Hi Kevin,
Thank you for devoting so many years of passion, time and effort
in bringing light to Anoxic filtration.
I've been reading your blog and eBook, and have some questions I
hope can be answered to bring more clarity to AFS.
The
baskets act like magnets. I assume that the Laterite center is the core of the
magnet. Thus we want water flow to be all around the basket at equidistant.
This explains the required gap at the bottom, top and all around the basket. If
this the case, wouldn't it be optimum to have a circular basket, resulting in
an equidistant of water all around the basket?
Ed: Actually the Laterite can be mixed in the cat litter or
placed in the center of the BCB’ and has no bearing or reinforcement of the
cores magnetism or for that matter the clays crystalline structural electrical
charge of diffusion whatsoever. Its primary purpose is to aid in the bacteria’s
reproduction and add vital trace elements like iron (Fe) and manganese (Mn) to
the plants, too.
My testing has shown that it doesn’t make any difference if the
BCB’ are squire, rectangular, pentagon or circular. We (Beta testing pond)
tested both/all types and neither one of them outperformed the other in
biological processes. At present I’m using a basket that is elongated and no
negative affects whatsoever for the past 25-years now has shown up. So what can
be called ‘optimum’ would only be a matter of opinion but not scientific
researched confirmed by any means.
Also, the flexibility in the size of the basket also draws
attention to the 'magnetic reach' of the basket. I understand that there must
be gaps between baskets and the floor to allow water flow. What is the optimum
distance? How far can each basket be without overlapping their effective range?
Ed: The diffusion of ions is the same if you use a basket that
is 6"X6"X6" or 24"X10" round basket like I show in my
book and at the center of the page here on my post. What we did find out is
that like magnets, the more BCB’ the better uptake of ions out of solution
faster! So the gap between BCB’ can be as little as 1/4"( this also applies
to the bottom of the baskets) or as far apart as room will allow. Also the BCB’
act like baffles, which I will explain latter on how that works. The farther
the BCB’ are from each other the effectiveness will be lessen to a greater
degree because you will only be using less BCB’ to do the job but will not play
a role in their ability to carry on biological processes as a single entity but
it would make cleaning the AFS easier. It’s really the laws of physics here;
the more BCB’ the faster ion uptake because of a larger biological mass and
dwell time of water laden with ions to BCB’ is increased.
How does the size of the basket alter the above factors? Other
than the difficulty in moving the basket, what is the largest recommended
basket size? I assume size is somewhat linked to the distance between the
Laterite and the edge of the basket? So instead of having a certain cup size,
would the volume of the Laterite actually be worked out from the amount of
Laterite require to ensure that the Laterite is at the core of the basket from
all edges?
Ed: The size of the BCB’ are only restricted to their weight and
what one can lift easily without getting a hernia. It’s not only the cat litter
you have to worry about but water weighs 8.5 lbs. per gallon and that has to be
added into the overall baskets weight when lifting it out of the pond.
Laterite is not restricted to only the core of the baskets but
can be mixed up in the center of the baskets or homogeneous placed in the BCB.
Using physics this means the BCB’ although having different constituents
throughout will still have the same electromagnetic interaction with ions and will
be uniform without irregularities no matter where the Laterite is placed. You
don’t have to make the adding of Laterite into Rocket Science. If you add too
much Laterite to a BCB then so what, if you add less then that’s okay too. You
do have some margin of error to play with because either way it will still
work. That’s the good thing about the AFS, it give you some flexibility.
You recommend an "as fast as possible" flow rate
across the baskets. Are the baskets so efficient that they work even better at
high flow rates like 10,000GPH? Is there no dwell time recommendation like
conventional filtration?
Ed: The AFS can take a faster
flow rate because water is not being forced through the substrate and therefore
have no restrictions like conventional filters do. The point is that you want
the ponds mass to become one with the filters mass. The BCB’ are taking in ions
out of solution and the quicker you can represent those bad ions to the BCB’
the faster they can do their job at taking them out of the waters mass. The
trillions and trillions of cells that are in each BCB will become greater or
lesser in numbers according to the available foodstuff that is represented to
them.
If your AFS is big enough to take
25,000-gph+ then why not do so. But this does not however mean that you have
to! If all you can push through your AFS is 500-gph then it will still work but
it gives you flexibility that other filters don’t or cannot give to the
hobbyists. The slower water moves through any filter means that what is in A
will not get processed until B becomes emptied of its contents first. However,
all filters except the AFS have restrictions because biological and chemical
processes will be disrupted if you do not follow the guidelines set by the
manufacture. Not so an AFS! The bacteria do not have to worry about water-shear
like other filter do and lag time is not an issue because that is automatically
being controlled by the porewater and permeability of the medium being used in
each BCB. The none clogging medium is what makes an AFS stand out from other
filtration systems. So if each BCB can carry some Septillion cells today, it
will also carry that same amount 25 years from now! This then allows the Koi to
grow but not outgrow the filter too.
2) Water tracking and flow
Most AFS build I saw online are horizontal flow. In my opinion,
an optimum setup due to water's preferred flow. http://koikichi.com/water-flow-patterns/
However, it's said that AFS can be stacked as long as there's
sufficient gap between the baskets. I read somewhere that there's a certain
recommended depth of the basket? Is it to the pond level, ground level, or the
water level in the AFS? That being said, would an upward or downward flow
system reduce the AFS's effectiveness? Why and why not?
How high can we stack the baskets?
From my understanding, we want as much water flow around the
baskets. Thus the flow pattern would matter in the AFS system?
Ed: The recommended
depth of an AFS has been set because at 24" which gives you the greatest
stability of water parameters along with ease of maintenance. Tests have shown
that because of our filters are outside and exposed to the elements the
stability is compromised at lesser depths. Twenty-four inches give you about
15-gals of water per cubic foot of space. If you would like to add the BCB’ to
a shallow stream that feeds your pond that will work too, as long as you
understand that the water will lose heat faster at shallower depths and may
compromise temperature stability and cool down or even heat up the mass too
quickly.
The flow of water
going through the AFS is governed by gravity and it doesn’t matter in what
direction the water flows as long as it’s not disruptive to the cat litter or
mulm inside the filter. That’s why diffusing the inlet water is so important.
Speed of inlet water is not as important as (CFPH) cubic feet per hour of water
through the filter. Remember, all the BCB’ are doing is attracting ions and in
what direction the water is flowing doesn’t matter as long as it not disruptive
to the system.
The site you give
above is about the Eric filter and has no scientific research done to his
hypotheses of water flow. Let me explain: Water is like electricity; it will
take the path of least resistance at all cost. If you have a chamber that is constantly agitating the
incoming water (He uses aeration to accomplish this.) the macro and micro
particles will have no time for settlement. The reason the BCB’ are spaced in
the filter is not just to let water flow in-between the BCB’ but also now they
become baffles and will then allow micro settlement to collect in the AFS. This
micro detritus is not being compact are bushed together like conventional
filters do, but allowed to freely settle in the AFS. Like natural systems do,
the bacteria will colonize on this detritus and turn it into mulm.
The
large BCB is 24" X 10" deep and has holes drilled all around it with
3M fabric covering the holes so that the cat litter will not come out. In the
25 years of its existence it has only been transplanted twice. When the BCB was
ten years old a hobbyist came over to help me move it and he was amaze that the
cat litter was in pristine condition still.
The Eric filter allows this micro
and macro detritus to now accumulate on the filtration medium and not in a
settlement camber like it is supposed to. That agitated water now is moving the
water so fast that the bacteria on the outer layers of his media (facing and
the back of the media) now will begin to clog from polymeric adhesives from the
bacteria trying to hold on to prevent water-shear! The bacteria are now responding
to the dynamics that he is creating and stresses the bacteria’s responses
thereto the fluids forces. This sticky polymeric adhesive, made from living and
dying cells, will first turn brown in color, and then get darker as time goes
on. Like that of a water pipe that has that slime in it from living and dying
cells that can reduce water flow by 30%; that too will reduce water flow
through his filter media. Now the incoming water will take the path of least
resistance once again. His accomplishments are now defeated, no matter what way
the water flows due to clogging…end of story!
The Eric filter can only have
water passed through it at the ponds volume in 2.5 hours. That means if your
pond pollutants are @ 1-ppm every 24 hrs., the filter would have a surplus of
18-ppm of insulting ions in just one month. In one year that would be a
whopping 216-ppm of pollution left in the pond mass if water changes were not
carried out every month to lessen these insults. However, even with a 50% water
change every month that 18-ppm would still be at 9-ppm plus the following month
insults of 18-ppm on top of that, that would now bring it to 27-ppm before
another 50% water change was to be executed and so on.
Do the math and you will come up
with the same numbers as I have. No filter will eradicate 100% of the
biological and chemical insult in one pass. Getting the insults in our pond
from point A to B as fast as possible and then making sure that those insults
will be 100% eradicated is not as easy as it sounds. Since water is positively
charged why not take advantage of those positive ions first by taking them out
of the water column, then let the bacteria do their thing under ideal
conditions where they will not be disturbed, like that of a BCB.
I read that aeration is discouraged due to the possibility of
the bubbles dislodging clay from the basket. Would a fabric container like the
Smartpot then serve a better purpose in an AFS system with aeration to disturb
water tracking and encourage more water contact with the baskets?
Ed: Aeration is not needed in and
AFS because the oxygen in the filter is the same as that of the pond main body
of water. Once again an aerator would only cause a disruption of the mulm in
the AFS and would then compromise the turbidity of the pond. Why add more
equipment to something that doesn’t need it in the first place? Also, plants do
better in water that is moving but not disruptive to them or agitating the
surface of the water.
Smartpots can be used for BCB’ but
they cost more than the plastic ones and will not be as rigid as plastic ones.
The 3M fiber baskets would also make it harder to stack the BCB’ on top of one
another. Other whys, if you feel comfortable in using the Smartpots then use
them, but I would not say they would be better, just different. My plastic
black baskets have lasted me over 25-years now, so what advantage would a more
expensive Smartpot make if all were equal in doing biological processes? I have
used the 3M fabric before and still using it to this day in homemade 24"
large BCB’ and it works very well without clogging. You can also use the big
floating baskets that they sell today and make them into BCB’ but they are very
expensive and then they wouldn’t become very cost effective in the long run.
3) Fabric containers- http://www.smartpots.com
Plastic aquatic planting baskets are the recommended containers.
Would fabric containers like Smartpots actually serve the purpose even better?
They are extremely permeable. Water just gushes out if filled on land. Yet they
don't allow any fired-clay to exit. My only concern would be if they would clog
more easily.
4) Floating planting basket
Following from the above question, would a floating planting
basket actually work well as a biocenosis basket? Cyanobacteria may form at the
bottom, but can also be fed on by the koi.
5)Microbe aquatic planting media
I found this kiln fired clay media on Amazon. It's more
expensive than the right kitty litter, but i'm guessing can work the same.
Also available in 10 pound size for international shipping: http://www.amazon.com/Microbe-Lift-10-Pound-Concentrated-MLCAPM10/dp/B000P6EFDM/ref=pd_sbs_lg_5
Ed: Right now the three preferred
mediums are cat litter clay, oil-dri or Zeolite cat litter with no additives. They
are very inexpensive and cost effective in the long run. Why spend more if you
don’t have to. If all you can get is the more expensive kiln fired clay then
that will have to do.
That's all for now. Have a great 2014.
If this is to be posted anywhere, I hope to remain anonymous.
Regards
No comments:
Post a Comment