Summaryof filtration systems

[Curtswearing]

This forum is designed to give people headaches but it at least makes people think.

Doc---I'm not picking on your post whatsoever.....you just had the unlucky fortune of being the last post before I got some free time. I'm hoping that the "New Frontier" forum makes people think a little so I'm throwing out some thoughts. The purpose of this post is to make some people ask some questions.

There can be some "con's" of a DSB. What are some of the "pro's" that we would have missed if we never had one??? Are there any???

There can be some "con's" of using a canister filter. What are some of the "pro's" that we would have missed if we never had one??? Are there any???

There can be some "con's" of going skimmerless. What are some of the "pro's" that we would have missed if we never went skimmerless??? Are there any???

There can be some "con's" of a plenum. What are some of the "pro's" that we would have missed if we never had a plenum??? Are there any???

There can be some "con's" of using a refugium filled with Caulerpa. What are some of the "pro's" that we would have missed if we never had a caulerpa fuge??? Are there any???

Lets make this harder.....what if the fuge was filled with a different macro??? What if the fuge had a combination of macroalgaes???? What if you were skimmerless but had a lot of different macroalgaes??? What if you had a skimmer but also used a canister filter???

Etc., Etc., and so on......In essence, open your minds and think and be open to other opinions.

no need for clarification here...it's just for simplification.
One of the main issues with a lot of the previously used methods of filtration is the fact that they were awesome breeding grounds for the different bacterias that could turn Ammonia into Nitrite and then into Nitrates. However, the bacterias that got rid of nitrates cannot live in oxygenated water. There was nowhere for nitrates to go but into the water column. Some of these filtration systems had some advantages. Should we 'throw out the baby with the bathwater'? Can some of these "old" methods still be used today?

A couple of methods were found that got rid of nitrates. What were the advantages of these systems and how do they work? Are there any issues related to these systems?

Should we be using older methods and solving nitrate problems in other ways?

RS will always be a nice forum. The members nor the moderators will not allow it to degenerate into nastiness. For the people who like to get into 'meatier' issues without fear of being attacked........you have found a home-----the New Frontiers forum.

BTW----if you have a headache now, put on your thinkin' caps and get ready.

OK---let's discuss all of the filtration methods. A number of them have been discussed. However, the algae fueled filtration methods are not fully covered yet nor several others.

[Scooterman]

You know, the more I read the more I realize my thoughts on filtration is souly on the experience & reading I've done but no facts other than observation of my system & the changes I've made to it. I can tell you my experience with FW 25 years in the making but still all experience, reading & observation, I don't think any of that would qualify for scientific facts, umm guess I'm not qualified for no more other than comments from my experiences & observations, does that make sense? I'll sit back at this point & learn, I would love to gather enough information to write a personal documented book for the serious beginner, Filtration would be a major part of a complete system.

[mojoreef]

Scott no sitting here buddy so get off your butt and join in, lol Tell me my friend in what you said about your knowledge of filtration, how does that differ from that of a so called expert.???

Ok here is the outline of our little project. We are going to put together an article, with input from as many members that want to participate. We are going to cover several filtration concept systems, so the whole package not components. Example: DSB system, BB system, Plenum system and so on, not this is a skimmer and how it works (we can do that later if we want).
I think it would be best to have individuals write something up and then we can all add to it or delete from it. Dont be shy, even an observaton can explain a process, even if you dont know the process maybe someone else does.
So how do we get this going, lets start with a plenum system first, who wants to do the initial write up??

Mike

[NaH2O]

Witfull started a thread on Plenums and I thought maybe we could start with it:

Plenum Theory and Practicality

[sparkzippo]

This has a good flow and a great process, but I wanted to ask one further question.

I understand some of the issues discussed earlier with substrate systems, but it seems that the two points of contention in filtration to date with these systems are easier nitrate export and phosphate export.

Does anyone have suggestions to accomplish both of these issues?

Are we looking at multiple systems for export?

[mojoreef]

Sparkzippo I believe that each system is inherently flawed and yet works. On the systems we are going after they dont really have alot of export mechcanisms build in and relay on out side sources for this. Also each system needs to be set up properly in order to fuction as it was designed, also it needs to be maintained well with good husbandry in order to last. If we gat a good breakdown on how it works and why it works, then add a little of how to design the system and maintain it, I think we can give folks a fighting chance if they choose that sytem to go with.

Nikki wits sytem is a hybrid, as in a mix of DSB and plenum. I would like to keep it pure, them if folks decide to blend systems they can take the knowledge and go for it. I will put a quick thread together on a plenum system, then you folks pick it apart and tell me what to change/add/take out and so on.

Mikw

[Scooterman]

[Maxx]

the two points of contention in filtration to date with these systems are easier nitrate export and phosphate export.

Well actually, that contentious point of substrate systems is that they DON'T export phosphates...they trap or sink them in, only to release them later when they reach saturation levels. Nobody argues against their abilities to reduce nitrates, thats what makes them so attractive in the first place.

Does anyone have suggestions to accomplish both of these issues?

I can only give you my rationale for using the system that I'm planning. Bare Bottom, (in this case Starboard) allows for higher water flow. This is to keep detritus in suspension long enough to be removed via micron sock in the sump/filter floss (replaced regularly, and often), or siphoning. To date no one I have ever read has argued that more frequent water changes are a bad thing for the systems general health. So when combining the frequent water changes, (weekly is my goal) and the media removal of detritus in the sump, (changed every 3 days or so depending on system needs...if it looks nasty, make it go away.) You have a fairly significant method of nitrate and phosphate reduction/removal from the system. I will also be plumbing in a remote refugium/miracle mud bed. Two reasons for this: 1)...the refugium will give pods a place to multiply w/o preyed upon after corals are introduced to the system...(3 months after rock in place to give pods a chance @ building stable populations to begin with....and if I don't lose my damn mind looking at tank w/ just rock sitting in it. ) 2)...the refugium gives me a place to store calurpa in order to export phosphates and nitrates that might still be in the system after frequent water changes/filter media use. I'm planning that these two systems together will almost completely remove nitrates/phosphates from the system before they hit levels high enough to be a problem. I'm going w/ a sectioned off refugium so that I can replace/remove the miracle mud more easily/completely in regular increments. I'm also using the miracle mud as opposed to sand because of the "leaching" that occurs w/ miracle mud. The mud is 'sposed to contain all sorts of stuff that I really don't have time to list, (where ya at Mike? I know how much you love this stuff, and that you've got the lab reports of the compositional analysis sitting around your house somewhere....trot 'em out guy! ) iron and other minerals are in the list...I havent heard of any ones tank crashing or doing poorly when this stuff is used, but not everyone can say that their reefing success is solely due to Miracle Mud use. I don't necessarily want to get into the giant debate that brings on....( Not that saying that will prevent one from coming on....)...this is just my rationale for using it. Many people dislike Miracle mud for many reasons...two most prominent being that the manufacturer states half of it should be replaced every 2 years, and that this stuff is freakin expensive...(80$ per 10 lb bucket) The fact that the manufacturer has stated that his product will allow a reef tank to go skimmerless hasnt exactly endeared it to people who have spent alot of money on skimmers either....I BTW plan on using a skimmer.
How is this different from having a DSB???
Well, to be honest a couple of ways. First, its not being used as a means of nitrate export, (the Mud...) I'm not trying to get sand bed critters in there, (they'll be there, but I dont care about their population levels), its being used to supplement by leaching some of its minerals into the tank, (which thus far in my research hasnt been proven by anyone to be detrimental to the tanks overall well being) The iron alone will aid calurpa growth assuming phosphate and nitrate levels are sufficient enough to allow algae to grow in the first place. Also, its being replaced in stages on a regular basis. Something people were originally told not to do w/ DSB's. Most importantly, its plumbed remotely, which is not advisable w/ DSBs since the detritus levels won't get to the remote sand bed in sufficient levels to support the large sand bed population necessary to make a DSB work. Its being plumbed remotely in order to facilitate removal, and to be able to take it off line if problems arise.

Are we looking at multiple systems for export?

Basically to sum up everything I said previously...ummm, yeah. Thats what I'm going with.
I apologize if this isnt really along the lines of the intent of this particular thread. Just my thoughts on how to go about this, and myy reasoning for going the way I am. Thought this might be either food for thought, or impetus for discussion.
Nick

[sparkzippo]

I totally agree, Maxx. Substrates do become a phosphate trap. That's were maintenance and replacement come in.

However, the refugium with miracle Mud is just another type of substrate. So, the short of it is, we are looking at mutliple systems, compartmentalized and removed from the display to easier accomidate export of Nitrate and Phosphate with Substrate and Macroalgae or some other form of filtration. The compartmentalized Refugium enables easier maintenance of the substrate (in your case Miracle Mud) and the grooming of the Macroalgae to remove phosphate.

Mojo, I think your idea is great. Lets break down each of the systems and/or methods for filtration, evaluate the pros/cons, identify problem areas, suggest variations, and let people decide on the merits of each system and combination of systems.

Thanks for everyones input

[mojoreef]

Sounds like a system that could work real well Nick. Well thought out to.



Mike

[Maxx]

the refugium with miracle Mud is just another type of substrate.

It is, however its usage and execution makes it different from your typical DSB and that makes a fundamental difference.
Nick

[Scooterman]

I just installed a phosphate pump, it reduces both levels to almost undetectable, for $49.95, I'd say well worth the price easy to clean, once a week reverse wash the filter chamber!

[Maxx]

Phospahate Pump???? never heard of one...can you tell me more?
Nick

[NaH2O]

Originally posted by Maxx
Phospahate Pump???? never heard of one...can you tell me more?
Nick

Ditto

[Scooterman]

GotYa!

Sorry, had to drag it out to see if I could get some bits.