# Does anyone else hate their UGJ's?



## boredatwork (Sep 14, 2007)

Maybe hate is a strong word, but I really don't like them. I have been running a new tank with UGJ for a couple months on a 125G tank with an FX5 filter. It is two closed loops with 4 jets each. Each loop is powered by a Rio 2100.

I have several rock caves in the back of the tank and I have noticed that the jets are useless at moving poop away from the rocks. In fact after watching the tank a few times the poop usually ends up in the rocks. Also, there seem to be several spots where poop accumulates on the sand - even though there is flow there.

I suppose its possible that the jets are useful, but considering the disadvantages I am wondering if its really worth it - or are we just obsessed with DIY overkill.

Just wondering if anyone else is unhappy with UGJ's - even though it feels like heresy to even suggest that, haha.


----------



## gordonrp (Mar 23, 2005)

Not used them, I just use aquaclear powerheads (1 each side of the tank), near the bottom to blow all poop to the filter intakes. works well.


----------



## CICHLUDED (Aug 4, 2006)

Iâ€™ve never used them eitherâ€¦ I have heard good thing (not very many) and bad thing (quite a bit) about themâ€¦

Personally I think they are over rated..

I donâ€™t see how they would do much good, unless your fish are trained to poop directly in the jet-streamâ€¦ 

:fish:


----------



## fishwolfe (Mar 27, 2005)

yes.i took them out and left them out never to be used again.


----------



## SLIGHTLY STOOPID (Dec 23, 2004)

There does seem to be a UGJ cult on this board. I am not a member.


----------



## Nighthawk (Mar 13, 2003)

SLIGHTLY STOOPID said:


> There does seem to be a UGJ cult on this board. I am not a member.


I'm not either.


----------



## booba5 (May 3, 2008)

Mine seem to work great, now i also have 1750 gph filtration on a 90 gallon. I have 1 400 gph pump running 4 outlets, and a 350 running 3 more, there was some reduced flow after a month, but thats when it was time to clean them anyways. When i built it i intentionally put some of the outlets in the rock work that i did, so it would create current through the rockwork so the poo couldn't settle


----------



## Mcdaphnia (Dec 16, 2003)

I like the powerheads that come with a box and a knobby outflow. They are more effective and more energy efficient than a UGJ. You are almost stuck with any design flaw or dead spot with a UGJ. with these powerheads, you just rearrange them or add another if that doesn't do it.


----------



## fishwolfe (Mar 27, 2005)

> I like the powerheads that come with a box and a knobby outflow.


what brand are these?


----------



## blairo1 (May 7, 2006)

Can't say I see the necessity for them either, I point my xp3's spraybar downwards and that does as good a job as any, if not better, everything gets pushed into the left of the tank where the inlets are and I've not got annoying pvc tubes and jets to cover up, be uncovered/get in the way of rock/driftwood placement etc.


----------



## TheBanker (Jun 14, 2008)

*boredatwork* i know exactly how you feel about the usj. I built 2 closed loops with 3 jets each powered by 2 maxi-jet 1200's. I feel that the concept is great, but it just does not work for everyone set up.

My #1 problem was the substrate i picked. I guess its to light, and takes forever to settle, so my tank would constantly look like snow was falling everywhere. And not to mention the sand the fish stir up in front of the jets.


----------



## iceblue (Apr 27, 2004)

I believe design of the flow in the tank is sometimes missed or not given enough consideration when designing a ugj system. The jets should be located and work in conjunction with your filters intake and returns to cover as much area as possible. Nothings fulllproof and there will always be that dead spot where detritus accumulates but those are much easier to vacuum up then crud being all over the place.


----------



## Mcdaphnia (Dec 16, 2003)

fishwolfe said:


> > I like the powerheads that come with a box and a knobby outflow.
> 
> 
> what brand are these?


 Rio.

http://www.lagunakoi.com/prod258.html

I should not have said they come with the knobby outflow. Mine did, but only because I bought them at the same time.  They look something like the fittings near the bottom of this page. http://www.saltycritter.com/plumbing.htm

I was checking this out.

http://www.saltycritter.com/pumps/vortech-pump.html

Now* that* might replace your UGJ system! I've seen the insane flow from the mod kits, so it is hard to imagine what kind of flow one of these would produce across the bottom of the tank. Maybe the sand bottom would be pasted against the back wall!

Mod kits replace the original rotor with a large propeller in an external cage attached to the powerhead. You would not get as much flow from a trolling motor stuck in your tank as from one mod kit. They need really secure attachment to the tank because if they break free, you would have serious problems. http://www.saltycritter.com/pumps/sureflow.htm


----------



## fishwolfe (Mar 27, 2005)

i have a rio 2500 great pump.and i hear you about the secure attachment.i had a 1140 penquin suction cup come lose and spayed everything real good before i could get to it.just glad i was home.stupid suction cups :x


----------



## dooo_36 (Jul 16, 2008)

i would think the UGJ system is great and i plan to use it for my tank but what i think is the biggest factor in using that system is that you have to plan around your decor... or rock set-up. in a small tank i could see maybe how circulating the water may be great and work just fine but obviously if there is a flaw in your initial design you will have a place in the tank where your jets are intentionally building up the poopoos. think of it this way you got two currents running into each other than they are basically canceling each other out and then being rendered useless if not causing a negative effect (buildup).

anyways im no expert on UGJ but what i plan on doing is just running my jets to force the current to one side of the tank... and have it function with the decor in my tank. if i have a rock pile in the way of the current obviously i want to put a jet there so that no build up occurs on the dead side. and then of course have the pumps at the collecting end. this way every jet is working in a collective manor. harmoniously in sync lol.

this might work for some tanks and might not for others... some people want to be able to change the tank around, and in my case that won;t be possible so, so in a way UGJ's are only good for one design/decor setup (in my opinion)..., but to answer your query i would say there is a flaw in your design that is causing the buildup and your jets are intentionally blowing the poopoos to those dead spots. :-?


----------



## blairo1 (May 7, 2006)

I think your intention of design (*dooo_36*) would be how I too would implement the design - ie UGJs one side all pushing the same direction (at least that's the impression I got) and IMO makes the most sense, but again, I don't need to because all I did was aim my XP3 spraybar jets at a 45 degree angle and it does exactly what your UGJ's will do.

Why go to the effort and hassle (and potential limitation) of putting in all those UGJs when pointing a spraybar (or as Macdaph suggests, a circulation pump - I like the Hydor koralia) accross the surface of the sand does the same thing?

I keep my filter inlets on the left of the tank and the outlet spraybars on the right, pushing the water the entire width of the tank from right to left, all of the poop ends up at the far left of the tank where my filter inlets are. I rarely see any poop in the tank - 55gallon, 7 Bolivians, 2 Laetacara, 1 7.5" Rotkeil, 1 7.5" pleco,4 Corys and 8 Rummynose tetra, filtration is xp3 and fluval 305.


----------



## dooo_36 (Jul 16, 2008)

i guess you haven;t seen my personal DIY project :lol: :lol:

cause in my case spray bars at the top of my tank won;t work. my tank is 4.5' tall and 9' wide 3.5' deep.


















i'm currently sealing it... about halfway through now

Beautiful tank BTW :thumb: =D> :drooling:


----------



## blairo1 (May 7, 2006)

:lol:

I did think of that after I posted and it is a good point, I guess it really depends on the individuals circumstance. A tank that deep would be an interesting one for getting rid of the deadspots.

Looks good bro, should be an awesome tank! I'd love the room to build a tank like that into my wall, let alone the room to have a tank like that! I can see why you won't be changing stuff about too much, got a snorkel?

:thumb:

(Thanks for your kind words!)


----------



## dooo_36 (Jul 16, 2008)

im not even sure if im going to have any plants in mine... yours look real, hows the upkeep on those.

man i would love to have plants like that. :drooling:


----------



## iceblue (Apr 27, 2004)

I agree a ugj as most people use them is limited and their are a lot of other options to achieve the desired results of keeping detritus off the substrate. For those who like to change their decor often a fixed ugj system simply won't work well. For those that have static decor in their tank a well designed ugj can be a real maintenance saver.

Quite a while back another member solved some of these problems using a modular system on their jet outlets. The flex tubing and various nozzles allowed them to maximise their system even if they changed thier decor around. http://www.modularhose.com/Loc-Line-14-System/14-kits

Sometimes (for me anyway) tinkering with what you already have is what diy is all about.


----------



## boredatwork (Sep 14, 2007)

Wow, I really did not expect that response. Seeing the "UGJ cult" comment makes me realize thats what happened. I was indoctrinated through all the posts and articles but now I have been set free, haha. I guess because people who don't like them don't post that opinion I thought I was all alone. I was even hesitant to post that I didn't like them because it seemed like heresy. All you ever see are posts about how they are so great and how they work like magic. So when they didn't I thought I was an idiot (which may still be true but perhaps not for this reason).

Aside from that revelation, and to put out some useful information from my experience, I wanted to address some of the issues I experienced with UGJ's because I have spent a lot of time working with them.



]I believe design of the flow in the tank is sometimes missed or not given enough consideration when designing a ugj system. The jets should be located and work in conjunction with your filters intake and returns to cover as much area as possible. Nothings fulllproof and there will always be that dead spot where detritus accumulates but those are much easier to vacuum up then crud being all over the place.[/quote said:


> In my opinion "optimal UGJ flow design" is like the white stag, Eleanor, the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, etc. In other words you could say that a UGJ is not optimized and thats why it doesn't work but if you can never optimize it, then maybe it already is optimized and looking for the optimal flow is just a lack of acceptance that its not going to do what you think it can do. At least thats what I have come to realize. I spent (i.e. wasted) a lot of time trying to "optimize" the UGJ flow. And to be honest the rock setup in my tank is super simple yet I could not achieve the results that I was led to believe were possible. In fact, I think the UGJ did more harm than good - I will explain more in a bit.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## prov356 (Sep 20, 2006)

I'm another one that thinks UGJ's are highly overhyped. The returns from my wet/dry, for whatever reason, push the detritus to one or two spots in the tank and I just vacuum it up from there. Not worth all the trouble, expense, and decor restrictions of a UGJ. And I'm very skeptical of whether they'd really eliminate substrate vacuuming now matter how you set it up. Just my two cents.

Nice to see this thread, btw. Thought I was the only one.


----------



## boredatwork (Sep 14, 2007)

prov356 said:


> Nice to see this thread, btw. Thought I was the only one.


Thats what I used to think too.



prov356 said:


> I'm another one that thinks UGJ's are highly overhyped.


If prov says it then I know people will listen...

I really want to stress that my original intent was to find out if I was the only one who thought UGJ's were a scam. Now that certain people have expressed that opinion I want to say that I think this is an important thread for a different reason.

When I am looking to add or change something about my tank one of the first things I do is search through the forum to find out what other people have done. That way I learn through other people's experience - herein lies the value of this forum. When you search for UGJ's you do not find any skepticism about their usefulness. So hopefully for the next person thinking about UGJ's they will find this thread and can have some useful information to make a decision.

Now, the point I wanted to make was something prov mentioned. I don't remember if this is addressed in the library article on UGJ, but unless you have a filter intake that is submerged (HOB, cannister, DIY overflow) the UGJ will have extremely limited usefulness unless you have some crazy setup where you blast the poop to the top of the overflow - which would be interesting.


----------



## prov356 (Sep 20, 2006)

I've just heard too often that they eliminate the need to vacuum substrate, and that's what I mean by 'overhyped'. They still may be a good idea in some setups, but I think I'd try other ideas first to accomplish the same thing. Whatever you use, seems to me that some sort of bottom cleaning is always going to be necessary. I don't see how you'd get around it.

I think you've outlined pretty well, boredatwork, what I suspected would happen in a UGJ setup. I've heard of pointing the jets at the intake of filters, but intakes don't grab everything that comes nearby. It's more of a gentle pull, not a jet engine intake. I envisioned exactly what you described. Stuff floats around until it either happens to float right up to an intake or gets stuck or settles somewhere before it can.

In a tank like yours, doo_36, I think I'd consider some sort of strong filter intake or two near the bottom of the tank hidden under rocks or some other decor and then use a few pumps to try to keep things circulating at ground level a bit. Pull stuff into that intake to an external canister filter that's near a drain and easy to back flush frequently. Nice tank, btw. :thumb:


----------



## booba5 (May 3, 2008)

my usj's work great, i think in doo_36's case, he should use a combination (with that much tank volume he's gonna have plenty of outlets from filters), I'd have some usj's, then spray bars to help keep the poo suspended so the overflow or intakes can catch them. I dont know if this is true or not, but i had usjs on my 75, which was taller than my 90, they didn't work as well. I think this is because i had an overflow which was at the top of the tank, so the poo had to stay suspended all the way to the top of the tank. My 90 is shorter, and i also have intakes at different levels. If it wasn't for my fish growing and being happy, i'd swear they are all constipated, well except my pleco.


----------



## dietz31684 (Aug 29, 2007)

I used mine for about 3 months. I ran a Rio 2500 pump with 7 jets on a closed loop and it was too much for the small grain play sand that I use. I think they are very difficult to use in a mbuna set up with all of the rocks. I put a ball valve on the pump to weaken the jets and it would still blow the sand out from under the rocks and all over them. Just my $.02


----------



## D-007 (Jan 3, 2008)

I'm actually glad this thread was started. Why? Because I too was led to believe that UGJ's would 'encourage' a cleaner tank with less vacuuming etc. Being a bit of a skeptic I've been 'watching' posts about them and their 'inadequacies' before actually setting one up. Even though I have already bought a couple of powerheads for the idea (CAP 3200's), thankfully, I have not setup the UGJ's yet. Guess I'll have to figure out a different use for the powerheads; maybe a DIY sump for my 55g. 8)

About the only thing I have been able to find useful about UGJ's is the fish like to swim in the flow from the jets but this can be achieved with just the powerheads themselves anyways.


----------



## dooo_36 (Jul 16, 2008)

prov356 said:


> In a tank like yours, doo_36, I think I'd consider some sort of strong filter intake or two near the bottom of the tank hidden under rocks or some other decor and then use a few pumps to try to keep things circulating at ground level a bit. Pull stuff into that intake to an external canister filter that's near a drain and easy to back flush frequently. Nice tank, btw. :thumb:


and actually prov this is exactly my set up i have two canister filters one is a pond filter with bio balls and UV Light that claims to handle up to 4000 gallons, the second is a sand pool filter about the same size, and i have individual pumps for each. i think my pumps may not be enough but i'll have to see how they work out before i buy bigger ones. right now they are rated to move total about 3500 gph and i know i have seen the articles that i need at least 4 to 6 times the water exchange but my tank is a little different so...

well after reviewing everyone's incite i definitely can see the setbacks a UGJ system would have. i guess it gos a little something like this: you beef up your pumps for suction, which in turns creates more current on your UGJ's which then creates too much movement of the poop, and if its moving too fast theres no way the pump will catch it. and i can see how that alone is the flaw in the entire setup from the start. it sound like a vicious cycle. lol

i have somewhat of an idea but im running late for work so when i get in the offie i will draw up an illistration of what i want to do and i would luv everyone thoughts on it.

thanks


----------



## Britnick (Apr 18, 2008)

I have a 600l planted African tank (yeah I know) with white coral sand. I put two UGJ loops in because I though they were a good idea, would help keep the sand clean and I could easily hide the jets with plants and rocks. I also put a jet in under my rock pile and another jet pointing into the pile. The two powerheads have filter attachments, full of wool, so these help capture the bits as well.

Having said all this, they arenâ€™t the total solution and they do have a drawback, the primary one is you canâ€™t stop the dead spots. No matter how hard you try there will always be some secluded spot where â€˜stuffâ€™ builds up. For me there are three/four rocks at the back of the pile near the external filter intake where the current drops off just enough to allow the debris to fall. It was supposed to fall into the filter intake, good design I though, but no. It builds up on the rock and I have to siphon it off every few days.

Still the gravel is clean and the sight of the plants moving gently in the wash of the jets is very effective.


----------



## dooo_36 (Jul 16, 2008)

ok this is what im thinking... creating a scoop that basically directs the debris to the pumps for filtration. now my particular set up will have a greater low pressure (suction) than high pressure current that the UGJ's will be creating. cause i have two pumps perhaps sucking something over 3000 GPH ( i understand there is resistance so i probably won;t get the full 3500gph) and one pump (my larger pump 1850gph) will be used to power the UGJ's the smaller pump return (1650 gph) will be used to disturb the surface and oxygenate the water like a spray bar.

Having more suction than current, i think is also a great design idea and in conjunction with the scoop helping concentrate the current to the pumps, i don;t see how this couldn't work. i also don;t think this will work for smaller tanks... since mine is so large i kind of have the space.

i can see the flaw of relying on the pump catching the poopoos when its receiving water from all directions and a strong current pushing the poop right past the face of the intake, i think my idea at least reduces that, and actually works in partnership. the only set back i see so far is creating an easy access to the pumps, which i think can be worked out.

i also don't anticipate this to be full proof. but i think this will help largely in reducing the amount of manual cleaning i will have to do.

of course i do plan on hiding this all as well as possible perhaps the scoop can be like a rock cliff or something.

Ya'lls (Texan) insight is greatly appreciated, so what you think?


----------



## dooo_36 (Jul 16, 2008)

ok this is what im thinking... creating a scoop that basically directs the debris to the pumps for filtration. now my particular set up will have a greater low pressure (suction) than high pressure current that the UGJ's will be creating. cause i have two pumps perhaps sucking something over 3000 GPH ( i understand there is resistance so i probably won;t get the full 3500gph) and one pump (my larger pump 1850gph) will be used to power the UGJ's the smaller pump return (1650 gph) will be used to disturb the surface and oxygenate the water like a spray bar.

Having more suction than current, i think is also a great design idea and in conjunction with the scoop helping concentrate the current to the pumps, i don;t see how this couldn't work. i also don;t think this will work for smaller tanks... since mine is so large i kind of have the space.

i can see the flaw of relying on the pump catching the poopoos when its receiving water from all directions and a strong current pushing the poop right past the face of the intake, i think my idea at least reduces that, and actually works in partnership. the only set back i see so far is creating an easy access to the pumps, which i think can be worked out.

i also don't anticipate this to be full proof. but i think this will help largely in reducing the amount of manual cleaning i will have to do.

of course i do plan on hiding this all as well as possible perhaps the scoop can be like a rock cliff or something.

Ya'lls (Texan) insight is greatly appreciated, so what you think?


----------



## prov356 (Sep 20, 2006)

It's not a bad design, but I'd shorten the wall between the pump and the tank. Make the intake as low as possible, so you don't fight gravity. I'd slant the wall as well to discourage a dead spot from forming right in front of it.. I think some dead spots are inevitable in any design, though. Key is to minimize them or have them where you can get a vacuum tube to them.


----------



## MalawiLover (Sep 12, 2006)

I like UGJ, but I think it depends on the typ of fish in the tank as to wheter or not they work well. I had them in my mbuna tank and were a nightmare. The fish continually uncovered the pipes and piled the sand on the jets either blocking them or causing sand to blow around the tank.

In my peacock display tank, they seemed to work fine. I still got rid of them, but it wasn't because they were not working, I just wanted to go a different direction with my flows.


----------



## fishwolfe (Mar 27, 2005)

> I had them in my mbuna tank and were a nightmare. The fish continually uncovered the pipes and piled the sand on the jets either blocking them or causing sand to blow around the tank.


that's exactly why i removed mine.


----------



## boredatwork (Sep 14, 2007)

I think its clear what my opinion is, but I think the suggestion of using the powerhead by itself is a really good idea.

After having created two UGJ systems I also agree that you are going to have to clean your tank even with UGJ's installed. For me, I'd rather have the poop and waste out in the open where its easy to clean, and then keep up on the cleaning. Especially since if you have sand substrate (which I do) the poop is really hard to see to begin with. So visually I don't think there is any negative impact.

As has been realized the poop doesn't really go away it just gets pushed out of sight, so you are going to end up cleaning it out anyway. And after my most recent experience after re-doing some of my rocks I'd rather use a python to clean the sand then have to clean behind my rocks more frequently.

An idea worth pursuing is creating better suction that goes to the filter because that is the limitation. The UGJ's do a good job of making waste float around - but that also makes it hard if not impossible to be sucked up by the filter. With increased filter suction it might be possible to extract the swirling poop.

But again, for a tank with overflows this becomes very difficult. If you had a cannister or HOB then you could almost make like a UGF/Cannister combo.


----------



## boredatwork (Sep 14, 2007)

And...the biggest thing (for me) is the silence. I had a little ceremony when I shut down my UGJ's. I am amazed at the peace and quiet without the UGJ pumps running. I'm loving it.


----------



## booba5 (May 3, 2008)

Maybe it was your pumps or somethin, my two are completely silent, my hobs are 10000000x louder.


----------



## boredatwork (Sep 14, 2007)

booba5 said:


> Maybe it was your pumps or somethin, my two are completely silent, my hobs are 10000000x louder.


Everything is "completely silent" compared to the loudest thing in your tank. Trust me, I have wasted a lot of money on equipment that people have told me is "silent" to find out that when they said silent they really meant it wasn't the loudest thing in their setup. Noise is extremely subjective.

I experimented with a non drilled overflow and sump setup. When that was running I would have told you that the UGJ pumps were not that loud. Once I ripped that out (literally) then the pumps went back to being really loud. Now, everyone else who hears them said they weren't that loud, but when I was home thats all I heard. Even if I was out of hearing distance I still heard them.

With the UGJ pumps on I would have told you my FX5 was "silent". Now after turning the UGJ pumps off now I think my FX5 is loud.

So who knows what any of it means.


----------



## booba5 (May 3, 2008)

good point, i guess with that in mind, i will rephrase to where it is the silentest (i know it's bad grammar, but i thought it sounded funny) my magnum 350, and 2 70s are a lot louder than both of these. Ironically, on my 55, my "whisper" sounds like a coffee grinder all the freaking time lol, but my fahaka doesn't care, otherwise he'd eat the intake tube....like when i used to have a heater...


----------



## Eb0la11 (Feb 29, 2008)

I submitted an article to the site about how to improve UGJ flow rates as a method of ensuring even flow or controlled flow from each jet but it's been about 3-4 months and the article has still not been posted. This could help a lot of aquarists when designing their UGJ system with flow scoops but the site apparently didnt like the article or just moves slower than slow.


----------



## boredatwork (Sep 14, 2007)

In my opinion, and from other posts, its not the UGJ design but the whole concept. While deadspots are symptom, they are not the problem.

As I mentioned I watched my tank several times. The jets were successful at keeping waste suspended. I would watch poop circle the tank several times. In that sense the UGJ's do their job correctly. But the question is with all this swirling poop - where does it go? What I found was that the waste rarely, if ever, gets sucked up into the filter intake - even though it passed by several times. Every time I watched I noticed that the waste almost always got pushed behind a rock along the back of the tank. This is not something that a more efficient UGJ system would solve.

The repercussion of that flaw is that all of the waste gets stuffed into tight cracks and corners that are extremely hard to clean - a lot more-so than if the jets were not there. So, for me, not only did the poop not disappear from my tank, but it made it more work for me to clean my tank.

Also, there are a lot of other cons to a UGJ system. There is the added noise and heat of UGJ pumps. Both of which were a big problem for me. Also you have the stupid jets in the sand. The list of pro/cons has been documented several times and to be honest I just feel that the usefulness of the UGJ's is overplayed and is certainly far overshadowed by the disadvantages.


----------



## SLIGHTLY STOOPID (Dec 23, 2004)

> I submitted an article to the site about how to improve UGJ flow rates as a method of ensuring even flow or controlled flow from each jet but it's been about 3-4 months and the article has still not been posted.


Lets trash some of the old crappy articles before we add any new ones please :wink:


----------



## cichlid_junkie (Dec 19, 2005)

Wow, I'm sorry your UGJ design failed. I love mine in my 75g. I've only vacuumed twice in 2+ years. The only place I see detritus is in a little pile swirling up into my intakes. The key is good flow. I have a very good uniform flow in my tank, right to left across the bottom from the UGJ towards the filter and left to right across the top from a canister spray bar. (An overflow only design would probably be bad at getting the heavy stuff out). No matter how bad I stir it up 20 minutes later its clear again. After an hour it's sparkling with my Wal-Mart batting for a filter on the intake. I didn't go the play sand route for my tank; I used aragonite which doesn't blow around too much. The UGJ pushes about 900gph. It's just a single pump with 1 intake on 1 big 7 port loop around the bottom. I ran all of the piping and jets up against the glass so I don't have any issues of the pipes getting exposed by the little diggers. My favorite thing about it is that I hooked a garden hose to it and use it to pump out the water for weekly changes, no bucket brigades for me! I just drop the hose in the drain and then attach it to the faucet to fill it back up again.

But in the end there are thousands ways to keep your tank clean. Anything that gives you more time to enjoy it is well worth the effort. I hope you find something that works for you! :thumb:

(cult member 34495) :lol:


----------



## loogielv (Nov 10, 2008)

i'm hearing alot of people that love THEIR UGJs and others that aren't sold on em, meaning they've never ran them. Only a small portion of people have actually installed them and dont like them, from what i'm reading here. Maybe i'm off base, but it appears that majority of those that have tried them, love them. by majority, i'm thinking 75-80%ish.


----------



## I3lazd (Dec 29, 2008)

looks good


----------



## KaiserSousay (Nov 2, 2008)

> I would watch poop swirl around the tank (just one of my many interests).


Thank God...I thought I was the only one :lol:


----------



## ccla (Feb 2, 2009)

I was wondering, would a wave maker achieve similar results to an UGJ system but with a more gentle result?

Claudio


----------



## boredatwork (Sep 14, 2007)

That is what a lot of reef tanks do. I have never seen a UGJ type system in a reef tank. And in a reef tank it is important to not accumulate waste on the bottom, whereas in freshwater its more cosmetic. In other words reef tanks take waste management seriously, and they don't use UGJ - they use wave makers (for other reasons too).

And when you say gentle, I think you are overstating the importance of the amount of flow. It does not take a lot of current to move fish poo. So you really don't need something super strong. In fact I think you could easily make the argument that strong current would be more detrimental than helpful.

So yes I think it would work.

If you are interested in going down that path, wander over to some of the SW forums. Just do a google search on wave maker and reef tank. You can kill a lot of time with all the results that will come up.


----------



## ccla (Feb 2, 2009)

Thank you boredatwork. I was thinking of doing an UGJ system for my new tank, but after reading this thread I will also look into wave makers.

One of the things that I also think might look un-natural with the UGJ, is that there is a continuous jet of water coming out of the jets, and I think that would manifest itself as a "hole" in the sand substrate around the jet. Of course this is only conjecture as I have never used a UGJ and threfore might be completely wrong.

Is another advantage of a wave maker that it will reduce the need of a skimmer?

Claudio


----------



## boredatwork (Sep 14, 2007)

The formation of holes in the substrate from the jet water is somewhat dependent on how you make the jet. But chances are the jets will be visually obvious.

As for a wave maker reducing the need for a skimmer - it depends on what your current filtration is. For those of us with out a sump, some people still have problem with surface scum even with surface agitation. So I would say its a possibility but not necessarily a given.


----------



## ccla (Feb 2, 2009)

I have had no problem with surface scum on my 10g and 30g tanks. Of course I do have air stones in both of them and I do change probably 75% of the water every week.

I looked into wave makers and I see that they are not cheap! It might take a couple of months until I can get one.

Claudio


----------



## boredatwork (Sep 14, 2007)

A cheaper option is to just install the pumps you would have used with the wave maker. Even without the wave maker the pumps by themselves should have some effect. It may even turn out that you don't even need the wave maker.


----------



## Mcdaphnia (Dec 16, 2003)

I just picked up a Koralia and will set it near the substrate to keep the entire bottom clear in a six foot long tank. More worried the tank won't be long enough, rather than that the propeller drive of the Koralia won't do the job. This thing is like a trolling motor for your aquarium. Going to do it now. See you later. :thumb:


----------

