# How much filtration is needed?



## peter hardman (Apr 23, 2010)

Hi everyone. :thumb: 
Can someone please explain how aquarium shops get by with only one small sponge filter driven by an air stone on a 6ft tank crowded with fish for sale. Is it that they do water changes every few days or each week? :-?

Also could someone please let me know if you can work out how much or how many litres of filtration is needed for a 6ft tank with 580 litres. Can this be calculated? :?

Many thanks.


----------



## cantrell00 (Oct 30, 2010)

Depends on the filtration type.. Ideally, I try to turn the total water volume over 7 times per hour at the minimum...

No idea about the fish store.. Most of the one's I buy from have all of their tanks plumbed to a central, large sump/bio filter...


----------



## benny71 (Sep 30, 2010)

There are more variables than just the amount of water you have...You need to factor in how many fish you have and how "dirty" your fish are.

I like to go 10x the amount of water I have per hour.

You should be doing 25-50% water changes 1-2 times a week...Check your nitrate level to find how how much water you should be changing.


----------



## peter hardman (Apr 23, 2010)

To benny71 & cantrell00.

Thanks guys for your answers :thumb:, I now understand I will need to turn over the tank volume so many times per hour depending on the type of fish and quantity, but the question I'm trying to ask is what amount of media do I need to put that volume of water through? Like can I just put it through an area of 1 litre that has filter wool and some bio balls? Or will I need to put the volume of water through 5-10 liters of media or more? :? :-?

Sorry. Hope that makes sence to you.


----------



## MONEYCYCLE (Oct 7, 2010)

As far as the fish stores they do alot of water changes in this type of setup. Your tank does need alot of turnover per hour as far as media you need something for the bacteria to thrive easily if you are adding and removing fish for sale, suchas bio balls I have had great success with matrix media from seachem ( pond matrix for a sump ) for benificial biological bacteria. 1 liter of carbon should be sufficient to keep things in check. I wouldnt pass up using the UV if you can.


----------



## BillD (May 17, 2005)

As you have noticed, stores seem to get by with much less filtration than most posters here. you are right to question the amount of filtration you actually need. Every tank setup is unique, and the minimum amount of filtration needed will vary. People have opinions as to how much flow is needed, and how much your hourly turnover should be. In almost every case, it will be far more than filter manufacturers recommend. This is because almost everyone on here knows more about filtration than the manufacturers of said filter.
Bottom line is that if you want to know if you have enough filtration is to test for ammonia, nitrites and nitrate. If you have ammonia and nitrite levels of zero, you have enough filtration. the nitrate level will tell you how much and how often water needs to changed.
Also, anything inside a filter must be considered still in the tank; cannisters become an excellent storage container for solid wastes generated in the tank.
One of the very best filtration systems is the Hamburg filter which has a very low turnover, and requires almost no maintenance. So, peter hardman, you will have to make some judgements for yourself, based on the many opinions you see here, as well as the facts hidden in them.


----------



## cgmark (Aug 18, 2010)

To add to what everyone else has said, besides the water changes, don't overlook those sponge filters as something cheap and a bad filter. Sponge filters are some of the best filters at removing particles from the water. The reason is pretty simple. A sponge is submersed in the tank, when the water in the tank is pulled through the sponge you have the entire surface area of the sponge acting as an intake. Average intake is 1" pipe at most and that is large for most tanks. So you have a circular 1" air exposed to the tank in which to pull in debris. Now look at a sponge filter. 3" tall and 3" across, that is about 60X more surface area to capture debris.

Also because the water doesn't have to go through a pipe, filter , be returned it is filtered much faster.
I have used the technique of a powerhead + sponge filter many times and it can clear up cloudy water faster than anything.


----------



## cantrell00 (Oct 30, 2010)

http://www.riftlakecichlids.com/diy-lib ... er-t13.htm


----------



## peter hardman (Apr 23, 2010)

Thanks for the great link Cantrell00 :thumb: . It's a great read and I will try it on a 4ft tank I have in the garage. I might tinker with it a little and use power heads rather than air lifts but a change here and there shouldn't hurt the filtering. I also like the idea of using that space for fry area  .

Cheers. Pete


----------



## Glaneon (Sep 27, 2010)

cgmark said:


> A sponge is submersed in the tank, when the water in the tank is pulled through the sponge you have the entire surface area of the sponge acting as an intake. Average intake is 1" pipe at most and that is large for most tanks. So you have a circular 1" air exposed to the tank in which to pull in debris. Now look at a sponge filter. 3" tall and 3" across, that is about 60X more surface area to capture debris.
> 
> Also because the water doesn't have to go through a pipe, filter , be returned it is filtered much faster.
> I have used the technique of a powerhead + sponge filter many times and it can clear up cloudy water faster than anything.


It's not about the surface area of the intake. It's about the surface area of the media combined with the amount of water (GPH) that it moves.

As well, how many steps doesn't matter - GPH is the end result of how much/how fast water gets filtered.

A 200GPH sponge filter will not filter as much, as fast as a 600GPH filter (canister or HOB) with sponges inside (and other media of course). (That being said, if for some reason your filter is NOT pushing ALL the water through your sponge media, then you're not really filtering at 600GPH)

As long as your filter has sufficient sponge media to do the job - then GPH is the key.


----------



## fmueller (Jan 11, 2004)

I am sorry to have to disagree with Glaneon, but in my opinion GPH is a measure that has virtually no meaning at all. GPH just tells you how many gallons of water are pushed through your filter, but it says absolutely nothing about the effectiveness of the filtration. Any canister filter will reach the highest possible GPH if you don't put any media in it, because media will always restrict flow. Despite the fact that using no media will maximize GPH, I think it's obvious that without media basically no filtration will take place. Of course this is an exaggerated example, but it serves to underline my point that looking at GPH can be very misleading and doesn't tell you anything.

To get back to the original question of how much filtration is needed, you need so much filtration that all ammonia produced in the tank can be converted to nitrite, and all nitrite to nitrate. This bio-filtration is the crucial job of any filtration system. Everything else like filtering visible particles out of the water or removing tannins from driftwood is just icing on the cake. At the core of the bio-filtration job are nitrifying bacteria, and these bacteria need three things:

1. Surface area to grow on. 
2. Contact time with ammonia and nitrite.
3. Oxygen to accomplish the conversion into nitrate.

In most setups GPH will help 3. Up to a point, GPH will help with 2. because the more often the water goes through the filter, the higher the chance that any waste molecule comes in contact with nitrifying bacteria. However, if GPH is too high, there might not be enough contact time between the waste molecule and the bacteria to actually do the conversion.

But imagine a setup in which you have bio balls or a similar bio-filtration medium suspended in the tank itself together with the fish. You keep the water moving and supply oxygen by using a number of air-stones. In this case GPH is basically zero, because the water isn't circulated through anything. Yet, I bet you would have decent bio-filtration for a pretty impressive stocking level - in an atrocious looking tank :lol:

Sponge filters are much more effective than most people give them credit for, because they do all three things needed by nitrifying bacteria really well. With all that said, another reason that '_aquarium shops get by with only one small sponge filter driven by an air stone on a 6ft tank crowded with fish_', is because they don't keep the fish in that tank long term. Ideally they will be sold quickly, and if they die in the buyer's hands, he or she might wonder what they did wrong and ask on this site, even though the fish died due to the long-term effects of mistreatment in the shop. Personally, I would not buy fish from a 6' overstocked tank that only had a small sponge filter.

Last but not least, the Hamburg Mattenfilter made from Poret Filter Foam Cantrell00 linked to is hardly small. I use two of those mats to filter my heavily stocked 240G Lake Tanganyika setup to good effect, and I don't need to clean them more than twice per year! If you want to keep fry on one side, the airlift tube has a distinct advantage over a powerhead, in that it won't suck fry into the pump and crush them in the impeller chamber :thumb:


----------



## Glaneon (Sep 27, 2010)

Hey, I did say *with enough sponge material*.

If you have the same amount of sponge material in a 200GPH and a 400GPH filter - the 400GPH will, by it's very nature, filter more water.

I agree with the contact time - however, I'm sure there's a break-point where it works until it doesn't - ie, the bacteria dont have time to grab hold.

I would be curious to know what that point is.


----------



## fmueller (Jan 11, 2004)

Glaneon said:


> I would be curious to know what that point is.


Me too. Dr Tim might know, because he has done a lot of research on nitrifying bacteria. I wonder if he has done kinetic measurements to see how fast the reaction is.


----------



## Glaneon (Sep 27, 2010)

I guess to illustrate my point of "it's not the surface area of the filter" (alone):

You could stick a 3' sponge in a tank... 0 gph... and it's filtration would suck (pardon the pun). Even if you did 5-10gph, it wouldn't really keep the tank filtered.

I would posit: Given the same amount (volume/surface area, whatever your measurement of choice is) of media, the higher GPH will be more effective.


----------



## peter hardman (Apr 23, 2010)

opcorn: Sorry I can't add anything here but you guys keep going, I'm learning heaps just reading, thanks. Pete


----------



## 702Cichlid (Feb 28, 2010)

I actually love the simplicity and flexibility of a sponge filter. It does both mechanical and biological filtration and by adjusting the waterflow you can kind of customize what the filter is doing for your tank. By moving more water through the sponge you increase your mechanical filtration (which unfortunately makes your biological filtration a little less efficient) or conversely you can slow down your water movement and get extra biological filtration.

Also, most fish stores I've seen run a sponge filter do so in conjunction with a sump system or other primary filtration, check the tank for a PVC piece along the back and more often then not you'll see the sponge is a secondary filter for the six foot tank.


----------



## peter hardman (Apr 23, 2010)

Hi guys, below is a cut from this site I visited. http://www.aquariumlife.net/articles/aq ... are/27.asp I'm not saying I fully understand it  but maybe it will help/or not, on this subject.
Could you give me your thoughts. :-?

"Retaining water in the filter is far more important than having high flow rate ideally the water should be in contact with the beneficial bacteria for 4 to 6 minutes this can simply worked out by dividing the filter water capacity by the filters liters per minute (liters per hour divided by 60), for example if the filter container has a capacity of ten liters and a flow rate of 1000 liters per hour (16.7 per minute) the time in contact is 1.7 minutes there is another equation that comes into play here that is the number of times the filter turns over the tank water for example if the tank is 200 liters and the filter is 1000 liters per hour (16.7 liters per minute) this means the tank water is turned over 5 times so now the equation is time in contact of 1.7 minutes times tank turn over of 5 so theoretical time in contact 8.5 but taking into account that only a percentage of filtered water passes through the filter again every hour this figure can by reduced by 40 to 50% therefore making this filter ideal for a 200 liter aquarium."

Cheers. Pete


----------



## cgmark (Aug 18, 2010)

Glaneon said:


> It's not about the surface area of the intake. It's about the surface area of the media combined with the amount of water (GPH) that it moves.


Actually it is both. One of the big problems with filtering water whether it is in aquariums or swimming pools is getting the intake to pull in the debris and filter all the water. The inlets used on many filters are poorly designed. Most take the approach of lots of openings on the intake to make sure the filter always has more than enough access to water, but that is a bad design. If the intake cover is over sized the filter will work poorly at pulling in debris. I see complaints often where people say the filter isn't strong enough and that debris floats by the intake. Almost every time that can be solved by reducing the intake strainer size. Compare it to a vacuum cleaner with a large or small opening, the smaller you go the more suction. Of course you don't want to go too small but if you can put your hand next to the intake, not over it, and you don't feel it pulling, then something is wrong.

The sponge filter solves that problem by a different approach. It spreads the intake over a larger area but needs far less suction power than external filters because the debris isn't having to be pulled through a pipe, along tubing, through a filter. Every twist and turn in a pipe causes loss of flow rate. Too low and the debris will move slowly through the piping and further cut the flow.



> As well, how many steps doesn't matter - GPH is the end result of how much/how fast water gets filtered.


One thing I want to mention is that flow rate and pressure are not the same. Rate of flow is determined by the size of the pipe, the turns it makes, the pipe material. Without a high rate of flow from the intake and a proper sized intake it doesn't matter what GPH the filter may be. All it will filter is the easiest to pull in water, the water not containing particles.



> A 200GPH sponge filter will not filter as much, as fast as a 600GPH filter (canister or HOB) with sponges inside (and other media of course). (That being said, if for some reason your filter is NOT pushing ALL the water through your sponge media, then you're not really filtering at 600GPH)
> 
> As long as your filter has sufficient sponge media to do the job - then GPH is the key.


Have you tested your filters to see if they are delivering the GPH they claim ? I haven't found a single brand that does once it is set up. The problem isn't that the sponge media is large enough in the external, it is getting all the water to it along with debris. All of the filters sold usually have more than enough filter material, if you can get the debris and water to it. I have some animations I will put up later that show what the flow looks like if you could see it from the typical intake and return that most people have set up on their tanks. It is really interesting to visualize because you might think that because you return the water to the other side of the tank that it moves along the dirty water towards the intake and it keeps all the water filtered, but it doesn't.

The animations show that instead what happens is the water returns and forms channels of flow in the tank that become clean water returning to tank and being sent right back into the intake. The density of the water changes depending on what it contains and without something to break up those channels the lightest of water will stay above the water with the heavier content. I was surprised how much water can separate in a tank even when I thought I had enough power heads to keep it mixed. The guy that gave me the animations showed me how to solve it with external canister filters and since I did what he said I haven't had any problems with the tanks and was able to use smaller filters than before and on some tanks that required 2 filters I could now use 1. I don't even need to vacuum the bottoms except maybe once every 6 months, usually just the caves.

The key was to put the returns on the bottom of the tank, not the top like most designs. It has to have enough force that water returning to the bottom pushes water across the bottom of the tank and up the sides. By putting water that is less dense on the bottom the denser water above it tries to go lower and mixes with the water that is returning pulling it into the flow and preventing the water from forming layers.

The sponge filter solves this by having a much larger intake surface so that it isn't relying on water being provided from just one 1" area.


----------



## BillD (May 17, 2005)

cgmark said:


> Glaneon said:
> 
> 
> > The key was to put the returns on the bottom of the tank, not the top like most designs. It has to have enough force that water returning to the bottom pushes water across the bottom of the tank and up the sides. By putting water that is less dense on the bottom the denser water above it tries to go lower and mixes with the water that is returning pulling it into the flow and preventing the water from forming layers.


What makes the return water less dense than the water already in the tank? Water is not compressible.


----------



## cgmark (Aug 18, 2010)

BillD said:


> cgmark said:
> 
> 
> > Glaneon said:
> ...


The particles it contains. The guy that gave me the information is a water treatment and sewage system engineer. They use another method for filtering where the water is allowed to sit and it separates into layers based on how much material it contains other than water. That isn't really feasible for aquariums but that is what I meant by density I should have said viscosity or how thick the water is.


----------



## Glaneon (Sep 27, 2010)

Don't cherry pick my responses! I did say, if all other conditions are similar (amount of media or flow) the more flow is more important to getting water-turn over.

Yes, more sponge media will provide more surface area for bacteria, but that is only useful to a certain point ... THEN you need flow to get all the water in the tank through.

Yes, deeper water is more... heavy. Ever swim to the bottom of a 12' pool? It's the pressure that makes your ears pound.

My filters always rate the GPH with no media (which admittedly is only partially useful). However, if everyone does it - then apples to apples can generally be made. (Of course there are exceptions.


----------



## KaiserSousay (Nov 2, 2008)

I`ve wondered, when these discussions come up.
In my mind, flow/dwell time, would be like a long, leisurely meal over a continual snacking.
Same amount of food consumed, or possibly more during the snacking, with the added benefit of removing greater amounts of particulate. 
Probably all wrong, but that is what I was thinking.
Easy to get anthropomorphic in looking at this.


----------



## PfunMo (Jul 30, 2009)

I think we might also find an animation from a person thinking of a twelve foot deep sewage system to be quite different than what we find in the normal fish tank. I hope to never find the things they filter in sewers in my tanks even in small quanities. We may think our pleco are messy but what they put out settles out quite differently than things in the sewer.


----------



## peter hardman (Apr 23, 2010)

So guys, would I be correct in saying :-? a large GPH flow of water through filter media (say 6-10x the volume of the tank) is it going to be more of a machanical filter because the water isn't having the "hang time" to be biologicaly filtered?


----------



## Glaneon (Sep 27, 2010)

As long as there is sufficient sponge/bio media - more is better. We were just kind of discussing how fast is too fast.

However, salt water tanks need to have a LOT more turnover (or at least moving GPH) than freshwater. 6-10x is fine. If we were talking 50x... then I'd start asking how fast is too fast.


----------



## prov356 (Sep 20, 2006)

peter hardman said:


> So guys, would I be correct in saying :-? a large GPH flow of water through filter media (say 6-10x the volume of the tank) is it going to be more of a machanical filter because the water isn't having the "hang time" to be biologicaly filtered?


No, that's not correct at all. IME, you won't get the flow going so fast in any filter or system to reduce it's biological capacity. Your fish would be flying around like leaves on a blustery day.

'Filtration' is a complex topic with many variables, but doesn't have to be. Circulate some water in your tank (sponge filters are great for this), do water changes, and siphon out detritus and you'll do well. Keep it simple. I thiink it's being over thought here. Certain manufacturers would love us to believe that their filters do wondrous things that simpler devices won't. IMHO water changes are one of the best methods of filtering out there.


----------



## Glaneon (Sep 27, 2010)

Water changes don't "filter" a tank - they only remove components in the water that (are not in our tap water).

Your substrate could be considered a filter - gravel will trap more than sand for sure... and when you vaccuum the gravel (as PART of a water change) then yes, you are effectively rinsing your filter.

However, we all know that substrate alone does not hold enough beneficial bacteria (in a tank environment - it works in the real world when coupled with rainfall, leaching into the soil, evaporation, etc).


----------



## BillD (May 17, 2005)

At the risk of cherry picking, water change performs a similar function to filtering, in that it removes solid material from the tank, as well as liquid compounds.
As well, substrate alone CAN hold enough beneficial bacteria as evidenced by the use of undergravel filters, for many years, as the preferred method of filtration. Some stores still use it for their stock tanks.


----------



## Glaneon (Sep 27, 2010)

With a UGF, okay, point made... however, that's getting flow *through *the gravel, which, does indeed make it act like a bio filter.

Water sitting on top of gravel without a UGF is unlikely to be reliable enough (unless your stocking level is REALLY low - more like real world; ie, fish/cu.yd)

There should be VERY little solid material in the water itself; however, you're right about the compounds (ie, nitrates) - which is what I said as well.


----------



## KaiserSousay (Nov 2, 2008)

*substrate alone CAN hold enough beneficial bacteria*

*With a UGF, okay, point made... *

I would argue the need for an UGF to have healthy bacterial colonies on gravel, as well as on rockwork and other decor pieces.
The bacteria will establish most anywhere, but will thrive where oxygen and nutrient flow is best. 
This could well be across the surface of the substrata with the use of equipment we meant to move debris towards filters. 
If you have a nice flow pattern moving waste it`s just what the bacteria are looking for also.
This would hold true for lightly stocked as well as overstocked tanks since waste production is what governs colony size.
You would be surprised at how little bio specific media the average system needs, as well as how resilient the little buggers are.
Not Ã¢â‚¬Å"cherry pickingÃ¢â‚¬Â


----------



## Glaneon (Sep 27, 2010)

[b:2y4cdpc2 said:


> KaiserSousay[/b]":2y4cdpc2]You would be surprised at how little bio specific media the average system needs


Let's say that's true.

1) Why do most people only put biomedia in their canister filters? (ie, no carbon).
2) Why can canisters hold that much?

And.. unfortunately the only way to test would be to take some media out a little at a time until you start seeing ammonia or nitrites... which - is bad for the fish of course.


----------



## BillD (May 17, 2005)

It is clear that as aquarists, we make certain assumptions, which may or may not be true. Discussions such as this may help to filter the fact from the fiction. For sure, there are various ways to accomplish the same goal of zero nitrite and ammonia. Perhaps the manufacturers have a better idea of how to make filtration than every poster on this board thinks they do.


----------



## BillD (May 17, 2005)

Glaneon said:


> [b:31dvd3w9 said:
> 
> 
> > KaiserSousay[/b]":31dvd3w9]You would be surprised at how little bio specific media the average system needs
> ...


People fill the available space with bio media once they realize the carbon isn't necessary. Wgy leave a hole?
Cannisters hold that amount because the incompetents who designed them decided they needed that amount to do the job they advertise. If you frequent forums, you will soon learn that one cannister is rarely enough, or large enough. Never mind what the design size is.


----------



## Glaneon (Sep 27, 2010)

[b:2v1jd4ga said:


> BillD[/b]":2v1jd4ga]Wgy leave a hole?


Because once there is enough bio media in a canister, more material just reduces water flow.



[b:2v1jd4ga said:


> BillD[/b]":2v1jd4ga]If you frequent forums, you will soon learn that one cannister is rarely enough...


I've got a Fluval 305 (rated for 70 gallons) on a 75 gallon tank I only fill up about 85% (2 turtles need a basking area), along with a dozen normal sized gourami, 5 dwarf gourami, 6 silver dollars - and it does fine, never have ammonia or nitrites (and only 2 of the 6 "pockets" filled with biomax). And if you've ever kept turtles, you know they create a serious bio-load!

In this example, why would I need more than a 305? When I got my canister filter for this, I had done no research prior, just used the recommended for the volume - as advertised by Fluval. I can't be the only one to use manufacturer's recommendations as their guide.

I think speculation by enthusiasts may not take into account many things that a manufacturer might. However, I'm sure there are many DIY ways to accomplish the same goals of filtration - but that doesn't mean they're marketable solution.

My 2Ã‚Â¢


----------



## KaiserSousay (Nov 2, 2008)

You can attribute good water chemistry to the media in your canister if you want.
I`m not going to try to change your mind on that.
Just telling you, thru personal experience with canisters, I have found that at the extreme end of things, you can have a healthy tank with not a lick of bio specific media.
If you want to attribute the lack of ammonia or nitrite to what you have stuffed in your canister, well, fine by me. 
Been just where you are when it comes to that same old bio song.
A bit of dinking around with my system opened my eyes to the truth of the thing.
No hard feelings and no one need to Ã¢â‚¬Å"winÃ¢â‚¬Â


----------



## BillD (May 17, 2005)

If you spend any time on forums you will soon catch that very few people believe the manufacturers have any concept about how to rate a filter. I find it rather amusing.
As far as reducing flow, it would depend on what you add in. Aside from, that high flow isn't necessarily that important. Contact time may be more important. As we are seeing in this discussion, there are many factors that can affect filtration, and there is more than one way that will work correctly. you have found that your filter is working as advertised. There are more than a few who will dispute that and more that will tell you it is absolutely not enough.


----------



## peter hardman (Apr 23, 2010)

I am no expert with all this but I am learning lots from this post opcorn: Thanks guys for your input.
Now no laughing at me but, wouldn't the perfect filter be one that eliminates the task of water changes? Is there such a thing on the market already that removes Nitrates :-?


----------



## Glaneon (Sep 27, 2010)

Moneycycle was posting about that in another thread... an algae scrubber or something like that. Sounds like a lot of work/investment/space, but once done... apparently you just need to top off from evaporation.


----------



## MONEYCYCLE (Oct 7, 2010)

I love how these post get spread out. I did have a short conversation about an alea scrubber these work but they are a DIY. and space consuming. My DIY post was about a sulfur denitrator small but very efficient. As far as the original question here. Biological bacteria growth is the heart of any sucsessfull tank and many ways to accomplish its growth usually not hard to do just need some type of media wether it is sponge bio balls ugf rocks in a canister rag wrapped aroung an airstone. It will grow. Wether it is enough will be apparent if your ammonia never goes away. Carbon use is a preference among aquariest It has its benifits and drawbacks. Personally I run it to help controll oders and clarity although it is usefull in removing other things such as ammonia specifically but is not needed for that in most tanks but can help in a tank that is stocked beyond its biological capacity.


----------



## KaiserSousay (Nov 2, 2008)

*wouldn't the perfect filter be one that eliminates the task of water changes? Is there such a thing on the market already that removes Nitrates *

Control of nitrate level is not the only reason for a water change.
Many use the change to vac out gunk and crud and remove the super tiny organics we can`t see. 
Those that do it, use this time to buffer their water back to a spec they maintain.
Those fortunate enough to have really good water replenish minerals and trace elements beneficial to healthy fish.
Guess I`m saying, even if you could keep your nitrate at 0, a WC would still be part of a good maintenance plan.


----------



## MONEYCYCLE (Oct 7, 2010)

Yes no question. A water change from time to time to remove solid waste from your gravel is part of routine maint. As I have said before even if your nitrates read 0 dont overlook your general maint. Myself I change water for this reason only because I dose my tank with the neccassasry salts for gh and trace elements as well. But if your tank is getting these properties soley from your water change dont leav it out as these trace elements are used by your fish and will be depleted.


----------



## MONEYCYCLE (Oct 7, 2010)

neccassasry


----------



## peter hardman (Apr 23, 2010)

MONEYCYCLE said:


> I love how these post get spread out. I did have a short conversation about an alea scrubber these work but they are a DIY. and space consuming. My DIY post was about a sulfur denitrator small but very efficient.


MONEYCYCLE, is there any chance of you posting pic's for us to view your DIY sulfur denitrator in action?


----------



## MONEYCYCLE (Oct 7, 2010)

Im still trying to figure out how to post them. But I will as soon as I can.


----------

