinking with the substrates, that an inert/lose substrate would be best.


----------



## Hilde (May 19, 2008)

Gorgeous!!:drool:

Are you adding ferts?

Is that some hair grass I see growing behind the java fern?


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

Hilde said:


> Gorgeous!!:drool:
> 
> Are you adding ferts?
> 
> Is that some hair grass I see growing behind the java fern?


I fertilize per EI but at less than half the normal dosages, and I dose daily, the same every day of the week (based on dividing the weekly total dosages by 7). The "hair grass" is actually Isoetes Iacustris, aka quillwort. That plant was a BBA magnet with my previous setup, but is algae free now. It is not typically a low light plant, but it just grows slowly for me now. I also added a couple of cuttings of L. repens and a Hygrophila species, just to see what they would do with the low light and this way of injecting CO2. So far they are slowly growing, but that is only for 2 weeks now.


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

Some discouraging news: Two days ago I noticed some leaf edges were starting to grow BBA, and yesterday I looked much more closely to try to figure out why. All of the oldest leafs have the BBA on the edges, and those are mostly crypts, with the oldest leafs just hanging on looking not too bad, but not growing at all. So, I had to prune off a lot of those leafs, and while I was at it I pruned out any stubs of old stems that had been cut off before, because they had a slight BBA fuzz on them. I also found some anubias leafs looking bad, the oldest ones again, and pruned them out. To further complicate things I ran out of Excel, so now I'm looking to see what stores in the area sell it - it looks like only one does, and only small bottles.

The good news is that the two cuttings of Sunset Hygro and Ludwigia repens are growing well now, even at the low light intensity I have. They are growing slowly, but with near normal size leafs, and growing steadily.

I obviously need to keep a closer eye on the plants, and prune anytime I see leafs that are not vigorously healthy. This is probably the best idea for all of us to do.


----------



## Hilde (May 19, 2008)

I don't see the Sunset Hygro and Ludwigia repens in the pictures. Were they added afterwards? Could you post pictures with them?


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

Hilde said:


> I don't see the Sunset Hygro and Ludwigia repens in the pictures. Were they added afterwards? Could you post pictures with them?


Light is off for now, so I will plan to take a photo of each of them tomorrow.


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

Here is the Hygrophila:









And, the Ludwigia:









Plus, a look at the surface ripple I have:


----------



## Hilde (May 19, 2008)

I wonder if you increased the KNO3 dosing if that would keep the BBA at bay. For it is the main fert that got rid of BBA in my aquarium.

Since you are using EI fert program are you doing water changes weekly?


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

Hilde said:


> I wonder if you increased the KNO3 dosing if that would keep the BBA at bay. For it is the main fert that got rid of BBA in my aquarium.
> 
> Since you are using EI fert program are you doing water changes weekly?


I use a form of EI. My tank has a continuous water change system. It gets tap water, from a carbon whole house filter, dripped in at about 3-5 gallons per day, with the excess water draining from a fixed overflow fitting outdoors where it is collected for watering container plants. This keeps the concentration of fertilizers from ever exceeding twice the total weekly dosage (roughly). I dose 1/7th of half of the weekly EI dosage every day, dosing all fertilizers every day. I can do this because the concentration of ferts is so low I never need to worry about precipitating the iron out of the water.

I have experimented with the dosage amounts, from 1/2 EI, as I am now doing, to about twice EI. If anything I had more algae at the higher doses, but not to a significant degree.

BBA seems to be inevitable if there are leaves in poor health, not growing or dead in the tank. Since my plants are all slow growers, and the crypts are a plant that stops growing when you transplant it, preferring to send out new leaves rather than growing the old leaves, I seem to be destined to be BBA prone unless I really stay on top of pruning. Having a brown thumb handicaps me too:redface:


----------



## empire300 (Apr 30, 2006)

*Curious*

I'd like to try this idea (as my tank is looking horrid) at this point the time and money it would take me to clean it up and get it back to healthy would be more than an overhaul and it has been 2 years so it could use a new aqua scape either way.

now my question ... i have a 30 gal with 135 watts of light and compressed co2 on a 6 hour light cycle. i want to build this system but im wondering if my eheim 2213 will push it, im still currently using a hagen ladder for co2 dissolution because i could never get an inline reactor (Rex) i build to not fill with Co2 and lock my flow... 

Do i need to get a bigger eheim or (insert other name brand canister filter here) to get my co2 to flow thru this AND substrate?

the 2213 seems almost like it would be perfect for a 10 gallon and no bigger

im really thinking that this eheim is to puny to do what i want. Opinions and answers greatly appreciated


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

All I can say is that I use a Rena Filstar XP3 and it seems to be working very well. You sure do have a lot of light for a 30 gallon tank. Is there an aquatic plant club near you, where you might be able to borrow a PAR meter? If so you could do that and see how much light you have at the substrate level. If it is over 100 micromols per sq m per sec, I would say you have much too much light.


----------



## empire300 (Apr 30, 2006)

yeah i've been told that i only have 65w on most of the day it has 2 bulbs one in front on for 4 hours and one on back on for 4 hours only full 135w 1 hour of overlap. sorry about misleading there 

im gonna make the new 75 gallon a project tank but i wanna get my 30 gallon up to scratch as people seem to love sitting by it when i have guests 

i'll check out that filstar as well as the 2217 eheim ... that will help me choose for the new tank


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

This tank has now been setup for over 9 weeks. It has been disappointing in that I still get a lot of BBA, which I shouldn't have, since I keep the CO2 level so high I have lost at least 3 older, weaker fish from the CO2. The last time I increased the bubble rate slightly, I had all of the fish, including loaches clustered at the top. That had to be the maximum amount I could use, since my water surface continues to be very rippled from my Koralia flow, and that flow gives me strong water flow in the tank. I reduced the bubble rate slightly, and finally all fish returned to normal, but at least 3 of the older ones didn't make it.

With CO2 entering the tank under the substrate, and uniformly across the substrate I should have good CO2 in the water. Most nights, when I look closely I can see pearling uniformly all over the tank, with occasional CO2 bubbles coming out of the substrate.

This still works very well at keeping the water sparkling clean, and I still like it. But, I'm about ready to go to non-low light plants. I think I will eliminate the anubias entirely - they attract BBA much to easily. The Marsilea minuta will probably also go, since it gets BBA on all of the older leaves. I may keep the narrow leaf Java Fern, since BBA is only a minor problem with it, and the crypts do well too, once the old leaves from pre-transplanting are removed. I have a little L. repens and Sunset hygro which are growing slowly and BBA free, so I may expand those plantings, and get a higher plant density in general.


----------



## redman88 (Dec 12, 2008)

well i am working on making one of these systems for my 29 gallon.


----------



## Hilde (May 19, 2008)

Hoppy said:


> It has been disappointing in that I still get a lot of BBA, which I shouldn't have, since I keep the CO2 level so high I have lost at least 3 older, weaker fish from the CO2.



 
 I wonder if elements like silicates, from reading link, feed algae or create nutrient imbalances that lead to algae growth? 
http://www.badmanstropicalfish.com/f...?topic=15003.0


----------



## ZooTycoonMaster (Jan 2, 2008)

So let me get this straight - you have an XP3 with a regular intake, and the outtake is connected to the RFUG (with an inline CO2 reactor)?


----------



## Left C (Nov 15, 2003)

Hoppy said:


> ... BBA seems to be inevitable if there are leaves in poor health, not growing or dead in the tank. Since my plants are all slow growers, and the crypts are a plant that stops growing when you transplant it, preferring to send out new leaves rather than growing the old leaves, I seem to be destined to be BBA prone unless I really stay on top of pruning. Having a brown thumb handicaps me too:redface:


Does Excel ODing or spot treating with Excel help any?


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

ZooTycoonMaster said:


> So let me get this straight - you have an XP3 with a regular intake, and the outtake is connected to the RFUG (with an inline CO2 reactor)?


Yes, that is it, exactly. So, I put filtered water, with dissolved CO2 and occasional CO2 bubbles under the substrate, to flow up through the substrate and through the plants.


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

Left C said:


> Does Excel ODing or spot treating with Excel help any?


I dose about 8 to 10 ml of Excel daily, either by squirting it with a syringe at BBA spots, or just into the water as the water leaves the powerhead. When I first started using Excel regularly, squirting it on BBA would kill the BBA, even though I left the water circulation going. But, for several weeks it has had little effect if any. I sometimes wonder if I have selectively bred a Excel resistant strain of BBA by doing that.

Given my low light intensity, 40-50 micromols, my high CO2 concentration, and my good water circulation, I shouldn't have BBA at all. Adding the Excel should just make it doubly impossible for BBA to exist in the tank.


----------



## Hilde (May 19, 2008)

Have you thought of adding a few fast growing plants or floaters?


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

Hilde said:


> Have you thought of adding a few fast growing plants or floaters?


Yes, I already have a few Ludwigia repens and Sunset Hygrophila at the ends of the tank, just to see if they would grow well with this type of substrate and low light intensity. They grow fine, just slowly.

My goal with this project was slow growth, to reduce the maintenance requirements, and make it less sensitive to less than absolutely perfect CO2. I got the low maintenance, but it seems to remain as critical for CO2 as it ever was. I must be overlooking something?


----------



## Hilde (May 19, 2008)

How about some new pictures!!


----------



## Cocobid (Feb 25, 2007)

Hoppy been following this thread almost from as they say the "get go". Don't know if you know Mike, aka Crownman over on APC, locally in our club he is a master of the planted tanks. Was over at his house 2 weeks ago and we were in his fish room and we were talking about this one tank and my memory elude me but it has been up for years. It is a RFUG. I am 99% sure no Co2, low light but able to grow high light plants. Seems like it maintains a low ph, our water locally is high. You might shoot him an Email. Vaguely remember something about this tank being slow growing~~not sure about that but just fantastic. 
What you are doing makes complete logic. This approach takes the same approach as Hydroponic gardening. In that the nutrients are uptake thought the roots, and then passed along to the leaves in the the case of aquariums.
He does dose and uses Excel!

Algae RRRRRRRRRRR:frown::frown:
Hope you can get it under control, very frustrating. 
But great tank.
Karen


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

UPDATE: It's been quite awhile since I visited this thead, and I notice I missed at least one comment. The tank is still doing pretty well. I got rid of all of the anubias, the Marsilea minuta, and the Isoetes, because they seemed to be BBA magnet plants. And, I added a few cuttings of fast growing plants, Sunset Hygro, Myriophyllum mattogrossense, and a couple of Echinodorus vesuvius. I now find that as the plants get more dense, the BBA moves back in, so I prune even the slow growers more often, removing every single leaf I find BBA on. That is helping control the BBA to where it is just a minor nuisance now. Everything now in the tank grows very well, especially the narrow or needle leaf Java Fern. I definitely like this system and would use it again. Here is how it looks today:


----------



## Veloth (Jun 25, 2008)

Thanks for the update. Looks good.


----------



## wkndracer (Mar 14, 2009)

Beginning to end great thread and like the 'new to me' old style injection method. Wonder if it would affect results using mineralized soil under it all?


----------



## Consigliere (Mar 21, 2009)

Anyone ever tried return line with 2 outputs, 1 to RFUG as shown here and 1 to in take spray bar with ball valves to control relative flow between the 2 lines? 

Looks really interesting. I am thinking of trying the above system on a new 250G tall setup for a planted discus after reading this.


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

wkndracer said:


> Beginning to end great thread and like the 'new to me' old style injection method. Wonder if it would affect results using mineralized soil under it all?


I don't think it is workable at all with a nutrient rich substrate. Remember, all of the water circulates up through the substrate. I think the tank would just stay cloudy with mineralized topsoil or ADA soil, and green water could be a threat at any time. But, I could be wrong too.


----------



## Consigliere (Mar 21, 2009)

Would this setup work with a power sand + amazonia substrate?


----------



## CL (Mar 13, 2008)

that fern looks great!


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

Consigliere said:


> Would this setup work with a power sand + amazonia substrate?


Aquasoil Amazonia is the ADA soil that has so much nitrogen compounds, including ammonia, in it. So, I can't see how it could work with water flowing up through the substrate. I think you would have so much ammonia in the water you would have algae blooms and fish deaths, and before it would stop you would have depleted most of the nutrients in the substrate. But, until someone tries it, and maybe someone has, I can only guess.


----------



## Hilde (May 19, 2008)

Consigliere said:


> Would this setup work with a power sand + amazonia substrate?


What is power sand? I googled it but couldn't find it.


----------



## Left C (Nov 15, 2003)

Hilde said:


> What is power sand? I googled it but couldn't find it.


Power Sand is used by Amano as the base layer in his aquariums. Many people say that it is not needed,
http://www.adgshop.com/Substrate_System_s/1.htm


----------



## purplecity (Jul 28, 2008)

what are the downsides of using silicone tubing/ air filter tubing instead of these pvc pipes?

also, wont the plant roots try to reach into the holes?

and how will this system work in the long run, will it ever get clogged / need to be cleaned?

i am very intrested in this, this can be a undergravel filter that connects to a canister, and i can possibly attach my diy c02 pipe into the outtake, and also use this to fill up or empty my tank , All without disturbing the substrate, and plants


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

The major downside to this method, as I see it, is that it requires that you not use a fertile substrate or use substrate fertilizers. Since you can feed the plants equally well with water column fertilizing the method does work, but substrates like ADA aquasoil can't, in my opinion, be used with it. And, using a fertile substrate plus water column fertilizing is pretty well accepted now as the "best" way to get good plant growth, even with somewhat hap hazard water column fertilizing.

If you look carefully, you can see that the holes in the pipes are on the bottom of the pipes, not the top. Roots are far less likely to seek out those holes than if they were on the top. Also, there is a pretty significant flow velocity coming out of the holes, so the roots will have a hard time getting into the pipes. It is with regular UGF use, where the flow is into the holes from the substrate that roots grow into the holes.

I don't see how the holes can get clogged, since the water is filtered by the canister filter before it goes into the tubes. But, I don't doubt that someday it would be wise to tear the system down for maintenance.

I wouldn't try to drain the tank with the UGF, because that could suck fine gravel into the holes and clog them eventually. But, you could fill the tank that way. (I haven't tried that.)

Flexible tubing would work if it were about the size of the tubes I used, 5/8" or so inside diameter, but that tubing would have to be rigid enough not to collapse with the long term load of gravel on top of it. If you tried this with small diameter air/CO2 tubing, only the first very few holes in the tubing would have any water flowing out of them. The tube has to have a big enough inside diameter to effectively act as a manifold - have a low flow velocity in it, by having a cross section area greater than the total cross section area of all of the holes.


----------



## redman88 (Dec 12, 2008)

well i got mine up and going, but after a review of this tread i see that i made a mistake on the size of holes in the return. so i will have to replace all those lines, good thing i didn't glue those. and i can just reach in and pull them off. i just need to figure out the best way to get the air out of the system since it has been running for almost 2 hours and it still is pushing air out.


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

I installed a bleed valve at the top of the inlet hose connection, where it goes over the top of the tank. That was essential, in my opinion, for bleeding the air out. Tomorrow, probably, I will be doing my first major revision to this tank, cleaning everything, heavily pruning it, and most important, installing my LED light fixture.

Since starting this, I have learned that what I considered low light, 50-70 micromols PAR is not really low enough to qualify as low light. I will very likely shoot for 30-50 micromols with the LED light. 

I'm satisfied that this is a usable method for both filtering and introducing CO2, but, of course, it isn't perfect.


----------



## redman88 (Dec 12, 2008)

i just need to find a way to put in a small enough valve there since i don't have enough room under my hood and not much room behind the tank either.


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

Today I did a thorough cleaning of my tank and filter. Surprising was that the canister filter was pretty clean, although there was "sludge" in the bottom of the housing. The sponges were not nearly as dirty as I have seen them before when cleaning the filter. I assume this is from the substrate helping with the filtering process.


----------



## redman88 (Dec 12, 2008)

how would the substrate help with this filter setup since the last stop is the substrate?


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

redman88 said:


> how would the substrate help with this filter setup since the last stop is the substrate?


I wondered about that too, which is why I was surprised. Perhaps it is because the water is generally much cleaner, crystal clear most of the time, so there is less fine stuff to clog up the sponges in the canister filter. It may not be a repeatable thing either, if it is a coincidence. Sand filters for swimming pools can produce absolutely clear water, so my filter sand substrate may be the last stage of filtration, polishing the water and trapping the really fine stuff.


----------



## redman88 (Dec 12, 2008)

hmmm good thing i plan on getting some filter sand for my tank


----------



## redman88 (Dec 12, 2008)

well i just cleaned my filter on my RUGF and it wasn't all that bad either.


----------



## CL (Mar 13, 2008)

redman88 said:


> well i just cleaned my filter on my RUGF and it wasn't all that bad either.


How is it working out for you?


----------



## redman88 (Dec 12, 2008)

real good. i have some algae problems but think that is due to the lack of good fast growing plants. and to much light, and no co2


----------



## CL (Mar 13, 2008)

So you aren't putting co2 through your filter? Isn't that the point of an RFUG? (comes off as harsh, but I'm not trying to be harsh )


----------



## redman88 (Dec 12, 2008)

its one of the points. but no i am not. i need to buy a better needle valve and i don't have the money for it right now


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

An RFUG filter is pretty effective as a filter, whether you use it as I am or not. I never had water as clear with any other filtering method. Incidentally, I have turned off my CO2 and sold the CO2 system to a member of our local aquatic plant group. Now, my tank is running as a non-CO2, low light tank, in preparation for replacing the whole setup with a 65 gallon Riparium. My current plan is to use the RFUG in that tank as the primary filter, probably with a sponge filter on the powerhead inlet to keep any shrimp, if I keep some, from getting under the substrate. So, I will also sell off my Rena Filstar XP3 filter when I do that.


----------



## mountaindew (Dec 10, 2008)

Hoppy the brave one! 
IMHO ugf's or rfugs are one of the most simple and effective filters ever. 
I only have experience with the plate type.

A few benefits I have observed over the years
No green water blooms "ever", so no u.v. required.
Plants grow HUGE roots! 
Some plants grow to be giants in a short time! "example large crypt in one of my threads was grown out in a tank with an ugf"
Crystal clear water.
No brainer for fish or other breeding.
Very low maintenance over long periods of time.


Down sides are
Irregular flow thru substrate over time.
Deep substrate areas have very low to no flow 
With a large bioload over time it will become a nitrate factory, good for plants but hard to control the very high levels even with water changes.
The big one! long term power outage with no flow can cause the system to crash. 

Like most things they have upsides and downsides and if setup and maintained properly they work just fine for most applications.
my 2 cents worth
md


----------



## hamstermann (May 10, 2007)

So what if you had 2 grids like the one hoppy built? What I was thinking is doing one grid for intake like a regular ugf (only with pvc) and one for outflow like an RFUG. With the intake and outflow both being on the bottom of the tank, under the gravel, would that cause the water at the top to not circulate enough? Would the inflow being under the substrate slowly suck the substrate away? I don't know much about UGFs or RFUGs other than it seems like you'd have to rip out all your plants to clean them, which seems somewhat counter-productive to getting your plants established for long periods of time.


----------



## CL (Mar 13, 2008)

The problem with UGF style filters is that plant roots get sucked in/ grow in and clog them up.
When water is pushing out of the grid, you don't really have to worry about plant roots growing in.


----------



## hamstermann (May 10, 2007)

so maybe the best low-visibility solution would be an RFUG grid and have the intake go through a screened bulkhead near, but not in, the substrate?


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

You always need a pump to get the flow through a UGF, whether it is a standard UGF or RFUGF, so either the pump is outside the tank, or in the tank. It would be interesting to see if you could use both types in the same tank, but I can't see how it would work. Essabee uses a UGF under just part of the substrate, a part with little or no plants above it, and with the water from the UGF being released in a different part of the tank. That might be a way to use both types in one tank - having the two filter areas widely separated.


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

9 months after this RFUG went into operation I tore it down today. And, I think I settled the question about whether roots grow into the holes - they don't. I had the substrate thoroughly laced with crypt roots, roots everywhere, but not one hole had a root in it. Lots of roots were growing down at the bottom between the tubes, but none stuck into a hole.

The mass of crypt roots, and massive growth of crypts I had prove to me that "root feeder" type plants do fine with a RFUG. My stem plants were doing good too, lots of vigorous roots, but nothing like the crypt roots.

The substrate, pool filter sand, was loaded with mulm, but no worse that I usually see when I redo a substrate, and it looked the same as always. So, I pronounce this experiment a success at growing plants, but disappointing for giving superb CO2 distribution able to fight off BBA with ease - that part didn't happen.

I now plan to reuse the RFUG in a 57 gallon riparium, using a powerhead to drive it. This because I really like the quality of filtration it gives, and the minute amount of maintenance it requires for many months at a time. I plan to use a sponge on the powerhead inlet to pre-filter the water a bit.


----------



## hamstermann (May 10, 2007)

you mentioned minimal maintenance, but I don't remember reading about any maintenance at all. What have you had to do for it over the past 6 months?

I'm definitely trying this in the aquaponic setup I'm making - hopefully starting it this week or weekend sometime. Mine will be slightly different, though. I will have a ViaAqua 1300 push the water 3 feet or so up to the grow bed, then the grow bed drain will drop down to the RFUG. Hopefully that generates enough force to prevent any roots from growing into it. I guess we'll find out when I eventually take my setup down if it doesn't have a major catastrophe first. 

I'll eventually put up my own thread for the project and stop hijacking other peoples with my questions. Thanks for your patience and answers. :red_mouth


----------



## redman88 (Dec 12, 2008)

it was connected to a canister, and it was posted.


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

Yes, the maintenance has been to the canister filter, but nothing more than with a canister filter alone. When I set it up in a 57 gallon riparium I will have a powerhead sponge that will require cleaning every few weeks. That should be the only maintenance required.


----------

