# Internal UV Filter Some  Benefits - Jury is still Out!!



## REDSTEVEO (6 Nov 2014)

Hi all,

Just a quickie question. Has anyone used or had any experience with an internal UV filter such as the one below? Does anyone think it could be good for eradicating diatomous algae - brown algae?

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Aquarium-...2?pt=UK_Pet_Supplies_Fish&hash=item3f256fad9e

It has a built in UV Light and an oxygenating feature. I am thinking of getting one and giving it a try. Apparently it does not have to be a permanent fixture, just used as and when required.

Just a thought,

Cheers,

Steve.


----------



## ian_m (6 Nov 2014)

Marketing gimmick. Water flows too fast past UV tube to do any good.

http://www.americanaquariumproducts.com/AquariumUVSterilization.html

Brown algae (if you really have that) is easily wiped off things using say a piece of filter floss and is scoffed by Ottos. Normally a "new tank" syndrome (or massive replant) and will just naturally go away along with cleaning and water changes.


----------



## Bhu (6 Nov 2014)

I only get it in my pipes. Just cleaned them last night (first time in 50 days) so will keep a track of how long it stays away this time. The initial build up I think is due to being a new tank and lots of new plants. So now hopefully it will keep away  UV are just a strain on the flow if you get an inline one. Id only use one if I had a bad outbreak of parasites such as white spot.


----------



## Mr. Teapot (6 Nov 2014)

Even if you get a really good steriliser, I would have thought UV is only going to work on green water and leave all the other types of algae untouched.



Bhu said:


> I only get it in my pipes.


I would have guessed the coating on the inside of our pipes was a build-up of bacterial biofilm.


----------



## Bhu (6 Nov 2014)

Mr. Teapot said:


> I would have guessed the coating on the inside of our pipes was a build-up of bacterial biofilm.


 Yuk!!! Well I'm glad I cleaned them then. Not sure the kitchen sink was the best place mind you


----------



## ceg4048 (6 Nov 2014)

REDSTEVEO said:


> Does anyone think it could be good for eradicating diatomous algae - brown algae?


No, GWA only, as Ian noted.

Cheers,


----------



## Bhu (6 Nov 2014)

Mr. Teapot said:


> I would have guessed the coating on the inside of our pipes was a build-up of bacterial biofilm.


 Is that a cyano bacteria?


----------



## Mr. Teapot (6 Nov 2014)

Bhu said:


> Is that a cyano bacteria?



I wouldn't have thought so. I would hazard a guess it would be made of the same collection as the ones making a home on your filter media. All good stuff.


----------



## sciencefiction (6 Nov 2014)

And why do you guys say UV's eradicate green water algae only?
I installed a 9W UV on my 54 litre tank because I had one that came with another tank.
Before I installed the UV the tank had a thick layer of algae on the glass





After the UV right now has been working for maybe more than a couple of months. Rest assured I haven't cleaned the glass myself and sorry for the poor state of the plants. The tank is just a nursery for some fry right now that unfortunately appeared out of that red platy who's in there to keep the tank ticking.  The UV is connected to the powerhead of the sponge filter, outside the tank and is on super low flow. Unless the algae got rid of itself itself, then I give credit to the UV as the tank is pretty clean right now except its not maintained bar water changes.


----------



## ceg4048 (6 Nov 2014)

Yes the algae got rid of itself.

Cheers,


----------



## drodgers (6 Nov 2014)

I have a couple of these units they are more to keep ich at bay then green water etc and currently only on a African Cichlid tank.


----------



## REDSTEVEO (7 Nov 2014)

Well that got a bigger response than I was expecting 



ian_m said:


> Brown algae (if you really have that) is easily wiped off things using say a piece of filter floss and is scoffed by Ottos. Normally a "new tank" syndrome (or massive replant) and will just naturally go away along with cleaning and water changes.



This is not the easy to clean or wipe off brown algae that we get inside filter pipes otherwise I wouldn't have a problem with it. This diatoms or diatomous stuff that seems to cling to the eleocharis grass and is a pain to get off. You can siphon some of it off but other parts seem to be stuck, it is even impossible to brush it off with a toothbrush! This stuff moves with the flow and traps itself among the blades of grass, if you imagine a wind blowing debris through tree branches and it all getting stuck in the branches. 

I have just done a major trim of the grass, siphoned out as much as I can see, done a water change, and now am adding Flourish Excel and Easy Carbo to supplement the Co2. I can't pump any more Co2 in from the cylinder because the two drop checkers are edging towards lemon yellow as it is. I have also added a big powe head in one corner to increase the flow. I have not made my mind up yet on the UV, still thinking about it.



ian_m said:


> Marketing gimmick. Water flows too fast past UV tube to do any good.
> http://www.americanaquariumproducts.com/AquariumUVSterilization.html



Ian I read that article, some very useful information there thanks for posting it.

Keep the comments coming, we'll all learn from it.

Finally, why has drodgers post got a bug crawling round and round on it, I thought it was inside my screen!!


----------



## Zak Rafik (7 Nov 2014)

Hi
I have a Eheim reeflex 800 UV system ( 11 Watts)  for my 255 lt planted tank. Its on a timer to run from 6pm to 6am so as not to mess up any EI fertz.

Currently my tank is going through a bad episode of algae attack. I have BBA, GSA, BGA ( sounds very geeky right?) and god knows what else.

So is the UV doing anything now? I don't know and I dare not experiment by switching the UV off.
When I first set the tank up, I even had brown algae all over the tank.
The main drawback with installing a UV system is the reduced flow in the tank and that will bring about its own set of problems.
I think a UV might be useful in a tank where you have big fish or messy eaters. It may help in the reduction of the nasty "stuffs" from the waste produced.


----------



## Zak Rafik (7 Nov 2014)

REDSTEVEO said:


> Finally, why has drodgers post got a bug crawling round and round on it, I thought it was inside my screen!!



At least you thought only. I actually tried to brush it off the screen yesterday thinking it was a real bug.


----------



## Bhu (7 Nov 2014)

One huge fat oto somewhere in that tank now  ha ha ha


----------



## ian_m (7 Nov 2014)

sciencefiction said:


> And why do you guys say UV's eradicate green water algae only?


Because the algae has to be in the water column before the UV will touch it. Any algae growing on glass, rock, wood, plants etc isn't exposed to the UV, therefore won't be affected. For UV to affect any algae spores in the water, the UV exposure time & UV power has to be much greater than the in filter UV lamps provide.


----------



## Edvet (7 Nov 2014)

REDSTEVEO said:


> ecause the two drop checkers are edging towards lemon yellow as it is


which fluid and reagent  are you using?


----------



## Mr. Teapot (7 Nov 2014)

ian_m said:


> For UV to affect any algae spores in the water, the UV exposure time & UV power has to be much greater than the in filter UV lamps provide.



I would also have thought the spores, unlike the full grown version, would have been quite well adapted to withstand unfavourable environments including exposure to high levels of ultraviolet.


----------



## ceg4048 (7 Nov 2014)

UV radiation attacks both the spores as well as the germinated cells, damaging their DNA.
In GWA the germinated cells are suspended in the water column. That's why the water is green.
The spores typically are not suspended as they settle to the bottom and rest on leaves, tank walls and hardscape. The bulb therefore can only be effective against what is pulled in from the filter intake. The majority of spores escape but the suspended green cells are pulled in and are exposed to the radiation.

Cheers,


----------



## ian_m (7 Nov 2014)

Mr. Teapot said:


> I would also have thought the spores, unlike the full grown version, would have been quite well adapted to withstand unfavourable environments including exposure to high levels of ultraviolet


The UV light will be much stronger than the spores will meet in nature. But it does require sufficient "dwell time" for the UV to work, which the cheap UV units do not provide.

The best way to avoid the spores, obviously, is not to let spore generating algae appear in the first place, and even better than UV is a water change.


----------



## sciencefiction (7 Nov 2014)

ian_m said:


> Because the algae has to be in the water column before the UV will touch it.


 Yes, I am aware of that. But the UV may prevent any future spores settling on glass and plants. Water changes may help some, but you can't be doing continuous water changes. The UV works 24/7.



ian_m said:


> The UV light will be much stronger than the spores will meet in nature. But it does require sufficient "dwell time" for the UV to work, which the cheap UV units do not provide.


 
Isn't the dwell time determined by the powerhead to which they are connected? The UV sterilizer is just a unit with a bulb, then you connect it to a device that pushes water through it so it's up to the user to set it up correctly.


----------



## drodgers (7 Nov 2014)

Finally said:
			
		

>


----------



## drodgers (7 Nov 2014)

Zak Rafik said:


> At least you thought only. I actually tried to brush it off the screen yesterday thinking it was a real bug.


got me the first time too LOL


----------



## ian_m (7 Nov 2014)

sciencefiction said:


> Isn't the dwell time determined by the powerhead to which they are connected? The UV sterilizer is just a unit with a bulb, then you connect it to a device that pushes water through it so it's up to the user to set it up correctly


Yes, but when used in a filter, the flow rates past the UV, so that the filter is filtering, is far too short to actually do anything. But really you shouldn't be getting the spores in the first place, you are trying to fix the symptoms rather than providing a cure.


----------



## sciencefiction (7 Nov 2014)

ian_m said:


> Yes, but when used in a filter, the flow rates past the UV, so that the filter is filtering, is far too short to actually do anything. But really you shouldn't be getting the spores in the first place, you are trying to fix the symptoms rather than providing a cure.



The filter I am using is just for this purpose. It's basically a powerhead pulling through a sponge at the bottom.  It always had slow flow rate which was the reason I used it for the UV. I didn't install it for algae purposes but because I had the UV already and it was easy to connect to that filter.
The algae boomed when I removed all plants from the substrate at some stage and disturbed the tank a lot in the process. I actually needed that algae because I was growing a baby otto at the time. And right now I am trying to get algae in another tank so not all of us thrive to get sparkling tanks. What I am saying is that the UV seemed to clear the tank of the algae that was there. If you say it doesn't work, then the algae probably just ran its course itself. I can't know for sure. I am just sharing what I experienced.


----------



## ian_m (7 Nov 2014)

I have had an algae bloom, couple of days/weeks after when I did a major replanting and "combing" of substrate to get the sand back underneath the Fluval substrate. Bloom was slight green algae on the glass but mainly a large "dump" of brown diatoms on everything. Just all went away by itself with possible help from Ottos scoffing the diatoms, but no UV was necessary.


----------



## sciencefiction (7 Nov 2014)

The question is whether the UV works on algae or not. The tank doesn't have ottos in it. That picture was taken just before I removed the one and only baby otto. It wasn't even making a dent in the algae at the time anyway. I have snails and platies in the tank.


----------



## ian_m (7 Nov 2014)

sciencefiction said:


> The question is whether the UV works on algae or not


Yes UV does, but only if algae is in the water column and if the water is flowing slow enough.


----------



## sciencefiction (7 Nov 2014)

ian_m said:


> Yes UV does, but only if algae is in the water column and if the water is flowing slow enough.



Yes. I know that very well. But you guys are saying even if setup correctly it won't work on anything bar Green water algae. I don't know how the algae spores move around the tank, I am guessing with the help of the flow but surely they end up in the water column too, or enough of them at least.
Maybe someone else that has UV in their tanks can give some input too.


----------



## sciencefiction (7 Nov 2014)

Here is my flow, I think it's low enough for a 9W UV, if not too low.


----------



## ian_m (7 Nov 2014)

sciencefiction said:


> But you guys are saying even if setup correctly it won't work on anything bar Green water algae. I don't know how the algae spores move around the tank, I am guessing with the help of the flow but surely they end up in the water column too, or enough of them at least


 
http://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/...y-good-for-combating-algae.35000/#post-374878
As explained here, spores settle out and don't get into the water column.

And along with UV dwell time usually not being long enough to kill spores, means spores survive.

Though on saying that, my local fish shop uses UV units (big v2ctron units, some even on their own pumped loop) on their open top and planted tanks.  With out they suffer algae. They suspect it is all the "debris" and "detritus" carried in by customers, as well the public dipping their hands in the open top tanks causes the algae issues.


----------



## sciencefiction (7 Nov 2014)

So you are saying the algae spores settle like immediately. Where do they come from before they settle instantly? In that case we'll have algae just on one spot because they can't travel around the tank, especially in big tanks.


----------



## ian_m (7 Nov 2014)

sciencefiction said:


> Where do they come from before they settle instantly?


My understanding is algae produces spore under two circumstance that you encounter in an aquarium, if the going gets tough the algae turns to spores to ride out the tough times and be ready for that time you have a "CO2 disaster" and if the going is good ie your "CO2 disaster" they massively divide and produce spores to spread. The spores settling is why algae appears in glass, wood, stones, plants etc.


----------



## REDSTEVEO (7 Nov 2014)

Edvet said:


> which fluid and reagent are you using?



Hi Edvet, I have two types, one is a JBL reagent which I can add water at 4dkh from a shop bought bottle. The other type of reagent is a pre mixed solution from Aqua Essentials which you just add straight in to the drop checker. Currently I am using the JBL reagent in both drop checkers.

Why do you ask?

Cheers,

Steve.


----------



## REDSTEVEO (7 Nov 2014)

Hi all,

Well I seem to have set the cat amongst the pigeons here, but I think the debate is healthy and interesting, and pretty informative even though there are differing opinions. After reading all the posts I am still weighing it up, or at least I was! I have ordered the UV 9 watt internal filter, which looks a pretty good build spec, see link on first page. Although it does state 500 litres per hour which flies in the face of the apparent 'Dwell Time' for the UV to have a reasonable effect on the water flowing through it. I might have to try reducing the flow through the filter so the water stays longer in contact with the UV.

However, I thought what the heck, even if the UV does not sort out the diatomous alge, at least there will be some additional filtration and increase flow around the tank. 

I suppose if it works I will not really know whether it was the UV or the increased flow. Pity there isn't an 'on off' switch, still until I try it I won't know for sure. I have read so much stuff now on the net about UV reducing the 'Redox Potential' which apparently is a good thing.

The pictures below are not from my tank but it gives you an idea of what it looks like, at this stage it is not possible to brush or siphon off.










This picture probably shows it best what it gets like.





I know Clive will tear his hair out when he reads this but I dug out all my test kits from the garage and did some measurements.

PH using Drops kit 7.0
PH using a PH Pen 6.90
PH reading off a PH Electrode in the tank 6.75 at lights on
KH 1.0
GH 0.0
Ammonia zero
Nitrite zero
Nitrate over 100 parts per ml - This caused by adding the KNO3 as per the EI Dosing regime.

Some might say I have great tap water, it comes out at zero KH and zero GH, yet the PH is 7.0 which doesn't compute either, so the GH and the KH in my tank is really low. I ned to find a safe way to buffer it up I think?

I bought a TDS meter recently and found the following:

TDS straight from the cold water tap = 90 ppm
TDS water coming out of my HMA Filter = 120 ppm (how does that work) I thought HMA Filters were supposed to filter dissolved solids out of the water not add them?
TDS in the tank = 200 ppm (Which goes up to 300 ppm straight after I have added the CSM+ Trace which I suppose is to be expected.

Any views, comments, suggestions or recommendations based on all of the above very gratefully received.

On another note, I have just added two L - Plecs mini chocolate type to add to the grazing crew, and I never thought I would say this, two Zebra snails! I put the snails in yesterday and the rock I sat them on is absolutely spotless this morning.

So the debate goes on, and it is really on the subject of 'to UV or not to UV? That is the question

Cheers,

Steve


----------



## REDSTEVEO (7 Nov 2014)

Just read some interesting stuff in this forum.

http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/algae/31619-ok-smart-people-kill-my-brown-4.htmlMy 

The question is asked, are we plant growers or algae warriors? 

Steve


----------



## REDSTEVEO (7 Nov 2014)

Here are some actual photographs of what it looks like right now in my tank Photo quality not brilliant, my son got his camera back!













The slimy stuff is in the middle of the Monte Carlos.












This is the worst, the Staurgyrene is suffering like mad.




The Eleocharis seems to trap it like debris in the wind.
















The only good news is my discus are now feeding really well, coincidence?

Come on you Algae Warriors, or as the yanks say, 'Let's kick some Brown Algae Butt!!

Cheers,

Steve.


----------



## sciencefiction (8 Nov 2014)

Maybe, you should try a UV. If it does work, then it's empirical evidence against dry theories. If it doesn't work, then all of us are going to benefit from your experience either way.


----------



## Edvet (8 Nov 2014)

REDSTEVEO said:


> I can't pump any more Co2 in from the cylinder because the two drop checkers are edging towards lemon yellow


 That's why i asked. Co2 is hard to measure, the 4KH dropchecker should be correct, other fluids (some evensay use tankwater)are less reliable. Have you tried more CO2? are the fish reacting if you increase the levels?


----------



## X3NiTH (8 Nov 2014)

REDSTEVEO said:


> PH using Drops kit 7.0
> PH using a PH Pen 6.90
> PH reading off a PH Electrode in the tank 6.75 at lights on
> KH 1.0
> ...



Having a KH and GH of zero out the tap with a pH of 7 and a TDS count of 90 would seem to suggest the water is already loaded with buffers to raise the pH back up to 7 to make it safe for plumbing infrastructure (copper pipe) as neat RO (0KH 0GH 0TDS) is supposed to have a pH of 6.5 and would eat the pipes. There's probably other things making up that TDS like chlorine and chloramines so it's not all buffers.

From experience the pH buffers will be eaten over the course of a few days in tank so that at the end of the week your perceived injection pH profile measured with the probe will have shifted (added to tank biological influences this messes with co2 controllers big time if that's how co2 were being controlled).

I use BeeShrimpGH+ to remineralise RO/DI (0TDS) for my tank and so don't add any KH (presumed zero in tank). Your tap has 0KH but in the tank it's 1, are you adding any carbonates to do this or is it just how it ends up in the tank, if it's just how it ends up in the tank then likely as far as co2 is concerned it's probably still zero.

So at zero KH I can tell you straight away that if your pH is at 6.75 at lights on then there is no way you are adding enough co2, so I presume this is a mistake and you meant to say pH 5.75 at lights on. From experience co2 injecting (100% dissolution, no free bubbles) 0KH aerated water that has a pre injection pH of 6.7 requires a drop to around pH5.4 to turn the drop checker green/yellow, taking it down to 5.3 for me turns it strongly yellow and coincides with a fish hypercapnea event, evident with fish surface breathing and shrimps hanging on the waterline sponge above my Airstone and snails making a quick exit over the side of the tank (all gone now). Nerites don't last very long in this type of environment, usually a hole will first appear at the terminal point of the shell twist along with ragged edges on the shell around the opening.

With regards to UV I have no idea of the efficacy of mine on dealing with algae, it's on 24/7 and is an Aqua Medic Helix Max 9W inline unit that has about 300L/hr of flow going through it at any one time, it dealt extremely well with sorting out the white spot the fish had before they went in the tank and it's never returned since, that was 9 months ago so the bulb is probably on its last legs or already past delivering effective UV against anything.


----------



## REDSTEVEO (8 Nov 2014)

Thanks X3NiTH for your contribution to this discussion. I definitely think I need something to buffer up the GH and the KH in the tank, I have been adding some SERA Mineral salts that I used to add to RO water when I used RO before so that is what is probably buffering the KH to 1. The Nerites are doing a great job at the moment of cleaning up the rocks, I have taken quite a shine to them.

This morning I did a water change and removed some of the rock at the right hand side of the tank which seemed to be in the way of the water flow. I am trying to look at this from every angle to rid this stuff from my tank. I even wondered if the plastic substrate supports from TGM could be leaching something in reaction with the Co2, but Jim uses them and doesn't have the same problems.

I have tried having the Co2 on 24/7 but on a lower bubble rate of around 45 per minute and it made no difference. I have just connected up my Dupla PH Controller that I have always used in the past and set the PH to come on as soon as it goes above 6.9. Speaking of your comment below



X3NiTH said:


> so I presume this is a mistake and you meant to say pH 5.75 at lights on.



No it was not a mistake on my part it is definitely 6.75 at lights on and the PH Controller has just been calibrated with PH 4 and PH 7 solution so it should be pretty accurate. 

The UV arrives next week so as things are I am going to try it anyway and post here for all to find out what happens.

Cheers,

Steve.


----------



## REDSTEVEO (8 Nov 2014)

ceg4048 said:


> Too much media in the filter. Way too much. Flow will suffer.
> Cheers,



Back on page 4 of my 'Full Monty' Journal Clive posted the above when he saw how much filter media was going in to the filters.

I am beginning to think he was right after all! So next week I will be reducing it by half and adding pure Siporax to the filters instead of that horrible plastic stuff that came with the new filter.

Cheers,

Steve.


----------



## X3NiTH (8 Nov 2014)

If it's this Sera salt according to the Tip on that page it adds no KH. So if KH is reading and your not adding any then the test is being fooled by something else in the water unless of course the carbonates are coming from something else in the tank. Regardless, with this low a KH injected co2 slips in and out like a ghost and you need to keep the injection rate quite high to counteract your off-gassing rate. If your aim is 30ppm of co2 in the tank you are going to have to crank up the gas to make the pH drop at least 1.2 points.


----------



## Edvet (8 Nov 2014)

X3NiTH said:


> drop at least 1.2 points.


even lower i guess, i think you may need a drop of over 2 full points, maybe even more. The 1 point drop is at medium hardness app 9 KH ( don't worrie about the fish, they won't mind the drop)


----------



## REDSTEVEO (9 Nov 2014)

X3NiTH said:


> If it's this Sera salt according to the Tip on that page it adds no KH. So if KH is reading and your not adding any then the test is being fooled by something else in the water unless of course the carbonates are coming from something else in the tank. Regardless, with this low a KH injected co2 slips in and out like a ghost and you need to keep the injection rate quite high to counteract your off-gassing rate. If your aim is 30ppm of co2 in the tank you are going to have to crank up the gas to make the pH drop at least 1.2 points.



Yes it is that Sera Mineral Salt exactly. Maybe the mountain rock is buffering it slightly. When I was up at Steve Punchards place in Clitheroe I noticed he had a large tub of some white powder on a shelf. I asked him what it was and he told me it was pure Bicarbonate of Soda which he uses to buffer the GH/KH. There are good and bad reasons for using Bicarbonate of Soda, good it buffers the GH/KH, bad is it increases the TDS and ups the Redox, or at least that's what I think from reading on he net. Any views?

I have had the PH Controller on for just over 48 hours now. I have set the controller to turn the Co2 on when the PH goes above 6.48 which at the moment seems to be about right. Last night I noticed the Co2 was on but not much coming out through the sparay bar, I had a leak in the connector on my bubble counter. Fixed it temporarily, now looking at a new bubble counter and seen these for £8.99.











http://www.co2art.co.uk/collections/bubble-counters

Anyone got these or recommend something different?

Cheers,

Steve.


----------



## REDSTEVEO (9 Nov 2014)

Edvet said:


> even lower i guess, i think you may need a drop of over 2 full points, maybe even more. The 1 point drop is at medium hardness app 9 KH ( don't worrie about the fish, they won't mind the drop)



Hi Edvet,

I am slightly confused, when you say a drop of over two full points, I am taking that as a drop for example of from PH 7.0 down to under PH 5.0. Have I understood that right?

I have just changed the fluids in both drop checkers last night using 3 drops of the JBL Co2 reagent and 4dkh water and guess what? The colours are dark green, not quite blue but very dark green, and that is with the Dupla PH digital reading showing 6.48. What does that tell you?

Cheers,

Steve.


----------



## Edvet (9 Nov 2014)

I personaly h8te DC's. I would look at a pH profile and how the fish react. If the KH is indeed that low a small amount of CO2 wil give a decent pH drop, hence you'll need a big drop to make sure there is plenty CO2, the less KH the bigger the drop you need to have plenty CO2. Don't worrie about the pH drop being detrimental to your fish, it won't  ( "weak acid" reactions don't harm the fish). I


----------



## Edvet (9 Nov 2014)

I personally don't use or like dropcheckers. I prefer a pH profile to see what the CO2 is doing. At these low KH values you will indeed need a large drop as indication you have plenty CO2 (a low KH value won't buffer the acids that well and will show a pH drop quite fast, to have plenty CO2 available you will notice a big pH drop. Don't worrie about the fish though as it is a "weak acid"reaction, it won't harm them.
Should you still be afraid of the pH and don't want such a drop, you can alwyas use less CO2, but you will need to adjust (lower) the amount of light.
With a pH profile you start measuring when the CO2 is of ( and what you will measure depends on the balance between the acids and base's) so you might have a starting pH of 6,5 already, still you would need to drop it full 2 points to have plenty CO2 available.
I would just keep an eye on the breathing of the fish


----------



## X3NiTH (9 Nov 2014)

This is what the injection profile for 0dKH water looks like for an apple green drop checker (yellow DC needs more co2).
Take the reading from the readout of the UP on the right as the Weipro on the left is sensitive to change in low TDS and rubber bands a bit, the two controllers still correlate the same pH drop when stabilised.



As you can see it drops a full pH point in 20 minutes but then gets ever progressively harder to squeeze more co2 in to drop the pH all the way to a 1.3 total drop from the starting point. At the end of the injection period it takes my tank a full 6+ hours to degass the built up co2 using aeration via an Airstone, my tank acts like a closed bottle without it so it's on 24/7. If you have efficient enough surface flow your co2 will off gas quicker so the injection needs to be increased to counteract this. The co2 coming into my tank is injected via an inline through a 20" reactor vessel at the end of the main filter loop so when it reaches the tank the water is crystal clear and has no discernible free co2 bubbles, before I installed the reactor the inline atomised bubbles would get caught in the bell of the drop checker as they drifted past in my 10x turnover flow thus skewing the DC reading considerably.


----------



## pepedopolous (9 Nov 2014)

X3NiTH said:


> before I installed the reactor the inline atomised bubbles would get caught in the bell of the drop checker as they drifted past in my 10x turnover flow thus skewing the DC reading considerably.



Just read your sweeet journal  but no pics of this reactor you speak about. Could you show us how you have it set up?

P


----------



## foxfish (9 Nov 2014)

REDSTEVEO said:


> Fixed it temporarily, now looking at a new bubble counter and seen these for £8.99.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes I use one, in fact I use a modified one! I enlarged the internal nipple by drilling it out a bit. The result was dramatic ... my massive bubble count went down by about half


----------



## X3NiTH (9 Nov 2014)

All crammed in!



TankOut-(ø22x1.5m)-Eheim250T-(ø22x1m)-Helix9wUV-(ø22x1m)-InlineCo2-(ø22x2m coiled)-DTap-(ø22)-Reactor-(ø22)-DTap-(ø13x1.5m)-TankIn



That's what it looks like on its own, one of the elbows was changed after that construction because I over tightened it to stop it leaking and cracked the plastic. The joints now have ø1" vacuum cleaner roller brush rubber rings as o-rings to seal them (perfect fit). The pumps rated for 950L/hr, I get nearly half that once it's gone through that lot. Tank volume is 28L.


----------



## pepedopolous (9 Nov 2014)

Thanks. That's a beast! Food for thought...

P


----------



## dw1305 (10 Nov 2014)

Hi all, 





REDSTEVEO said:


> There are good and bad reasons for using Bicarbonate of Soda, good it buffers the GH/KH, bad is it increases the TDS and ups the Redox, or at least that's what I think from reading on he net. Any views?.


 It will add dKH, but not dGH (that is a measure of multivalent cations), and all salts will raise TDS. Usually more basic solutions will have a higher REDOX, but it isn't entirely straight forward. In a planted tank potassium bicarbonate (KHCO3) would be better for the plants.

If you want to make your own re-mineralising salt you can just use potassium bicarbonate (KHCO3), "Epsom Salts" (MgSO4.7H2O) and calcium sulphate (CaSO4.2H2O) (or calcium chloride (CaCl)), you don't need to add any sodium (Na), and all the chemicals are available cheaply.

If you want to know how much you need of each compound you can use the calculator at <"James' Planted Tank">.

cheers Darrel


----------



## REDSTEVEO (10 Nov 2014)

Thanks dw1305, I have got most of these chemicals, just ordered those I haven't from Fuidsensor Online

With all the help I am getting here surely the diatomous algae's days are numbered.

Steve


----------



## REDSTEVEO (10 Nov 2014)

The UV Internal Filter just arrived in the post.

Now I just need to know...'To UV or not to UV' that is the question?

Steve.


----------



## dw1305 (10 Nov 2014)

Hi all, 
I'm sure "X3nith" is right, and that a base has been added to your tap water by your water company to raise the pH, the usual one added is sodium hydroxide (NaOH), which combines being a strong alkaline with cheapness. They will also add some orthophosphates (PO4--) to ensure that any heavy metal ions that make it into solution are precipitated out.

In soft water I tend to ignore pH, because as you get towards pure H2O it becomes a less and less meaningful measurement. This is one of the problems when people extrapolate their (entirely valid) experiences from highly buffered systems like Marine or Lake Tanganyika to soft water systems. In heavily buffered systems you need large changes in water chemistry to effect pH, whilst in soft water any change in water chemistry will effect pH. In the case of CO2 addition you haven't changed the alkalinity of the system, you've just driven the CO2~HCO3 equilibrium towards CO2, lowering the pH. When you stop adding CO2 (H2CO3) the pH will rise. 

I'd be surprised if the UV filter makes any difference to the algae, but I would expect the algae to lessen over time without any other intervention.

cheers Darrel


----------



## ian_m (10 Nov 2014)

REDSTEVEO looking at your plant pictures carefully again, the algae is generally coming from poor health or dying plants. New shoots and leaves are fine.

I have had this type of brown algae & blackl on lower leaves (Glosso in my case) of my plants, in my case poor CO2 distribution. Upping CO2 until drop checker is almost yellow and putting in a 3000l/hr power head stopped the new growth getting algae. Had to trim away the lower bits of plants as the algae doesn't go away by itself.


----------



## REDSTEVEO (10 Nov 2014)

ian_m said:


> REDSTEVEO looking at your plant pictures carefully again, the algae is generally coming from poor health or dying plants. New shoots and leaves are fine.


Hi Ian,

That is the conundrum I am faced with, its like catch 22, the algae is coming from poor health or dying plants and it is the algae that is causing the plants to suffer from poor health causing them to die. Its like a viscious circle. The plants went in brand new and healthy, obviously there have been changes to the bio mass caused by the fish that have been added since, but generally everything else to do with ferts, water changes, lighting, flow, Co2 input has been done by the book.

I am increasing the Co2 gradually and at the moment the tank has been 'Blacked Out' for one day. I will need to remove the Black out tomorrow to fit the new UV Filter, this has got 500 litres per hour output which should increase the flow around the tank and move the Co2 with it.

Steve.


----------



## REDSTEVEO (10 Nov 2014)

X3NiTH said:


> As you can see it drops a full pH point in 20 minutes but then gets ever progressively harder to squeeze more co2 in to drop the pH all the way to a 1.3 total drop from the starting point. At the end of the injection period it takes my tank a full 6+ hours to degass the built up co2 using aeration via an Airstone, my tank acts like a closed bottle without it so it's on 24/7. If you have efficient enough surface flow your co2 will off gas quicker so the injection needs to be increased to counteract this. The co2 coming into my tank is injected via an inline through a 20" reactor vessel at the end of the main filter loop so when it reaches the tank the water is crystal clear and has no discernible free co2 bubbles, before I installed the reactor the inline atomised bubbles would get caught in the bell of the drop checker as they drifted past in my 10x turnover flow thus skewing the DC reading considerably.



Hi X3NiTH a drop to PH 5.60 is lower than I have ever had my PH are your fish wearing some kind of protective suit against acid burn and oxygen masks?

The kit on display you have there looks pretty impressive but I am not entirely sure what it all is That thing in the second picture is as big as your cabinet



X3NiTH said:


> The pumps rated for 950L/hr, I get nearly half that once it's gone through that lot. Tank volume is 28L.



Tank volume is only 28 litres but the pump is kicking 950 litres per hour through the system so even at half that it is 475 lph which is 16 times the volume of your tank being cycled in an hour! Have the fish got crash helmets as well

Cheers,

Steve.


----------



## X3NiTH (10 Nov 2014)

It's a dwell time reactor for crushing co2 into my water, there is an inline atomiser 2m before the unit (coiled 16/22mm Eheim piping). The water goes down the 40mm drainage pipe in the middle where assumed countercurrents give the co2 more time to diffuse into the water, any bubbles that escape the pipe at the bottom get caught in the sponges to give the co2 further time to diffuse into the water, the water that exits this unit goes straight into the tank and is crystal clear, annoying 7up effect banished and the DC can no longer be tricked by free floating co2 getting caught in the bell.

The fish couldn't care less about the low pH but pond Snails hate it as it dissolves their shells prompting their exodus or burial, Nerites last a little longer but the terminal point of the shell gets burned through and when that happens its game over for the Nerites.

All that flow comes out a 13mm glass crook and hits the front tank glass and then spreads across it, the flow is very gentle after this with the plants slowly swaying in a gentle breeze. My Purple emperor tetras love swimming against the flow from the crook, especially after a water change, thankfully they have outgrown being able to jam themselves into the crook. I wouldn't put a Betta in my tank though!


----------



## REDSTEVEO (11 Nov 2014)

Thanks X3Nith that explains the technology just fine. How do you find it with all that pipe work coiled up? I would like to fit a set of Eheim connectors in the pipeline from my filters to make them easier to remove for maintenance but there isn't enough pipework to slot them in. Bit of a pain, especially as I am about to replace a load of the plastic filter media in one of them with Siporax. I got four litres delivered in the post today, now I am just waiting for the new bubble counter to arrive and I'm ready to go.

I have put the UV in the tank today so I will wait now and see what the effect is. Updates later.

Cheers,

Steve.


----------



## X3NiTH (11 Nov 2014)

The coiled pipe work can be a pain if gas builds up in the line if I do a filter gut as I have it coiled vertically to fit behind the reactor, the UV higher up is the main culprit though (I really should lower it). Doing a water change however takes less time so pipe degas is minimal and doesn't give me any restart issues. Having the taps is very handy, it means I can isolate the reactor from the system for giving it a clean and not interrupt flow to the tank any longer than necessary by reconnecting things up without the reactor in the loop so I don't end up with air locks by taking too long. I only get restart issues if I open the filter for cleaning.


----------



## REDSTEVEO (16 Nov 2014)

I have posted this in my Full Monty Journal, but I thought I better update everyone watching this thread. Well today I bit the bullet and removed most if not all the Eleocharis from the tank. A fair few bits of substrate support came out with it. I pruned the Monte Carlos to within an inch of its life, the damn thing was about three inches thick, no wonder there was a flow problem around it. I also removed some smaller pieces of rock from around the base of the hillock, they were not adding anything to the look and just took up space and reduced the flow so they are out.

I regrouped some of the Staurgyrene and some of the Altanantheri Reinecki then leveled the sand, siphoned out about 80 litres of water with the muck resulting as a result of the removal of the Eleocharis.

Topped up the water, cranked up the Co2 added Flourish Excel and now am waiting for the water to clear. I will take some photos tomorrow when things have settled down.

So what is the situation with the Internal UV I hear you asking? I can only say the jury is still out on this. It must have made a difference to something because two things have happened. For one, the water has had a clearer edge to it, secondly the KH has gone up from 0 to 4dhk in just over a week, which is obviously doing something to the PH because I have noticed the the PH Controller is coming on more often and pumping Co2 into the tank. The other good thing is that the UV Filter is pushing another 500 lires per hour around the tank and taking the C02 with it. The other handy feature is the oxygenating function which I am sure is doing something with higher levels of oxygen the discus don't seem to be breathing as quick as they were.

I am thinking of getting a single Koralia powerhead to replace the UV in a few weeks time.

Is the UV having any effect on the algae? Not sure to be honest but the rocks seems to have less green algae on them.

The jury is still out! I will update in a few days time.

Cheers,

Steve.


----------

