Jaubert Plenum

[Scooterman]

Mike, I would almost have to set up a Mini system and try that out to see how effective it really would be. It would have to be automated as to where when adding the PH to suck the water out, doesn't become a big hassle, which I'm guessing not. It would take detailed design to make sure the requirements are met to specifications, then It will need to run long term, after successful short term use, loading it down also. If you want to make it work, you first need to have recorded plans, and you must stick to the documented plans in order to see what happens, if you have to make changes necessary to keep the system from crashing then you basically developed a new system. Once the details are ironed out, I see no reason why it won't work as Documented an long term but first the unknowns must be found and cures must be installed as part of the system and documented. Once proven long term under loaded conditions, you can sell your system as a derivative of Pentiums that are regenerated on a regular basis.
Amen!

[mojoreef]

Yea Nick something like that. Now thier woldnt be just one tube under though you want to have a couple so you can make sure you get all the detritus. Just one output pipe though.

NIkki a cycle is what we call the establishment of various forms of bacteria. In this case the bacteria in the areobic zone I dont believe will be affected, the nitrification end of the cycle is still live. In the anaerobic zone we will be giving that bacterial population a hit. but thier still should be a decent population left. Basically the ones that are attached to the various surfaces. However they will be converted to deriving thier respiration from oxygen instead of nitrate for a bit. The "Bit" will be however long it takes for the plenum space to go devoid of oxygen. Shouldnt be to long???

MIke

[mojoreef]

LOL Scott I was just pming you to get your butt over here and give me your opinion..your ears must have been burning.
I here ya on your post, and you know I just may put this into play. Here is my reasoning, give me your opinions.
One of the main concepts of a DSB is the fine sand, more surface area= more bacteria. But this fine sand also goes anaerobic quickly for the same reason and is realy relient on critters for migration of various elements (ie to get food down and nitrogen gas up) this is hard to do with a finer particle sand. But if the particles are larger water flow itself could play a big part. For me in a dsb system everything from that first layer of sand in the anaerobic zone is a waste as this is where the build up occurs and the nastier forms of bacteria live. Wth the suck out, you could beat that.
ORP testing could be done at various stages to test for how the reducing power is building and maintaining. then how long it would take to regenerate the anaerobic zone after the sucking part.

On a conceptual level do you see any flaws???

MIke

[Flatlander]

If I may.

I wonder if the remote system, now promoted by the plenum writers, is not getting away from Jauberts original idea and some of the first plenum articles, like Tom Miller,s Easy Reef. To me, thats the ideal situation for a plenum, to simplify a reef system.

If using a plenum,[remote], for just nitrate reduction or assisting in biological filtration, why not just use calerpa. More functional, IMO.

I also wonder about its ability to maintain calcium levels, which according to some is still possible. That would be an unbelievable benefit.

Why run a plenum in a system that has as some authors now have, a large calcium reactor, large skimmers, etc, etc. Systems with that equipment, operate just fine without a tub full of gravel.

As for the gravel size question, I would not use two sizes, but a larger size gravel. After talking with Sprung on this, I would just do a plenum with the old crushed coral we used in the 70,s and 80,s. Its closer to 4mm to 5mm size, and would allow for a better water movement through the plenum. Of course the plenum requires a good 4in. or so of this gravel, to the bottom low in oxygen content. At the worst, I would use something like Carib-Sea Geo Marine crushed coral.

More later.

[Scooterman]

Actually from reading, bacteria of different types they thrive on different size particles, all my reading form Ron's studies was specified as a ratio of super fine(silt) to very course sand. You can't have a true DSB filter without all the levels of sand, most people use a general sized sand, which in my belief is wrong and you must reach different variations to populate with a more varied bacteria to do a through job, first and foremost, also we must supply this bacteria, which isn't as easy as dropping in a bag of live sand. If done properly the sand will stir itself every day depending on the amount of populated bacteria, dependent on food. Jagged edged sand will house more than the smooth rounded sand. You will have this coarse sand, & sucking out the end product will be beneficial very much so, because as you stated it all has to go somewhere. As for as worries of regeneration, the process is done correctly will repopulate overnight(so speaking)! The major flaw in a DSB/plenum is removal of accumulated by-product. The amount to removal should be proportional to input, there is no way it will all just disappear, even burned off as energy as produced heat, the most of it is still collectable waste. The problem I have with it stirring the DSB/plenum substrate. I find a flaw in his saying not to disturb the surface. His theory is the critters move it, if properly built. I say yes true, but if so why is there long term clumping? So they don't turn over the accumulated waste, then what happens? I never had a crash from sucking up my DSB, not all at once only sections. I think his findings and study is factual but his ideas of how it should be maintained is incorrect & proven to not work as planned. The correction could be in a system such as yours but someone will have to develop it.

[NaH2O]

Alright...here's a question, and maybe I'm just missing something....with the bigger sized substrate, it's possible that some waste matter would travel down into the plenum space. Now, my question is - if these "wastes" would settle on the very bottom and NOT get taken out with the water (when it came time to remove it) then what would occur? Would there be any way to agitate the settled material in order to take it out with the water, would it be fine sitting down there, or would it create problems once the water was removed? Maybe I am way off base?

[Scooterman]

Your not off base, rubble that size will allow chunks of fish poo get to the mesh netting, even through it some.

[mojoreef]

Doug great to have you involved thanks.
I think Jeauberts concept is for a completely diferent idea. The Monaco aquarium is actually producing corals for replantation in the wild. Not so much as a fish and coral reefs as we keep.
On the calurpa, I am not a big fan of that, with all the alleochemicals and the risk of sexual is just not worth it to me, but that is just me. Plus calurpas cant break it down like bacteria can.

Why run a plenum in a system that has as some authors now have, a large calcium reactor, large skimmers, etc, etc. Systems with that equipment, operate just fine without a tub full of gravel.

Yes that is true for sure, but the denitrifing could be a good plus, also the larval, nekton, and such production is something alot of folks are looking for.
I agree with you on the gravel size to. If I remember your displa tank has a substriaght like that right????


Mike

[mojoreef]

Actually from reading, bacteria of different types they thrive on different size particles

Scoot he is just wrong on that. bacteria will populate on anything as long as the enviroment is correct, ie, correct water parameters and food source. Here is how they line up.
>aerobes predominate initially, because oxygen inhibits nitrate and sulfate reduction
>facultative anaerobes begin to predominate as oxygen concentration decreases
>anaerobes predominate when oxygen is exhausted and fermentation products (hydrogen, organic acids) accumulate
iron or manganese) reducers (Shewanella) predominate at first
>nitrate reducers (Pseudomonas, etc.) predominate next
>sulfate reducers (Desulfovibrio, etc.) predominate next, because they compete better for hydrogen than methanogens (but only if the sulfate concentration is high)
>carbon dioxide reducers (methanogens) predominate after the sulfate supply is exhausted

I am trying to stay away from the fine particles. The reason fine particles are used is to maximise surface population. I am willing to sacrifice an ammount in order to not have to worry about clogging. Also remember bacteria will not only populate the sand particle but also the organics and waste particles that inhabit the spaces inbetween the sand particles. I dont want to base any system on someone that can keep one up and running himself, so i am not to worried about Ron. The biology is the biology. Scoot you are dead on about populating the bacteria and instaling critters.

Nikki good thought. I dont know if that is a good thing or a bad. Lets follow the path of the food. Food is dumped in the main tank, most of the larger particles are uptaken by fish or gravity forces them down to the bootom of the tank where other scavengers wil get them. The balance of any uneaten food will go down the overflow and say directly or indirectly into plenum tank. Larger particles would stick in the gravel, but I believe those would be the ones that the larger critters (ie worms, snails, pods cukes conches and so on) would go after right away. What ever happened to make its way past all that and end up in the plenum, would sit thier, probibly would be attacked by Methagene bacteria. But if you had good enough holes in the pipes I think it could be succked out no problemo

[Flatlander]

Hi Mike, Me thinks we did this before.

I just use Jaubert as an example of how the idea came about and what its purpose was. Same as I mentioned about Miller,s article.

I use Geo Marine crushed coral and rubble for a substrate in the front of my tank. I still have several inches of mixed dsb in the back, because of my leopard wrasse.

If you remember, when some of the more educated than I , were in the threads we had previous on this, I offered up my 225 as a test tank when I was redoing things because of the flatworm wars. Nobody seemed to interested in taking me up on it though.

Regarding gravel size, yes one would think the crap would filter through and clog the plenum screen. Same as for the disolution of the gravel by the lower ph. However, it seems this does not happen in a correctly built system.

This article in Advanced Aquarist was pretty interesting,
http://advancedaquarist.com/issues/sept2002/feature.htm

[mojoreef]

Hey Doug I remember those talks but you know its tough to jump in front of a crusade, lol. I have read that article and actually talked with Jullien a few times about his testing. His article is a strong one though. What I am trying to do is to find the medium of the lesser of the two evils, trying to make one works.

Mike

[Maxx]

I'm kinda missing wha exactly you, (mike) and Flatlander are discussion. It sorta seems like you guys are disagreeing on something, but I cant find it in the conversation. Calurpa??? Otherwise, you guys seem like your agreeing on things. No big deal, just don't wanna miss anything. As far as detritus removal from beneath the plenum...why not just put a bulkhead and connect a ball valve w/ some hose to the bottom of the tank and use that? Big enough bulkhead and you wont have to worry about crap removal. The suction created should be able to get all of that out. I know you'd have to insure you're not trying to drill a tempered bottom, and there is the danger of draining the plenum out completely if a leak occurs....but other than those minor issues, ( ), whats the problem?
Nick

[Scooterman]

Throw them a bone Ah Max, good thought!

[mojoreef]

Maxx me and Doug were part of a discussion with a few Biologists awhile back, on some simular ground. We never got to a an actual system though, the biologists had other thingns on thier minds (me to I guess) Doug offered to experiment with his tank. other then that is all on what is being discussed now. I believe DOugs questions was way bother. the calurpa dislike is me, I am not a big fan. But doug runs a ATS system on his tank.
Your concept could be ok to, definately less plumbing. The only thing I would like to make sure would be to get the solids out for sure.

[Flatlander]

Nick,
Actually we agree on the calerpa. I dont like it as a nutrient transport either. I just mentioned it as an alternative. I use a large turf scrubber, which uses turf algae. I once tried the large sump/refugium/calerpa thing. It may work for many, but not me.
Please excuse my reference to an old tank of mine on TOTM, but its the only pics I have left of that system.
http://reefcentral.com/totm/2001-04

As to your idea for a bottom drain. I have wondered about something like that also. Would it not be similar to those that have made a drain that runs up to the top of the tank for sampling? I think Charles D. was doing some tests along that like at the Waikiki Aquarium, {not sure}, but have heard no results.

I know some have used it as sort of a slow flow undergravel, to change out some plenum water. My worries about that would be escaping nitrates or something.

Also wonder how much the massive draining from a bottom valve, would effect the low oxygen levels, desired in the plenum itself?