# "Mass water movement"



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

I post the link below because it is something very basic that we discussed some time ago and I don't think everybody remembers the important points.

The entire article is very relevant to the planted tank hobby. Removal of waste and supply of nutrients should be the first consideration when setting up and maintaining a planted tank. Here's a sentence from the article below that should make sense to anyone that keeps a planted tank:
_"Aquarists who wish to encourage additional water movement at the inside of dense coral colonies will see great benefits from using mass water movement techniques." _

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2007/1/aafeature

One of the important points in the above article is reminiscent to the planted tank hobby transitioning from using watts, to using Kelvins, and finally PAR to measure light. Just fairly recently we started using PAR to evaluate our light rigs - that part of the light that plants can actually use. The same thing should happen with water flow - it is not that important how many gallons per hour you are running. Your flow should be setup in a smart way so the water in the entire tank is moving. Note that the article says that if the water movement is setup to use the mass movement principle you can actually use a much lower flow rate. So, again, it is all about efficiency - just like tons of watts of light do not necessarily mean tons of PAR.

And for those who really want to get in details:
http://web.archive.org/web/20000831...om/fish2/aqfm/1998/aug/features/1/default.asp

And here's a visual on how to setup a gyre flow. Note the placement of the pumps on both sides of the tank and close to the front and back glass. Also note that the outtake (an overlow box in that tank) does not need to be in any particular place that aids the gyre. Also note that there is a trick done right before your eyes to make the gyre even better - the actual corals act as a divider which makes the two streams of water (front and back) to run separated. I guess there is no need to say that the same thing can be easily done with a planted aquarium and apparently with great success (completely clean and healthy tank).


















Please peruse the following thread if you would like to get a clue how the planted tank hobby has been making use of a gyre:
http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/...8-discussion-laminar-vs-turbulant-flow-3.html


----------



## saddletramp (Sep 16, 2012)

Great stuff!
Lots of what is said in the links is accurate and applicable, TO A DEGREE, to fresh water set ups
As one who once raised and fragged rare Acroporas, etc, saltwater systems designed for the healthy growth of hard corals is far more intensive and expensive that any freshwater set up, period.
Spending $5,000 or more on a quality 180 gallon set up would not be out of the question.
Much more light is required to mimic the equatorial sun. More expensive water movers are required to move the tremendous volumes of salt water required for stout, healthy hard coral growth. Other equipment is required for calcium production and so on and so on.
Yes, these are things to think about and apply in moderation to plants not thriving in temperate to tropical backwaters around the world.
Thanks for bringing ideas from another part of the hobby to the freshwater world.
Bill


----------



## Phil Edwards (Jan 22, 2004)

Niko,

Given that most planted tanks tend to be more full on one side than another; for example stems in back and short stuff in front, a horizontal gyre is probably not feasible. Going back to our discussion from years ago, a vertical gyre IS doable and still seems to be the best means of circulating water in a planted tank. 

From my perspective the real take home point of this for planted tanks is the idea of using inertia and the viscous properties of water to work to our advantage. Getting as much of the whole mass of water moving sufficiently with as little force as possible seems to be the golden egg. The author did make an interesting point that mass water flow around the edges of the coral masses enhanced circulation through the skeleton. I think we can see the same in our plant tanks for the same reasons we've discussed previously.

I'm very seriously considering setting up a grow out tank to test flow regimes. I've got a 48x24x12, center drilled, and plenty of pumps to use to be able to try different flow regimes.


----------



## BruceF (Aug 5, 2011)

river flow.

http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/el-natural/84700-my-1-20cm-hopefully-npt.html#post635570


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

Bruce, Bruce... This is going to be a highjacking of my own thread but here it goes:

Why didn't you point me to that thread back when the thread started? I find the thread nothing short of shocking. I In a good way. Way good way. Not because of the water flow part, but because of the different angle from which aquascaping is seen. Astonishing.

Not much can be said when you look at the following:

Year 1965:









Year 1966:









Year 1967:









The plumbing is very interesting but on page 3 of the same thread the BBA in the same tank looks just flat out exquisite. Flow pattern, like everything else taken in isolation in this hobby is not a panacea. I absolutely love Catweazle's outlook of the hobby from a historical perspective.

But I can't agree with him that there is no right and wrong in this hobby as stated in the beginning of page 2. The average planted tank enthusiast is a victim of a one-sided-view of how a tank should be run. There would not be anything bad in a one-sided-mind but it has made the US hobby turn away from actual aquascaping. Shrink into something that we don't have a name for - it is not aquascaping, it is a little plant keeping mixed with a lot of gadget/chemical addiction. My recent comments on the latest AGA line up were expressing my personal disappointment - who would feel differently after seeing 5 US participants out of about 200 (?) and the US entries where less than mediocre "aquascapes". There is right and there is wrong, although I myself may not like that either.

One interesting detail that I noticed in that Old Skool thread - a beautiful planted tank without ANY surface movement. Completely against what makes sense. Who's right who's wrong now?


----------



## Phil Edwards (Jan 22, 2004)

Those tanks are incredibly inspiring. Better aquarium keeping through ecology, not better living through science. I would love to see a current-day setup done the way it was done back then just so I could study and learn from it.


----------



## BruceF (Aug 5, 2011)

Catweazle is great! Wish he posted more. 
I believe co2 has a long history in Holland. 

I keep a number of small tanks without any co2. I usually use power heads and sponges in them so they have essentially uniform flow. Once a week or so I do large water changes and let them sit for a while before I refill them, then they pearl like crazy for the rest of the day. Contact with the air seems to help kill of the algae also. 

I often find bba starts growing on the plants in the line of flow, while diatoms seem to prefer the more stagnant places. Green algae are more prone to develop it seems due to chemistry or the lack there of. Adding more phosphate will often fix that problem, or less. 
In the small tank I run with no water flow however I only seem to get green algae and pretty much I can keep this under control by doing a large (100%)water change once a week or so. Bacterial blooms are often a problem if the tank is left too long. 

All of which makes me think that Oxygen in very important in the discussion of water flow and that ‘aerobic’ bacteria are your best friends. 
But, you know, I never test anything.


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

Old School tanks: I've posted about that before - in the early 80's I had a 20 gallon shallow tank (10" tall) with 2x25w incandescent bulbs on top. No filter, no water movement, no CO2, no ferts. Just a heater. Gravel was inert pebbles. I changed 1/5 of the water weekly and every week I had 2 handfuls of clippings to throw away. I never knew what algae is and when I saw them at the fish store I liked how they looked and wanted them. Plants - Ceratopteris, Bacopa, C. affinis, moss, and I think Cabomba. The tank was stuffed with plants. 

How it all worked so perfectly I will never know. What we have today is fertilizing as #1 priority and neglecting the very basics of setting up and running the planted tank. It almost seems that the planted tank hobby may soon go through a period of going back to the basics. I think that trend has already started but things are not very clear when you look at the internet only.


----------

