Reverse Undergravel Filtration

[Don424]

Yeah Jim I understand that but I'm talking reverse flow

 

[K]

Yeah, after tearing down a few tanks that I'd been running undergravel filters in, (and vacuuming religiously) and seeing what was under those things, I vowed NEVER AGAIN. :?

Yeah I know what yee are talking about but if it works it works... 8)

 

[wayne in norway]

I'm actually tempted to try a reverse flow tank to see what happens. I remember not liking my normal flow one very much, but I can see why an RUGF should be superior.
Agree reverse flow from the Hagens is absolutely pathetic. I can't be bothered to work out why, I'll just bodge one onto a upflow (downflow?) with normal flow.
Despite the absolute slating they get in the hobby there are , I suspect, a lot fo people who get good results with these. But they're not reefkeepers, they're doing stuff like trying to breed coldwater fish etal in research institutes. Any volume of rockwork is going to cause problems.
I'd disagree with Fatal that a fluidized sand bed is better than a UGF - I've always thought of them as over technical, hign maintenance. I've also heard of hit and miss results with algal scrubbers.

 

[ChrisRD]

UGFs work, there's no doubt. Personally I just feel there are much better options...

Regardless of which style you use (UGF or RUGF), eventually you'll still end-up with detritus in the bed (I've used both) and you'll have to vacuum it regularly to keep it clean.

In the end I guess it depends on what your goals are. Personally, I like to shoot for the best water quality I can get, even in a fish-only system, and I don't feel a UGF is the best way to do that.

As for fluidized bed filters - they're really just a tube with sand in it so, personally I don't consider them overly technical at all. In fact, I found the setup and maintenance of a fluidized bed to be simpler than a UGF or RUGF. IMO they can be great for certain applications. Still, I wouldn't use one of those on a marine tank again either.

JMO of course!