canister filter recommendations
- Thread starter ebola
- Start date
Oh, I know
Just saying what I use. I have a couple that have never been opened still too. It's still possible to buy them, just not so easy.
If I were getting something now, chances are I would go with the latest edition of the Fluval canister if I were watching the budget... Oase or Sicce if I were not
I disagree...the only way to accurately compare them, is with the same media installed and note that the flow result is going to be diminished as filter does it job...
The only way that will work is also to use the same water. The only realto do this is to use RO/DI water. Otherwise you can use water from Lake Victoria and I will use distilled and my flow will be greater over time.
Next, how can one be sure that any two sponges say from AquaClear, for example, have identical porosity etc.? Lets say we both test an Eheim using their media as they suggest. How would one insure the media loading is identical. Their bio-media is not of uniform size or porosity.
My question here is simple. What is the problem with measuring flow rates without media? I see it as the only way to have a level playing field for testing. As soon as one starts adding media there is no way to keep things 100% equal. But empty filters are about as identical as things could be.
And then there is the fact that is isn't flow rate alone which determines the effectiveness of filtration, it is the choice of media. I have 3 running Eheim 2026 which are all loaded with different media. Two of them I have to clean at least twice a year. The third is loaded with 100% Poret foam and it needs cleaning aboubt every 3 years. The major differences in the tanks is stocking, live plants v.s. no plants.
But here is what I do know. When it comes to how effective any filter will be at hosting bacteria and/or collecting solids is directly related to the choice of and volume of media one can use. My cleanest healthiest tanks are the ones with Hamburg Matten filters. Moreover the same applies to the use of Poret foam (or a similar caliber foam) as opposed to the media that comes with most filters.
I should also say that I tend to use more than one filter on most tanks and I may also use an air-stone to provide additional circulation and surface agitation.
Now lets forget the empty testing issues and we come to the following. The most important factor to consider any filter is whether it can keep a tank clean and healthy and for how long before it needs to be cleaned. The answer, at best, will be a range of times and dependent on the contents of the tanks and the selection of the media used. The one thing we do know is that the maximum flow rate of a filter with no media can not be increased, it can only be reduced depending on what nmedia it contains, the water parameters involved and then the contents of the tank that create whatever needs to be filtered out.
And then there is this to consider. Take any filter with an adjustable flow rate like an AquaClear. I can achieve a greater media load by using a larger size filter but then reducing the flow.
Next, how can one be sure that any two sponges say from AquaClear, for example, have identical porosity etc.? Lets say we both test an Eheim using their media as they suggest. How would one insure the media loading is identical. Their bio-media is not of uniform size or porosity.
My question here is simple. What is the problem with measuring flow rates without media? I see it as the only way to have a level playing field for testing. As soon as one starts adding media there is no way to keep things 100% equal. But empty filters are about as identical as things could be.
And then there is the fact that is isn't flow rate alone which determines the effectiveness of filtration, it is the choice of media. I have 3 running Eheim 2026 which are all loaded with different media. Two of them I have to clean at least twice a year. The third is loaded with 100% Poret foam and it needs cleaning aboubt every 3 years. The major differences in the tanks is stocking, live plants v.s. no plants.
But here is what I do know. When it comes to how effective any filter will be at hosting bacteria and/or collecting solids is directly related to the choice of and volume of media one can use. My cleanest healthiest tanks are the ones with Hamburg Matten filters. Moreover the same applies to the use of Poret foam (or a similar caliber foam) as opposed to the media that comes with most filters.
I should also say that I tend to use more than one filter on most tanks and I may also use an air-stone to provide additional circulation and surface agitation.
Now lets forget the empty testing issues and we come to the following. The most important factor to consider any filter is whether it can keep a tank clean and healthy and for how long before it needs to be cleaned. The answer, at best, will be a range of times and dependent on the contents of the tanks and the selection of the media used. The one thing we do know is that the maximum flow rate of a filter with no media can not be increased, it can only be reduced depending on what nmedia it contains, the water parameters involved and then the contents of the tank that create whatever needs to be filtered out.
And then there is this to consider. Take any filter with an adjustable flow rate like an AquaClear. I can achieve a greater media load by using a larger size filter but then reducing the flow.
I tend to agree with 2tank, flow rates are with no media or at least perfectly clean of the same type & amounts & a full flow going. But it also depends on comparing media vs detritus load. Whether that load is from fish waste or plant debris or even minerals in various waters, it's not always the same. I use prefilters & those impact flow rate too especially if I don't clean them or filter media often (weekly or 3?).
That's why I use manufacturer's estimates when guaging my filter's flow rate & effectiveness. My preferred fish like higher flow & water movement, some fish don't like or need that...too many variables...That's why we have many opinions but it's not comparing apples to apples. What I may feed/day can be very different than someone else does...& my cleaning habits may not be up to other's snuff. It's very hard to say...I know I don't like slow turnover rates & am Eheim shy because of that, JMO. But I mostly use 2 filters on tanks 20g or more, it's not so much of an issue then.
That's why I use manufacturer's estimates when guaging my filter's flow rate & effectiveness. My preferred fish like higher flow & water movement, some fish don't like or need that...too many variables...That's why we have many opinions but it's not comparing apples to apples. What I may feed/day can be very different than someone else does...& my cleaning habits may not be up to other's snuff. It's very hard to say...I know I don't like slow turnover rates & am Eheim shy because of that, JMO. But I mostly use 2 filters on tanks 20g or more, it's not so much of an issue then.
Because folks use that no media flow rate to judge what they need for a given size tank. My recommendation is to cut any given flow rate in half, then judge what filtration you need. There are too many variables to try and make a simple rule. But it's foolish to assume stated capabilities with misunderstood defining parameters is absolute, especially with newbies.
To me, the takeaway here for someone newer in the hobby is; Consumers have to understand that the real world flow rate of a particular aquarium filter is going to be much less than the spec that's stated on the box or literature that came with the filter.
I like the suggestion by
Rbishop
Stuffed with media and doing it's job, figure on the flow being about half or manufacturer's spec.
I like the suggestion by
Rbishop
Stuffed with media and doing it's job, figure on the flow being about half or manufacturer's spec.
