Question:
I am planning my first pond and would like to know if anyone knows the projected head loss through a filter (probably a fluid bead or bubble bead filter)? I am having trouble figuring out exactly how much head I will need. Your comments are appreciated. Eric Jonesboro, GA
Response:
> I am planning my first pond and would like to know if anyone knows the > projected head loss through a filter (probably a fluid bead or bubble bead > filter)? I am having trouble figuring out exactly how much head I will need. > Your comments are appreciated.
Provided you are well within the flow rates supported by your filter it would have thought allowing a meter of head should be reasonably close, but as you increase pumping rates towards the maximum rating of the filter expect this backpressure to increase. Better/larger designs will presumably work with less back pressure so consult the manufacturer for specifications on the one you choose. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Eric > Jonesboro, GA
Response:
I am comparing filtration systems for a recirculating aquaculture system of moderate scale (ie. 10 litre/second throughput). Does anyone have any comments about the relative costs and benefits of commercial (ie. not aquarium): * Sand Filters * Cartridge filters * Disc filters * other mechanical filters …or any links to articles about this? — James R
Response:
Dr. Ron Malone at Louisiana State University has done some interesting research along these lines. You might try contacting him for more info.
Response:
> Vern, how about blue furnace filters? has lots of surface and is very > porous.
I bought some– looked all over for cheap + no bacteri-cide… found a 4-pack for under $3. Pulling them out of the plastic, though, it seems that they’re fiberglass. I got a few splinters in my hands working with ‘em. I tossed a comet and a few guppies in a bin with a filter, to be sure it wouldn’t hurt the fish. They all did just fine, but… the splinters worry me. If it gets in my skin, wouldn’t it get in my poor koi’s gills? What sort of filters are you talking about, exactly? I filled a rubbermaid container full of plastic forks and it seems to work really great, but I’d like to have some sort of pre-filter, too — voice://850.644.3798 fax://850.644.4841
Response:
Vern, how about blue furnace filters? has lots of surface and is very porous. Randy in Aloha — see my web page at: http://homestead.dejanews.com/user.randyinaloha/index.html – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> My waterwheel does stop once in awhile without water so I guess the little > helpers would die, but it couldn ‘ hurt. Now for the best medium that will > wedge in the cups? > vern > Absolutely! Just look at the Marineland "Eclipse" Aquarium > Hood/light/filter. It uses a small water wheel with a filter pad as > prefilter. Quite effective for a simplified setup and they have sold tens of > thousands of these units. The wheel doesn’t have to be submersed, only come > in contact with the water briefly. > >Your are making me think that a waterwheel with medial in the buckets would > make > >a good filter. Just have to be sure to keep the water to the wheel. > >vern > >> >I was just trying to be helpful, Derek. My opinion, which I suspect you > >> >share, is that many ponderers have over-engineered (and undersized) > >> >filters already. The entire pond can function as it’s own biofilter. > All > >> >the bacteria need is oxygen and a substrate to live on, such as gravel, > >> >sand, rock, plant roots, etc. Simplicity has merit… and it works. > >> awright, awright! Yes, I agree, most filters are over-engineered. And, > >> yes, I agree, that you don’t need a trickle filter for a pond. BUT, I > still > >> think that if you’re of a mind to go trickle filter, it IS more > efficient, > >> and you should be able to build it smaller than other kinds of filter and > >> get the same benefits. I don’t think you have to get complicated to > build a > >> trickle filter, and I completely disagree with the opinion (not yours) > that > >> stated that they’re worse than upflow filters. > >> The original question was something to the effect that "doesn’t the media > >> have to be submerged", and I stand by my opinion that it doesn’t and can > be > >> very effective if it isn’t. > >> — > >> rec.ponds FAQ http://w3.one.net/~rzutt/faq.html > >> Budget the luxuries *first*! — Heinlein
Response:
Think I will give it a try. thanks vern – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Vern, how about blue furnace filters? has lots of surface and is very > porous. > Randy in Aloha > — > see my web page at: > http://homestead.dejanews.com/user.randyinaloha/index.html > My waterwheel does stop once in awhile without water so I guess the > little > helpers would die, but it couldn ‘ hurt. Now for the best medium that > will > wedge in the cups? > vern > > Absolutely! Just look at the Marineland "Eclipse" Aquarium > > Hood/light/filter. It uses a small water wheel with a filter pad as > > prefilter. Quite effective for a simplified setup and they have sold > tens of > > thousands of these units. The wheel doesn’t have to be submersed, only > come > > in contact with the water briefly. > > >Your are making me think that a waterwheel with medial in the buckets > would > > make > > >a good filter. Just have to be sure to keep the water to the wheel. > > >vern > > >> >I was just trying to be helpful, Derek. My opinion, which I > suspect you > > >> >share, is that many ponderers have over-engineered (and undersized) > > >> >filters already. The entire pond can function as it’s own > biofilter. > > All > > >> >the bacteria need is oxygen and a substrate to live on, such as > gravel, > > >> >sand, rock, plant roots, etc. Simplicity has merit… and it > works. > > >> awright, awright! Yes, I agree, most filters are over-engineered. > And, > > >> yes, I agree, that you don’t need a trickle filter for a pond. BUT, > I > > still > > >> think that if you’re of a mind to go trickle filter, it IS more > > efficient, > > >> and you should be able to build it smaller than other kinds of > filter and > > >> get the same benefits. I don’t think you have to get complicated to > > build a > > >> trickle filter, and I completely disagree with the opinion (not > yours) > > that > > >> stated that they’re worse than upflow filters. > > >> The original question was something to the effect that "doesn’t the > media > > >> have to be submerged", and I stand by my opinion that it doesn’t and > can > > be > > >> very effective if it isn’t. > > >> — > > >> rec.ponds FAQ http://w3.one.net/~rzutt/faq.html > > >> Budget the luxuries *first*! — Heinlein
Response:
My waterwheel does stop once in awhile without water so I guess the little helpers would die, but it couldn ‘ hurt. Now for the best medium that will wedge in the cups? vern – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Absolutely! Just look at the Marineland "Eclipse" Aquarium > Hood/light/filter. It uses a small water wheel with a filter pad as > prefilter. Quite effective for a simplified setup and they have sold tens of > thousands of these units. The wheel doesn’t have to be submersed, only come > in contact with the water briefly. >Your are making me think that a waterwheel with medial in the buckets would > make >a good filter. Just have to be sure to keep the water to the wheel. >vern >> >I was just trying to be helpful, Derek. My opinion, which I suspect you >> >share, is that many ponderers have over-engineered (and undersized) >> >filters already. The entire pond can function as it’s own biofilter. > All >> >the bacteria need is oxygen and a substrate to live on, such as gravel, >> >sand, rock, plant roots, etc. Simplicity has merit… and it works. >> awright, awright! Yes, I agree, most filters are over-engineered. And, >> yes, I agree, that you don’t need a trickle filter for a pond. BUT, I > still >> think that if you’re of a mind to go trickle filter, it IS more > efficient, >> and you should be able to build it smaller than other kinds of filter and >> get the same benefits. I don’t think you have to get complicated to > build a >> trickle filter, and I completely disagree with the opinion (not yours) > that >> stated that they’re worse than upflow filters. >> The original question was something to the effect that "doesn’t the media >> have to be submerged", and I stand by my opinion that it doesn’t and can > be >> very effective if it isn’t. >> — >> rec.ponds FAQ http://w3.one.net/~rzutt/faq.html >> Budget the luxuries *first*! — Heinlein
Response:
>1. Horizontal flow: > This is the most difficult to build simply because of the physical >design. Horizontal flow biolters consume a large amount of space, and >may be difficult to camoflage or hide if one wishes to do so. Often >they are constructed in situ of concrete and consist of a labyrinthine >course through which the water must flow past several stages of >filtration. Horizontal flow biofilters present somewhat of a >challenge to containment of bio-media, and tends to collect >sediment along the bottom with the water path becoming shallower as time >passes. While very effective at biological action these filters are a >nightmare to clean unless fitted with bottom drains as many are not.
I beg your pardon. You obvious didn’t read my article in Pond & Garden’s "last?" issue. Nor visited my website and seen my filter. It takes up the space of 4′X4′ and 2" above ground. Cleaning during the season March – October is to the pre-filter only. This takes about an hour every 6-8 weeks, if that. All sediment is caught in the prefilter with maybe a 1/4" getting by to the bio-filter chambers. Winterizing takes a few hours to get all 16 sheets cleaned and restored in the filter, but come spring one just fills and starts it up. Total time we spent on the filter last season was maybe 6 hrs. Three times doing the prefilter and then winterizing. See my ponds thru the seasons: http://home.earthlink.net/~alanjordan1/jjspond/index.html ~Keep ‘em Wet!~ ~jan~ Tri-Cities WA Zone 7a Remove Z to E-mail – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->2. UPflow: > If used with a vortex chanber or mechanical pre-filter Upflow filters >perform quite nicely. However, an upflow filter should be fed via >plumbing not all the way at the bottom of the chamber but several inches >from the bottom so as to allow sediment to fall to the bottom where it >can be drained out periodically through a bottom drain. >3. Downflow. > Downflow boifilters have one distinct advantage over upflow >filters. If a separate mechanical pre-filter or vortex >chamber is not used, on can insert a mechanical filter pad in the top of >a downflow filter, and this pad is easily accessable for periodic >cleaning as necessary. In other words, you can combine the mechanical >pre-filter within the same container as the biofilter in a down flow >biofilter, which you cannot do with an upflow filter. >Summary: >There is again no difference in biological efficiency bewteen these >types of filters. Of course, there ARE differences between different >filters that are different in size or amount or type of biomedia used. >Personal preference is the key to choice between these filters, as I >said I have current experience with all three, and they all work. By >the way, the Biofalls filter referenced by one of your other respondents >is a commercial upflow biofilter that should be used with a through-the >-wall skimmer. This is a quality product but unless professionally >installed with care and planning, can result in a very ugly waterfall. >John > We are about halfway into the hole for the new pond, but I am still >trying > to work out the configuration for the filter. I need opinions on >which is > better (or just a matter of choice), upflow or downflow? The filters >I > peeked in at Reimer’s Waterscapes were downflow, but there was only a >small > amount of water in the bottom covering the biomedia, and the foam was >not > submerged, but the water was flowing through it. Does this work okay? > I > just assumed it all needed to be submerged. Opinions please. Thanks. > Jennifer >—– Posted via Deja.com, The People-Powered Information Exchange —–
Response:
Absolutely! Just look at the Marineland "Eclipse" Aquarium Hood/light/filter. It uses a small water wheel with a filter pad as prefilter. Quite effective for a simplified setup and they have sold tens of thousands of these units. The wheel doesn’t have to be submersed, only come in contact with the water briefly. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >Your are making me think that a waterwheel with medial in the buckets would make >a good filter. Just have to be sure to keep the water to the wheel. >vern > >I was just trying to be helpful, Derek. My opinion, which I suspect you > >share, is that many ponderers have over-engineered (and undersized) > >filters already. The entire pond can function as it’s own biofilter. All > >the bacteria need is oxygen and a substrate to live on, such as gravel, > >sand, rock, plant roots, etc. Simplicity has merit… and it works. > awright, awright! Yes, I agree, most filters are over-engineered. And, > yes, I agree, that you don’t need a trickle filter for a pond. BUT, I still > think that if you’re of a mind to go trickle filter, it IS more efficient, > and you should be able to build it smaller than other kinds of filter and > get the same benefits. I don’t think you have to get complicated to build a > trickle filter, and I completely disagree with the opinion (not yours) that > stated that they’re worse than upflow filters. > The original question was something to the effect that "doesn’t the media > have to be submerged", and I stand by my opinion that it doesn’t and can be > very effective if it isn’t. > — > rec.ponds FAQ http://w3.one.net/~rzutt/faq.html > Budget the luxuries *first*! — Heinlein
Response:
Your are making me think that a waterwheel with medial in the buckets would make a good filter. Just have to be sure to keep the water to the wheel. vern – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->I was just trying to be helpful, Derek. My opinion, which I suspect you >share, is that many ponderers have over-engineered (and undersized) >filters already. The entire pond can function as it’s own biofilter. All >the bacteria need is oxygen and a substrate to live on, such as gravel, >sand, rock, plant roots, etc. Simplicity has merit… and it works. > awright, awright! Yes, I agree, most filters are over-engineered. And, > yes, I agree, that you don’t need a trickle filter for a pond. BUT, I still > think that if you’re of a mind to go trickle filter, it IS more efficient, > and you should be able to build it smaller than other kinds of filter and > get the same benefits. I don’t think you have to get complicated to build a > trickle filter, and I completely disagree with the opinion (not yours) that > stated that they’re worse than upflow filters. > The original question was something to the effect that "doesn’t the media > have to be submerged", and I stand by my opinion that it doesn’t and can be > very effective if it isn’t. > — > rec.ponds FAQ http://w3.one.net/~rzutt/faq.html > Budget the luxuries *first*! — Heinlein
Response:
>I was just trying to be helpful, Derek. My opinion, which I suspect you >share, is that many ponderers have over-engineered (and undersized) >filters already. The entire pond can function as it’s own biofilter. All >the bacteria need is oxygen and a substrate to live on, such as gravel, >sand, rock, plant roots, etc. Simplicity has merit… and it works.
awright, awright! Yes, I agree, most filters are over-engineered. And, yes, I agree, that you don’t need a trickle filter for a pond. BUT, I still think that if you’re of a mind to go trickle filter, it IS more efficient, and you should be able to build it smaller than other kinds of filter and get the same benefits. I don’t think you have to get complicated to build a trickle filter, and I completely disagree with the opinion (not yours) that stated that they’re worse than upflow filters. The original question was something to the effect that "doesn’t the media have to be submerged", and I stand by my opinion that it doesn’t and can be very effective if it isn’t. — rec.ponds FAQ http://w3.one.net/~rzutt/faq.html Budget the luxuries *first*! — Heinlein
Response:
>I disagree that an upflow filter is any better than a downflow.
I wasn’t thinking trickle flow at the time but the ones I’ve seen that are downflow use 2-3" pvc pouring right down on the bio-media, so that’s what was in my head. In most cases not all the bio-media is even used, if you image the water spray spreading out as an upside down V. >I can’t see >how it is going to ‘wash out’ pollutants. In fact, a downflow trickle >filter like Jennifer’s describing, should be MUCH more efficient than an >upflow.
True. I can’t quite see a big enough trickle filter though that could bio-filter a pond quick enough. (Imagining BIG bio-wheel like what’s on my Emperor filters. Wouldn’t that be interesting? ;o) >I do like your horizontal design though, Jan.
Thank you. See my ponds thru the seasons: http://home.earthlink.net/~alanjordan1/jjspond/index.html ~Keep ‘em Wet!~ ~jan~ Tri-Cities WA Zone 7a Remove Z to E-mail
Response:
>…A biofilter needs a lot of oxygen and water can’t hold very much >oxygen (we were throwing around numbers of as low as 3ppm >last week – whereas the atmosphere is more like 20% oxygen). >The principal of a trickle filter is to keep the media damp, but not >submerged, for maximum growth of bacteria. >The biofilter bacteria in such a trickle filter live beneath a film of water. >They will experience the same oxygen concentration if they are fully >immersed in aerated water. >Fully immersed filter media will probably hold a much larger population >of biofilter bacteria, because the bacterial film won’t be physically >washed off the filter media. And they will likely survive longer if the >pump stops.
"Probably" is a long way from the reality. You’ll get a much larger bacterial colony in a trickle filter. There’s been plenty of work done to show they really are more effective. There’s nothing much more efficient than a bio-wheel for filtration – and even municipal sewage treatment plants use them. The point about a trickle filter is that the bacteria _shouldn’t_ live beneath a film of water. They should get periodic access to air. And I already said that the bacteria would die faster in a trickle filter. >(Irrelevant technical note: the amount of oxygen in water is not as >low as the numbers above might suggest. Air at sea level contains >250 mg/liter of oxygen. Compare this number to Figure 1 at >http://www.vcnet.com/koi_net/do.html >Saturated fresh cold water can contain up to 12 mg/l or 12 ppm, >or 5% as much oxygen per unit volume, as air does. This decreases >with increasing temperature.)
I said "as low as". You’re quoting a maximum. We’re playing in the same ball park, but you’re still saying the most oxygen submerged bacteria can receive is only 5% of what air-exposed bacteria can get. You’ll never convince me that a trickle filter is not the most _efficient_ filter design. But efficiency isn’t what it’s all about. Most important, to my mind, is always "how easy is it to clean". I think Jan’s filter is the best design I’ve ever found. — rec.ponds FAQ http://w3.one.net/~rzutt/faq.html Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable - J.F. K
Response:
I apologize if this has wandered off-topic, but perhaps the point has been missed? >…you’re still saying the most oxygen submerged bacteria can >receive is only 5% of what air-exposed bacteria can get.
Yes. More specifically, I hoped it might be helpful to realize that comparing oxygen content based on weight ("air 20,946 ppm O2, water 7-10 ppm O2") is misleading for a very simple reason: water is 816 times denser than air at sea level. Comparing oxygen content based on volume is more meaningful. After all, one is moving a known volume of water though a filter of known volume. Volume, not weight, is what counts. >There’s nothing much more efficient than a bio-wheel for filtration – >and even municipal sewage treatment plants use them.
If one’s pond had the same BOD (biological oxygen demand) as a sewage pond, it would smell like a sewage pond, look like a sewage pond, and should be treated like a sewage pond. Dissolved oxygen in the water would not be sufficient, I agree. But no fish or plants would be alive in there, either. >The point about a trickle filter is that the bacteria _shouldn’t_ live >beneath a film of water.
But they _do_ live beneath of film of water in a trickle filter. Because the water film is thin, it remains near oxygen saturation. That is the sole purpose of a trickle filter. Trickle filters are appropriate only if the BOD is so high that the water would be depleted of O2 within the filter. This situation will never be encountered in a living pond. If concerned about such things, then a venturi aerator at the filter inlet is a far simpler solution. I was just trying to be helpful, Derek. My opinion, which I suspect you share, is that many ponderers have over-engineered (and undersized) filters already. The entire pond can function as it’s own biofilter. All the bacteria need is oxygen and a substrate to live on, such as gravel, sand, rock, plant roots, etc. Simplicity has merit… and it works. – Rod
Response:
>We are about halfway into the hole for the new pond, but I am still trying >to work out the configuration for the filter. I need opinions on which is >better (or just a matter of choice), upflow or downflow? The filters I >peeked in at Reimer’s Waterscapes were downflow, but there was only a small >amount of water in the bottom covering the biomedia, and the foam was not >submerged, but the water was flowing through it. Does this work okay? I >just assumed it all needed to be submerged. Opinions please. Thanks.
Jennifer, The two best filters are upflow or (IMHO) horizontal flow, as you can get to each chamber separately without disturbing the whole filter to clean it. Downflow has a tendency to wash out as many pollutants as it catches, unless you have a good prefilter before it. See my horizontal flow filter & my ponds: http://home.earthlink.net/~alanjordan1/jjspond/index.html ~Keep ‘em Wet!~ ~jan~ Tri-Cities WA Zone 7a Remove Z to E-mail – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->We are about halfway into the hole for the new pond, but I am still trying >to work out the configuration for the filter. I need opinions on which is >better (or just a matter of choice), upflow or downflow? The filters I >peeked in at Reimer’s Waterscapes were downflow, but there was only a small >amount of water in the bottom covering the biomedia, and the foam was not >submerged, but the water was flowing through it. Does this work okay? I >just assumed it all needed to be submerged. Opinions please. Thanks. >The two best filters are upflow or (IMHO) horizontal flow, as you can get >to each chamber separately without disturbing the whole filter to clean it. >Downflow has a tendency to wash out as many pollutants as it catches, >unless you have a good prefilter before it.
I disagree that an upflow filter is any better than a downflow. I can’t see how it is going to ‘wash out’ pollutants. In fact, a downflow trickle filter like Jennifer’s describing, should be MUCH more efficient than an upflow. Not only doesn’t the media need to be submerged but it is more efficient if it isn’t. A biofilter needs a lot of oxygen and water can’t hold very much oxygen (we were throwing around numbers of as low as 3ppm last week – whereas the atmosphere is more like 20% oxygen). The principal of a trickle filter is to keep the media damp, but not submerged, for maximum growth of bacteria. The drawback is that in case of pump failure, your bacteria die off much faster than in a submerged filter. I do like your horizontal design though, Jan. — rec.ponds FAQ http://w3.one.net/~rzutt/faq.html Anything free is worth what you pay for it. — Heinlein
Response:
Hi Jennifer If you can find a copy of Sunset’s "Garden Pools Fountains & Waterfalls" 11th printing Dec 97 Library of Congress #88-83389.ISBNN 0-376-01225-0 It has some very nice drawings of the filters discussed here. This may help in your choice for the best filter for you. Terry in Texas http://www.charm.net/~huribead/ponders.html
Response:
>…A biofilter needs a lot of oxygen and water can’t hold very much >oxygen (we were throwing around numbers of as low as 3ppm >last week – whereas the atmosphere is more like 20% oxygen). >The principal of a trickle filter is to keep the media damp, but not >submerged, for maximum growth of bacteria.
The biofilter bacteria in such a trickle filter live beneath a film of water. They will experience the same oxygen concentration if they are fully immersed in aerated water. Fully immersed filter media will probably hold a much larger population of biofilter bacteria, because the bacterial film won’t be physically washed off the filter media. And they will likely survive longer if the pump stops. So a trickle filter has no advantage, and has obvious disadvantages. (Irrelevant technical note: the amount of oxygen in water is not as low as the numbers above might suggest. Air at sea level contains 250 mg/liter of oxygen. Compare this number to Figure 1 at http://www.vcnet.com/koi_net/do.html Saturated fresh cold water can contain up to 12 mg/l or 12 ppm, or 5% as much oxygen per unit volume, as air does. This decreases with increasing temperature.) – Rod
Response:
>"Jennifer Pearson" wrote >I need opinions on which is >better (or just a matter of choice), upflow or downflow?
Don’t know how big your pond is. . .and that may make a difference in your final configuration BUT . . . I visited a few pond places before constructing my own pond last spring and I have been an avid reader of/sometimes contributor to rec.ponds and I believe the upflow is best. Almost all bio filters I have seen or read about have been upflow. . . Just my opinion ( I only have experience with upflows) Good Luck Ed (Metro Detroit ),
Response:
Jrnnifer, All free advice is worth what you pay for it. Let me make one thing perfectly clear! There is NO fundamental diference in the effectiveness of upflow,downflow or horisonrtal flow biofilters. Each has it’s advantages and each has it’s disadvantages. Eveyone has their personal preference. I have one of each in three different pools, so I know of whence I speak. Disregarding fluidized bed bead filters and trickle-down and drum filters, and other commercial biofilter systems sometimes used by koi aficionadoes, I will list for you the relative charactaristics biofilter design. 1. Horizontal flow: This is the most difficult to build simply because of the physical design. Horizontal flow biolters consume a large amount of space, and may be difficult to camoflage or hide if one wishes to do so. Often they are constructed in situ of concrete and consist of a labyrinthine course through which the water must flow past several stages of filtration. Horizontal flow biofilters present somewhat of a challenge to containment of bio-media, and tends to collect sediment along the bottom with the water path becoming shallower as time passes. While very effective at biological action these filters are a nightmare to clean unless fitted with bottom drains as many are not. 2. UPflow: If used with a vortex chanber or mechanical pre-filter Upflow filters perform quite nicely. However, an upflow filter should be fed via plumbing not all the way at the bottom of the chamber but several inches from the bottom so as to allow sediment to fall to the bottom where it can be drained out periodically through a bottom drain. 3. Downflow. Downflow boifilters have one distinct advantage over upflow filters. If a separate mechanical pre-filter or vortex chamber is not used, on can insert a mechanical filter pad in the top of a downflow filter, and this pad is easily accessable for periodic cleaning as necessary. In other words, you can combine the mechanical pre-filter within the same container as the biofilter in a down flow biofilter, which you cannot do with an upflow filter. Summary: There is again no difference in biological efficiency bewteen these types of filters. Of course, there ARE differences between different filters that are different in size or amount or type of biomedia used. Personal preference is the key to choice between these filters, as I said I have current experience with all three, and they all work. By the way, the Biofalls filter referenced by one of your other respondents is a commercial upflow biofilter that should be used with a through-the -wall skimmer. This is a quality product but unless professionally installed with care and planning, can result in a very ugly waterfall. John – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> We are about halfway into the hole for the new pond, but I am still trying > to work out the configuration for the filter. I need opinions on which is > better (or just a matter of choice), upflow or downflow? The filters I > peeked in at Reimer’s Waterscapes were downflow, but there was only a small > amount of water in the bottom covering the biomedia, and the foam was not > submerged, but the water was flowing through it. Does this work okay? I > just assumed it all needed to be submerged. Opinions please. Thanks. > Jennifer
—– Posted via Deja.com, The People-Powered Information Exchange —–
Response:
We are about halfway into the hole for the new pond, but I am still trying to work out the configuration for the filter. I need opinions on which is better (or just a matter of choice), upflow or downflow? The filters I peeked in at Reimer’s Waterscapes were downflow, but there was only a small amount of water in the bottom covering the biomedia, and the foam was not submerged, but the water was flowing through it. Does this work okay? I just assumed it all needed to be submerged. Opinions please. Thanks. Jennifer
Response:
Jennifer one option is a biofalls.The Biofall and skimmer filtration system is the heart and soul of your watergarden. The Biofall is the starting point of your waterfall. The Biofalls is a large filter system that is capable of breaking down fish waste, balancing nutrient levels, and aerating the pond. The filtration begins by pumping water into the bottom swirl chamber of the Biofall. The water rises through a set of filter mats. These filter mats remove smaller particulates and floating fish waste. The next stage passes through nets containing biological media. Biological media is typically lava stone, ceramic beads, filter brushes, etc. that have a lot of surface area for the natural bacteria and enzymes to colonize on. Aquatic plants placed at the top of the Biofall will root down into the media and provide additional filtration. Finally, the water cascades over the front of the Biofall, aerating the water, while providing a beautiful cascading waterfall. Happy Ponding, BullfrogEd http://www.pondguys.com – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > We are about halfway into the hole for the new pond, but I am still trying > to work out the configuration for the filter. I need opinions on which is > better (or just a matter of choice), upflow or downflow? The filters I > peeked in at Reimer’s Waterscapes were downflow, but there was only a small > amount of water in the bottom covering the biomedia, and the foam was not > submerged, but the water was flowing through it. Does this work okay? I > just assumed it all needed to be submerged. Opinions please. Thanks. > Jennifer
Response:
I have a Sepro water filter and about a week ago after buying some water cress I placed some in the filter as an after thought just to see how it grew. Well in the pond its grown pretty well but in the dark recesses of the filter its gone mental and is spreading like mad. Is this going to detract from the filter process or enhance it please ? Thanks Steve
Response:
Every bit of growth is sponsored by nutrients your algae will never get. All those roots are bacteria surfaces. The dark color developing on the roots is dirt that is not circulating in your pond. Our only struggle is the root mass that finally fills the veggie filter. You have a genuine veggie filter. Enjoy it.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I have a Sepro water filter and about a week ago after buying some > water cress I placed some in the filter as an after thought just to > see how it grew. > Well in the pond its grown pretty well but in the dark recesses of the > filter its gone mental and is spreading like mad. > Is this going to detract from the filter process or enhance it please > ? > Thanks > Steve
Response:
>I have a Sepro water filter and about a week ago after buying some >water cress I placed some in the filter as an after thought just to >see how it grew. >Well in the pond its grown pretty well but in the dark recesses of the >filter its gone mental and is spreading like mad. >Is this going to detract from the filter process or enhance it please
Details of each pond are different, but in GENERAL you want to have plants as the 3rd stage of a good bio system 1 – filter bacteria eat waste, produce nitrites 2 – more bacteria eat nitrites, produce nitrates 3 – plants use nitrates for growth
Response:
well, maybe. some research seems to indicate that some (maybe all) aquatic plants prefer to use the ammonium over the nitrates. if so, the plants snatch the ammonium out of the water first, and what’s left can feed the bio filter. of course, more ammonium, more plant uptake, more plant growth – aha, a self adjusting ammonia eating system commonly known as ‘veggie filter’ 
if no ammonium is present, plants will uptake nitrate as second choice. i’m not claiming to be any kind of authority on the subject, but i know what i believe and i know what works for me i’ve seen a lot of nice ponds with plenty of plant growth, clear water and not much in the form of bio-filter. credit for the original concept goes to mother nature link at http://www.theplantplace.com/vfilter1.htm can provide more data. regards to the group, banjo — NEW and possibly improved…… with Lotus Pond 2001 addition and large piles of dirt! extra bonus - get the "scoop" on cowflop and the kudzu conspiracy…… "Pondering Frog" now at: http://personal.lig.bellsouth.net/~mdpas – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->I have a Sepro water filter and about a week ago after buying some >water cress I placed some in the filter as an after thought just to >see how it grew. >Well in the pond its grown pretty well but in the dark recesses of the >filter its gone mental and is spreading like mad. >Is this going to detract from the filter process or enhance it please > Details of each pond are different, but in GENERAL you want to have > plants as the 3rd stage of a good bio system > 1 – filter bacteria eat waste, produce nitrites > 2 – more bacteria eat nitrites, produce nitrates > 3 – plants use nitrates for growth
Response:
I am planning my first pond and would like to know if anyone knows the projected head loss through a filter (probably a fluid bead or bubble bead filter)? I am having trouble figuring out exactly how much head I will need. Your comments are appreciated. Eric Jonesboro, GA
Response:
> I am planning my first pond and would like to know if anyone knows the > projected head loss through a filter (probably a fluid bead or bubble bead > filter)? I am having trouble figuring out exactly how much head I will need. > Your comments are appreciated.
Provided you are well within the flow rates supported by your filter it would have thought allowing a meter of head should be reasonably close, but as you increase pumping rates towards the maximum rating of the filter expect this backpressure to increase. Better/larger designs will presumably work with less back pressure so consult the manufacturer for specifications on the one you choose. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Eric > Jonesboro, GA
Response:
I am comparing filtration systems for a recirculating aquaculture system of moderate scale (ie. 10 litre/second throughput). Does anyone have any comments about the relative costs and benefits of commercial (ie. not aquarium): * Sand Filters * Cartridge filters * Disc filters * other mechanical filters …or any links to articles about this? — James R
Response:
Dr. Ron Malone at Louisiana State University has done some interesting research along these lines. You might try contacting him for more info.
Response:
> Vern, how about blue furnace filters? has lots of surface and is very > porous.
I bought some– looked all over for cheap + no bacteri-cide… found a 4-pack for under $3. Pulling them out of the plastic, though, it seems that they’re fiberglass. I got a few splinters in my hands working with ‘em. I tossed a comet and a few guppies in a bin with a filter, to be sure it wouldn’t hurt the fish. They all did just fine, but… the splinters worry me. If it gets in my skin, wouldn’t it get in my poor koi’s gills? What sort of filters are you talking about, exactly? I filled a rubbermaid container full of plastic forks and it seems to work really great, but I’d like to have some sort of pre-filter, too — voice://850.644.3798 fax://850.644.4841
Response:
Vern, how about blue furnace filters? has lots of surface and is very porous. Randy in Aloha — see my web page at: http://homestead.dejanews.com/user.randyinaloha/index.html – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> My waterwheel does stop once in awhile without water so I guess the little > helpers would die, but it couldn ‘ hurt. Now for the best medium that will > wedge in the cups? > vern > Absolutely! Just look at the Marineland "Eclipse" Aquarium > Hood/light/filter. It uses a small water wheel with a filter pad as > prefilter. Quite effective for a simplified setup and they have sold tens of > thousands of these units. The wheel doesn’t have to be submersed, only come > in contact with the water briefly. > >Your are making me think that a waterwheel with medial in the buckets would > make > >a good filter. Just have to be sure to keep the water to the wheel. > >vern > >> >I was just trying to be helpful, Derek. My opinion, which I suspect you > >> >share, is that many ponderers have over-engineered (and undersized) > >> >filters already. The entire pond can function as it’s own biofilter. > All > >> >the bacteria need is oxygen and a substrate to live on, such as gravel, > >> >sand, rock, plant roots, etc. Simplicity has merit… and it works. > >> awright, awright! Yes, I agree, most filters are over-engineered. And, > >> yes, I agree, that you don’t need a trickle filter for a pond. BUT, I > still > >> think that if you’re of a mind to go trickle filter, it IS more > efficient, > >> and you should be able to build it smaller than other kinds of filter and > >> get the same benefits. I don’t think you have to get complicated to > build a > >> trickle filter, and I completely disagree with the opinion (not yours) > that > >> stated that they’re worse than upflow filters. > >> The original question was something to the effect that "doesn’t the media > >> have to be submerged", and I stand by my opinion that it doesn’t and can > be > >> very effective if it isn’t. > >> — > >> rec.ponds FAQ http://w3.one.net/~rzutt/faq.html > >> Budget the luxuries *first*! — Heinlein
Response:
Think I will give it a try. thanks vern – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Vern, how about blue furnace filters? has lots of surface and is very > porous. > Randy in Aloha > — > see my web page at: > http://homestead.dejanews.com/user.randyinaloha/index.html > My waterwheel does stop once in awhile without water so I guess the > little > helpers would die, but it couldn ‘ hurt. Now for the best medium that > will > wedge in the cups? > vern > > Absolutely! Just look at the Marineland "Eclipse" Aquarium > > Hood/light/filter. It uses a small water wheel with a filter pad as > > prefilter. Quite effective for a simplified setup and they have sold > tens of > > thousands of these units. The wheel doesn’t have to be submersed, only > come > > in contact with the water briefly. > > >Your are making me think that a waterwheel with medial in the buckets > would > > make > > >a good filter. Just have to be sure to keep the water to the wheel. > > >vern > > >> >I was just trying to be helpful, Derek. My opinion, which I > suspect you > > >> >share, is that many ponderers have over-engineered (and undersized) > > >> >filters already. The entire pond can function as it’s own > biofilter. > > All > > >> >the bacteria need is oxygen and a substrate to live on, such as > gravel, > > >> >sand, rock, plant roots, etc. Simplicity has merit… and it > works. > > >> awright, awright! Yes, I agree, most filters are over-engineered. > And, > > >> yes, I agree, that you don’t need a trickle filter for a pond. BUT, > I > > still > > >> think that if you’re of a mind to go trickle filter, it IS more > > efficient, > > >> and you should be able to build it smaller than other kinds of > filter and > > >> get the same benefits. I don’t think you have to get complicated to > > build a > > >> trickle filter, and I completely disagree with the opinion (not > yours) > > that > > >> stated that they’re worse than upflow filters. > > >> The original question was something to the effect that "doesn’t the > media > > >> have to be submerged", and I stand by my opinion that it doesn’t and > can > > be > > >> very effective if it isn’t. > > >> — > > >> rec.ponds FAQ http://w3.one.net/~rzutt/faq.html > > >> Budget the luxuries *first*! — Heinlein
Response:
My waterwheel does stop once in awhile without water so I guess the little helpers would die, but it couldn ‘ hurt. Now for the best medium that will wedge in the cups? vern – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Absolutely! Just look at the Marineland "Eclipse" Aquarium > Hood/light/filter. It uses a small water wheel with a filter pad as > prefilter. Quite effective for a simplified setup and they have sold tens of > thousands of these units. The wheel doesn’t have to be submersed, only come > in contact with the water briefly. >Your are making me think that a waterwheel with medial in the buckets would > make >a good filter. Just have to be sure to keep the water to the wheel. >vern >> >I was just trying to be helpful, Derek. My opinion, which I suspect you >> >share, is that many ponderers have over-engineered (and undersized) >> >filters already. The entire pond can function as it’s own biofilter. > All >> >the bacteria need is oxygen and a substrate to live on, such as gravel, >> >sand, rock, plant roots, etc. Simplicity has merit… and it works. >> awright, awright! Yes, I agree, most filters are over-engineered. And, >> yes, I agree, that you don’t need a trickle filter for a pond. BUT, I > still >> think that if you’re of a mind to go trickle filter, it IS more > efficient, >> and you should be able to build it smaller than other kinds of filter and >> get the same benefits. I don’t think you have to get complicated to > build a >> trickle filter, and I completely disagree with the opinion (not yours) > that >> stated that they’re worse than upflow filters. >> The original question was something to the effect that "doesn’t the media >> have to be submerged", and I stand by my opinion that it doesn’t and can > be >> very effective if it isn’t. >> — >> rec.ponds FAQ http://w3.one.net/~rzutt/faq.html >> Budget the luxuries *first*! — Heinlein
Response:
>1. Horizontal flow: > This is the most difficult to build simply because of the physical >design. Horizontal flow biolters consume a large amount of space, and >may be difficult to camoflage or hide if one wishes to do so. Often >they are constructed in situ of concrete and consist of a labyrinthine >course through which the water must flow past several stages of >filtration. Horizontal flow biofilters present somewhat of a >challenge to containment of bio-media, and tends to collect >sediment along the bottom with the water path becoming shallower as time >passes. While very effective at biological action these filters are a >nightmare to clean unless fitted with bottom drains as many are not.
I beg your pardon. You obvious didn’t read my article in Pond & Garden’s "last?" issue. Nor visited my website and seen my filter. It takes up the space of 4′X4′ and 2" above ground. Cleaning during the season March – October is to the pre-filter only. This takes about an hour every 6-8 weeks, if that. All sediment is caught in the prefilter with maybe a 1/4" getting by to the bio-filter chambers. Winterizing takes a few hours to get all 16 sheets cleaned and restored in the filter, but come spring one just fills and starts it up. Total time we spent on the filter last season was maybe 6 hrs. Three times doing the prefilter and then winterizing. See my ponds thru the seasons: http://home.earthlink.net/~alanjordan1/jjspond/index.html ~Keep ‘em Wet!~ ~jan~ Tri-Cities WA Zone 7a Remove Z to E-mail – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->2. UPflow: > If used with a vortex chanber or mechanical pre-filter Upflow filters >perform quite nicely. However, an upflow filter should be fed via >plumbing not all the way at the bottom of the chamber but several inches >from the bottom so as to allow sediment to fall to the bottom where it >can be drained out periodically through a bottom drain. >3. Downflow. > Downflow boifilters have one distinct advantage over upflow >filters. If a separate mechanical pre-filter or vortex >chamber is not used, on can insert a mechanical filter pad in the top of >a downflow filter, and this pad is easily accessable for periodic >cleaning as necessary. In other words, you can combine the mechanical >pre-filter within the same container as the biofilter in a down flow >biofilter, which you cannot do with an upflow filter. >Summary: >There is again no difference in biological efficiency bewteen these >types of filters. Of course, there ARE differences between different >filters that are different in size or amount or type of biomedia used. >Personal preference is the key to choice between these filters, as I >said I have current experience with all three, and they all work. By >the way, the Biofalls filter referenced by one of your other respondents >is a commercial upflow biofilter that should be used with a through-the >-wall skimmer. This is a quality product but unless professionally >installed with care and planning, can result in a very ugly waterfall. >John > We are about halfway into the hole for the new pond, but I am still >trying > to work out the configuration for the filter. I need opinions on >which is > better (or just a matter of choice), upflow or downflow? The filters >I > peeked in at Reimer’s Waterscapes were downflow, but there was only a >small > amount of water in the bottom covering the biomedia, and the foam was >not > submerged, but the water was flowing through it. Does this work okay? > I > just assumed it all needed to be submerged. Opinions please. Thanks. > Jennifer >—– Posted via Deja.com, The People-Powered Information Exchange —–
Response:
Absolutely! Just look at the Marineland "Eclipse" Aquarium Hood/light/filter. It uses a small water wheel with a filter pad as prefilter. Quite effective for a simplified setup and they have sold tens of thousands of these units. The wheel doesn’t have to be submersed, only come in contact with the water briefly. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >Your are making me think that a waterwheel with medial in the buckets would make >a good filter. Just have to be sure to keep the water to the wheel. >vern > >I was just trying to be helpful, Derek. My opinion, which I suspect you > >share, is that many ponderers have over-engineered (and undersized) > >filters already. The entire pond can function as it’s own biofilter. All > >the bacteria need is oxygen and a substrate to live on, such as gravel, > >sand, rock, plant roots, etc. Simplicity has merit… and it works. > awright, awright! Yes, I agree, most filters are over-engineered. And, > yes, I agree, that you don’t need a trickle filter for a pond. BUT, I still > think that if you’re of a mind to go trickle filter, it IS more efficient, > and you should be able to build it smaller than other kinds of filter and > get the same benefits. I don’t think you have to get complicated to build a > trickle filter, and I completely disagree with the opinion (not yours) that > stated that they’re worse than upflow filters. > The original question was something to the effect that "doesn’t the media > have to be submerged", and I stand by my opinion that it doesn’t and can be > very effective if it isn’t. > — > rec.ponds FAQ http://w3.one.net/~rzutt/faq.html > Budget the luxuries *first*! — Heinlein
Response:
Your are making me think that a waterwheel with medial in the buckets would make a good filter. Just have to be sure to keep the water to the wheel. vern – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->I was just trying to be helpful, Derek. My opinion, which I suspect you >share, is that many ponderers have over-engineered (and undersized) >filters already. The entire pond can function as it’s own biofilter. All >the bacteria need is oxygen and a substrate to live on, such as gravel, >sand, rock, plant roots, etc. Simplicity has merit… and it works. > awright, awright! Yes, I agree, most filters are over-engineered. And, > yes, I agree, that you don’t need a trickle filter for a pond. BUT, I still > think that if you’re of a mind to go trickle filter, it IS more efficient, > and you should be able to build it smaller than other kinds of filter and > get the same benefits. I don’t think you have to get complicated to build a > trickle filter, and I completely disagree with the opinion (not yours) that > stated that they’re worse than upflow filters. > The original question was something to the effect that "doesn’t the media > have to be submerged", and I stand by my opinion that it doesn’t and can be > very effective if it isn’t. > — > rec.ponds FAQ http://w3.one.net/~rzutt/faq.html > Budget the luxuries *first*! — Heinlein
Response:
>I was just trying to be helpful, Derek. My opinion, which I suspect you >share, is that many ponderers have over-engineered (and undersized) >filters already. The entire pond can function as it’s own biofilter. All >the bacteria need is oxygen and a substrate to live on, such as gravel, >sand, rock, plant roots, etc. Simplicity has merit… and it works.
awright, awright! Yes, I agree, most filters are over-engineered. And, yes, I agree, that you don’t need a trickle filter for a pond. BUT, I still think that if you’re of a mind to go trickle filter, it IS more efficient, and you should be able to build it smaller than other kinds of filter and get the same benefits. I don’t think you have to get complicated to build a trickle filter, and I completely disagree with the opinion (not yours) that stated that they’re worse than upflow filters. The original question was something to the effect that "doesn’t the media have to be submerged", and I stand by my opinion that it doesn’t and can be very effective if it isn’t. — rec.ponds FAQ http://w3.one.net/~rzutt/faq.html Budget the luxuries *first*! — Heinlein
Response:
>I disagree that an upflow filter is any better than a downflow.
I wasn’t thinking trickle flow at the time but the ones I’ve seen that are downflow use 2-3" pvc pouring right down on the bio-media, so that’s what was in my head. In most cases not all the bio-media is even used, if you image the water spray spreading out as an upside down V. >I can’t see >how it is going to ‘wash out’ pollutants. In fact, a downflow trickle >filter like Jennifer’s describing, should be MUCH more efficient than an >upflow.
True. I can’t quite see a big enough trickle filter though that could bio-filter a pond quick enough. (Imagining BIG bio-wheel like what’s on my Emperor filters. Wouldn’t that be interesting? ;o) >I do like your horizontal design though, Jan.
Thank you. See my ponds thru the seasons: http://home.earthlink.net/~alanjordan1/jjspond/index.html ~Keep ‘em Wet!~ ~jan~ Tri-Cities WA Zone 7a Remove Z to E-mail
Response:
>…A biofilter needs a lot of oxygen and water can’t hold very much >oxygen (we were throwing around numbers of as low as 3ppm >last week – whereas the atmosphere is more like 20% oxygen). >The principal of a trickle filter is to keep the media damp, but not >submerged, for maximum growth of bacteria. >The biofilter bacteria in such a trickle filter live beneath a film of water. >They will experience the same oxygen concentration if they are fully >immersed in aerated water. >Fully immersed filter media will probably hold a much larger population >of biofilter bacteria, because the bacterial film won’t be physically >washed off the filter media. And they will likely survive longer if the >pump stops.
"Probably" is a long way from the reality. You’ll get a much larger bacterial colony in a trickle filter. There’s been plenty of work done to show they really are more effective. There’s nothing much more efficient than a bio-wheel for filtration – and even municipal sewage treatment plants use them. The point about a trickle filter is that the bacteria _shouldn’t_ live beneath a film of water. They should get periodic access to air. And I already said that the bacteria would die faster in a trickle filter. >(Irrelevant technical note: the amount of oxygen in water is not as >low as the numbers above might suggest. Air at sea level contains >250 mg/liter of oxygen. Compare this number to Figure 1 at >http://www.vcnet.com/koi_net/do.html >Saturated fresh cold water can contain up to 12 mg/l or 12 ppm, >or 5% as much oxygen per unit volume, as air does. This decreases >with increasing temperature.)
I said "as low as". You’re quoting a maximum. We’re playing in the same ball park, but you’re still saying the most oxygen submerged bacteria can receive is only 5% of what air-exposed bacteria can get. You’ll never convince me that a trickle filter is not the most _efficient_ filter design. But efficiency isn’t what it’s all about. Most important, to my mind, is always "how easy is it to clean". I think Jan’s filter is the best design I’ve ever found. — rec.ponds FAQ http://w3.one.net/~rzutt/faq.html Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable - J.F. K
Response:
I apologize if this has wandered off-topic, but perhaps the point has been missed? >…you’re still saying the most oxygen submerged bacteria can >receive is only 5% of what air-exposed bacteria can get.
Yes. More specifically, I hoped it might be helpful to realize that comparing oxygen content based on weight ("air 20,946 ppm O2, water 7-10 ppm O2") is misleading for a very simple reason: water is 816 times denser than air at sea level. Comparing oxygen content based on volume is more meaningful. After all, one is moving a known volume of water though a filter of known volume. Volume, not weight, is what counts. >There’s nothing much more efficient than a bio-wheel for filtration – >and even municipal sewage treatment plants use them.
If one’s pond had the same BOD (biological oxygen demand) as a sewage pond, it would smell like a sewage pond, look like a sewage pond, and should be treated like a sewage pond. Dissolved oxygen in the water would not be sufficient, I agree. But no fish or plants would be alive in there, either. >The point about a trickle filter is that the bacteria _shouldn’t_ live >beneath a film of water.
But they _do_ live beneath of film of water in a trickle filter. Because the water film is thin, it remains near oxygen saturation. That is the sole purpose of a trickle filter. Trickle filters are appropriate only if the BOD is so high that the water would be depleted of O2 within the filter. This situation will never be encountered in a living pond. If concerned about such things, then a venturi aerator at the filter inlet is a far simpler solution. I was just trying to be helpful, Derek. My opinion, which I suspect you share, is that many ponderers have over-engineered (and undersized) filters already. The entire pond can function as it’s own biofilter. All the bacteria need is oxygen and a substrate to live on, such as gravel, sand, rock, plant roots, etc. Simplicity has merit… and it works. – Rod
Response:
>We are about halfway into the hole for the new pond, but I am still trying >to work out the configuration for the filter. I need opinions on which is >better (or just a matter of choice), upflow or downflow? The filters I >peeked in at Reimer’s Waterscapes were downflow, but there was only a small >amount of water in the bottom covering the biomedia, and the foam was not >submerged, but the water was flowing through it. Does this work okay? I >just assumed it all needed to be submerged. Opinions please. Thanks.
Jennifer, The two best filters are upflow or (IMHO) horizontal flow, as you can get to each chamber separately without disturbing the whole filter to clean it. Downflow has a tendency to wash out as many pollutants as it catches, unless you have a good prefilter before it. See my horizontal flow filter & my ponds: http://home.earthlink.net/~alanjordan1/jjspond/index.html ~Keep ‘em Wet!~ ~jan~ Tri-Cities WA Zone 7a Remove Z to E-mail – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->We are about halfway into the hole for the new pond, but I am still trying >to work out the configuration for the filter. I need opinions on which is >better (or just a matter of choice), upflow or downflow? The filters I >peeked in at Reimer’s Waterscapes were downflow, but there was only a small >amount of water in the bottom covering the biomedia, and the foam was not >submerged, but the water was flowing through it. Does this work okay? I >just assumed it all needed to be submerged. Opinions please. Thanks. >The two best filters are upflow or (IMHO) horizontal flow, as you can get >to each chamber separately without disturbing the whole filter to clean it. >Downflow has a tendency to wash out as many pollutants as it catches, >unless you have a good prefilter before it.
I disagree that an upflow filter is any better than a downflow. I can’t see how it is going to ‘wash out’ pollutants. In fact, a downflow trickle filter like Jennifer’s describing, should be MUCH more efficient than an upflow. Not only doesn’t the media need to be submerged but it is more efficient if it isn’t. A biofilter needs a lot of oxygen and water can’t hold very much oxygen (we were throwing around numbers of as low as 3ppm last week – whereas the atmosphere is more like 20% oxygen). The principal of a trickle filter is to keep the media damp, but not submerged, for maximum growth of bacteria. The drawback is that in case of pump failure, your bacteria die off much faster than in a submerged filter. I do like your horizontal design though, Jan. — rec.ponds FAQ http://w3.one.net/~rzutt/faq.html Anything free is worth what you pay for it. — Heinlein
Response:
Hi Jennifer If you can find a copy of Sunset’s "Garden Pools Fountains & Waterfalls" 11th printing Dec 97 Library of Congress #88-83389.ISBNN 0-376-01225-0 It has some very nice drawings of the filters discussed here. This may help in your choice for the best filter for you. Terry in Texas http://www.charm.net/~huribead/ponders.html
Response:
>…A biofilter needs a lot of oxygen and water can’t hold very much >oxygen (we were throwing around numbers of as low as 3ppm >last week – whereas the atmosphere is more like 20% oxygen). >The principal of a trickle filter is to keep the media damp, but not >submerged, for maximum growth of bacteria.
The biofilter bacteria in such a trickle filter live beneath a film of water. They will experience the same oxygen concentration if they are fully immersed in aerated water. Fully immersed filter media will probably hold a much larger population of biofilter bacteria, because the bacterial film won’t be physically washed off the filter media. And they will likely survive longer if the pump stops. So a trickle filter has no advantage, and has obvious disadvantages. (Irrelevant technical note: the amount of oxygen in water is not as low as the numbers above might suggest. Air at sea level contains 250 mg/liter of oxygen. Compare this number to Figure 1 at http://www.vcnet.com/koi_net/do.html Saturated fresh cold water can contain up to 12 mg/l or 12 ppm, or 5% as much oxygen per unit volume, as air does. This decreases with increasing temperature.) – Rod
Response:
>"Jennifer Pearson" wrote >I need opinions on which is >better (or just a matter of choice), upflow or downflow?
Don’t know how big your pond is. . .and that may make a difference in your final configuration BUT . . . I visited a few pond places before constructing my own pond last spring and I have been an avid reader of/sometimes contributor to rec.ponds and I believe the upflow is best. Almost all bio filters I have seen or read about have been upflow. . . Just my opinion ( I only have experience with upflows) Good Luck Ed (Metro Detroit ),
Response:
Jrnnifer, All free advice is worth what you pay for it. Let me make one thing perfectly clear! There is NO fundamental diference in the effectiveness of upflow,downflow or horisonrtal flow biofilters. Each has it’s advantages and each has it’s disadvantages. Eveyone has their personal preference. I have one of each in three different pools, so I know of whence I speak. Disregarding fluidized bed bead filters and trickle-down and drum filters, and other commercial biofilter systems sometimes used by koi aficionadoes, I will list for you the relative charactaristics biofilter design. 1. Horizontal flow: This is the most difficult to build simply because of the physical design. Horizontal flow biolters consume a large amount of space, and may be difficult to camoflage or hide if one wishes to do so. Often they are constructed in situ of concrete and consist of a labyrinthine course through which the water must flow past several stages of filtration. Horizontal flow biofilters present somewhat of a challenge to containment of bio-media, and tends to collect sediment along the bottom with the water path becoming shallower as time passes. While very effective at biological action these filters are a nightmare to clean unless fitted with bottom drains as many are not. 2. UPflow: If used with a vortex chanber or mechanical pre-filter Upflow filters perform quite nicely. However, an upflow filter should be fed via plumbing not all the way at the bottom of the chamber but several inches from the bottom so as to allow sediment to fall to the bottom where it can be drained out periodically through a bottom drain. 3. Downflow. Downflow boifilters have one distinct advantage over upflow filters. If a separate mechanical pre-filter or vortex chamber is not used, on can insert a mechanical filter pad in the top of a downflow filter, and this pad is easily accessable for periodic cleaning as necessary. In other words, you can combine the mechanical pre-filter within the same container as the biofilter in a down flow biofilter, which you cannot do with an upflow filter. Summary: There is again no difference in biological efficiency bewteen these types of filters. Of course, there ARE differences between different filters that are different in size or amount or type of biomedia used. Personal preference is the key to choice between these filters, as I said I have current experience with all three, and they all work. By the way, the Biofalls filter referenced by one of your other respondents is a commercial upflow biofilter that should be used with a through-the -wall skimmer. This is a quality product but unless professionally installed with care and planning, can result in a very ugly waterfall. John – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> We are about halfway into the hole for the new pond, but I am still trying > to work out the configuration for the filter. I need opinions on which is > better (or just a matter of choice), upflow or downflow? The filters I > peeked in at Reimer’s Waterscapes were downflow, but there was only a small > amount of water in the bottom covering the biomedia, and the foam was not > submerged, but the water was flowing through it. Does this work okay? I > just assumed it all needed to be submerged. Opinions please. Thanks. > Jennifer
—– Posted via Deja.com, The People-Powered Information Exchange —–
Response:
We are about halfway into the hole for the new pond, but I am still trying to work out the configuration for the filter. I need opinions on which is better (or just a matter of choice), upflow or downflow? The filters I peeked in at Reimer’s Waterscapes were downflow, but there was only a small amount of water in the bottom covering the biomedia, and the foam was not submerged, but the water was flowing through it. Does this work okay? I just assumed it all needed to be submerged. Opinions please. Thanks. Jennifer
Response:
Jennifer one option is a biofalls.The Biofall and skimmer filtration system is the heart and soul of your watergarden. The Biofall is the starting point of your waterfall. The Biofalls is a large filter system that is capable of breaking down fish waste, balancing nutrient levels, and aerating the pond. The filtration begins by pumping water into the bottom swirl chamber of the Biofall. The water rises through a set of filter mats. These filter mats remove smaller particulates and floating fish waste. The next stage passes through nets containing biological media. Biological media is typically lava stone, ceramic beads, filter brushes, etc. that have a lot of surface area for the natural bacteria and enzymes to colonize on. Aquatic plants placed at the top of the Biofall will root down into the media and provide additional filtration. Finally, the water cascades over the front of the Biofall, aerating the water, while providing a beautiful cascading waterfall. Happy Ponding, BullfrogEd http://www.pondguys.com – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > We are about halfway into the hole for the new pond, but I am still trying > to work out the configuration for the filter. I need opinions on which is > better (or just a matter of choice), upflow or downflow? The filters I > peeked in at Reimer’s Waterscapes were downflow, but there was only a small > amount of water in the bottom covering the biomedia, and the foam was not > submerged, but the water was flowing through it. Does this work okay? I > just assumed it all needed to be submerged. Opinions please. Thanks. > Jennifer
Response:
I have a Sepro water filter and about a week ago after buying some water cress I placed some in the filter as an after thought just to see how it grew. Well in the pond its grown pretty well but in the dark recesses of the filter its gone mental and is spreading like mad. Is this going to detract from the filter process or enhance it please ? Thanks Steve
Response:
Every bit of growth is sponsored by nutrients your algae will never get. All those roots are bacteria surfaces. The dark color developing on the roots is dirt that is not circulating in your pond. Our only struggle is the root mass that finally fills the veggie filter. You have a genuine veggie filter. Enjoy it.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I have a Sepro water filter and about a week ago after buying some > water cress I placed some in the filter as an after thought just to > see how it grew. > Well in the pond its grown pretty well but in the dark recesses of the > filter its gone mental and is spreading like mad. > Is this going to detract from the filter process or enhance it please > ? > Thanks > Steve
Response:
>I have a Sepro water filter and about a week ago after buying some >water cress I placed some in the filter as an after thought just to >see how it grew. >Well in the pond its grown pretty well but in the dark recesses of the >filter its gone mental and is spreading like mad. >Is this going to detract from the filter process or enhance it please
Details of each pond are different, but in GENERAL you want to have plants as the 3rd stage of a good bio system 1 – filter bacteria eat waste, produce nitrites 2 – more bacteria eat nitrites, produce nitrates 3 – plants use nitrates for growth
Response:
well, maybe. some research seems to indicate that some (maybe all) aquatic plants prefer to use the ammonium over the nitrates. if so, the plants snatch the ammonium out of the water first, and what’s left can feed the bio filter. of course, more ammonium, more plant uptake, more plant growth – aha, a self adjusting ammonia eating system commonly known as ‘veggie filter’ if no ammonium is present, plants will uptake nitrate as second choice. i’m not claiming to be any kind of authority on the subject, but i know what i believe and i know what works for me i’ve seen a lot of nice ponds with plenty of plant growth, clear water and not much in the form of bio-filter. credit for the original concept goes to mother nature link at http://www.theplantplace.com/vfilter1.htm can provide more data. regards to the group, banjo — NEW and possibly improved…… with Lotus Pond 2001 addition and large piles of dirt! extra bonus - get the "scoop" on cowflop and the kudzu conspiracy…… "Pondering Frog" now at: http://personal.lig.bellsouth.net/~mdpas – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->I have a Sepro water filter and about a week ago after buying some >water cress I placed some in the filter as an after thought just to >see how it grew. >Well in the pond its grown pretty well but in the dark recesses of the >filter its gone mental and is spreading like mad. >Is this going to detract from the filter process or enhance it please > Details of each pond are different, but in GENERAL you want to have > plants as the 3rd stage of a good bio system > 1 – filter bacteria eat waste, produce nitrites > 2 – more bacteria eat nitrites, produce nitrates > 3 – plants use nitrates for growth
If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe our feed.