# An (excited) word about filtration



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

I got excited or something discussing cheap and powerful canister filters made in China. So I jolted down some words of wisdom. Could be an eye opener for someone. 

A few details have been ommited. Like what kind of glue is best to keep your fish in one place after you hook up a crazy powerful pump to your filter and have 0 algae issues.

Here it is:

It really annoys me to see filters labeled "for XXX gal. size tank". That's the dumbest claim ever. 

Virtually all canister filters on the market are equipped with motors that are completely inadequate. Or rather - the motors belong to filters that are at least 1/2 the size of the housing.

Here's how it works:
There is a publication, a scientific one, about the water turnover through a filter that will provide 100% filtration. Running 1 tank volume an hour through the filter does not mean you have filtered all the water in the tank once. That's because the water being sucked by the filter is a mix of filtered and unfiltered water. 

So, to make this simple - the water in an aquarium needs to pass through the filter 9.2 times in order to be filtered 100%.

Ok, so for my 100 gal. tank I need a filter that pumps 900 gph? No. I actually need more. I need about 40% more flow because of the resistance of the filter media, hoses etc. So to filter 100% of the water in a 100 gal. tank once every hour I need a filter pump that runs 1200 gph.

Wow!

And there is something else. There is an optimal volume of the filter media in relation to the tank volume. It is 8-10% of the tank volume. So for my 100 gal. tank I need a filter that holds 10 gals. of media.

Another "wow"!

And of course there is more. The filter media area is important. Meaning that I cannot get the smallest cheapest canister filter, hook up a 1200 gph pump to it and cover all bases. Simply put the volume of the filter and the pump output need to match. For my 100 gal. tank I need a filter that holds 10 gals of media and 1200 gph pump. But these 10 gals of media better not be stacked high. They better be spread as wide as possible. The thickness should not be more than 6.5 inches.

Wow...

No, that's not the end. There is a scary part to it all too. The same bacteria that happily eats your fishes' waste and makes Nitrate from stinky and toxic Ammonia will actually do the opposite if the flow through the filter media is too slow. So on Monday my bacteria eats Ammonia and produces Nitrate. On Tuesday my filter is slightly clogged and some of the bacteria now makes Ammonia from the Nitrate that their buddies produce. On Wednesday... you get it - most of the bacteria could be making Ammonia.

More... The bacteria in the biofilter is not just bacteria. It's all sorts of animals that gradually evolve and establish themselves. Think of it as the History of the World. Civilizations rose and fell. It's never the same. Now imagine what would happen if someone swept the place clean every 100 years or so. Started anew. There will be no real history. No humans. No internet!!! My point is - when you diligently rinse your filter every week or every month you are doing exactly that - resetting the development of your biofilter. Harming it. What is right to do is to choose the proper media that does not clog easily and does not need frequent rinsing. 

Yes there is more... but enough said.

All of that makes my head hurt. Because when I see filters labeled "for up to 290 gal. tank" it's as if we all understand the conditions. And we don't. I bet this is the first post that explains filtration somewhat clearly to you. I've been in this hobby since 1981 and only the last year heard about all these things.

Basically if the filtration is properly setup you do not need mechanical filtration. You will seldom fight algae. There will be wars and fails and victories that you will never see - your bacteria and Co. will take care of it all for you.

Or one can just enjoy this hobby. It is not said we all must do things "the right way". It's about having fun, right.

--Nikolay


----------



## Phil Edwards (Jan 22, 2004)

Interesting stuff Niko! That makes a great deal of sense to me from a scientific/ecological point of view. I'm working on a reply. 

Cheers,
Phil


----------



## Tex Gal (Nov 1, 2007)

I saw a comparison study of flow in gph on the net between filters. It said basically that when you add right angles and such and don't use the assumed head height you will not get the same gph. It also said that all pretty much all the filters except the Eheims were rated empty without media. The Eheims were true to the average ghp rated but of course all were tested new and clean.

Your article was quite interesting...


----------



## PeterE (Feb 9, 2010)

Really good article. Thanks for writing it. It got me kind of interested in setting up a gigantic filter for an aquarium to see how it worked. It seems to me that the many people, especially inexperienced aquarists, who diligently sterilize their filters are not only just wasting their time, but they are probably harming their aquarium too!


> The Eheims were true to the average ghp rated but of course all were tested new and clean.


Eheims are the best!


----------



## fishyjoe24 (May 18, 2010)

gives me something to think about and gives me the answer to what is happening with me 55g. I only have a 205 rated for a 40 gallon it. flow is 180gph, now put media in the filter and I get it goes down to 120-150gph and the media is packed.... looks like I should find a 405 or another 205...


----------



## BobAlston (Jan 23, 2004)

I believe an important decision is what kind of filtration you want done. If you want mechanical filtration, you will have to clean it somewhat frequently because it will clog by definition. That is why I prefer prefilters on my canister filters. I use a sponge prefilter on the intake. I can easily remove it and clean it out. I can rinse with chlorinated water as I am not concerned with bio filtration at that stage. That essentially leaves the canister as a bio filter. I don't clean it unless for some reason the flow gets too slow (because it does get some very fine particles despite the prefilter).

I agree that the bacteria in the filter (and everywhere in the tank) can and will change over time. Basically they change based on the conditions. If you have a lot of amonia, one kind of bacteria will multiply, consume ammonia and create nitrite. And another bacteria grows in the presence of nitrite to create nitrate. But in absence of food, these bacteria colonies fail. 

And for us planted tank types, hopefully with a reasonable amount of plants vs. fish, there isn't too much amonia getting to the canister anyway. The end result may be that the canister mostly provides water movememt, so the ammonia gets to the plants, oxygen from the surface to the water column, etc.

Just my thoughts.

Bob


----------



## fishyjoe24 (May 18, 2010)

another problem is my 55 was lightly planted. hopelly i can stuff it with plants, and get stuff growing... and maybe nitrobactor and nitrosonomonas aren't doing there job right....


----------



## Phil Edwards (Jan 22, 2004)

Bob,

I've found I've had the most success using a method similar to yours (and Amano's). The best results I've achieved have come when using medium sized lava rock from Home Despot and only a single coarse foam insert. 

Some brief thoughts on change in filter efficacy over time- As mulm accumulates in the filter it changes the flow dynamics within the canister. Over time we'll get increasing volume of organic-rich areas which receive ever decreasing flow of oxygenated water. Those are the zones of ammonia genesis. The short of it is, as oxygen decreases the microfauna start using nitrogen as their electron donor rather than oxygen and that leads to ammonia and other nasties. Add to that an ample source of carbon from the trapped mulm and microfauna that are tolerant of hypoxic or anoxic conditions have a field day!

Moral of the story? Use coarse media to ensure maximum throughflow and don't rinse your media in tap water. Oh, and keep that sponge media clean!


----------



## JeffyFunk (Apr 6, 2006)

Phil Edwards said:


> Bob,
> 
> I've found I've had the most success using a method similar to yours (and Amano's). The best results I've achieved have come when using medium sized lava rock from Home Despot and only a single coarse foam insert.


How did you set this up? Did you just take the lava rocks and place them into your filter? Did you crush them up before hand? (So they look like Amano's Bio Rio?) How about a picture of what the media looks like? This sounds like a really great filter media, but would like some more information before I go rip things apart...


----------



## freshyleif (Jan 9, 2008)

Cool I like it. Niko you mention that it is important not to stack the media to high and the thickness should be no more than 6.5". Can you elaborate on this please. I love the info and thank you for all you have posted on this subject it has been a great education for me. I also have to admit that when filter makers label there products as "rated for xx amount of gallons I always wondered rated by who and how.


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

Find Dieter's site. It's in German.

There you will read that the filtration through a Poret filter foam happens only in the first 1 cm or so of the entire sponge. How they figured that out I don't know. But it basically means that the media must not be too thick because it makes no sense.

Biomedia this thin presents a logical problem - your filter canister needs to acomodate a mat that is thin but with its total volume being 10% of your aquarium volume. That's not our typical canister - cylindrical or box shaped. If you want a container that will fit a thin and big mat then you are looking for something like a shallow box. And distributing the flow over the entire biofilter media is another problem to solve.

So the Japanese once again have figured it out. Bigger size biomedia with enough gaps to let the water channel through it. Does not clog. Doesn't need frequent rinsing. Does not have pores that are too fine. Fits in a canister that is cylindrical, not some kind of funky shallow box. The pump is pressure rated - if there is any clogging it ramps up and maintains the flow as if nothing happened. And the pump is external - so no magetic fields bother the living system. Believe or laugh at magnetic fields affecting your aquarium you have to admit that the Japanese know more than you imagine. 

A planted tank is a very different beast from a fish only tank or a reef tank. I could actually say that keeping the sytem semi-dirty, hitting it with a lot of light and CO2 and achieving 0 algae is a completely crazy task which is actually achievable. But one needs to hammer it in their head that everything works as a system. Buy yourself an expensive ADA canister filter and tell me if it solves all the issues you have. It won't. And the opposite - you can replace that expensive filter with another one - just like ADG has successfully done for some time now and their planted tanks still work out fine. That's because that fancy filter is part of a whole system. A carefully designed one. And if you undersand it you can alter, rescue or mess it up at will.

--Nikolay


----------



## digital_gods (Apr 23, 2010)

niko said:


> A planted tank is a very different beast from a fish only tank or a reef tank. I could actually say that keeping the sytem semi-dirty, hitting it with a lot of light and CO2 and achieving 0 algae is a completely crazy task which is actually achievable.


I have to agree with Niko running the take little dirty works. I get a higher concentration of Nitrates that the plants use. I watch closely for the different algae types that appear and adjust accordingly. I'm running the high lights and co2 injection. What I find my system needing the most added to it is more potassium and micro. The rest of the macro is by product of the bio load.

Back to the topic of gph, another thing that will affect gph is buildup with in your hoses. I experience this with my goldfish tank.


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

A planted tank "system" is dirty because we maintain some nutrients in the water column. To me it doesn't matter if that's the widely accepted 5-10 N, and 0.5-1 Phosphate or 30 N and 2P. All of these concentrations provide enough food for algae if they can find a way to grow.

If you open any AquaJournal from the beginning of time till now and look at the tank specs you will see the same thing - zero nutrients. Of course we know that the Japanese add nutrients. But it's only in amounts that the plants can eat up quickly. So in a way they do not keep a "semi-dirty" system like we do. We let Nutrients linger - EI, PPS or your own version of them. Funny enough noone can say that EI or PPS grows better plants than ADA with their seemingly nutrient depleted tanks.

How all that has to do with filtration? Once again - it is all a system and it works together. As I said - if you understand it you can tweak it to your liking. Here's an example - we all know these pictures and videos from Amano's gallery in Niigata. I always wondered how on Earth they keep those powerful halide lights on all the time so every visitor throughout the day sees the tanks well lit, at their best. From what I understand the halides are on all the time. Makes no sense. But really it does - if you have a way to tweak the system you can do seemingly impossible things:






So - filtration that works + careful fertilizing make a seemingly impossible task work: Strong lights for 8 hours a day, no crazy plant growth issues, no algae. Some years ago I experimented with EI and strong light for 8 hours a day. I had pictures showing how my stem plants grew 18 inches in 2-1/2" days. Impossible to maintain.

About the filter being 8-10% of the tank volume: Here are some pictures of the smallest ADA tanks. Each is equipped with an ugly Eheim and fancy "invisible" tubing setup. Note the volume of the filter in relation to the volume of the tank:










By the way - ADA may not exactly follow the general rules I talk about here. Most of us have heard about larger ADA tanks not being lit as bright as small ones. We don't exacly know why but they probably have a good reason. Trying to copy their system could be frustration also because it's dynamic - for example the filter has different combinations of media in different phases of the tank development. Normally we don't really change the medias. But it sounds pretty logical to match the needs of the tank with the filtration media.

By the way - about a lot of flow, dirty hoses, etc. I just installed a 640 gph pump on one of my filters. But because my plumbing is dumb (long pipes and 90 degree angle connections) all I get from that new pump is 257 gph measured at the outflow. My point is - the assumption that your flow is much less than what you may think is probably correct for most planted tanks. And if we add the blocking of the flow by the plants then it really becomes clear that we need to know more about why exactly ADA has chosen that funky looking Lily pipe outflow. What exactly is the targeted pattern of the water movement?

Here are a few videos potentially related to the question of water flow in a planted tank. Or maybe the videos are just amusing:















Tex_Gal, you NEED several laminar flow jets on your pool! Tell me you don't after watching these videos! 

--Nikolay


----------



## Tex Gal (Nov 1, 2007)

That laminar flow is incredible. Yes! I want some! 





I'm not sure how it works. The first couple examples were powered by a simple water hose. Wikapedia says laminar flow occurs at less velocities, yet it looks like more water. It also say higher velocities makes a turbulent flow. It sure looks the opposite of what it is.

Amazing that you cut your flow down by half just with just the plumbing. I guess bigger is really better....


----------



## Bert H (Mar 2, 2004)

Great discussion here! You guys should consider moving it to the main forum for more visibility.

Niko, your initial post explains what I discovered a long time ago that if I clean my cannister thoroughly, I get cloudy water for the next 4-6 days. Even cleaning out only the sponges creates a little cloudiness, but to a much lesser extent/duration.

So, perhaps one of the 'take homes' of this is to always buy a much larger filter than you think you need.


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

I do not want this discussion in the main forum. I want it right here in the DFWAPC sub-forum, where I posted it.

I have my reasons for it. Please do not move it.

Always get larger filtration - yes. But only in conjunction with many other factors. If there is a "take home lesson" that is it - all factors need to work together. Hooking up a larger filter may or may not work good. If we continue missing the big picture we will always have tanks that work and tanks that don't.

I started this topic in the spur of the moment. And I have opened up like never before about the information that I've have had access to for some time now. So far I only urged people to go out and look for the information themselves. There has been somewhat of an interest in my hints and suggestions. So I want to keep this new information local, DFW Club mainly topic so it benefits us as a club. Anyone interested can for my "oh-so-great" posts right here.

My goal is to shed more light about setting up a replicable unproblematic planted tanks. Setup that works every time. That we can all replicate over and over. If ADA, ADG, Oliver Knott and others can do it why is it that US hobbyists as a whole can't? From what I understand ADG is gearing up to put out a lot of useful information. I hope it is exactly what this hobby needs (no more ordering rocks Japanese style and how to use cardboard to divide dry gravel in a cool way). I also hope that if ADG does that it does it in a way that is not leaving the information there and not creating interest in it.

A comparison with the state of the marine aquarium hobby could help us see the planted tank hobby in a more realistic light. The marine aquarium hobby - the reef side of it has started to experiment more with aquascaping just in the last few years. I see more and more "aquascaped" reef tanks. Reefers have knowledge, equipment, and are not stingy. The planted tank hobby is the opposite (at least in the US) - we start with the aquascaping, still haven't figured out the technical part, and we are tight with our money. 10 years at least and we have moved ahead just a little bit. And definitely not in terms of the tanks being replicable. Things don't need to be expensive - they just need to be done with more insight.

--Nikolay


----------



## Phil Edwards (Jan 22, 2004)

JeffyFunk said:


> How did you set this up? Did you just take the lava rocks and place them into your filter? Did you crush them up before hand? (So they look like Amano's Bio Rio?) How about a picture of what the media looks like? This sounds like a really great filter media, but would like some more information before I go rip things apart...


Jeff,

Disclaimer: I've only ever used Eheim filters on my personal tanks. My methods are based on the size, shape, and number of media baskets specific to Eheim. Your mileage may vary with different brand filters.

*I know for certain this won't work well with Magnum canisters due to the arrangement of the media container. When using Magnum filters I fill the media canister to the top with Activated Carbon and never touch it again. It may get an occasional shake on old tank water to loosen things up but the only thing that gets washed or replaced is the physical filter mitt.

I just dump as much rock as will fit in the media containers and let it run. I learned quickly not to "top off" with the media as one would do with a gas tank. Cramming the baskets full reduced flow. Dump the rock in, shake it to settle everything out and add a little more if necessary to get the media level with the top of the basket.

Tying into Niko's point of changing media over time as the tank matures; I typically run only a single coarse sponge and two or three fine filter pads in the beginning. As the fine pads get clogged I replace them with the coarse pads or more lava rock. I feel it's important to provide as much area for bacterial colonization as possible in the beginning while the system is fairly clean of particulates.

My typical media setup in an Eheim Pro 2 2026(?) at six months on is one or two coarse pads, one fine pad for particulate removal, and the rest lava rock. When doing routine filter maintenance the only bit that is rinsed with tap is the fine pad. Since it's such a small percentage of total filtration there are no small cycles/bacterial blooms as BertH described.

Every three to six months I'll grab a bucket of tank water and shake the lava rock out. In researching salt water aquariums I heard a lot of talk about their rock accumulating nutrients to an unhealthy level over time. I figured it was the same with rock or other porous media in a planted tank's filter.

Over time the media accumulates small particles and dissolved nutrients. As the particles clog the pores in the rock they become anaerobic microecosystems that actually become a nutrient input rather than nutrient sink. Niko touched on this when talking about decreased flow causing a release of ammonia into the system. When my tanks start showing signs of imbalance and/or nuisance algae even though I'm doing everything properly I know it's time to rinse the rock out. Invariably, the tank appears healthier within a day or two after cleaning.

When running two filters I typically blast the media in one filter with my sink spray nozzle or under the tub faucet to remove as much buildup as possible. A month or two later I'll do it to the other filter. Sometimes the insertable media pads get cleaned at the same time as this, but I typically leave them dirty to maintain stability and help recolonize the lava rock media.

Along that vein, I've found that I can pretty regularly spike a Green Water bloom by washing all the filter media with tap water, basically killing any microfauna in the filter. If nuisance algae are still an issue after typical filter maintenance, spiking green water has been a valuable tool for nutrient management in densely planted aquariums or in aquascapes that are close to photographic maturity.


----------



## Michael (Jul 20, 2010)

Phil, thanks for the explanantion. Through a strange and fortuante Craig's List swap, I am the new owner of a used Eheim 2217. I know next to nothing about these filters! 

--Michael


----------



## Phil Edwards (Jan 22, 2004)

On the topic of ADA technique/system and nutrient availablilty. I'll tell you what, they're not doing anything that hasn't already been around for millions of years. They just applied what's going on in healthy natural aquatic systems to a glass container. 

In most cases, robust, algae poor, communities of aquatic plants grow in water that is depleted of phosphorus and to a lesser extent, nitrogen. Think about the San Marcos, the plants there are growing gangbusters and that water comes from deep in the earth. It's probably some of the cleanest untreated water in Texas! So why the hell are the plants doing so well? Their nutrient source is the sediment/soil, not the water column. (Sound familiar Drinda?) 

Going back to Aqua Soil, it's packed full of degradable organics that provide nutrients at the location aquatics take them up the most, their roots. (Dian Smith, PhD and R. Michael Smart, PhD, personal communication) 

What about all those funky powders and stuff ADA wants to sell us? Isn't it a bunch of crap? No. What are some of them; bacteria, Iron, Magnesium, micronutrients, etc. These are all elements which tend to get sequestered in aquatic sediments and are only available in usable form in the very top 0.5-2.0cm of the sediment. Anything else is locked away until the plants change the oxidation state of the sediment around their roots, which causes the nutrients to change into a soluble and plant-usable form. 

Aqua Soil isn't a complete diet for plants; it's pretty good for an initial burst of macros and is amazing for root development. The other additives are what completes the picture and balances the diet, if you will. Once the initial nutrient release (mineralizing Aqua Soil, that was for you AaronT and Sean!) and algae bloom the water column is nutrient depleted but the substrate is enriching constantly with time. That's also why there are different formulations of BrightyK and Green Gain to be used as the tank ages. They're formulated to suppliment the natural processes in the tank which influence nutrient availability. 

Inorganic nitrogen as nitrate is the one macronutrient which doesn't bind to substrates and tends to remain in the water column. However, regular input of degradable material such as feces and excess food, into the substrate and slow release of N from degrading organics in the Aqua Soil are a source of N in the root zone. That's why you don't see much about nitrogen supplimentation in the ADA literature or hear about it when talking to Amano about water column supplimentation. 

It all goes back to the original ADA philosophy of taking queues from nature and modifying them to fit the needs of an aquarium. "Only man's artifice over nature could produce such beauty". 

Sure, even the ADA gallery tanks have algae, but from all appearances their systems are supremely balanced and managable in comparison to methods developed in the US. "Better living through science" isn't always better. Nature's got a hell of a lot more experience than human science.


----------



## Phil Edwards (Jan 22, 2004)

Michael said:


> Phil, thanks for the explanantion. Through a strange and fortuante Craig's List swap, I am the new owner of a used Eheim 2217. I know next to nothing about these filters!
> 
> --Michael


You're welcome Michael. I hope you enjoy the filter and get many years of use out of it. Mine were in prime working order after five years of use, right up to the point where I had to sell them.


----------



## Michael (Jul 20, 2010)

Phil, is there a good web site to explain operation of Eheims? I did not get an owner's manual, and am not sure all the internal parts are present. The pump does run.

The manual available from the Eheim site is in German.

Thanks,
Michael


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

San Marcos.

For those that have never gone or never seen pictures here it is. And read the comments:

http://picasaweb.google.com/ddasega/SanMarcosRiverMay172008#

In these 2 pictures one can almost be sure that the water flows in a laminar way. Big flow + little turbulence. Sounds like a Japanese filter maybe?:
http://picasaweb.google.com/ddasega/SanMarcosRiverMay172008#5201553071474435426
http://picasaweb.google.com/ddasega/SanMarcosRiverMay172008#5201553075769402738

San Marcos. Wanna go? In my subtle machiavellian engineerings with the goal to increase the activity of our club I think I have become too transparent here 

We can organize that trip this coming year. Really, jokes aside, it is a wonderful place to visit. Let's discuss that in a separate thread.

--Nikolay


----------



## fishyjoe24 (May 18, 2010)

schliterbon is on the way... can we go to the water park too?


----------



## Bert H (Mar 2, 2004)

So would it be accurate to say that the older and the more established a tank is, assuming they have a decent fish load, the water column may be kept leaner? This would assume the build up of mulm, and nutrients in the gravel, again assuming one doesn't gravel vac. 

I have no experience with the ADA system, so what I am about to say may be totally off base, and if so, please feel free to correct. From what I have read, it seems that one of the main ingredients that is often added is 'Brighty K', which I assume to be potassium? I don't much see folks adding any other macros. Would the rationale for this be as Phil said, the biochemical breakdown of food, feces etc doesn't provide sufficient K for the plants?

Another point/question regarding the basic chemistry involved in NH3/NO3 etc. One always hears that in a heavily planted tank, NH3 is not a problem because the plants will uptake it before it gets to any dangerous build up. So when the filter microbes change their course and start producing NH3, why wouldn't it get metabolized by the plants? Or are we talking about an extreme which WILL cause issues?

Niko, seeing the pics of the San Marcos really hits something home for me, which I should have been aware of for a while. Living in North Florida where we have tons of springs and crystal clear spring fed rivers, you also see the beautiful lush growth of plants. Rock hard water from a limestone aquifer and very low NO3 and PO4 measurable levels, if at all. So, you're right, where do the nutrients come from -- the soil/sediment in the river bed. But of course, there is also one very major difference in these beautiful spring fed river systems, they have a fairly limited number of plants growing in them. Whereas, we try to incorporate every known type of plant from all around the world into our little mini-environments. 

OK, enough ramblings.


----------



## Phil Edwards (Jan 22, 2004)

Bert,

As long as there are ample sediment-bound nutrients to balance out the reduced water column nutrients, absolutely! Here's some food for thought though, the longer the mulm has been in the substrate, the lower the amount of labile nutrients it contains. I'll have to talk with my boss about this for specifics; she's done some substrate and water column nutrient depletion studies using Hydrilla and Myriophyllum. However, based on things I've learned so far, the long term benefit of mulm in an aquarium substrate isn't so much nutrient release as it is nutrient retention.

As all the degradable compounds are broken down the consituents (mineralization) glom onto charged particles in the substrate. Organic matter and clay in particular are good for this. This is where CEC comes into play.

Furthermore, the breakdown of mulm and other organic matter changes the reduction-oxidation (redox) state of the substrate which, in turn, affects the sequestration of mineral nutrients in the substrate. Briefly, the less oxygen in the substrate, the higher the amount of sequestered or plant-unavailable Fe, Mg, and P; up to the point where the anaerobic bacteria begin using those for metabolism.

Potassium can be pretty common in the water column of natural waters and it certainly doesn't hurt to suppliment it in larger doses in an aquarium. I've noticed that Amano seems to replace the substate in his tanks every year or so. Based on my experience with Aqua Soil that seems to be a reasonable length of time for the nutrients to be depleted in the substrate if no water column fertilization is done; especially nitrogen. It's just a guess, but I'd be willing to bet nitrogen is the time-limiting factor in 100% ADA setups. After a certain time AS just doesn't have anything else to give, especially in high growth systems. 

I did a little look-see here at the lab using two year old Amazonia that I'd used in a tank where I supplimented the water column as if it were inert and saw very high concentrations of phosphorus. I'd dried and ground the AS into a fine powder, put 10g of it into 50mL of pure water, mixed it and let it sit for an hour. We use a colorimetric/absorbance method for P analysis here and the supernatant from the AS was far far darker than our highest standard of 0.6mg/L. 

With that concentration of P in the substrate and water column supplimentation of K; N is the only major nutrient left to consider. 

I believe the real trick is to balance light input with nutrient availablility if you're wanting to run a leaner water column. It's certainly doable in a high light/high growth system but there is likely to be a statue of limitations on how long the substrate will be able to sustain that level of plant growth on its own. 


All of this being said, we've all seen the results ADA and ADG achieve with the ADA method. Likewise, we all know how effective EI or similar dosing strategies can be. In my mind the differences between the two methods is one of stability. From all I've seen ADA systems tend to be very stable after the initial break in period. I've been using EI/PMDD or a similar strategy for close to 12 years now and have found my aquaria to be less stable or forgiving of change than when I've used Aqua Soil or a soil-based substrate.


----------



## Phil Edwards (Jan 22, 2004)

Taking on the topic of ammonia, I disagree with the assertion that they're not a problem in planted tanks. After lots of observation and a couple limited and not particularly scientific experiments, I believe ammonia to be the main contributing factor to algae growth. Yes, plants to take up ammonia and it is an effective source of nitrogen in non-aquatic systems. However, every time I've seen ammonia supplimented or haven't cleaned my filter for some time I've seen an increased amount of algae. 

I think we're both blessed and cursed by our plants. That they do take up ammonia is a good thing; however, that uptake retards or reduces the efficacy of our filters' biological contribution. Bert's observations of getting cloudy water after cleaning his filters hits this directly. Ammonia levels in many tanks are too low to support a robust population of nitrifying bacteria, so every time there's a change to the filter the tank cycles again or algae proliferate as the ecosystem seeks balance. 

We can also see this happen when our plants aren't as healthy. Healthy plants are able to take up, store, and modify the TOXIC ammonia. Unhealthy plants aren't able to do so as effectively. Coupled with the reduced microfauna populations in our filters, the increased concentrations of ammonia signal algal spores to germinate. **This is an hypothesis, not a statement of fact based on a focused investigation.** However, my observations over a long period seem to support the hypothesis. 

Bert,

The anaerobic or hypoxic zones in a dirty filter produce more than ammonia. It would be my guess that those compounds, in conjunction with increased ammonia concentrations, are what negatively impact the health of a planted aquarium. Remember, ammonia is toxic to plants just as it is to animals. The difference being plants have a mechanism to take up, store, and change the chemical structure of ammonia into a form that is not toxic and usable by the plant. Since ammonia is one of the initial nitrogenous byproducts of decomposition, plants have needed to find a way to capitalize on that source of N before it's used by other organisms. The negative charge of ammonia and nitrate ions keeps them from being sorbed onto soil particles. They both flush relatively easily through soils and are fairly transient compared to phosphorus, magnesium, calcium, and iron. It's a "use it now or lose it" situation. That being said, it's easy for concentrations of ammonia to reach toxic levels or concentrations where the plants are unable to sequester it if there's no mechanical or biochemical mechanism for neutralizing it. 

Cheers,
Phil


----------



## Bert H (Mar 2, 2004)

Thanks for your comments, and the chemistry explanations, Phil. It's been a long time for me since freshman chemistry.  Interesting point about the high phosphorus levels in the Amazonia, and it does speak as to why there is limited water column supplementation in ADA systems. 

One question - in your comments, you mention that the nutrients in the ADA substrates deplete after about one year, yet you comment on an increased stability of these types of set ups over EI/PPS (or whatever) types of set ups. Did I miss something? If you have depletion after a year or so, does one then switch to the water column fert routines in order to continue using the same substrate? Or are you saying it is necessary to change out your substrate every year or so with ADA systems? For me, that would be a deal breaker. First, I can't afford it, secondly, it's a lot of work. I can't argue with their results, they're fantastic, but (my analogy here  )not everyone can afford to drive a BMW. 

If I understood correctly, the build up of mulm in the substrate then would be a good thing over the long term, as long as one doesn't generate anaerobic zones. Several years ago, I was doing a massive replant in a long established 10 gal tank. I pulled up a huge, thick stand of C. wendtii and apparently it was sitting over an anaerobic spot. The smell of H2S which came out was potent, and surprising, considering it was only a 10 gal tank. The roots over that area were black, and probably the whole stand would have died in the near future, had I not pulled it up when I did. MTS to the rescue?

I agree with your comments about the differences between a tank with healthy plants being much more able to 'handle the bumps', so to speak. I am a full believer in 'healthy plants, make for a healthy tank and fish'. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. :thumbsup:


----------



## Dielectric (Oct 7, 2008)

Bert H said:


> I can't argue with their results, they're fantastic, but (my analogy here  )not everyone can afford to drive a BMW.


exactly! i think soil substrates have basically the same effect, and are nearly free.


----------



## joshvito (Apr 6, 2009)

> Here's how it works:
> There is a publication, a scientific one, about the water turnover through a filter that will provide 100% filtration. Running 1 tank volume an hour through the filter does not mean you have filtered all the water in the tank once. That's because the water being sucked by the filter is a mix of filtered and unfiltered water.


I'm searching for this publication, can you let me know if it is available online? thx

These are some interesting numbers you have posted, and I am just trying to get HANDLE on them.
v = tank volume
filter gph = v * 9.2
filter volume = .1 * v

This means that my 250gph, 6L canister filter, rated for up to 150 G tank, is grossly undersized for my 67G of water in my 75G tank!?! CRAZY...


----------



## Tex Guy (Nov 23, 2008)

Niko,

OK, my head hurts. For a simple guy like me maybe we can put this in terms that even I can understand. So my 65gal tank uses an Eheim 2217, which is rated at 220 gph. Here is an illustration from their web site about the proper charging of the filter with media:









As you can see, it is quite densely packed. Would you suggest that completely filling the canister with only bio balls would dramatically increase flow and efficiency of the biological filtration? Or perhaps bio balls with a single sponge type mat on top that gets rinsed occasionally?

Tex Guy

BTW... I was very impressed with your San Marcos photo set. That is from a different trip than the one we took. I think I can speak for Tex Gal that we are ready to go again.

Another BTW... I have tried several times to sprout rice to plant in a tank to no avail. Anybody been successful at that?


----------



## Tex Guy (Nov 23, 2008)

Michael said:


> Phil, is there a good web site to explain operation of Eheims? I did not get an owner's manual, and am not sure all the internal parts are present. The pump does run.
> 
> The manual available from the Eheim site is in German.
> 
> ...


Michael,

Here is their site. I don't know what model you have, but my model (2217) has an english version of the manual sort of dispersed through the polyglot.


----------



## Michael (Jul 20, 2010)

Phil, thank you. You are right--I just glanced at the first few pages, there isn't any English until page 5 or 6.


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

http://www.adana.com.my/products/filter_system.htm

Note that the picture of the filter media does not include any kind of mechanical media. Note that the explanation of filter medias in the bottom part of the page does not include any kind of mechanical media either.

On the picture the activated carbon in the blue mesh bag on top is only for the first few weeks of the tank setup.

The brick red layer is coco fiber. It's so little that I don't even know why it's there. Maybe preventing the Lava rock from getting in the intake pipe or something like that. Such a small amount of coco fiber will not alter the Ph or disperse the water evenly.

So after the intitial establishment period the biomedia is the main filter. It's either Lava rock (Bio Rio) or Poret filter foam (Bio Cube). ADA does not seem to popularize Poret.

If you calculate the filter flow rates in relation to the tanks that are suggested for them you will see a striking difference between what ADA suggests and what I wrote about already. ADA seems to use much less flow than the 8-10 times the tank volume per hour that I consider a magic number. Once again - let's not forget we are talking the ADA system here and all parts are meant to work together. For example the filters have pumps that will not decrease their flow if the filtration media gets clogged up. Another example - the water flow iside the tank when using the Lilly pipe is apparently carefully designed and aids filtration immensely. You get the picture.

To answer Tex_Guy's question: According to ADA you do need a different filter media setup. Bacially stuff your filter with biomedia that does not clog and allows for good consistent flow. Forget the fine sponges and even maybe the ceramic cylinders meant to disperse the water evenly. Will this work better? I have no idea. It is not part of a carefuly designed system. A change like that is a shot in the dark - trying to emulate ADA partially.

--Nikolay


----------



## Phil Edwards (Jan 22, 2004)

Bert H said:


> Thanks for your comments, and the chemistry explanations, Phil. It's been a long time for me since freshman chemistry.  Interesting point about the high phosphorus levels in the Amazonia, and it does speak as to why there is limited water column supplementation in ADA systems.


HAHAH, Bert, you're welcome! Water chemistry, aquatic soil chemistry, and aquatic botany are what the thrust of my education and recent work has been in. I'm sure if you talked in-depth about what you do I'd be all wall-eyed.

I think you missed something regarding phosphorus. I had been supplimenting N, P, K, and all the others in that system. What the high P levels in the substrate told me was it has a very high P-adsorption capacity. Basically, Amazonia, was a MASSIVE sink for P in that system. It was holding what appeared to be an insane amount of P after a year of regular water column dosing similar to EI. I can't give exact concentrations as what I did was a simple visual colorimetric comparison. If I wanted to look at P sorptivity properly I would have had to have done things very differently.

You're absolutely right about limited water column supplimentation though. For at least the first year Aqua Soil system substrates are strong sources of nutrients.



> One question - in your comments, you mention that the nutrients in the ADA substrates deplete after about one year, yet you comment on an increased stability of these types of set ups over EI/PPS (or whatever) types of set ups. Did I miss something?


You didn't miss anything. When you consider the nutrient input mechanisms of ADA vs. EI/PPS/PMDD type regimes the ADA regime has fewer spikes and troughs as far as water quality is concerned. I won't even begin to rebuke EI/PPS/PMDD as valid methods, I've used very similar methods in my aquaria for a long, long, time and will continue to do so. Using the ADA system, one doesn't dump a high concentration of nutrients into the water column and the ecosystem as a whole, especially the plants, isn't dependent on wholly external nutrient sources. It's exactly the lack of dependence upon external fertilization that makes the ADA sytem more stable than the other methods.

I'll use some of my past aquariums as examples. I had a 90g with a 100% Flourite substrate, modest-high/intense light, and almost 100% water column fertilization. If I kept up with the supplimentation and regular, weekly, large water changes everything grew gangbusters and looked fantastic. However, the second I overdosed or underdosed a nutrient or failed to maintain a regular supplimentation and maintenance routine something got out of whack and the system quickly reflected that via algae or decreased plant health.

In another system; a 75g, with more light than the 90g, equal filtration, and Amazonia + Powersand Special (the stuff with additives), after the initial nutrient release the system was much more forgiving. It didn't require daily or every other day supplimentation and didn't get out of whack in a heartbeat if I didn't change the water religiously or dosed incorrectly or irregularly. The plants still did well and the system as a whole was more resistant to algal growth than past systems which were set up to be dependent on 100% water column fertilization.

That's what I mean by stability. Another way to put it would be there is decreased variability in water quality with respect to time using the ADA method than other common regimes. Yes, there are trends upwards or downwards with respect to nutrients and water quality in an ADA system. However, the daily swings are smaller than with a system wholly dependent on the water column.



> If you have depletion after a year or so, does one then switch to the water column fert routines in order to continue using the same substrate? Or are you saying it is necessary to change out your substrate every year or so with ADA systems? For me, that would be a deal breaker. First, I can't afford it, secondly, it's a lot of work. I can't argue with their results, they're fantastic, but (my analogy here  )not everyone can afford to drive a BMW.


That's for damn sure! I'm not saying that it's required to replace ADA substrates after a year. I've used the same substrate for longer than that and the plants still grew well. Then again, I was also supplimenting the water column because I wasn't using the entire ADA substrate line, just Amazonia and PS. I was, in effect, giving the plants access to water column nutrients and enriching the substrate at the same time.

I know Amano has kept the same substrate and everything going in some long-term aquascapes in the past. Reading through his articles in TAG and TFH talk about that. However, every time he redoes an aquascape he changes out the substrate. Why? Because it costs next to nothing for him to do that and is good marketing. I can't recall specific examples, but I seem to remember him saying something about nutrient depletion over time in Aqua Soil and wanting to give the new plants "proper and full", to paraphrase, nutrition.

For we plebes and poor common folk who don't have the luxury of buying a new BMW every year, increasing supplimentation via the water column is a viable method over the long term when using Aquasoil. Besides nutrient release or retention, Aquasoil has a number of physical properties that make it desireable to use for many years. Just look at the massive, gorgeous, healthy root systems in an established Aquasoil substrate. The plants don't like.



> If I understood correctly, the build up of mulm in the substrate then would be a good thing over the long term, as long as one doesn't generate anaerobic zones. Several years ago, I was doing a massive replant in a long established 10 gal tank. I pulled up a huge, thick stand of C. wendtii and apparently it was sitting over an anaerobic spot. The smell of H2S which came out was potent, and surprising, considering it was only a 10 gal tank. The roots over that area were black, and probably the whole stand would have died in the near future, had I not pulled it up when I did. MTS to the rescue?


Exactly Bert! Mulm is a good and wonderful thing up to a point. Past that anaerobic zones and such can become a hazard to both the plants and fish. MTS to the rescue!!!

After my most recent research project I've become a strong proponent of soil use in an aquarium. Aaron and Sean's method for mineralized soil use is spot on! Just as you observed with your mulm and Crypt scenario, I got similar results in three species of plant growing them in 100% local pond soil. After 6-10 weeks, depending on the species, the root system in 100%, organic rich, silty clay loam pond soil, didn't penetrate past 1 inch. The same species, when grown in a mixture of ceramic clay with organic, physical, and inorganic nutrient amendment had a robust root structure (3in<) and strong aboveground growth. The amended clay treatments are similar to mineralized soil substrates described in the hobby. The reduced amounts of degradable material in the clay mixtures make appear to create a favorable environment for root growth right from the start. .

Seven months after initial planting, the LAERF pond soil has developed strong redoximorphic features with clear aerobic and anaerobic zones. Just like your thick mulm example, the substrate is so rich in organic matter and has such a fine-grained structure that oxygenated water isn't able to penetrate very deep into the substrate to prevent this. Granted, this is the natural state of many aquatic soils, and is something aquatic plants have evolved to tackle. However, it's an entirely undesireable situation for our aquaria. Over time, it's the root structure which is the most important element. With as often as many of us trim, a robust root system is what will aid in regrowth and maintain stability in the substrate over the long haul

I'm in the process of analyzing tissue nutrient content now; hopefully that will be the keystone to tie everything together and I'll be able to give a clear picture of why I got the results I did.



> I agree with your comments about the differences between a tank with healthy plants being much more able to 'handle the bumps', so to speak. I am a full believer in 'healthy plants, make for a healthy tank and fish'. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. :thumbsup:


I agree with that 100% as well Bert! I'll add this to it; healthy plants are an indicator, not the creator or cause, of a healthy ecosystem.

I hope all this hasn't been too long-winded or highbrow for y'all. It's just what I know and I love sharing my experiences with folks. One of the AGA's mandates is educating people about the hobby. I'd be terribly remiss if I didn't do my part.

LOL, can you tell I've been writing technical papers for too long?

Regards,
Phil


----------



## Phil Edwards (Jan 22, 2004)

Tex Guy said:


> Michael,
> 
> dispersed through the polyglot.


Bill, you just earned 200 bonus points for using polyglot in conversation. :first:


----------



## Michael (Jul 20, 2010)

Everyone, this is an extremely helpful discussion, especially as I comtemplate setting up a new tank.

Phil and Niko, you have offered a great analysis of different parts of Amano's method. I am begining to understand it for the first time. Could you comment in a similar way about Diana Walstad's technique?

Thanks,
Michael


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

I know nothing about Diana. Mudboots and Davemonkey know.

Other than that the information in this thread is something that you will never find anywhere else laid out like that. Not in English at least.

It starts to become clear why I wanted it to be "property" of DFWAPC. I consider it very promising. We need to make a small series of articles on our club website.

Michael,

Please let's experiment with your new tank.

I'm in the process of experimenting with my 180. I have it setup for a seemingly guaranteed failure - way too many fish + one single species of plant that does not suck nutrients too fast.






If through flow rate, flow direction, type of flow etc. I can clear up this tank completely we as a whole are going places. Finally. After 10 years of burrying our heads into aquascaping.

I also have a 55 that I'm about to redesign. And a brand new 75 for which Kim will hopefully be desinging a killer ultra stylish stand. This whole experimentation may write the next chapter of planted tanks in the US. Seriously. Because people want new information + eye candy. And we can make that happen. Look what we have done in the last month or so - talk about flow rate, biomedia only filtration, Poret, laminar flow. None of these topics were even discussed in connection with each other before!

Hope it all works!

--Nikolay


----------



## Phil Edwards (Jan 22, 2004)

Michael,

The same assumptions apply in the context of a Walstad or Mineralized Soil type setup, with two distinct differences.

1) Diana's method doesn't account for the biogeochemical processes which affect new soil-based substrates. I believe this is why she emphasizes iron toxicity so much. I'm not microbiologist and she is. Without taking some time to bone up on that topic I really can't discuss it fully or properly. I will make some comparisons and generalizations in a little bit.

2) Mineralized Soil; Aaron and Sean took Diana's work to the next logical and natural step by mineralizing the organic compounds present in new aquatic soils prior to putting it in an aquarium.



I'm going to be heretical here for a moment and say that ADA products and their method is nothing more than a mass-market and plug-and-play version of a combination of Diana, Sean, and Aaron's work with soil-based substrates.

The major difference being ADA has an established R+D department dedicated to coming up with best practices for aquarium keeping. If you look in NAW1 (I think) Amano mentions buying an old rice farm in the mountains and turning it into a research facility. ADA has figured out how to create a system which mimics nature in a commercial context. 

El Natural and Mineralized Soil substrates do the exact same thing on in a frugal and individual context. My graduate research has basically taken past studies which mimic Diana's early work and Aaron and Sean's methods and ideas to the next step. I'll try to answer your question in the context of my work, which I feel most comfortable making definitive statements about. Truth be told, much of what I've said about ADA substrates is based on my own research and results of my study and can be directly applied in the context of Diana, Sean, and Aaron's work. 

All of the same biogeochemical processes (redox, nutrient sequestration/release, etc) apply to "El Natural" (I FREAKIN' HATE THAT MONIKER!!!!) and Mineralized Soil setups. The main difference between ADA substrates and these "homebrew" ones is that Aquasoil tends to not foul the water if left uncapped. 

Unprocessed clay and soil-based substrates need to be capped for two reasons:
1) Prevent the suspension of fine particles into the water column
2) Create an oxygen rich boundary between the (largely) anaerobic soil or soil+clay layer and oxygenated water column. 

A number of the important biogeochemical processes in soil and soil/clay substrates occur under anaerobic conditions. As oxygen is depleted, the pH of the substrate decreases, which causes a change in oxidation state of elements such as iron, magnesium, and phosphorous. Under anaerobic conditions these elements become reduced and become more soluble. Under conditions of direct soil to water column contact, these reduced elements would be released into the water column in an uncontrolled manner and likely dangerous concentrations; both undesireable conditions. Using a coarse grained sand as defined in geotechnical terms (between 2-3 mm in diameter) as a cap creates a boundary layer in which the reduced elements are oxidized and become less soluble or insoluble in water. 

Comparing this to ADA substrates; a sand cap may be desireable during the first few weeks or months of the tank's life in that the boundary will help mitigate uncontrolled nutrient release directly into the water. However, and it's a BIG however, Aquasoil is NOT actual soil. My guess, based on some lab work, is that it's a mixture of volcanic clay readily available in Japan and an organic component such as finely milled peat. The major difference between this and a substrate based on an organic potting mix, or very weakly developed soil (aka Mineralized Soil), is the lack or reduced concentration of elements such as iron and magnesium. NO **** PHIL, YOU ALREADY SAID THERE ARE ADA PRODUCTS TO SUPPLIMENT THIS. 

An observation of Diana's substrate. Years ago she gave me some potted Crypts. The substrate was made by The Woman Herself. To a one, the substrate was anaerobic throughout with small oxygenated boundary layers surrounding the roots. 

An observation of Amazonia + PS "special" after 6 months. Even in the rear of my aquarium where the substrate was the thickest, there were strong zones of visible iron oxide near the bottom. This tells me that, at least in the layers I could see next to the side glass, oxygen is moving through the substrate. This is significant for one very very important reason: plant roots are aerobic! Root cells non-photosythetic and must have oxygen to respire, just like humans. Under anaerobic conditions aquatic plants ABSOLUTELY MUST transport oxygen to their root tissues or those tissues will die. This takes energy away from growth and other metabolic processes. 

This reduced energy means two things:
1) New biomass isn't accumulated as quickly
2) Plants are more susceptible to decreased health due to changes in their environment. Simply put, the energy required to transport oxygen takes away from energy available to fight disease or repair damaged tissues. 

I'm using a method similar to Diana and Sean/Aaron's with some modifications based on my experimental results. I've got a layer of approximately 50% Turface, 30% ceramics clay powder, and 20% local pond soil under 1-3 inches of coarse sand. The mixture is something I wanted to try, based on experimental results, and (hopefully) closely approximates the physical and chemical properties of non-processed Aquasoil. Similar results could probably be obtained without the Turface, but I wanted a large grained component to help resist compaction and hopefully encourage root development. 

Michael, if you're looking to come up with a suitable substitute for Aquasoil for a large tank, let's talk off-list. I might be able to help you out.


----------



## Michael (Jul 20, 2010)

My head is spining; I need some time (and more instruction) to digest all this. But I am very willing to try these methods with my new tank.

Which I don't have yet! Through a surprising Craig's List swap, I acquired a bunch of nice equipment and an ugly 55 tank and stand.

The equipment:

Eheim 2217
1 Coral life 2 tube T5 HO 48"
2 Coral Life 2 tube T5 HO 24"
1 Koralia 3
1 Koralia Nano
Jager heater

The tank is badly scratched, and the stand is cheesy MDF. I dislike the proportions of the standard 55 anyway. So my first thought is to sell/trade the tank for a 40 breeder or a 50 with the same footprint (36 x 18 x 19). And build a cool stand for it, LOL.

Should we start another thread on this?

A note: My first two tanks were done based on the Walstad method. (I call it El Natural because the forum here is so titled, even though the name sounds a bit affected.) The major difference is that I used expanded shale as a cap over the organic potting soil. This is a light-weight, porous, coarse material, with particle size of 3 to 8 mm. It is used in horticulture, and as a light weight aggregate for concrete.

In the first tank, I used the potting soil straight from the bag. In the second, I put the soil through 3 rinse and drain cycles. I did not let it dry throroughly between rinses, and I did not add any clay, dolomite, etc.

The first tank is now about 4 months old, and has worked like a dream, except for the annoying planaria that managed to come in. The second tank has a little hair algae, but that is easily managed, and is also trouble free.

So that is the sum of my experience.

--Michael


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

Michael,

If we decide to experiment you will have to decide on a tank first I guess 

Then there will be a lot of help available to you:

*Substrate*
I can give you enough used AquaSoil for a 40 or 50, especially if we don't use it to cover the entire substrate.

*Lights*
The lights seem good providing the bulbs are still good.

*Filtration*
If we are going to make the filtration of this tank to be according to the conditions that I believe are best then we need to make sure that:
- The flow per hour is 8-10 times the tank volume
- The filter has only biomedia
- The biomedia is close to 10% of the tank volume

The Eheim 2217 pump rate is 265 gph. For a 55 gal. tank that needs to be increased to 500. But the filter size limits us to about 400-450 gph.or the flow will be to strong. The desired higher flow rate can be achieved with a $20 pump attached to the filter intake.

The volume of the biomedia of the 2217 is about 3 gallons. That's about 8% of a 40 gal. tank. And about 6% of a 50 gal. tank. We cannot change that volume unless you buy a larger filter. I guess we'll use the Eheim you have. If issues arise that's the first thing to look into - the filter size.

The biomedia should be Lava rock. According to ADA lava rock gets colonized by bacteria slower than cubes of Poret foam. But ADA claims that Poret gets clogged easier and faster. They recommend using Poret cubes in the first month - for faster colonization and nitrification. Then switching to Lava rock - which never clogs but cannot be colonized very fast. I guess if we do all this you will have to buy some Ehfisubstrat - enough to fill the 3 gallon filter canister.

If we get around doing that the only other things that will have to be done are to work out the light schedule and the consistent water changes for the first 2 months or so.

--Nikolay


----------



## Michael (Jul 20, 2010)

OK, let's assume I get my dream tank, the 36" x 18" x 19" 50 gal. I've already been working on a design in my head for hardscape and plants.

I don't plan to do CO2.

Would it be possilbe to increase the volume of the filter by adding some kind of pre-fliter with lava rock in-line before the canister?

Do we think used Aqua Soil is the best substrate? I am intrigued by Phil's suggestion of a soil-based substrate developed from Walstad and mineralized soil techniques, formulated to reduce or eliminate anaerobic conditions. And I think the expanded shale has real potential as a component of this.

--Your eager neophyte


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

Well, since my mind is set on experimenting with flow and filtration in order to achieve a problem free and manageable tank I see using an experimental substrate as a complication. AquaSoil is not an unknown and I have it so I offered it in the name of (homemade) science, haha!

But really it should not matter. If the filtration works then the substrate experiment should be fine too. So I'm all up for it. The worst thing that can happen would be a great looking clean tank. The best thing that could happen would be what we are used to have and feel comfortable with - a tank that has it's own mind and we have no answers to its issues 

Yes you can put part of the biomedia in the tank if you want. No problem. Actually as we speak I have a 120 gal. tank like that. Its canister filter leak and while I'm looking for a new part I just placed the baskets with biomedia inside the tank. Circulation is with one small powerhead. Everybody is happy so far, even after severe plant prunning.

--Nikolay, your-eager-know-it-all-pft


----------



## Michael (Jul 20, 2010)

Yes, as an experiment it would be best to concentrate on one variable at a time.

BTW, what IS Aqua Soil anyway? As a callow neophyte, I become very frustrated at all these proprietary substrates that do not reveal their ingredients. Personally, I am much more likely to use something in my tank if I know what is in it, rather than having just some sexy name the marketing departmant coined.

Last question before I go work in the garden: Does all the 8-10 x tank volume circulation need to go through the filter/biomedia? Could we just increase the circulation with powerheads? (Remember, I have those two Koralias.) I keep thinking about the flow rates recommended for large biofilters on ponds--2x total volume per hour. This is to give enough contact time with the bio-media to allow the bacteria to do their work. Circulation for aeration and debris removal is often accomplished with a split flow, or separate pump altogether.

For a beginer, I am not very docile, am I?


----------



## JeffyFunk (Apr 6, 2006)

I'd like to chime in on some observations that I've made on my own tanks w/ regard to filtration, "El natural" tanks and "High Tech tanks" and what I've observed through the lens of Diana Walstad's book "Ecology of the Planted Aquarium". Please note - these are just my observations and how I interpret the findings outlined in "Ecology of the Planted Aquarium"; I have no hard scientific evidence for the conclusions / rational I make in this post other than what I've observed (casually).

First, a word about filtration. In an "El natural" tank, as Diana Walstad observed, biological filtration is not necessary. I've set up numerous soil substrate, no CO2 tanks and had wonderful plant growth and never had any algae related to the dreaded "Organics". However, in soil substrate tanks w/ added CO2, I've had way more issues w/ "Organics" in the form of BBA. How can this be if the topic of discussion here is filtration and how important it is to the removal of organics (as well as the nitrogen cycle)? Simple - carbon sequestration. In a tank w/ no CO2 injection, the element of carbon is at a premium; It's the element needed the most and available the least. In these tanks, plants will take up all the dissolved CO2 available as well as any other utilizable carbon. In other words, the plants will take up the "organics" because they can be utilized. On the contrary, in a tank w/ CO2 injection, plants will primarily take up the dissolved CO2 and ignore the "organics" in the water column. Why? Because they can afford the luxury of not having to break down complex organic compounds to use as a carebon source (i.e. it takes less energy to use CO2 directly vs. from the oxidation of organic compounds). This is why I believe I have more algae in my CO2 injected tanks due to the presence of organics. Taking this idea further, this is why filtration is more important on CO2 injected tanks (for the removal of organics) and why water changes are needed in CO2 injected tanks (also for the removal of organics, but also to help reset nutrient levels in the water column).

Second, a word about substrate. From what I've read (somewhere, can't remember where), Aqua soil is supposedly nothing more than soil, clay and a binder that is all mixed together, formed into little balls and then fired / baked at a high temperature to keep it all together. In other words, as Phil Edwards suggested, Aqua soil is just a much more convenient form of (enriched) soil. Mineralized soil is an enriched version of just regular top soil. I've explained the role of soil specifically in an "el natural" tank in this post:

http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/el-natural/75259-does-anyone-add-co2-his-her.html

On the topic of substrates and how they relate to CO2 injected and non-CO2 injected tanks, I have the following comment for how they work and their (observed) stability Phil Edwards observed (in post #34)... Think of a planted aquarium as the act of driving a car (of your choice) down a (straight) road. Some people want a luxury sports car and some are content w/ a basic entry level car. Some people would like to drive their car really fast down that road and some people would like to drive leisurely down that road. The road can be a narrow, one lane dirt path or a 6 lane expressway (there is no traffic on these roads, btw...) On either side of the road is a big ditch that will wreck your car. So... what type of car did you pick? What type of driver are you?

In this analogy, the speed your car is going to travel is the amount of light. The more light you have, the faster your car is going to go. Some people live for speed, some people would rather drive slowly and leisurely.

In this analogy, the luxury sports car is a high light, high tech, CO2 injected aquarium - able to grow any plant, the envy of most all who see it. However, the luxury car has a lot of maintenance required of it. (The car requires premium gasoline, frequent car washes and polishing, regular maintenance and grooming, etc; The planted aquarium requires CO2 injection, regular nutrient dosing, regular water changes, big filters, etc.) The basic entry level car is a low tech, "el natural" aquarium. Able to grow some plants but nothing that is going to win any aquascaping awards with. The basic entry level car also has maintenance required of it, but nothing like that of the luxury car since it isn't being driven as hard.

In this analogy, the type of road is the substrate. In a soil-based (soil, mineralized soil, aqua soil) based tank, you have the luxury of the 6 lane highway to help keep you on the road. In a gravel or inert based substrate, you have a narrow, one lane road - not much room to keep you on the road.

And of course, the ditch is algae.

As Phil Edwards observed, in soil-based substrate tanks (aqua soil), the tanks were much more forgiving of nutrient fluctuations since the substrate itself was able to sequester and release nutrients to the plants as needed. In an inert, gravel-based substrate tank, the tank was much more vulnerable to swings in nutrient levels and did not have that buffer in nutrient levels, leading to algae problems more quickly.


----------



## Ekrindul (Jul 3, 2010)

JeffyFunk said:


> First, a word about filtration. In an "El natural" tank, as Diana Walstad observed, biological filtration is not necessary. I've set up numerous soil substrate, no CO2 tanks and had wonderful plant growth and never had any algae related to the dreaded "Organics". However, in soil substrate tanks w/ added CO2, I've had way more issues w/ "Organics" in the form of BBA. How can this be if the topic of discussion here is filtration and how important it is to the removal of organics (as well as the nitrogen cycle)? Simple - carbon sequestration. In a tank w/ no CO2 injection, the element of carbon is at a premium; It's the element needed the most and available the least. In these tanks, plants will take up all the dissolved CO2 available as well as any other utilizable carbon. In other words, the plants will take up the "organics" because they can be utilized. On the contrary, in a tank w/ CO2 injection, plants will primarily take up the dissolved CO2 and ignore the "organics" in the water column. Why? Because they can afford the luxury of not having to break down complex organic compounds to use as a carebon source (i.e. it takes less energy to use CO2 directly vs. from the oxidation of organic compounds). This is why I believe I have more algae in my CO2 injected tanks due to the presence of organics. Taking this idea further, this is why filtration is more important on CO2 injected tanks (for the removal of organics) and why water changes are needed in CO2 injected tanks (also for the removal of organics, but also to help reset nutrient levels in the water column).


This sounds logical, but doesn't account for occurrences of BBA in a setup that doesn't match the parameters you described. Inconsistent CO2 levels seem to be the most likely trigger for BBA. It also assumes that BBA is carbon limited, which is surely isn't; no algae is. Think of it in terms of inconsistent CO2 levels and you can begin to see why water changes in a system with no CO2 enrichment other than the new water itself would lead to an outbreak of BBA. Water changes introduce a sudden increased level of CO2, followed by a drought of CO2 after it gases off or is utilizied by the plants. In a CO2 enriched system, the water change's CO2 levels are offset by the enrichment. In an El Natural system, the CO2 level is relatively constant.


----------



## Tex Guy (Nov 23, 2008)

Design Considerations For A High Volume Filter:

Here is my working idea for a high volume / high flow canister filter. First, a 7 gallon bucket.









Second, a screw on lid for same.













Maybe a couple of ratcheting tie downs if the seal ring isn't sufficiently tight.

A couple of bulkheads, top and bottom side.

A pump at the bottom.

Bio media of your choice.

The immediate problem I can see is with this volume you have a disaster if the siphon tube breaks siphon. Then you will send 7 gallons of water back into tank and overflowing it.

Who knows the answer to that potential problem?


----------



## Andy Ritter (Nov 26, 2008)

Tex Guy said:


> Who knows the answer to that potential problem?


You could have the water enter the bucket at the bottom via the siphon tube, and then place the pump at the top, either internally or externally on the lid. By doing this, the pump would be pulling water from the top of the bucket, so when the siphon tube allowed air in, this air would naturally rise to the top of the bucket, causing the pump to cease pumping water. Of course, it would be best to have a pump that won't overheat and burn up in case this does happen. I would imagine that there are some type of switches (float style, maybe?) that could be added to the lid and wired in series with the pump in order to shut it off in case the top of the bucket filled with air.

Just in case you haven't thought about it, to keep from accidentally siphoning out most of the water in the tank in the event of a leak at the bucket, it would be a good idea to drill a small hole in the siphon tube a couple of inches below the surface of the water in the tank in order to break the siphon intentionally.

Andy


----------



## Phil Edwards (Jan 22, 2004)

Jeff,

First off, please, call me Phil. You're not one of my students and I'm not yet Dr. Edwards. 

Second, I love the car analogy, especially after Bert's mention of a BMW.

I think you're onto something regarding CO2 in soil-based aquaria, however I think there's another variable to be considered; pH. I'm not going to say that plants don't utilize organic carbon molecules; Excel is proof that statement would be wrong. However, I do believe plants don't use them to the extent that organic molecules would become depleted in the water column and become a limiting factor.

Some observations from my own low light, no CO2, VERY rich old Flourite substate tanks and soil substrate/moderate-high light/CO2 tank at work to support this:
1) BBA and Cyano: I've noticed these two alga tend to colonize areas of either low flow and/or locations with high physical matter decomposition, ie new wood or zones of mulm deposition. Both areas tend to be zones of reduced flow due to frictional forces (still working on the thread discussing fluid dynamics).

Cyano in particular tends to prefer gentle or non-existent flow. These areas can be categorized as depositional environments and are zones where detritus accumulates. If you account for dissolved oxygen, the slow flow zones are also areas of reduced oxygen as O-enriched water doesn't travel through there as much as in zones of suspension/high flow. Natural lakes and ponds show this clearly; during periods of stratification or low wind the water column is not turned over very quickly and O2 is depleted relative to other times of the year when mixing is greater.

Back to availablility of organic carbon, Co2 enrichment, and differential pH. In non CO2 enriched aquaria water column pH is fairly consistent. CO2 and pH are never truly homogenous throughout a planted aquaria. In the planted zones where flow is reduced mixing is likewise reduced. Futhermore, there will be a zone surrounding all photosynthetic material where inorganic carbon is depleted relative to the water column.

Think of a grove of oaks in full leaf on a windy day. If you stand outside the trees you get the full impact of wind and the gas concentration of the air is for the most part homogenous. As soon as you step past the tree line frictional forces reduce air flow through the canopy, thereby reducing the input of homogenous air. The closer one gets to the zone with leaves and branches the slower air flow gets and the more reduced gas exchange is. The same premise applies to planted zones in an aquarium; only the fluid medium is water rather than air (a very diffuse fluid).

*How does this apply to the topic at hand?*

In the zones of highest mixing, the presence of inorganic carbon acidifies the water column relative to other zones. Acidification affects (increases) the availability of sequestered compounds at the water/substrate interface. Plants do this all the time. They release H+ ions and organic acids into the substrate to promote the availability of sequestered nutrients. I believe this is the real reason we see algae present in CO2 enriched aquaria; particularly near the substrate, non-aged wood, or on unhealthy/decaying plant tissues.

This acidification is also a factor in fresh soil enriched substrates. What we see in the form of algal growth is the physical manifestation of organic matter decomposition and mineralization. This was HIGHLY evident in my substrate study. The LAERF pond soil treatments had a huge amount of algae in the sand cap and along the sides of the buckets. The clay treatments, which were depleted of organics relative to LAERF pond soil, didn't have nearly the algal colonization. Each bucket was circulated and aerated with an airstone on a drop line. I assume gas concentrations equal to ambient and at least in the early stages, strong mixing in the containers. pH in the water column was fairly uniform; 8.2-8.3 among all treatments. SUBSTRATE pH was highly variable; ranging from the high 4/low 5 to neutral. IIRC, LAERF soil and organic matter amended clay treatments had the lowest pH. They also exhibited the highest amount of algae in the sand cap and side of the bucket. Some cyano were present (no BBA) in the lower strata of the cap; but were nearly ubiquitous along the inside of the pot or other zones of potentially preferrential water flow/osmotic channels.

This clear observable difference tells me colonization of cyano (and BBA in our aquariums) is much more likely a factor of lower pH and depleted oxygen than it is the presence of organic compounds; as cyanobacteria were present in all treatments, including those without amendment of organic matter.

Gotta run, I'll continue this later.

~Phil


----------



## Michael (Jul 20, 2010)

Phil, from this it would seem that circulation is important for mixing and uniform oxygen levels in non-CO2 enriched tanks, and not for biofiltration per se. To use our practical example, my future tank, the fact that the Eheim 2217 doesn't circulate 8-10x the tank volume per hour would not matter, as long as circulation was supplemented with other devices.

On the car analogy, I usually drive a '98 BMW Z3--tons of fun on narrow, twisting roads, but a real pain to maintain. If I didn't live with a gear head, I wouldn't be able to keep the thing. I don't want my future aquarium to be that much trouble!


----------



## Phil Edwards (Jan 22, 2004)

Michael said:


> Phil, from this it would seem that circulation is important for mixing and uniform oxygen levels in non-CO2 enriched tanks, and not for biofiltration per se. To use our practical example, my future tank, the fact that the Eheim 2217 doesn't circulate 8-10x the tank volume per hour would not matter, as long as circulation was supplemented with other devices.


Michael,

I'm still not sold on the necessity of 8-10x circulation in the filter, or even necessarily in the aquarium as a whole. What's more important in my opinion is that there are no dead spots or areas of significantly reduced flow. This is only based on personal observations, but I've found well oxygenated/well mixed aquatic environments to have significantly less algae. This is true of lakes, ponds, rivers, buckets, aquariums etc.

For reasons I mentioned above, and am still trying to work out in my head, algae are well suited to stagnant environments. I'm sure there are a few over-riding characteristics of such habitats, but, I can saw with a high degree of confidence that it's the interactions between prevailing conditions and things I'm sure we haven't even thought about yet, which create a situation conducive to nasties such as BBA and BGA.

Remember; algae are *always* present in an aquarium, even if it's only as spores or other propagules waiting for the right set of conditions to germinate.

I wouldn't be surprised to find out that well mixed and oxygenated water aids in some form of biofiltration or proliferation of microfauna which inhibit the germination or survival of spores which begin to germinate. I'm not microbiologist and can't even begin to discuss such things in more than a hypothetical manner. It would be something worth doing serious study on though!


----------



## OVT (Aug 26, 2010)

Might be hard to germinate in the x8-10 flow. Also might be hard to secure an anchor point. Stagnant areas are the "safe harbors" where, arguably, algae is not nutrient limited, but the surrounding plants are.


----------



## houseofcards (Feb 16, 2005)

I think there are very few things that are absolute necessities in planted aquaria. It really depends on the setup. I don't think 8-10x flow is a bad thing, but I'm still not convinced of the impact a typical canister filter has on a fairly large planted tank especially one that is heavily planted. How efficient is a few pounds of bio-media compared to 50-80 pounds of substrate, especially if that substrate is well-aerated AS with Powersand (maybe this stuff really does work?). Now if you have a canister on a Mini S/M like they do at the ADA gallery it might be another story. 

I've forgotten to turn my canister filter on several times after doing a water change on my 72g for as long a 30 or so hours and I've never noticed any problems with the tank. I've also had my tank up and running now for almost two years with just an eheim 2215. My effective turnover is probably around 1-1.5x.

With that being said my tanks are low stock, well-maintained systems with good co2. I'll be curious to see how much wiggle room Niko's filtration experiment allows him in terms of stock and limited plant mass.


----------



## AquaBarren (Nov 6, 2009)

Gees. This seems like a confusing thread.

ADA filters don't lose flow if the media clogs? How is that possible?

A planted tank itself is a bio filter as long as water moves within it. So much discussion about media.

Velocity is lost by water shortly after it exits the outflow and disperses. Turnover will stay high, but flow and movement are different. No matter how big your filter, more flow and movement will be necessary. 

Also consider that a heavily planted tank is very different from an iwagumi with virtually no obstruction to slow flow through the tank.

ADA replaces substrate every year? Expense aside, who would want to do that on purpose???

This hobby isn't as complicated as this thread seems to make it.

If I read this thread before getting into the hobby I'd have bought a dog instead.


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

Really? My god.

Here it goes...

1. Iwaki pumps do loose flow because they are the same kind of pumps found in Jebos, Eheims, Fluvals, SunSuns, and BlaBla filters.

2. You don't need a filter if you have substrate in the tank.

3. More flow is better, no matter what.

4. All ADA tanks are iwagumi.

5. We know little about how ADA does things. And why should we care? But we do know one thing for sure - they replace the AquaSoil in their tanks every year.

6. This hobby is not complicated. Substrate + water + plants. Period.

7. I have 5 dogs.

Excuse me. Today is a horrible day to *mess* with me. Poor Chinese and Indian telemarketers that called me today.

So here I try to joke. Without smiling. Today I can't. Nothing personal.

And:

"When you can assume that your audience holds the same beliefs as you do, you can relax a little and use more normal means of talking to it; when you have to assume that it does not, then you have to make your vision apparent by shock-to the hard of hearing you shout, and for the almost-blind, you draw large and startling figures."

-Flannery O'Connor, "The Fiction Writer & His Country"

But a friend of mine says "It is pointless to talk to people that express an opinion before reading the article.".

Shouting/drawing large and startling figures. Or not talking at all. What's it gonna be, Niko?

Everybody. Click here for going back to our usual programming:
http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/search.php?searchid=1421852

--Nikolay


----------



## fishyjoe24 (May 18, 2010)

and now we dance and exit stage left.... I think it will all be trial and error. plus not every one will have the same results... now where is the milk and cookies.


----------



## AaronT (Apr 26, 2004)

OVT said:


> Might be hard to germinate in the x8-10 flow. Also might be hard to secure an anchor point. Stagnant areas are the "safe harbors" where, arguably, algae is not nutrient limited, but the surrounding plants are.


This is where the importance of laminar vs. turbulent flow comes into play. I'm not sure germination is a real concern for any of us keeping planted aquariums. Perhaps in an emersed setup, but that's a whole different animal.


----------



## JeffyFunk (Apr 6, 2006)

AquaBarren said:


> Gees. This seems like a confusing thread.


While this conversation topic may seem confusing, it is not. Instead it is a (more) indepth discussion of a topic that is very important to Niko (and many others). I think the reason Niko took offense to your response is because it came across as... naive? condescending? flippant? Choose a word... I believe that it's one thing to ask questions; It's another thing entirely to just try to dismiss an in-depth conversation and write it off as not important and reduce it to the least common denominator (as so many people like to do on the internet...)



AquaBarren said:


> ADA filters don't lose flow if the media clogs? How is that possible?


I think AaronT explains it best in the following post in a companion thread:

http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/...8-discussion-laminar-vs-turbulant-flow-2.html



AquaBarren said:


> A planted tank itself is a bio filter as long as water moves within it. So much discussion about media.


Yes and No. In the context of what Diana Walstad discusses in "Ecology of the Planted Aquarium", I believe that she is correct in stating that plants can and do act as biological filters. However, my observations suggest that while plants alone are sufficient biological filtration in a non CO2 enriched aquarium, they are not sufficient biological filtration in a high(er) tech, CO2 enriched aquarium. In this case, additional filtration is needed (and that's really at the heart of this conversation).



AquaBarren said:


> Velocity is lost by water shortly after it exits the outflow and disperses. Turnover will stay high, but flow and movement are different. No matter how big your filter, more flow and movement will be necessary.


The following companion topic explains how ignorant the above statement is:

http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/...478-discussion-laminar-vs-turbulant-flow.html

The whole point of these two posts is to get people to see that there *is* a difference in how water is circulated in the tank. To then state that flow is flow and water movement is water movement is really a slap in the face to the people that are posting some really nice, in-depth observations and / or research findings.



AquaBarren said:


> Also consider that a heavily planted tank is very different from an iwagumi with virtually no obstruction to slow flow through the tank.


This is a good point that I think everyone would agree on. That said, Amano uses the same filtration on his carpet-plant-only iwagumi layouts as well as his tall-stem-plants-in-the-background iwagumi layouts as well... And the flow through his tanks would still different than if he used, say, a mag pump.



AquaBarren said:


> ADA replaces substrate every year? Expense aside, who would want to do that on purpose???


An interesting point of this thread is on the topic of nutrient breakdown (i.e. particulate filtration) and nutrient recycling. Niko obvserves that w/ Amano's lily pipes, the water circulates in his tanks in such a way that mulm and other debris is gently lifted off of the substrate floor into the water column so that it can be sucked up by the canister filter and then broken down there by the bacteria that colonize the filter media; In essence, recycling the waste products (mulm, ammonia, nitrites) into something the plants can then use (nitrates). As Phil and I have commented on (more Phil than me, though), the movement of water, especially if it's CO2 enriched, is very important in how it relates to nutrient availability. The more CO2 enriched water that is able to contact the substrate, the more nutrients it is able to release to the plants, resulting in an eventual depletion of nutrients from the substrate. This is why ADA replaces their substrates every year - to provide the plants with a continuous source of nutrients.



AquaBarren said:


> This hobby isn't as complicated as this thread seems to make it.
> 
> If I read this thread before getting into the hobby I'd have bought a dog instead.


Yes and No. If you want to break down the hobby and how to grow plants to the least common denominator, then yes, the hobby isn't complicated at all. If, however, you are trying to have an indepth conversation about some of the finer details of the hobby that are easily overlooked, then yes, it can be very complicated. That is the point of this thread; to discuss some of the finer points of the hobby.

This reminds me of a conversation I had w/ my friend Troy a long time ago. We were both in college; I was a Biochemistry major, He was an English major. I was trying to explain to him what it is I was studying (I think I was taking Organic Chemistry II at the time and was studying Organic reaction mechanisms) and he asked me why the hell anyone would want to learn that and also what practical application it had in his life (since he didn't have to take tests on it, or do lab reports on it, etc). I explained that the most logical application of what I was studying was in the the field of medicine. Way before you go to the doctor and get a prescription for a medication, scientists have to come up a that medication. That medication was probably derived from by thinking about how the body and disease works; By thinking about the biochemical processes in how it interacts with the body and makes you sick; By understanding how biochemical processes work on the mechanistic level as taught in Organic Chemistry II. In other words, you have to *really* know the basics of chemistry before you can take that knowledge and apply it to making something practical (medicine in this case).

Getting back to the topic at hand, that is what this conversation is attempting to do - talk about flow and filtration and substrate on a more detailed level and then seeing how it applies to the aquarium as a whole. Maybe all *you* really want is a small text box with the take home message. That's fine and has it's place on the internet, but that's not what we're doing here in this topic. To try to shrug off that scientific, discussion process (as you have done) and say it's not important and not worth discussing is insulting.

In that context, I can very much see how Niko would be offended by your response. That said, it also wouldn't be a Niko topic w/out his totally-off-the-wall response as well...


----------



## Michael (Jul 20, 2010)

JeffyFunk, very well said!

As a relative beginner, I find discussions of underlying principles like this one to be indispensable.


----------



## Dielectric (Oct 7, 2008)

wow this thread is a mouthful but very informative indeed.


----------



## Ekrindul (Jul 3, 2010)

Michael said:


> JeffyFunk, very well said!
> 
> As a relative beginner, I find discussions of underlying principles like this one to be indispensable.


I agree.

If your goal is to have a simple betta or guppy tank, this can be a very easy hobby. If you are interested in having an aquarium with a variety of flora and fauna, and aim for optimal health of fish and plants, this can be a very complicated hobby. Even if you choose to ignore the complexity of the system, that doesn't mean it isn't there. For me, the complexity is what has kept me invested in the hobby. I would have grown bored along time ago, otherwise.

Also, in a hobby infested with so much myth and speculation that passes for fact, the deeper we look into aspects of our aquariums, the better.


----------



## AquaBarren (Nov 6, 2009)

Didn't mean to offend anyone. My apologies if I did. I just exited a conversation with a beginner who felt overwhelmed and condescended elsewhere and decided to not start. Maybe I had a bit of residual attitude and I regret that. Mostly meant some comments to be humorous. Anyway a sincere apology to all in this thread. 

The basics really do seem simple though. Substrate barely matters, reasonable fert and light will keep most plants alive. Working on the nuances and the pursuit of the perfect setup is great. And appreciated. If I can succeed though, it can't be too hard to cover the basics.

Flow interests me a lot. Questions about it net the least input of any other topic. 

Perfect laminar flow seems impossible in a heavily planted tank. Conversations from learned folks elsewhere suggest that laminar flow will clear some areas, but embed particulates in other areas and that pulsed flow will do better at animating debris. As long as general flow to the intakes isn't countered particulates will not resettle or be trapped in edes. Seems experimentation with low power wavemakers is occurring with success. Of course, how do you measure and verify success, or a technique that would succeed broadly?

I work for a company that provides fluid dynamic modeling to customers, primarily for data centers to optimize cooling, which optimizes power utilization, which nets big $ savings. That modeling is complex and requires a lot of manual measurements with instruments to collect data and software to model and design corrections, validate and tune resulted. Even in a rectangular data center with neat, straight rows of things, perfect distribution is impossible. Millions are spent on this.

A tank is very different of course but seems even more complex given the variety of equipment and technique.

It would be great to understand the dynamics of water movement in a tank and have tools and techniques to design the optimal setup, with new, better products to apply.


----------



## Michael (Jul 20, 2010)

"Didn't mean to offend anyone. My apologies if I did. I just exited a conversation with a beginner who felt overwhelmed and condescended elsewhere and decided to not start."

As a beginner, I can certainly understand that. And for beginners there are lots of "plug and play" options out there.

My point of begining was Walstad's "Ecology of the Planted Aquarium", a deeper introduction than most, but since I have a natural science background it was a good fit. Now that I have a bit more experience, I am ready for more information, especially on topics that get little coverage in Walstad's book: lighting, filtration, and circulation. These parallel threads are giving me that!


----------



## AquaBarren (Nov 6, 2009)

Know what you mean. 18 months ago when I started it was all ADA. Started out trying to research the "best" option in every category. Lots of advice from experts that never agreed. I remember laboring over substrate especially.

18 months later I think it's easy to have a nice tank. Elegance of design, the experience to select plants and layout once without constantly redoing, hardscaping attractively seem the most challenging aspects to me. Balancing light next most. Not spending a fortune and design for low maintenance are nuances I like to research. 

80/20 seems to apply for the most part. 80% of the kit out there will keep 80% of the common fauna healthy and happy. I'm still very much a beginner but can't manage to kill anything. Anyone can do same if they do the basics. There are so many variables "best" is really subjective and probably unprovable. I remember being disappointed when I heard ADA tanks receive a lot of manual care...if that's true. When I was starting out, ADA was IT! Best stuff available, best technique, practically magic. Love it, but not magic. Lily pipes for instance look great, work well in appropriate size tanks, but performance requires water level be maintained within a narrow range. I travel a lot, wouldn't work for me. Thankfully some with experience advised me before I bought.

Anyway, all of that is different from advancing the hobby. Not something I ever want to be perceived as discouraging. So I hope all forgive and continue the thread for other's benefit. Maybe we'll have a flow configuration calculator some day and never have a particle settle out again.


----------



## alta678 (Mar 24, 2009)

Niko, once again your information stirs my imagination and visualization of my own tanks. Since I am an Eheim fan, I am going to have to really think about my setups. This discussion of water flow and Reynolds numbers applies to all tanks, planted or not!


----------



## houseofcards (Feb 16, 2005)

Although I appreciate Niko's attempt to keep this conversation within the reach of only certain folk, it is after all an open forum and you could get anyone to chime in with their experiences. 

Success in this hobby is different to everyone. From the kid with a goldfish bowl who just got a new leaf on a banana plant to the professional aquascaper who just setup a hi-tech 300 gallon planted paradise. I didn't find Aquabarren's comments naive, condescending or flippant since they fall within the two aquarists I described. 

Not everyone on this forum is a scientist or bio-chem student I don't think it's called Aquatic Plant Scientology. I can appreciate the science to a certain point and am always willing to listen, but no matter how much theory, conjucture, experiementation you discuss here there is always going to be a non-scientific aspect to what works and what doesn't in an aquarium with the same conditions. 

Our tanks don't exist in laboratories where everything is controlled. A 15 year old would probably have less discipline in terms of stocking, feeding, maintenance, etc than the folks taking care of the tanks at ADA. This is the reason that lighting, filtration, dosing, etc. has a wide range of acceptable tolerances in tanks that seem to be very similiar. 

With that being said, I am interested in the information here, but the above can't be taken out of the 'equation.'


----------



## Tex Gal (Nov 1, 2007)

One of the reasons this discussion is so interesting to many is that we are not all after the same thing. There are some that live for the low tech, low light approach. There are others that only have high tech approaches. Others prefer one or very few plant species while still others stuff the tank with every plant species they can get their hands on. Each approach brings with it different challenges. Each requires different skill levels. The faster things are sped up and the more species the harder success is. [It was amazing for me to read that AquaBarren "can't manage to kill anything". I think I need to send him some of my plants (with which I am struggling) and see if he can help me out! ]

I have found, in my experience, that flow is extremely important. This discussion has been very interesting. We all know that bacteria colonization, nutrition exchange, etc. is important. Things which improve those variables can't be bad.

We as a hobby have gotten to where we are by innovative experimentation and thinking outside of the box. I appreciate that. Will everyone be interested? No. Will everyone try it? No. Will every idea pan out? No. I don't think anyone reading this thread believes these answers are different. Should we stop experimenting? No. Should we stop improving our systems? No. Should we stop discussions about new ways to achieve a better result? No. Change is not for everybody. There is more than one way to get from point A to point B. For some people the journey is just as enjoyable as the destination! My hat's in that ring!


----------



## JeffyFunk (Apr 6, 2006)

AquaBarren said:


> Flow interests me a lot. Questions about it net the least input of any other topic.
> 
> Perfect laminar flow seems impossible in a heavily planted tank. Conversations from learned folks elsewhere suggest that laminar flow will clear some areas, but embed particulates in other areas and that pulsed flow will do better at animating debris. As long as general flow to the intakes isn't countered particulates will not resettle or be trapped in edes. Seems experimentation with low power wavemakers is occurring with success. Of course, how do you measure and verify success, or a technique that would succeed broadly?


I find this idea very interesting, particularly the idea about "pulsed flow". I'm sure it's been mentioned in this thread as well as others, but many of use Hydor Koralia's to provide additional flow in our tanks. Why? Because they are able to produce a nice amount of flow w/out a lot of force. (The fact that they are also much less prone to clogging is nice too). The Koralia's are also reasonably priced too ($20-$50).

I've read that Tom Barr prefers to use EcoTech Marine Pumps instead. (http://ecotechmarine.com/products/) Designed more for the marine aquarium community than the planted aquarium community, these are also really nice pumps but WAY more expensive ($200+). Personally, I always thought he liked them because (1) They have one of the smallest in-tank footprints and (2) Have a wave controller, allowing for a lot of customization (I always think of Tom Barr as liking devices w/ all the bells and whistles, even if he would only ever use one function). Maybe Tom was really onto something by using a pump capable of producing a "pulsed flow"?

Does anyone else use a pump w/ a wave controller to produce "pulsed flow"? (This would of course be in addition to the role that lily pipes have in circulating water movement. Even Amano claims that it is beneficial to remove debris that settles in his aquariums, suggesting that lily pipes aren't the magical flow panacea that we're claiming them to be. I'm sure the flow is better than using a mag pump, but maybe using lily pipes and pulsed flow is even better?).


----------



## AquaBarren (Nov 6, 2009)

Jeff, pulsed flow is an experiment I want to try. 

Perfect laminar flow seems impossible in a tank. Phil posted some great videos of lam and turb flows. The smooth linear lam flows show fluid running through a system where the entrance and exits are as wide as the container being observed. Ingress and egress in an aquarium are from points smaller than the tank itself. So expansion upon entrance will create vortices and some turbulence. Even If we could create purely laminar flow, we may not want it. The creation of boundary layers in itself would create zones of uneven flow and distribution. So lam flow could starve large parts of a tank, permit settlement. I think phil made that point. 


This clip may represent the ideal flow in an aquarium. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KS-GSLrkf30&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Flow entering from a narrow point creates vortices that would mix the environment, ideally while still moving steadily towards the intake point. 

Accomplishing that steady, semi-turbulent movement may be the "magic" of the lily pipe. Widen the flow, pull in surrounding water to add volume and send it gently spinning through the tank. 

How it behaves in a heavily planted, or hard-scaped tank would be interesting to measure. Seems dead spots are inevitable. 

Which begs the question - how dead is a dead spot really? A single entrance and exit point system is still a system with higher pressures on one side than another. Water will move through these locations, just more slowly. For nutrient distribution does that matter? Might not. For self-cleansing flow it probably does.

When we add powerheads/pumps to this mix we introduce new variables. Turbulence in itself may not be the detriment we fear. Countering the steady movement from one end of the system to the other may be the bigger problem with supplemental flow. Someone elsewhere stated, "we may blow crap off our plants and substrate and just create constant whirling hurricanes of fish sh** instead.". Pardon the french. So by directing supplemental flow at dead or dirty spots, we can create problems. My 84g tank was crystal clear for 16 months with just a spraybar.

There are so many variables that impact all of this. If an ADA tank is the benchmark, then we have to consider that model. We all probably assumed that ADA fixtures being MH and CF were high light fixtures. IB actuality ADA tanks are not high light. If ADA replaces the substrate annually, all of the "dirt" is removed and the tank gets a "warm", but clean restart. 

My tank that was crystal clear for 16 months is not so clear today at 18 months. Flow is same as always, the eheim 2076's flow display tells me so and it is cleaned regularly, 50% water changed weekly. What's changed, it's dirtier now. 

So is ADA's trick the technology, or just low-light, moderate flow, high maint tanks that receive a major cleaning and reset annually? 

So back to pulsed flow. Animating participates so the filter can remove them is still a goal. So the experiment I'd like to see is if adding complimentary pulsed flows to a system can stir things up while maintaing the steady march of water towards the intake so we can have pristine tanks without requiring a major overhaul each year. If not pulsed flow, can supplementary flow be added that is complimentary to the primary flow from entrance to exit?

Then of course, how do we test and prove these experiments.


----------



## ObiQuiet (Oct 9, 2009)

JeffyFunk said:


> Does anyone else use a pump w/ a wave controller to produce "pulsed flow"?


I do. I have a Korelia attached _downward_ from the center cross bar, and am experimenting with it to reduce accumulation. It does not agitate the surface, and I can point it at different corners.

Right now, it's only on 1 out of every 20 mins in a stir-settle-stir-settle cycle. Am thinking of alternating with a horizontal movement; will see what Santa brings.


----------



## spypet (Jul 27, 2007)

niko said:


> The same bacteria that happily eats your fishes' waste and makes Nitrate from stinky and toxic Ammonia will actually do the opposite if the flow through the filter media is too slow. So on Monday my bacteria eats Ammonia and produces Nitrate. On Tuesday my filter is slightly clogged and some of the bacteria now makes Ammonia from the Nitrate that their buddies produce.


niko forgive me for going a bit OT but...
is this why it may not wise to put your filter on a timer to save on electricity?

I've been turning my canister on 4 hour off 4 hours, 3-cycles per day, every day.
i'm following EIMethod including 50% weekly water changes,
so maybe that's why I have not noticed any Ammonia issues.
I also have a large tank rated canister on a fairly small tank;
Rena XP3 for a 30gal tank, media is half foam and half rock,
but I keep the flow rate on my spray bar at just half pressure,
but I never let the canister get clogged with too much debris,
I rinse all the media every Month I recharge the nitrate sponge.


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

Let's see what kind of funny reply will I get here

http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/...nimalist-iwagumi-6-months-old.html#post571874

--Nikolay


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

spypet said:


> niko forgive me for going a bit OT but...
> is this why it may not wise to put your filter on a timer to save on electricity?
> 
> I've been turning my canister on 4 hour off 4 hours, 3-cycles per day, every day.
> ...


Noone of us knows but I suspect that ADA does not shut down their filters at night. They probably have a good reason for that. Note that they claim that O2 is a good thing to pump at night. If you think that's only because the plants use Oxygen at night you are mistaken. It's about the bacteria. In the filter too. ADA seems to pay a lot of attention to the filter. In contrast we are happy with what "works for me".

EI is a joke. A very popular one. But I don't find it funny. Stop your 50% water changes and take your tank out of infancy. Then you will be dealing with a rowdy teenager for some time. How do you bring it up to adulthood? You happened to read Japanese? German? Or at least Russian?

Sarcasm aside - with your big filter and reduced flow you got it right better than most of us. I would not shut down this filter at night. XP3 uses probably about 30 watts of electricity. In the US we don't even know such small wattages exist. If where you live that's a huge number then I have nothing to say. I've lived in places where life was way different than here and I can't tell you that 30 watts of electricity is nothing to worry about.

Seems to me that what's more important is consistency. Seems to me that if you do not change this shut down/turn on schedule of the filter all the organisms in your tank will adapt to that and be fine.

--Nikolay


----------



## Dielectric (Oct 7, 2008)

niko said:


> EI is a joke. A very popular one. But I don't find it funny. Stop your 50% water changes and take your tank out of infancy. Then you will be dealing with a rowdy teenager for some time. How do you bring it up to adulthood? --Nikolay


HAHAHAHAHA... its about time somebody said it. I agree, it is a complete waste. a waste of time, water & ferts. I do not frequent the "other" forum often because i am tired of reading all the tom barr butt kissing. pathetic.


----------



## Ekrindul (Jul 3, 2010)

Dielectric said:


> HAHAHAHAHA... its about time somebody said it. I agree, it is a complete waste. a waste of time, water & ferts. I do not frequent the "other" forum often because i am tired of reading all the tom barr butt kissing. pathetic.


That wasn't the least bit transparent.

I use EI and members of this forum can vouch for the fact that I do not have algae in my tanks and I grow healthy plants, with high plant mass and a full fish load. My tanks are clean, cleaner than most peoples by far. An opinion of Tom Barr should have no reflection on whether a method is successful or not.

Your statement would be much more credible if you could state why EI is a joke. Just saying it is an opinion, nothing more. The success of the method, for those utilizing it, makes your comment look very biased and uninformed.


----------



## Dielectric (Oct 7, 2008)

Ekrindul said:


> That wasn't the least bit transparent.
> 
> I use EI and members of this forum can vouch for the fact that I do not have algae in my tanks and I grow healthy plants, with high plant mass and a full fish load. My tanks are clean, cleaner than most peoples by far. An opinion of Tom Barr should have no reflection on whether a method is successful or not.
> 
> Your statement would be much more credible if you could state why EI is a joke. Just saying it is an opinion, nothing more. The success of the method, for those utilizing it, makes your comment look very biased and uninformed.


i never said it doesnt grow plants. i said it was a waste of time & resources. If you have nothing better to do than change water every week, more power to you. It becomes a chore when you are dealing with large tanks or multiple tanks. I did EI for long while and am very thankful i am not chained to that ball anymore.


----------



## Ekrindul (Jul 3, 2010)

Dielectric said:


> i never said it doesnt grow plants. i said it was a waste of time & resources. If you have nothing better to do than change water every week, more power to you. It becomes a chore when you are dealing with large tanks or multiple tanks. I did EI for long while and am very thankful i am not chained to that ball anymore.


It sounds like you haven't fully grasped it's use then. It's not written in stone that you must change 50% of the water every week. You can use EI with an El Natural tank and never change water. It's not a system about water changes; it's about providing *non-limiting* fertilizer. Over time, through observation of plant growth, it is possible to continue EI with monthly water changes by reducing dosing until the right levels are reached. Just because some people take the EI for Dummies route doesn't mean the method is at fault.


----------



## houseofcards (Feb 16, 2005)

Ekrindul said:


> It sounds like you haven't fully grasped it's use then. It's not written in stone that you must change 50% of the water every week. You can use EI with an El Natural tank and never change water. It's not a system about water changes; it's about providing *non-limiting* fertilizer. Over time, through observation of plant growth, it is possible to continue EI with monthly water changes by reducing dosing until the right levels are reached. Just because some people take the EI for Dummies route doesn't mean the method is at fault.


+1

50% water changes is just a midpoint, you could do more or much less demanding on parameters. I've used EI type dosing on pretty much all my tanks and think it's by far the easiest method of keeping planted tanks. The ball and chain mentality to me is when you test every parameter in your tank and try to hit a bulls eye for what the plants want. Something tells me they're not that smart. BTW isn't ADA culture big on water changes. I'm pretty sure every setup they show gets 30 to 50% weekly.


----------



## Dielectric (Oct 7, 2008)

Ekrindul said:


> It sounds like you haven't fully grasped it's use then. It's not written in stone that you must change 50% of the water every week. You can use EI with an El Natural tank and never change water. It's not a system about water changes; it's about providing *non-limiting* fertilizer. Over time, through observation of plant growth, it is possible to continue EI with monthly water changes by reducing dosing until the right levels are reached. Just because some people take the EI for Dummies route doesn't mean the method is at fault.


i understand it completely & see your points. but i still stand by my statement. To me it is not EI anymore if you are watching for deficiencies and dosing accordingly. You wouldnt be deficient if you were keeping *non limiting nutrients*, which means its not EI anymore.


----------



## Ekrindul (Jul 3, 2010)

Dielectric said:


> i understand it completely & see your points. but i still stand by my statement. To me it is not EI anymore if you are watching for deficiencies and dosing accordingly. You wouldnt be deficient if you were keeping *non limiting nutrients*, which means its not EI anymore.


Well, that's just splitting hairs 

If I dumped a pound of KNO3 in my tank every day, that would be non-limiting, but I don't do it.

I guess you can define EI however you want, what do I care. It's a method for determining the right amounts of nutrients so that you never run short. It doesn't mean, to me at least, that you should be wasteful for the sake of it. You begin from a benchmark that is known to be non-limiting for a particular setup. From there, it's up to each person to tweak the dosing.

Since the nutrients are cheap, some choose to skip the tweaking and just dump the same amounts in month after month. That's fine if someone wants to do it that way, but I won't advise that person to avoid weekly water changes, because for all I know, they do high light EI with a java fern as the only plant in the tank and slowly accumulate obscene levels of nutrients. Would the nutrients ever reach a level dangerous to fish? I don't know, so I won't advise them to skip the water changes, and that's why most people suggesting EI don't either.

If someone is willing to do the tweaking, then why not back off the water changes if that's what they want.


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

Hey, if you want to discuss EI, Compact Fluorescent bulbs, T12 VHO bulbs, or PPS please find the subforum that says "Obsolete stuff that people still keep around".

I'm as inclined to discuss EI here as much as I'm inclined to talk about at the benefits of Compact Fluorescent lighting. Such discussion is pointless. We better look to see if we can figure out the future of this hobby, and not the past.

I mentioned EI because it ignores looking at the aquarium as a system. For EI (and PPS) filtration is "whatever works for you". Please.

And do not get me wrong - Tom Barr has drawn hoards of people to this hobby. If you think I don't like him or something you are wrong. As long as you come and have interest to move forward the hobby is in a good shape.

Filtration is the the topic of this thread and let's stick to it. Is this discussion part of the future of this hobby? I hope, but who knows. Fact is - something has got to change for us to have more answers. Filtration maybe some of it.

--Nikolay


----------



## Newt (Apr 1, 2004)

EI doesnt work for everyone. If all water and conditions were the same it probably would but they are not. I did a poll some time ago on prefered fert method. Most people were doing PPS.

I do think water changes are important. Not too sure about 50% but then again I still use 'aged' water for my water changes.


----------



## AaronT (Apr 26, 2004)

Okay, I'll bite. I have a Mr. Aqua 12" cube that's empty and waiting for a few parts for it to be setup. I thought about just getting an Eheim 2211 for it, but now I'm thinking I might build my own canister out of pvc and use an external pump.

I'm planning to build the canister out of 4" pvc and I'll make it about 6" tall giving me a little over a liter of space inside the canister, which should yield well over the proposed 10% of the volume of the tank.

This is the pump I was thinking of. I emailed Hydor and they said it can be turned all the way down to 0 gph so I'll turn the flow down about halfway which should yield about 80-90 gph (the tank is 7.5 gallons empty). http://www.marinedepot.com/Hydor_SE...ps-Hydor_USA-HD12127-FIWPSBUF-HD12127-vi.html

Inside the canister will be a coarse sponge, then all biomedia, either bio-rio or seachem matrix.

Substrate will be mineralized soil topped with used Aquasoil.

Lighting will be a 23 watt cfl bulb on for 10 hours a day.

Pressurized CO2 will be added.

I'll post more after the holidays have come and gone and I have more time to devote to my tinkering.


----------



## AquaBarren (Nov 6, 2009)

Niko,

What's your point re gf225's 20 gal tank?

He has little over 9x gph the volume of his tank which is just what you recommend in post #40 of this thread.


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

Just my way of sarcasm.

I don't know if this George guy is setting up the filtration as he is because he knows something specific about filtration or because that has worked for him in the past. As we well know he is a very successful aquascaper. He got to know something about setting up multiple problem-free tanks.

I would just like for him to tell us why he did it that way.

By the way before he had a Lilly Pipe and and ADA intake. The ugly spraybar has been installed recently.

Hope he answers.

--Nikolay


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

Aaron,

Thank you for deciding to experiment. I will too - with at least 3 tanks - a 180, a 55, and a brand new 75.

But today I had quite the experience. You will all laugh.

I had setup a 2 goldfish 10 gallon tank for the kid of a friend of mine. No plants, no light. White round rocks, black gravel. Two 2" gold fish. A year ago. Filter is a hob crapTM.

Today I go there and look at the tank. After a year of running, overfeeding etc the tank looks like it was setup this morning. Completely clean.

I look at the hob crapTM filter. And I look. And I look.

The outflow is VERY wide and calm. Shoots along the length of the tank. And close to the surface.

The inflow is 2/3-rds down. Does not reach the bottom by 1/3. And it has many openings.

Basically as close to laminar outflow as a $10 filter can get. And as close to ADA design and placement of the inflow as a $10 filter can get.










Need I say more - I felt like with all these recent posts I was reinventing the wheel.

--Nikolay


----------



## Ekrindul (Jul 3, 2010)

niko said:


> Hey, if you want to discuss EI, Compact Fluorescent bulbs, T12 VHO bulbs, or PPS please find the subforum that says "Obsolete stuff that people still keep around".
> 
> I'm as inclined to discuss EI here as much as I'm inclined to talk about at the benefits of Compact Fluorescent lighting. Such discussion is pointless. We better look to see if we can figure out the future of this hobby, and not the past.
> 
> ...


Well, you did bring it into the _discussion_, though. Maybe not in the way you realize. This being a _discussion_ about filtration, how can you ignore macrophyte contribution to the biological filtration of an aquarium? There is a question to be answered here. What is more critical to the biological filtration of the system? Plant health or the bucket under the tank? Or is it both? Is some ammonia production within the filter of concern in a tank with a healthy level of macrophytes? EI and PPS are simply alternatives to enriched substartes (not everyone wants to use those). I don't really understand the ire. They are means to healthy plants, and my input into the _discussion_ is that we shouldn't overlook the importance of macrophytes in this _discussion_.


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

I like that. Very much.

Basically we agree that a planted tank needs to be looked at as a sum of many parts that work together. Focusing on just the filtration and forgetting to adjust your light will certainly be a disaster eventually. Or focusing on just fertilization as a cure for everything. Or looking mainly at test kits...

Or looking at my filter more than I look at my plants.

Another very important thing to remember is that the tank requires different treatment as it matures. A method that stresses on fertilization has a natural answer to that - adjust the nutrients accordingly. But what about the filter media? The flow rate maybe? Or making sure that at night the pH does not drop too low to where the bacteria in the filter functions at a reduced capacity. All the parts need to be connected with each other.

Let me make a side note here: Hopefully from the 10 or so Dummy posts from a year ago some of you remember that the bacteria actually loves pH of 7.5-8.0. At pH of 6.8 they function barely at 50% (or I think much. much less) less of their capacity. At night, if we let the CO2 produced by the plants push that pH even lower, the bacteria slows down even more. My point is, once again - if we are concerned with the plant health only the tank will not really be running as smooth as it could be. Pumping Oxygen at night helps both the bacteria and the plants. I don't have to remind everybody who introduced the idea of running an air pump at night. That's an example of looking at a planted tank as a system and not just finding one or a two ways to run it easy and with great results, but very much blind.

--Nikolay


----------



## Michael (Jul 20, 2010)

niko said:


> Aaron,
> 
> Thank you for deciding to experiment. I will too - with at least 3 tanks - a 180, a 55, and a brand new 75.
> 
> ...


Nikolay, perhaps there is such a thing as beginer's luck.

When I set up my two Walstand tanks, I put used AquaClear HOBs on them because the filters were given to me and I had nothing else. They are configured similarly to the filter in the photo. Both filters are on the short sides of the tanks, directing flow in the long dimension.

If I keep the water level in the tanks high (almost always), the outflow comes out of the filter in a smooth sheet that moves across the top of the tank, creating gentle ripples but no splashing or bubbles. The outflow hits the opposite side of the tank, and turns down, moving across the bottom back toward the intake.

These filters are over-sized for the tanks, according to AquaClear: a 150 on a ten gallon, and a 50 on the twenty. (Those model numbers make NO sense.)

Per this discussion, may my accidental placement of the filters contribute to the success and ease of maintenance in my first planted aquaria in 30 years?


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

I guess whoever designed HOB filters was actually targeting certain flow pattern and maybe even laminar flow. In the last few days I was thinking about my first high tech planted tank too - how without knowing anything I had a completely clean tank and excellent growth of about 10 species of plants. Beginner's luck indeed:

http://www.aquatic-plants.org/gallery/first55

Makes me think that what we are discussing here about flow is old, very old knowledge.

Other than that - what do we do with the ideas so far? I was thinking that the first thing to do would be to find a way to make a wide sheet-like flow that is as close to laminar as possible. And keep it more or less unidirectional in the tank - so the water basically moves first in one direction, hits the glass, and comes back to the intake without going all over the place.

Sounds doable. I guess there are variables. The idea is pretty simple though so it could very well make a big difference.

--Nikolay


----------



## Ekrindul (Jul 3, 2010)

I tried something this morning, immediately after feeding the fish, as that's when I seem to have the most particulate matter flying around ... I turned off the XP4, then placed both my Koralia Nano 425s, side by side, on the left side glass near the front of the tank pointed at the opposite glass. At first, I could see that the particles weren't making it all the way across the tank, but after a 20 to 30 seconds, they were not only making it across the length of the 55 gallon tank, they were either rolling back along the bottom or moving in the opposite direction along the back of the tank. I then noticed that particles were being pulled up from under the Koralias. 

So, it seems I achieved a very unidirectional, low turberlant flow in a 48 inch long tank with just two Nano 425s. Unfortunately, I cannot test it much further until I figure out how to work the Rena into the mix. Once I fire it up, the flow changes completely.


----------



## AaronT (Apr 26, 2004)

I just got my new ADA catalog in the mail yesterday. It has a TON of information in it about how the ADA products work and how they are meant to be used. There are tips on filtrations, lighting, CO2, Fertilization, Trimming, Algae eradication and more. It's well worth the $9.00 shipping cost from ADG even if you don't buy anything (it's free with orders). 

A lot of what's being discussed here and the sister thread about laminar flow is discussed in the book. Good stuff.


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

Allright, now things start to move in a direction that they maybe need to move - trying unidirectional flow, looking in the ADA publication to find info on the flow...

I just found that you can actually buy a pump that produces completely laminar flow from the outtake. But these pumps are meant for industial applications - DiskFlo is the name. From there I looked into a Tesla Pump because the design is the very similar. Don't know where all this can lead other then time and expense. It's all based on the idea that laminar flow will somehow really improve the filtration of the tank, right.

The ADA catalog sounds like a very useful and reasonable expense right about now. But where on adgshop.com do I find it?

I also looked at faucet aerators. Yes, the chrome looking things everyone has on their kitchen sinks. Some of these things are actually meant to make laminar flow at a rate of up to 132 gph. They are a new thing aimed at conserving water. Don't know if such a chrome ugliness would work with an aquarium pump. But they are cheap and could be another way of spending little money experimenting. The one on the right is the laminar flow faucet aerator:










And more:
http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&...=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=7b989c6c17f79c85

Other than that I was again looking at the suspended particles in my 180 that never go anywhere and just roll and roll and roll in the middle of the water.

Erkindul, do your Koralias have some kind of attachment in the front? I bought mine used and only one had some kind of detacheable ring in front. With the ring or not my Koralias produce 4 wide jets of water that are not going straight ahead.

--Nikolay


----------



## Ekrindul (Jul 3, 2010)

Mine look just like the one here:

http://www.fosterandsmithaquatics.com/product/prod_display.cfm?c=3578+4586+21970&pcatid=21970

There is a grill across the front to prevent the livestock from mulching themselves, but it doesn't seem to effect flow in any noticeable way.


----------



## fishyjoe24 (May 18, 2010)

you can get the nano's for 23.97 at pet supplies plus and they are local plano,richardson,and dallas.


----------



## AaronT (Apr 26, 2004)

Here's the link for the catalog. http://www.adgshop.com/product_p/2010book.htm


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

Well, I tried to locate the catalog and ended up talking to Luis Navarro about flow and filtration. I should have asked him about his opinion first before diving head down into speculations about laminar and unidirectional flow.

If you don't know who Luis Navarro is you need to find out. For now let's just say that if you go and look at his tanks you will seldom see the water (even if you glue your nose to the glass). Here are some old aquascapes that Luis had few years back:
http://www.aquatic-plants.org/gallery/album15
http://www.aquatic-plants.org/gallery/album14
http://www.aquatic-plants.org/gallery/album35

Anyway, I have personally seen one of his tanks in which he had all the decorations and plants but had not put water in yet. I opened my mouth to say "You better fill this tank with water soon." when I saw the CO2 bubbles floating to the surface. I was standing about 4 ft. from the tank and I could not see the water at all! It was THAT clear.

So - that's the guy that I should have asked to chime in in this lofty discussion about laminar flow and such. What I heard today from him was pretty much "Do what makes sense". And what makes sense to him is:

*1. "Think of water flow as distributing CO2 evenly to the plants." *
It is not about removing particles, perfect laminar flow, flow rates etc. It's about distributing the CO2 + nutrients to the plants. Which happened to be Amano's primary concern many years ago. And happened to be ADG's concern for many years now. And has been Luis' concern forever too.

One Houston aquascaping company (guess which one) apparently uses multiple canisters to move the water in their large aquascapes. 
Each canister has its own CO2 reactor hooked up to it. How's that for doing something about distributing CO2 evently?

*2. "The flow should not be chaotic."*
That's about as close to "you need laminar flow" as I could get Luis to agree to. When I told him that I've been discussing laminar flow a lot in the course of the last week he immediately pointed out some of my own concerns that I never voiced here. Namely - "You cannot achieve perfect laminar flow.", "Fish will disturb it.", "Plants, when they grow and fill out will disturb it.". Basically he made me feel that what I was about to experiment with had been looked at from different angles and chewed up many times by many other people. The quest to find the perfect aquarium flow is not a new thing. Hello!

*3. "The flow should penetrate everywhere". So it needs to not be too little.*
How large is "not too little"? Well, in a 75 gallon tank that Luis has he uses a filter that is rated 900 gph. Say the actual flow in that 75 gal tank is 500 gallons. Pretty damn strong! Once again - he does that not because "Amano said so." but because it works. If you ever see his tanks you will think the plants are fake. I am used to look at plants and even I get confused when I see Luis' tanks live. The colors, health and so on of his plants are not something you are used to see.

Here's a visual. This is a standard size 75 gal. tank. Luis used a 600 gph canister filter (Fluval X5) on it:
http://www.aquatic-plants.org/gallery/album39

*4. "Line up all your powerheads."*
That advice was fine by me. To me (watching dancing never-settling particles in my big tank) that really made sense. THE FLOW NEEDS TO HAVE DIRECTION. Not be chaotic, turbulent, and 10X the volume of the tank. Enough said.

*5. "Your 55 with 30 gph flow grows nice plants because they are true aquatic plants."*
I told Luis that I do not understand planted tanks any more. I told him I have a 55 with 54 watts of light and 30 gph of flow. Plants grow very well in it. He said "Yes but look what species they are - Val. nana, Najas "Roraima", Pellia, and Hornwort. They are all true aquatic plants. They know how to extract nutrients from the water even if you supply nothing. That's what people need to understand - the plants will determine how much care the layout needs. Marginal plants will have to be cared for a lot no matter what."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, from all this comotion (and high emotion from my part) I think we all benefited. Here are the things to either try or at least remember when you setup a tank next time:

*A. High water flow is not necessarily targeted at picking up all the floating waste particles.*
High water flow is needed to make sure that ALL the plants, in the entire tank, have the best nutrient supplementation. Of course high flow rates will tend to clean the tank better too. But one needs to understand that the plant's well being is the first consideration.

*B. Laminar flow is desired, but what is realistic to achieve is flow that is not chaotic. *
Even if I bought (or designed and sold myself) a pump that produces laminar flow once released by the outtake the flow will be not-so-laminar. The goal is to not stir those waste particles and let them linger in the water column, fall apart, or get ground up. The goal is to have a smooth directional flow. From the outtake to the intake. Pretty simple.

*C. Do not add flow by placing the new pumps in such a way that they create a chaotic movement.*
The idea is clear now - you want the flow to have a definite direction. To not promote "lingering" of the particles inside the aquarium

*D. The intake needs to always be exposed and clean.*
The intake needs to be seen as an important part of the effort to create a directional flow. It's basically 1/2 of the effort! That means that placing the outtake and intake "a-la Amano" - in the front, where there are no obstructions, and you can see if they are functioning properly - is the best and most practical solution.

*E. The flow needs to be as large as needed - not a certain number, but a number that ensures that there are no stagnant areas where the water moves very little or not at all.*

I guess that's about it. I said I will experiment and certainly will. But I will not get obsessed with creating and maintaining laminar flow. I will first try directional flow. Flow that minimizes "particle hesitation". And there are no dead zones either.

--Nikolay


----------



## flashbang009 (Aug 6, 2009)

After reading through this very very informative discussion, i find myself wishing i lived in Texas to attend one of your club meetings. This is some pretty interesting stuff. As I don't know enough about this stuff to make assertions or even conjectures, I'll leave it at this:

I'm setting up a 10 gallon "minimalist", "iwagumi" (however you wish to describe it) aquarium, that I can do whatever 'experimentation' you desire to have done. It'll have pressurized co2, custom LED lighting (whole 'nother discussion), and at this point i plan on using an eheim 2213 with lily pipes.

You guys (and TexGal's) are examining some of the aspects of this hobby that seem to never get thoroughly looked at, but are just as important if not more than other popular topics. I've found myself constantly frustrated at not being able to "replicate" other tanks like ADA seems to do so well, although a majority of that frustration is from beginners ignorance. These discussions bring the mainstream hobby closer to that (or it will at least for those who care enough to understand why something really works in their tank.)

Can't wait to keep reading and learning (I feel like a kid in a candy shop reading this stuff).

BTW Niko I don't blame you for wanting this in a sub-forum.


----------



## AaronT (Apr 26, 2004)

To add to Niko's take-aways from this thread after reading through the latest ADA catalog, "The Book of ADA," it seems aeration is equally as important as CO2 supplementation. 

Amano stresses the importance of aeration at night and not over supplementing CO2 during the day. In fact his CO2 chart over a 10 hour period only shows the pH changing from 7.2 to 6.8 and even then not until the latter part of the photo period. 

The idea behind this is simple. The microorganisms living in the filter and in the tank that are beneficial for keeping the water clean need oxygen and lots of it. The notion that 30 ppm of CO2 is our target rate is overkill and only stresses the fauna and biological filtration. If you don't use a drop checker ADA suggest that your plants should start to pearl around midday.

Spypet asked earlier if it was harmful for him to cycle his filter on and off during the day to save on electricity. Here's a direct quote from the catalog regarding filtration.

"If the external filter shuts off, the level of dissolved oxygen inside the filter drops rapidly due to the respiration of microorganisms inside. If a filter needs to be stopped for more than 30 minutes, the water inside the filter should be drained or the filter should be operated on another aquarium temporarily to lessen the damage to the filter bacteria."

Next to this is a chart showing that after only 1.5 hours the level of dissolved O2 in the filter is 0 ppm.

Also worth noting is that the new catalog does not include have ADA Palm Net for sale anymore. The suggested progression of filter media for a new setup is 1/3 BioCube (foam cubes) on the bottom and 2/3 Carbon on top of that. Then after a month to two months switch the carbon to BioRio (lava rock). Then after another one to two months switch the foam on the bottom to BioRio as well so the WHOLE filter is BioRio and nothing else.


----------



## AquaBarren (Nov 6, 2009)

Before I started my first tank 15 months or so ago, i read through APC and TPT and Barr Report thoroughly. Wth so many references to ADA, I bought the catalog before buying anything else. I think that's where some of my own prejudices came from. Though uproven, and thought overkill by many, the ADA techniques like
CO2 during day, O2 at night made sense. Intake and Outflow on opposite ends made sense. So I did it. W/O the ADA kit though.

My prejudices from the beginning were probably ADA-based even though I didn't use their stuff. So with the exception of using the large-grain floramax substrate that came with the aquairium that I bought used (Osaka 320), I mostly did what ADA and ADA-fans recommended, only because it seemed to make sense and if it was overkill, so what. Reaching a certain PPM of CO2 seemed less important than ensuring that more or equal CO2 was being supplied as being consumed. As long as your drop checker stays green,, or lightens slightly throughout the day - isn't that enough?

In an early post here I think I said I haven't killed anything yet. Mostly true TexGal, but not because I know what I'm doing. Only because I followed the advice of many with experience, and ADA and bought good kit like Eheim to avoid little headaches. This is what my tank looked like after 3 months.










I hardly called it my tank, it was like it belonged to all who advised me for months before. Learned a bit more from this thread, perhaps mostly how much is still a mystery. Flow still interests me and I look forward to more and experimenting more myself.

So that begs the question. If this thread lands us back to the basics defined by ADA what exactly is the next wave of experiments?

- ADA-style flow with complimentary flow from powerheads...pulsed flow....nothing but strong flow from single intake/outflow?

All that has been done. Is quantiying results the next action? Personally I'd like to find the ideal alternative to a glass, pain to clean, lily pipe. A simple open, wide outflow instead of spraybar?

Maybe I'll fit the duckbill that came with my current filter and see what that does.

Looking forward to the next chapter of this discussion.


----------



## Newt (Apr 1, 2004)

Phil Edwards said:


> ...........
> I've found I've had the most success using a method similar to yours (and Amano's). The best results I've achieved have come when using medium sized lava rock from Home Despot and only a single coarse foam insert...................


Phil, where in Home Depot did you find the lava rock? BBQ lava rock? What size are the pieces typically?


----------



## flashbang009 (Aug 6, 2009)

Funny you ask about that, i actually just went and bought some from Home Depot today after reading through this thread!! I found it in the outdoors area with the gravels. It's Vigoro Red Lava. I'm about to break it up a little smaller and rinse it off! The pieces I have are about 1.5". I have to wonder though if it's better to break the rock up into smaller pieces (1/4"-1/2") or to go with larger (3/4"-1")?


----------



## Newt (Apr 1, 2004)

Thanks Flashbang.
I believe the thinking is to leave it in the larger pieces so as not to impede the flow as much as smaller pieces would.
I hope Niko summerizes his findings after he's done experimenting.


----------



## flashbang009 (Aug 6, 2009)

I think that smaller pieces will allow for more surface area for microorganisms though, and i think ADA's version consists of smaller pieces. I'll wait for someone who knows more than me to enlighten us


----------



## JustLikeAPill (Oct 9, 2006)

Bio Rio is roughly the size of garden center perlite. It's pumice and is a pain to clean when you clean the filter because the little granules are hard to prevent from escaping down the drain.

It tends to compact a little. I like It. It's small size ilene tendency to compact is great for mechanical filtration. Have two liters with some tourmaline mixed in over a 20 PPI and 30 PPI foam pad with a 10 PPI prefilter and a couple polyester filter pads on top followed by 250 ml's or so of Purigen.


----------



## flashbang009 (Aug 6, 2009)

Oh wow, so small. I broke my lava rock up into about 1/2" to 1" pieces, i'll see how it goes. Flow seems to be increased after taking out the floss. I put a sponge pad on the very bottom of the filter and one on top to prevent any rocks from being impelled.


----------



## Phil Edwards (Jan 22, 2004)

This thread is meant as a discussion of technical aspects of the hobby between people who wish to discuss such things. If this isn't a part of the hobby you enjoy or believe is valuable, please keep your comments to yourself. This is not the proper place to express such opinions. If you have constructive ideas regarding the thoughts and concepts presented here, by all means, feel free to participate. It's only though thoughtful consideration and constructive conversation about topics such as these that the hobby will grow more informed.



AquaBarren said:


> Gees. This seems like a confusing thread.
> 
> ADA filters don't lose flow if the media clogs? How is that possible?
> 
> ...


----------



## Michael (Jul 20, 2010)

Phil, glad you are back! Aquabarren has been thoroughly chastised, and is making amends.

Now to the *BURNING QUESTION*: how big should the lava rock be that we put in our Eheims?

Thanks,
Michael


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

Ah no! By now I have to say I like the AquaBarren character. That makes 2 people from or around NY - Cosmo Kramer and now AquaBarren.

I tend to like people that are not stuck in one way thinking. And people that look forward. Probably because I like to think I'm like that. Here's what I really liked in one of AB's latest responses to this thread:

"... If this thread lands us back to the basics defined by ADA what exactly is the next wave of experiments?... Is quantiying results the next action? Personally I'd like to find the ideal alternative to a glass, pain to clean, lily pipe. A simple open, wide outflow instead of spraybar?..."

If something comes out of this thread it will be something truly practical. Doesn't need to be what we want it to be (and I so want it to be magic laminar flow). As long as it works I'll be happy. 

I bet a Lily pipe is not the only answer to the things we discuss here. Look at Oliver Knott's tanks. They always have the ugly green Eheim outflow somewhere. We are on to something and very close. A replicable planted tank setup, oh my... 

--Nikolay


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

The lava rock and the BioCube (Poret that is).

I don't remember if I said that - ADA uses Poret cubes because they have found or believe that the bacteria develops faster on them. But they like BioRio (Pumice or Lava rock, I'm not sure) better because they say it harbours much more bacteria. It gets polulated slower than the Poret so they start with Poret and later gradually switch to BioRio.

I have to say that if you use filter mulm or gravel mulm from any established tank you can get a tank ready in literally few hours. But I guess ADA is assuming that you may not have access to an established tank. Or maybe it's a question of keeping things isolated and not introducing what not from the start.

The size of the Lava Rock - I don't know if ADA has found the most perfect Lava Rock size. But once again it does make sense to emulate what they are doing and if willing - experiment from there. If someone can post some information what size is the BioRio that maybe helpful.

--Nikolay


----------



## flashbang009 (Aug 6, 2009)

JustLikeAPill said:


> Bio Rio is roughly the size of garden center perlite. It's pumice and is a pain to clean when you clean the filter because the little granules are hard to prevent from escaping down the drain.


Perlite if I'm not mistaken is 1/8" pellets or so. My lava rock is currently 1/2"-1" as stated above, so i guess I might need to crush it further.

As for the wide outflow, i think it would work well to have an outflow that looked like those wide vacuum attachments. Seems like it would work well to have a sheet of water flowing into the tank as opposed to a round outflow. Similar to the HOB filters except along the entire side of a tank. I've always wanted to hook up a powerhead with a DIY attachment similar to that. Get movement along the entire side of the tank. Attached is a very very very crude drawing of what's floating around in my head.

Just my 3 cents


----------



## fishyjoe24 (May 18, 2010)

I like aquabarren thinking he seems to never keep on thinking, and I with niko I don't like people that are one sided on everything unless the answer is a simple one.(the box should go here no maybe here no there, no there. BLA #$#%$##! you didn't do it right now time to be ocd and get out the tape measure).. ME_ FACE PALM PLANT IN TO MY HANDS! 

what about think of are canister filters like a vacuum , ever notice the old sears 70's vacuums, then you look at those new vacuums on TV, - that can pick up bowling balls, I always wondered about the secert of there holding chamber being so small but there air sucking pump to be so powerful... could I be on to something if a company started to build canisters that way...? 

also look at how the fluval,rena, and certin eheims are. the intake and out take are on top of the canister. so the water trickles down all the baskets full of media, then to get back to the tank it has to be pulled up throw the baskets from a small pump. I've looked at eheims and have always wonder why some of the smaller ones have the intake at the bottom side and the out take at the top... 

I even been looking at how clothing washers have evoled. in the old days it was just throw the clothes in it and now you have all the bells and wisseals. 

I was at DNA with robert tonight and we saw those new hagen fluval g3's and g6's.. why do they have all the bells and wissles with them? could hagen be on to something.. with the " your canister needs to be cleaned in so many days, camber one is clogged" etc... could it be in the future we will be able to make the perfect canister and program it the pump on it to flow this much about of gph at these hours and do this and that during these hours... the problem I see is that canisters clog and so down the filter and that the nitrosomonas and nitrobactor bacteria don't always get the oxyagen it needs 24/7. 

how to fix that, and keep are filters from getting clogged and keep up with the bla bla of so many gph per an hour, and this filter is good all the way to this "x" size tank.


----------



## fishyjoe24 (May 18, 2010)

EDIT: double post, mods please delete I can't figure out how too.


----------



## AaronT (Apr 26, 2004)

fishyjoe24 said:


> also look at how the fluval,rena, and certin eheims are. the intake and out take are on top of the canister. so the water trickles down all the baskets full of media, then to get back to the tank it has to be pulled up throw the baskets from a small pump. I've looked at eheims and have always wonder why some of the smaller ones have the intake at the bottom side and the out take at the top...


Actually, the water travels through them all in the same manner. In my XP3 and 2026 where the inlet and outlet are on the top of the canister there is a tube that is formed by the media baskets that allows the intake water to go straight to the bottom. Then the pump pulls it up through the media and back into the tank.

I wonder if the loc-line outflows are a good solution to those of us who don't wish to use glass lily pipes? I know I would love to use glass lily pipes, but there's just no way I'm going to use them with an 18 month old boy in the house. It only takes one curious tug...


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

Flashbang,

The triangular flat outflow on the side of the tank is what I too was thinking. It is the simplest and easiest way to create something close to laminar flow too. It should not be in the tank, but it needs to fill up and overflow over a weir. That way the water will probably be "calmed down" and go in a more of a laminar pattern (depending on the flow rate I guess).

HOB cheapo filters employ something like that but the water flow maybe too high to really create a smooth sheet of water flowing out. As Michael here said - if the edge of the HOB is under water the flow is really really smooth. 

That side triangular "dam & weir" setup is worth experimenting with. I guess if it is as wide as the tank's side glass the flow rate can be pretty large too. Actually it will have to be if you want the water to form "a sheet" and not individual streams.

The only thing that I don't like is that it will look ugly. I can only guess that the Japanese have tried something like that and dismissed it in favor of the Lily pipe.


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

Joe,

The only reason some filters have the intake on the bottom is the notion that the water flows in and saturates all the media better. I do not know why some filters have the intake on the top. Trickling the water down is a good idea but in reality the water coming from below is more practical.

Getting a more powerful filter is a matter of using a different pump. As I said before in this or the other thread - virtually all filters on the market are equipped with an undersized pump. It is pretty amazing what a difference you will see if you hook up a more powerful pump to your existing filter. 

And that's what I've seen so far I think - after a flow rate increase I have not changed the water in my 180 gal tank for 5 days now and the algea is not growing at all. Too early to say, but that tank had to have 30% of the water changed every 2 days or I'd see the algea starting to grow. With all these fish and only 1 plant my tank is a receipe for disaster. I increased the flow about 20% 10 days ago. The new pump blew so much mulm from the filter that the entire tank looked like cofee for about 4 hours. Then the mulm settled everywhere. The next day it was all gone - I guess the blowing and settiling over a large area (my plants, wood, and gravel) let the bacteria feast and they ate everythying to the last particle. At the same time the Cladophora slowed down growing - I don't know if it was because it spend a short time "blacked out" covered with stuff or if the bacteria ate its food. I can only guess I reap the rewards of an expanded and more efficient bacteria population now. I attribute that to better flow since that is the only thing I changed. By the way I've been feeding extra food to the fish the last 3 days and the algae still does not grow, it's frozen in time.

--Nikolay


----------



## Tex Guy (Nov 23, 2008)

I've also been thinking about implementation. Here are a couple of pics of a prototype. I'll explain my thinking after ....







[/URL] IMG_3387 by Bill, just Bill, on Flickr[/IMG]








[/URL] IMG_3388 by Bill, just Bill, on Flickr[/IMG]

This is 3/4in PVC. The double supply serves both to act as a hanger and to act as a bit of a manifold to spread the flow.

I am currently trying to figure out how to step up my Eheim's skinny outflow pipe to the 1" (OD) tubing it takes to connect to this thing. Ideas appreciated.


----------



## Tex Guy (Nov 23, 2008)

It also strikes me that a pretty much perfect way to implement this would be to have a piece of clear acrylic sheet glued completely across the side of the tank at a 45 degree angle with the filter outlet flowing into the resulting trough. Then it just overflows into the whole side of the tank. Sort of the HOB filter concept on steroids.

Another epiphany is that it is a bad idea to step up the size of the tubing right out of the pump. Doubling the size of the tubing is effectively the same as doubling the height that we are asking the pump to push the water from 3ft to 6ft.


----------



## Michael (Jul 20, 2010)

If you google "sheer descent nozzle" you will find swimming pool/water feature devices that are designed to produce a wide, flat, nearly laminar flow. The purpose of these is to produce a very uniform sheet of falling water, but if they were submerged they would give the wide laminar flow we are looking for.

There are some models as small as 12" wide. I don't know precisely what flow rate they require, but one of the advantages of these devices is that they function at lower flow rates than other types of fountain nozzles. I suspect that the flow rate they require is still much greater than we would use in an aquarium.

When I have time, I'll call my favorite pool builder and ask him.

--Michael


----------



## fishyjoe24 (May 18, 2010)

cool.. what about to small a canister filter on the tank. I think that was one of my problems with my 55g. I only have a fluval 205 which is on the box 180 gph for up to a 40g... I did see a used 405 for sale but dna wanted 100.00 (OUCH)_


----------



## Bert H (Mar 2, 2004)

AaronT said:


> Actually, the water travels through them all in the same manner. In my XP3 and 2026 where the inlet and outlet are on the top of the canister there is a tube that is formed by the media baskets that allows the intake water to go straight to the bottom. Then the pump pulls it up through the media and back into the tank.
> 
> I wonder if the loc-line outflows are a good solution to those of us who don't wish to use glass lily pipes? I know I would love to use glass lily pipes, but there's just no way I'm going to use them with an 18 month old boy in the house. It only takes one curious tug...


For folks able to build, etc, what about building a lily pipe type adapter for a spray bar? It could be made out of black plastic, acrylic, etc. I am thinking of a filter like my Rena. Where the spraybar attaches, one could attach the 'lily pipe adapter'.


----------



## AquaBarren (Nov 6, 2009)

Fishyjoe, I just implemented a fluval g3 in my 8-Yr old's new tank, a 33g fluval studio 600. I knew I'd be doing much of the maintenance for a while so I upgraded. It's on the second floor of the house and I wanted to eliminate carrying a canister around for cleaning as much as possible. So. Thought I'd try it. For the record, my lfs matched eBay pricing and there is a $50 us rebate, so I wasn't quite as crazy as I sound.

Maintenance is truly easy with these. Been running for 5 weeks and I have cleaned the mechanical filter twice. Pull out, drop in a bucket, replace with new and rstart. Go clean the used mech filter for use next time. I just rotate them with each cleaning. Takes 5 minutes firm the whole thing and doesn't spill a drop. No carrying anything heavy.

I like it so much that I replaced the ehei, 2076 on my 84g with a G6. Sold the eheim to recover most of the cost.

One thing of interest in this topic is the flow change and how quickly it occurs. Now that I have a flow meter to look at I can see how quickly it changes. My 84g is heavily planted and honestly, a bit dirty after running for 15 months. I clean it and wc regularly, but there is a lot of organics in it, you know how that goes. Water is pretty clear though.

So with this tank I noticed that just a few days after replacing the mechanical filter. Artridge, flow starts to drop. I wouldn't notice without the meter. In 10 days it has reduced considerably. Still not sure I would notice without the meter. I opened and cleaners the eheim maybe every 6 months. 

So, the question is does flow slow more than we think? even though we don't perceive significant changes in flow, is there in fact significant change quickly after a cleaning? If using poweheads and such to supplement flow, it wouldreally be masked.

Or are the Gs better at filtering mechanical debris, prone to clogging ? Not enough time to tell, but it's something to watch. What it has made me think is that we don't get the flow we really think we do, degradation comes much sooner than we think.


----------



## Phil Edwards (Jan 22, 2004)

flashbang009 said:


> Funny you ask about that, i actually just went and bought some from Home Depot today after reading through this thread!! I found it in the outdoors area with the gravels. It's Vigoro Red Lava. I'm about to break it up a little smaller and rinse it off! The pieces I have are about 1.5". I have to wonder though if it's better to break the rock up into smaller pieces (1/4"-1/2") or to go with larger (3/4"-1")?


That's the stuff I use. Keep it at the .75-1.0 inch size. There's PLENTY of surface area already and making it smaller only increases the chances of it clogging.

Cheers,
Phil


----------



## Phil Edwards (Jan 22, 2004)

*Niko,*

Why are we re-hashing old stuff? Because it's stuff many people have learned through trial and error, aka Luis; or have done the research but are holding onto the proprietary results, aka ADA. I'm convinced that many hobbyists already have an idea about the stuff we're discussing, but they haven't discussed it in the technical, scientific, manner we're doing now.

*Deeper understanding of the mechanisms breeds deeper understanding of our own actions.*

*Everyone,*

I'd like to stress that *Laminar Flow is not UNIDIRECTIONAL* flow. The term Laminar flow as it pertains to fluid dynamics is a descriptor of the kinetic state of the water. It's entirely possible to have circulating and multi-directional laminar flow just as it's equally possible to have unidirectional turbulent flow. It's all about how much energy is in the water and whether or not that energy is enough to overcome the viscous properties of the water.

Perhaps it's better for our purposes to use Gentle and Chaotic flow to describe Laminar and Turbulent flow.

*Aaron,*

That Loc-Line nozzle will create some serious Chaotic flow more or less along a 2D plane. If you're trying to achieve gentle, unidirectional flow, I'd go with something different, or make sure your pump isn't discharging so much that the pressure created by the nozzle pushes the flow into chaotic flow.

*Tex Guy*,

I'm looking at doing just what you've done with your PVC on the spraybars in my tank. What tool and what size bit/blade did you use?

*Michael,*

Hehe, I was the site's first moderator, and well, once a mod, always a mod. I'm sorry if I stepped on anyone's toes with my rebuke.


----------



## Michael (Jul 20, 2010)

Phil Edwards said:


> *Aaron,*
> 
> That Loc-Line nozzle will create some serious Chaotic flow more or less along a 2D plane. If you're trying to achieve gentle, unidirectional flow, I'd go with something different, or make sure your pump isn't discharging so much that the pressure created by the nozzle pushes the flow into chaotic flow.
> 
> ...


Phil, interesting comment on the Loc-Line nozzle as my used Eheim came with one instead of a spray bar. What would you suggest as an alternate? Tex Guy's PVC contraption sure looks promising. How can we test these things? Put them in a tank and drop food coloring in front of them?

And no apology necessary, I was just playing peace-maker, LOL.

--Michael


----------



## Phil Edwards (Jan 22, 2004)

Food coloring or small particle food would work well. I used to use Cyclopeeze in my nano reefs to judge flow. You might also try plastic shavings from the workshop.

The best bet for testing contraptions is to do it in an empty tank and then with substrate (plus possible hardscape) only. I totally agree with the folks who've said plants will change flow patterns. Mentally account for the interruption from plants and you're pretty good to go.

In my tank I've got a closed loop with a CO2 reactor in-line, with four spraybars, two along the substrate and two along the sides, front to back. I don't expect much other than CO2 distribution, some supplimentary flow, and gentle movement of debris from the bars along the substrate once the plants really fill in. The sidebars will be running harder to circulate water to the epiphytes planted along the side walls. 

Cheers,
Phil


----------



## Tex Guy (Nov 23, 2008)

Phil Edwards said:


> *Niko,*
> 
> *Tex Guy*,
> 
> I'm looking at doing just what you've done with your PVC on the spraybars in my tank. What tool and what size bit/blade did you use?


It's a 10in carbide blade with 1 tooth per 1.5in. It is just what I had on my table saw and it seems to work fine.

BTW... picked up some scrap 3/8in acrylic sheet today to experiment. This blade cuts it OK. Have to just be careful on the intro to assure no chipping.


----------



## Newt (Apr 1, 2004)

What do you think of this idea/concept (not necessarily this product) for multiple level flow pattern?

http://www.thatpetplace.com/pet/prod/199039/product.web

I am planning on an 8 foot long 300 gal tank (8' L x 30" W x 24" H) when I retire and am wondering how to properly filter and provide proper flow for it.


----------



## joshvito (Apr 6, 2009)

what flow meters do any of you use?


----------



## fishingkid1 (Apr 4, 2010)

*My thoughts of this whole discussion and trying to grasp it.*

Hey everyone,

After reading the insanely long thread I would finally like to head in and offer my idea towards the whole subject. 
To reach this "Laminar flow", the flow must not be turbulent.

I've been contemplating this idea for a few days and would like to see how it gets a response.

As I was reading, I found 2 ideas that stuck out greatly.

1.) The poster who showed his DIY laminar outflow.
2.) The poster who mentioned having power-heads at the other end of the tank, such as Koralia's.

Now, here comes the part where you can either shoot this down, or hear me out. As a 17 year old who is very interested in science, here I go.

So far we've established that the ADA lily pipes simulate at least partial laminar flow, correct?

If laminar flow (even partial) across the full length of a given size tank is important, so is the filter intake's position/configuration. Even with the filter intake being exposed and clear of debris, it cannot pull all of the water from an X" width aquarium. It will only pull a certain distance of water to the strainer from the water column, no matter the flow rate. I am not saying that it will not be affective, just trying to think of a way to make it more effective/efficient.

Now that being said, how can one modify or make a 'strainer type' filter intake to fit filters such as Eheims, fluvals, renas, etc.

Well, first thought says: That can't be done. 
We use spray bars for keeping flow even across a whole width of the tank, correct? Well, to achieve the best particle intake, from the laminar flow that is trying to be achieved. Would it not be sensible to have a intake that is the full (or near full) width of the laminar flow? This may confuse you, as it did to me; at first. But, when you suspend particles within the laminar flow they have the tendency to follow that flow until another force changes their direction, simple physics.

With that being said, say you have an outflow similar to the DIY one posted earlier. His intention is to have even flow on the whole width of the tank, and to achieve 'laminar flow. The filter intake in any given tank is only going to pull about 10% of the width of the aquarium's water into it. So, if you have perfect laminar flow across a given width, 80-90% of the debris/organics that you collected in the laminar flow is being sent back into the water column rather than getting pulled into the filter intake.
---How is that true?
Well, say you have an aquarium that is 10 inches wide. You have near perfect laminar flow across the full length of the aquarium. As the water travels in this stream across the tank, it picks up debris/organics. Once it hits the side glass and heads downward, towards the substrate. Only about 10-20% of the water that passes through the laminar flow will enter the intake and be pulled through the media.
--- How can you increase that percentage?
Simple, by having an intake strainer that lays horizontal and has intakes across the width of the tank.
Here's a simple drawing to hopefully smooth things out, not to be complicated, very simple.

In the drawing you see the top of 2 aquariums, both of the same width. One of which has the 'normal' strainer type intake(noted by a circle), and one of which has the 'modified' version, that I have been pondering.

The first shows the 'laminar flow' from the DIY mentioned earlier. It flows across the mid-upper level of the tank, full of organics. It then hits the side glass on the other side of the aquarium then travels down. When it hits the wall, shown in Number 1(top), only about 10-20% of the laminar flow touches the intake to the canister.

Compare that with the horizontal intake that is the full width of the aquarium, or near it. This full width intake pulls water from the laminar flow across the width of the tank. It may not pull 100% of the flow coming from the other side, but I can guarantee that it would pull more than 10-20%. Shown by drawing Number 2(bottom).










This drawing is 2D however it encompasses the same thoughts. The red portion in drawing 2 is how much roughly would be guaranteed to be pulled into the intake.

With that being said--

Another poster mentioned that Koralia power-heads seem to use a very smooth stream of water and pull water from behind/around it into the stream, as well as debris...and shrimp/fish...hehe.

This next thing is introducing the same concept. But is also capable of a filtering component. This would require 2 canister filters. (more flow, as mentioned) Not only do you have a 'laminar flow across the upper half of the tank, but can also have one going across the bottom. This wouldn't be as efficient as the top, but would aid in keeping detritus and other organics on the bottom.

To do this you would have a similar setup as the upper part of the filtration, but going in the opposite direction. Simple diagram:
The flow would be an ever constant circle, through the aquarium.
From the front of the aquarium...Used google sketchup.









I hope this brings up more discussion. If it doesn't I'm still going to try it with my 75G. A few pieces of PVC and some suction cups, what do I have to lose.

With all respect to other ideas and discussion,
Martin

PS, Sorry for the extremely long post. I've been wanting to sit down and write it for days. Instead of breaking it up, it's one whole post. Thanks for those who read it, and state your opinions PLEASE. Whether it be positive or negative.


----------



## Ekrindul (Jul 3, 2010)

My thinking over the last few days, after some observations, is that a gentle flow that reaches it's lowest energy near the intake(s) is the most efficient. For the simple reason that the intake of most filters is so weak that if the energy of the flow from other sources is greater than the energy of the intake, the particles just keep going and aren't filtered. 

Regarding your suggestion, I think you can reach the same goal with differing heights on the intakes. Since a gentle flow will generally force the water into a circular U shaped pattern if set up to move uni-directionally, the water will pass each intake at each height without having to place one horizontally. I use two canisters on both of my tanks and always have one intake several inches higher in the water column than the other. A hacksaw is all you need if you have Eheims; Renas are modular, so no cutting required.

Taking each of the above, I would think it would be effective to have an intake the length of the laminar flow, but only if the intake was pulling at a higher rate than we are used to. Otherwise, the flow will overpower it. Using a more forceful intake would be problematic, and anyone who's ever used say an Aquaclear 50 without attaching it to either a quick filter or undergravel filter can probably tell a story of a fish murdered by the thing, as too much force from the intake can suck in small fish. 

I may be completely incorrect in my logic, though. I'm basing my thinking solely on my recent observations.


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

This is very interesting, I have to run now will read through the last 2 posts tomorrow again.

--Nikolay


----------



## joshvito (Apr 6, 2009)

Previously, it was discussed that 8-10 x the water column volume is how to calculate adequate an flow estimate for the size/GPH of a filter. 

After thinking about recent posts, could this be due to the fact that the filter intakes are so inefficient. If intakes could grab 50% more water, the turnover could be reduced in a linear relationship. 
Or is my thinking too circular?


----------



## Ekrindul (Jul 3, 2010)

The problem is how to increase the power of an intake without it becoming a problem for livestock. Not to mention, the stronger it becomes, the more difficult it will be to place plants near it. A powerful outflow can blow fish around, but they get used to it. They learn to avoid the spots where it's strongest. A powerful intake though is more dangerous.

Maybe something like a screen around the intake that extends out a few inches (how far would you have to move out to negate the force of the intake?), so that particles can get in, but livestock cannot. Would probably be ugly, though. Also, if you make the screen fine enough to keep out shrimp and such, it would just clog.


----------



## flashbang009 (Aug 6, 2009)

I tend to agree about the intakes. I've seen how debris being blown around in the tank (i.e. too much turnover) just floats by the intake. But then like discussed above fish, plants, and others get sucked in if the intake is too powerful. I think that an intake horizontal in on the side wall opposite the outflow would be best. I think a design like one i attached (made in paint) would allow for stronger suction but wouldn't be easy for fish to get sucked into. This design however is mainly for a spraybar output, as it would need to be mounted on the opposite wall as the output.


----------



## fishingkid1 (Apr 4, 2010)

One problem I see with your design Jason is that the intake can only pull as much water as the pump is putting back into the tank. But again, that's another idea that may work. Something as that may work as an out flow, similar to HOB, but that's an experiment. As we've stated that HOB's, when the spout is placed under the water level has a very smooth stream of water.


What your forgetting about the flow being too strong is that over the length of the tank, the flow will slow down; Simple linear loss. Water has friction, and will eventually slow down if not given another force pushing. And that slower flow at the other end of the tank (where the intake is) may be enough to still keep particles suspended and get them to the intake. 

The intake I was suggesting would be slotted or have a lot of holes drilled in a certain pattern. It would probably actually have less directly than the normal filter intakes now, since it would be the full width of the tank. But should pull in more gentle streams of water around the whole length of the intake.

No you can't trap 100% of particles or organics, but yes you can increase the efficiency of what it is. I may try something of this nature this weekend when I rethink my 20G scape. I'll take pictures and post my results. I'll be using a Fluval 205 and Koralia Nano (240GPH) for this experiment. 

This is very interesting stuff on this thread. Glad it was brought up
Martin


----------



## Michael (Jul 20, 2010)

Martin, you may be on to something. Our discussion had focused on the outflow component, without considering how the intake might be made more efficient.

The proposed designs (Martin's and Jason's) include a much larger intake area with lots of perforations. Even if the volume of intake flow was increased, the much greater surface area should prevent any increased danger to fish or plants.

In the next few months I will be setting up a new 40 gallon breeder tank, and will incorporate as many of these ideas as feasible. Yes, I'll start a journal.

--Michael


----------



## flashbang009 (Aug 6, 2009)

First of all, Martin is on to something. I think the discussion has missed the intake part mainly because many designs complicate the look of a tank. This will probably/hopefully be worked out in later stages of this thread though.

Martin your comment about the intake only pulling as much as the pump is pushing is 100% correct. However we addressed this earlier by saying that the filtration may need to be upwards of 8-10x's the tank volume. This allows for a LOT of suction and current. The problem with conventional intakes is that the suction is vertical. You're relying on the pump to pull particles in towards the "basket" and then up. The only chance you have of catching detitrus/debris is about a 3" diameter circle around the basket especially if we're upping our filtration to 8-10x tank volume. A more efficient design that 'aims' the suction outward, toward the direction that the water is already flowing will catch particles and more effectively suck in water. Think of my design as trying to sweep into a dustpan instead of a vertical cylinder (or using the wide attachment on a vacuum as opposed to the bare hose). Much easier no? Now granted fluid dynamics complicates matters more than my analogy but the principle remains the same: Adjust the intake to _accept_ the water flow so the intake is catching the water and then add on top of that the 8-10x t.v. filter suction and you've got an efficient combination!

To me it seems that a HOB outflow design coupled with my intake design would give a pretty darn efficient flow (almost laminar perhaps?)


----------



## flashbang009 (Aug 6, 2009)

Thread's gotten kinda stagnant (pun intended) eh?


----------



## Newt (Apr 1, 2004)

@ flashbang009:

I like your ideas about the intake and providing a long suction area to pull in the tank water and create an efficient flow. However, the filter's pump has a given NPSH (net positive suction head) at a given water height and intake pipe diameter. If you increase the intake area the NPSH is spead out along that length. In other words your intake draw would be less along a bigger area. Keep in mind that the draw will be the greatest nearest the upflow pipe if your design is uniform in size. So when you design/build your model you need to keep in mind the total area you are creating in relation to the area of the upflow pipe diameter. You need to create a linear/uniform flow along the length of your modified intake design. <o>


----------



## Michael (Jul 20, 2010)

Newt said:


> @ flashbang009:
> 
> . . .Keep in mind that the draw will be the greatest nearest the upflow pipe if your design is uniform in size. So when you design/build your model you need to keep in mind the total area you are creating in relation to the area of the upflow pipe diameter. You need to create a linear/uniform flow along the length of your modified intake design. <o>


This could be done by graduated opening size and/or spacing in the strainer covering the intake. Put smaller holes or greater spacing between holes in the middle near the central intake pipe, and larger holes or closer spacing near the ends of the strainer farthest away from the central intake pipe. This would equalize flow across the intake strainer.


----------



## Newt (Apr 1, 2004)

Now you're thinking


----------



## AquaBarren (Nov 6, 2009)

FWIW.... I decided to pull all supplementary devices out of the tank and go back to just the filter withnthe exception of a seio powerhead that turns on at night firing lowmtomhigh in the same direction as filter flow. 

My thought was that getting back to a simple one end to other end flow is the ideal. I also have been thinking lately that all physics aside, keeping the equipment clean may do more for flow than anything else. 

I recently swapped my eheim 2076 Pro 3e for a fluval G6. I put a G3 on a tank on our second floor and thought I'd see ifmthey configuration is as easy to maintain as it seemed, 2nd floor, all carpet, no utility sink made me experiment. It is definitely easy to maintain....so back to this tank and the G6....

The Gs have a nice flow display on the LCD. On the 84g's G6, flow was degrading quickly...in a few days. Made I opened and cleaned the 2076 every 3 pr 4 months at best. The G's display seemed to indicate that flow reduces faster than we may think. Or that the G was more effective, or more sensitive to debris.

If itmwasnt form the display, imwouldnt have noticed the reduction so quickly. The G really is easy to maintain...pop the mech cartridge, swap the filter section, pop the cartridge back in, and re-start. Takes 2 minutes, 5 to clean the old cartridge later. Easy.

End result is that the 84g that is a mature, dirty tank that has plenty of suspended sediment is now crystal clear. Is that due to eliminating interfering flow from power heads and return to a more laminar flow from a single spray bar, is the G more effective at mech filtration than the Rena and eheim before it,or is good filter maintenance the key.

I don't know. But I had cleaned the eheim a couple of weeks prior to the swap. I had the G in the tank with the other devices for weeks. Now with just the G running you can't see the water.

I'm thinking this is like your grandmother and chicken soup....just use good equip and good maintenance, what we're told as beginners, and all will be well.


----------



## AquaBarren (Nov 6, 2009)

Seriously, this makes me think that we don't have the flow that we think we do. Maybe the biggest gains are in more frequent maintenance, less in augmenting with more devices. Maybe the reason we like 8-10x flow is because most filters are functioning well below their flow ratings most of the time.

Clean living is good living?


----------



## fishingkid1 (Apr 4, 2010)

With that being said, not everyone can afford the 350$ price tag of a Fluval G6 or G3. 


Now, yes there is a "net" intake flow. But you can increase the probability of grabbing small particles over a wider area by making something like Jason's design. I don't believe his drawing was to scale, so therefore it can't really be determined what the dimensions are. 

Here's another curveball. Overflows to a sump. 

Saltwater uses them, look how clean the tanks are usually. (+ here's the higher flow rate... buh duh dum) I know people that have a 100G tank that have over 3000GPH of flow (30X flow)


----------



## Newt (Apr 1, 2004)

A filter with a high flow rate isnt necessarily a good filter. Take an Emperor 400 vs an Eheim 2028 @ 275 gph. Many would think the Emp400 is a better filter because it has a greater flow rate. The thing is the Eheims are efficient at filtering and the filters like Emperor are not. The Emperor must pass the same water over and over to get the job done.


----------



## Ekrindul (Jul 3, 2010)

But how does a sump improve filtration? Obviously, it gives you more water volume to dilute toxins, and higher O2 levels due to increased surface area. It can make cleaning mechanical filtration easier. But, not everyone has room for a sump. I know I couldn't fit one in my 12 inch depth stands. 

And, just as an aside, I've seen plenty of messy saltwater tanks.


----------



## fishingkid1 (Apr 4, 2010)

^^^ Yeah, I'm not saying it's the magical fix. I'm just saying they tend to have a high flow in their tanks.

1st, you can put whatever media you need in the sump. 
2nd You have a ton of room to put whatever media it is that you want.

I wasn't saying higher GPH was the key, but it seems like sumps can give better filtration then MOST canisters.


----------



## flashbang009 (Aug 6, 2009)

One issue i see with a sump is that you get no pickup of detitrus on the bottom of the tank. I think we need to put some more thought into intake designs, seeing as how we've had some pretty good input on output designs (lily, modified spray bar, etc). Anyone have any idea how to produce prototypes of the intake i suggested? Me and Fishingkid1 had talked about messing around with some acrylic, but I'm still not convinced that would be feasible. Especially considering the intake grill design.


----------



## fishyjoe24 (May 18, 2010)

with this sump talk it makes me think about a return pump.... most people use a pump to return water to the tank from the sump... well what about a pump that would help suck more in to the intake? hope that makes sense...


----------



## AquaBarren (Nov 6, 2009)

Yes, not everyone can or would want to buy an expensive filter. I was just saying that the flow meter shines a light on the issue. I would not have expected decline in flow so quickly had the data not been present.


----------



## fishyjoe24 (May 18, 2010)

also thought of something else... with this sump talk.. what about the head volume of the return pump... if you ever look at a return pump or pond pump... look at the head volume.. it will say bla bla at 0 feet. well that gph return rate decreases as it has to pump higher and higher... could that hold true for the intake of a canister filter.. as it would have to have more pressure to pull water in to the filter also


----------



## AaronT (Apr 26, 2004)

fishyjoe24 said:


> also thought of something else... with this sump talk.. what about the head volume of the return pump... if you ever look at a return pump or pond pump... look at the head volume.. it will say bla bla at 0 feet. well that gph return rate decreases as it has to pump higher and higher... could that hold true for the intake of a canister filter.. as it would have to have more pressure to pull water in to the filter also


I wouldn't think that would affect anything. The intake works by syphon.


----------



## fishyjoe24 (May 18, 2010)

AaronT said:


> I wouldn't think that would affect anything. The intake works by syphon.


um okay, thanks.. then I stumped... guess I will go back to my tanks. just got the 40g filled and scaped.
now on to put the 20's on the bottom.... :whoo:


----------



## digital_gods (Apr 23, 2010)

I just wanted to tell you about recent experience with filtration in my tank. With the talks about laminar flow, I changed the direction of my filter out put to increase my tank flow. My out put now runs the length of my tank/left to right vs front to back. This has been keeping the detris and bio now cleaned up out of the font of the tank. I have a modified power head that is my co2 diffuser that moves the water from right to left side of tank, making my water flow travel in a counter clockwise motion. That increased the suspended particles that my filter pulls out of the water leaving my tank clean. I've been having a problem of my o2 dropping to low at night and killing my fish. I've added supplemental aeration through the use of air pump and long bubble wand. I had the wand on my back glass under my plants and out of sight. The air pump is a very high volume pump. At night time when the air pump kicks on, the circulation in the tank changes from the counter clockwise motion to now back to front circular motion. That stirs up the detris back up that has been trapped from the daytime flow off the plants for the filter to catch. I find that this leaves my tank exceptionally clean from littler and detris.


----------



## fishyjoe24 (May 18, 2010)

interesting.. so the air pump is on a timer? or you just plug it in at night?


----------



## flashbang009 (Aug 6, 2009)

On a side note, my recent change from filter floss to lava rock and purigen has left my tank sparkling clear. I don't have my intake on the opposite wall as the outflow yet, space constraints haven't allowed for it. I too can vouch for the effectiveness of air pumps at night. I used to run one when i didn't have a solenoid for my CO2 and everything in the tank looked cleaner and more perky.


----------



## digital_gods (Apr 23, 2010)

@Joey Its on a timer. I have it kick on 30 min before lights out and 30 min after lights on.

@FlashBang: Both are on the same side wall. Intake is closest to the back and output is furthest away from the back.


----------



## digital_gods (Apr 23, 2010)

What is the purpose of the prefilter ceramic tubes? Are they really effective or is there something more effective to use in the canister filters?


----------



## fishyjoe24 (May 18, 2010)

I'm not sure, looking at photos would it trap particles before the canister starts to filter?......Also has any one ever wondered why the fluvals have the sponge filters on the sides till you get to the big fx5. but the rena's and eheims have the sponge one the bottom?...Why is that?


----------



## digital_gods (Apr 23, 2010)

I know the sponge filters is just the mechanical filter. The only logical think I can think of is that fluval wanted more sponge filtering going on. In instead of stacking the filter pads and making the filter taller, the moved them to the side. The water flow is pretty much the same as others. All flowing from base to top.


----------



## joshvito (Apr 6, 2009)

It's interesting .... I have a jbj reaction canister, and it pulls from the bottom through a UV lamp. 
the layers in the filter are 
top 
- coarse sponge 
- fine floss

middle
- chemical (charcoal) 
- fine floss

bottom
- ceramic tube biological surface
- fine floss

I have removed the fine floss (and charcoal) from the filter, as it was always full of so much detrius/much, that I believe it is a source for oxygen loss and poor filter function. I replaced most of the floss/charcoal with 20ppi Poret foam.(the exception is small amount of Purigen). I plan on adding Seachem Matrix to the bottom tray along with the ceramic pieces soon.

I'll keep the thread posted with any updates, as this is a recent change.


----------



## fishingkid1 (Apr 4, 2010)

With what Flashbang was saying. I had just recently changed my filtration a little bit as well. 

I changed the media in my fluval 205 from:

Previous:

TOP container: 
Carbon block, ceramic cylinders (The carbon block was now more of a (black **** that held organics, than a carbon block. I don't think I'll use any more carbon unless the tank absolutely needs it.
Center:
ceramic cylinders
Bottom: 
filter floss

Now: 
Top: 2" of bio-cylinders / soon to be crushed lava rock (as flashbang)
middle: 2" of bio cylinders / crushed lava rock
bottom: Water polishing pad

The results are truly amazing. My tank looks crystal clear now. There's no Purigen, no nutrient absorbers (phos-zorb, nitra-zorb)

Also, added benefit. I've notice the algae that I have has subsisded, plants have healthier growth. Algae is staying at bay better.


Another thing that I did was to reduce the nitrates a little. I was following standard EI for about 2 months. I kept reading that too much nitrate can make green water easier. SO, I stopped dosing nitrates until it was down to about 5 PPM and noticed an improvement there as well.


----------



## bif24701 (Jan 11, 2011)

I have a 36g with a HOB AC 70 and a Fluval 305 canister. With my current set up I packed as much bio media as I could buying more from the store. After reading this thread I want to change my media, in stages of course. Tell me what you think.

Fluval Current set up:
pre filter: included foam
lower tray: prefliter
middle tray: bio max
upper tray: water polisher

New stuff:
prefilter Poret 10 or 20 ppi
lower: bio rio
mid: bio rio
upper: bio rio

AC 70 Current set up:
lower: included foam
middle: ammonia remover
upper: bio max.

New stuff:
lower poret 10 or 20
mid and upper: bio rio.

My water is crystal clear now even being way over stocked but I like to experiment and try new things, (what else are hobbies for?). The aquarium is only about 30 days old and no problem with algae yet. I change at least 20% water every week.


----------



## digital_gods (Apr 23, 2010)

You got 3x-4x the filtering power. No way you should see anything in your tank.


----------



## fishingkid1 (Apr 4, 2010)

digital_gods said:


> You got 3x-4x the filtering power. No way you should see anything in your tank.


Hence the fact of why more flow is important in a tank.

As well as him saying his 36G was crystal clear, my 20G is amazingly clear. There's still a few bits flying around from the fish skittering across the tank and bumping stuff. But it again contributes that flow is a good thing...

Why use bio rio? It's just the same as lava rock correct? In my setup I'm transferring from bio rings to java rock. One layer every 2 weeks.


----------



## digital_gods (Apr 23, 2010)

I have a 30 gallon goldfish tank with a very heavy bio-load of just 5 large goldfish and 1 large pleco. I have to run a eheim 2236, 3 stages bio and 1 stage sponge, it's still not enough to handle them. Tonight I'm adding additional bio-filtering to my tank with Kaldnes K1 filter media in a d.i.y. aerator.


----------



## flashbang009 (Aug 6, 2009)

Got some knockoff lily pipes the other day and put them on my new 10g. Here's a video showing the general idea. It was as I was filling the tank but still shows how the flow is a 'U'.


----------



## bif24701 (Jan 11, 2011)

fishingkid1 said:


> Why use bio rio? It's just the same as lava rock correct? In my setup I'm transferring from bio rings to java rock. One layer every 2 weeks.


About Bio Rio:
It is very light. When you pick it up you will notice that right away. That means it is extremely porous thus a great media for beneficial bacteria to grow and live.

Another thing I have found with these filters is that less is more as far as media packed into the trays. At first I packed my trays to the top and had ok results. Then I removed some of the media till each tray was just about 3/4 full and found that it greatly improved my water clarity. The difference was flow. The flow was greater with lower media thus giving the bacteria more oxygenated water. This increased the overall capacity of my filtration. Most canister filters have low power pumps that quickly lowers flow when it have any resistance.

ADA filters are very costly but they hold a lot of media and the pumps are much more powerful also provide a consistent flow rate. To recreate this with another canister filter pack it with bio media only and fill just above 3/4 full to allow full flow through the canister.


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

Yes, in every canister filter manual Eheim shows a picture and explicitly says to not fill the media baskets to the top. Once again - it appears that we need to just look more carefully back and make sense of what is already been proven to work. That is very much what ADA did too, but in an elegant and marketing-smart way.

Lately I've been having the idea of an extreme test for the conclusions we came up with in this thread. My idea is simple - setup a garden pond and filter it with only biomedia, good flow, good flow pattern. If this works then I guess flow, filter media, and flow patters could be the answer to all the city-ponds/man-made city park bodies of water that are usually murky and dirty looking. I bet you can find such ponds in any city, not only Dallas/Fort Worth.

Just a few days ago I took a walk around a pretty big lake here in Dallas, and I thought that it would be so nice if the whole thing was crystal clear. But of course - the expense to move such volumes of water is most likely the biggest obstacle.

In any case - I hope to see more and more people be aware and trying biomedia-only filters, good flow and flow patterns.

--Nikolay


----------



## Tex Guy (Nov 23, 2008)

Niko, 

We already have that experiment right here in our club. You need to check out Michael's koi set up. He uses a bog filter and it looks pretty darned good to me.


----------



## Michael (Jul 20, 2010)

niko said:


> Lately I've been having the idea of an extreme test for the conclusions we came up with in this thread. My idea is simple - setup a garden pond and filter it with only biomedia, good flow, good flow pattern. If this works then I guess flow, filter media, and flow patters could be the answer to all the city-ponds/man-made city park bodies of water that are usually murky and dirty looking. I bet you can find such ponds in any city, not only Dallas/Fort Worth.


Nikolay, you have seen my 3 stock tank pond complex. The filtration on it is set up exactly as you describe, except the biomedia is actually bog plant roots. This has been working very well for four years. I do get a brief bloom of filamentous algae in late winter/early spring before the vascular plants start growing, but the water is still very clear even at that time. I have big koi (for the size of the pond) in one tank of this system, and even they can't overwelm the biofilter.

(oops, Tex Guy beat me to it!)

Back on the subject of canister filters, could the K1 media/moving bed be used in one? Flow comes from the bottom, so the media should stay in motion. The moving bed filters in Foreverknight's posts are all in transparent containers. Does the K1 media need light to develop the proper microrganisms?


----------



## Aquaticz (May 22, 2009)

I have had a garden pond set up for over 25 years .
Some years ago I made my ownn filter based off some info found on the web. The pond is about 300 gal & the outside filter is probably another 70 to 80 gallons. I use only one media. Scrubbies! Yes scrubbies the ones used in days of old to wash dishes. I purchased a few hundred of them at a discount store. This pond houses turtles, probably the dirtiest animal you could keep in a pond. The water is always crystal clear. I have a three foot waterfall that is feed by the outflow of the filter. As I recall the pump is for 700-800 gph , given the total head height of 3.5 feet I stll have a lot of flow. I might add that I used to have to clean this pond biweekly. Now it is done bi-YEARLY! 
So this filter is roughly 25-30% the size of the pond. I do not know how to get this kind of flow in a tank. 

I have followed his thread from the first post. I have modified just about everything on a 55 gal. 
Naturally I did something stupid that just about killed all plant life. I had algea that I could not get rid of. I did a bleach dip..... The entire tank was kompact hygro - each & every leaf was lost. After a few days I now have stems with tiny tiny leaves & guess what? Yep algea is back. 

Today I think I am going to lessen the amount of lava rock in my eheim.


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

Yes, when I saw Michael's filtration setup (from far away) I thought that live bog plants would be the next step up from using only biomedia. Of course in a home aquarium we need to consider the available room and the looks of the filtration setup. But for an open air pond Michael's setup has got to be the best. After all - it is totally natural - it emulates exactly that happens in Nature. Including the natural fluctuations. Michael's system is truly Nature Aquatics, more so than ADA's Nature Aquarium, haha.

About the size of the living filter (let's call it that way because it is bacteria + bog plants). Back in 2006 I heard from Freemann here on APC about how ponds are fitlered in Europe.

Freemann is from Greece and right now aquariums are not the first priority there because of the economy so we don't see him on APC any more. But he, just like me, was obsessed with the idea of how to run a planted tank without any issues from Day 1, every single time. We looked at all sorts of alien ideas - ultrasound devices for killing algae, forest soil that causes a horrible algae bloom the first 4 months of the tank development but later everything clears to perfection, Plocher energy system, exposed UV bulbs over the tank that sterilize everything for a min or so a day, ultra precise dosing... All sorts of complicated and generally useless approaches. But one thing that stuck in my mind over the years was what Freemann told me about European ponds:

The idea is very much exactly what Michael has in his backayrd right here in Dallas. Very big bog area. Up to 80% of the size of the actual pond. The water flows slowly through the bog area. Bacteria + bog plants + natural settlement of particles = filtration. Freemann told me that such setups have proven successful every single time, no matter the size, shape, volume of the ponds. Downside - who has room for a filter about the size of the pond itself? Well, Michael has found an elegant way of putting all this together. AND has viable observations how it all works in the long run.

I wish Tom Barr came here to post about his thoughts on clearing park lakes in a city environment. There are factors that we do not have to deal with in our aquariums. But it seems

to me that the filtration of such lakes often can be improved IF the right approach was used. Not necessarily much more money. Look on this map for the Towne Lake here in McKinney:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sou...hnear=Wilson+Creek+Pkwy,+McKinney,+Texas&z=15

Note the channel between the two parts of the lake. Looks like a setup waiting to be turned into a "bog filter/pond" experiment. I can only speculate of course because I do not know the dynamics of the lake, but from a bird's eye view this lake begs to become an experiment for bog plant filtration.

And no, I am not assuming I just invented bog filtration for ponds. I just wonder why it doesn't seem to be used all over. Google and see for yourself:
http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&...+filter&gbv=2&aq=f&aqi=g1g-s1g1g-sx7&aql=&oq=

Maybe Phil Edwards will chime in here with information on experiments like that and the challenges. I suspect pollution from fertilizer runoff, established anaerobic bacteria populations, fauna that actively damages the bog plants... But still it does seem that the idea of bog filtering could be explored more. For now what we see most often is a big fountain in the middle of just about any city lake - no doubt providing Oxygen + some water movement. Could that be improved?










--Nikolay


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

Back to aquariums - I too thought about using K1 media in a canister filter. I guess the bacteria does not need the light, but you want to see if everything is working as it's supposed to. I too dilsike the looks of the funky chaotically moving white plastic media in a container inside the aquarium. 

In the light of the discussion in this and the sister thread one can conclude theoretically that if the Japanese use Lava Rock to provide continuous, no-clog, flow through the filter then a K1 moving bed canister filter is the next step up. One step under finding a way to incorporate bog plants in the canister filter, haha. 

Joke aside - here's a bright idea of a canister filter of the future perhaps: K1 moving bed media, clear canister, large volume compared to the tank volume. Clogging will NEVER be an issue with the moving bed media. Flow will NEVER vary. Bubbling Oxygen may not be mandatory depending on the sizing of the filter + media. And let's bring the Japanese once again - if they can achieve excellent results stuffing the canister filter with media that is not supplied Oxygen half of the time (at night they do bubble Oxygen, remember) then most likely a moving bed filter would work. How well - that's the answer we are looking for. It will, once again, take experimentation and long term observation. 

ADA's filtration system has proven beyond doubt. As a result of the knowledge brought in through our discussion here we have a new and exciting question to ask: Can the proven Japanse biomedia-only filtration be improved?

--Nikolay


----------



## Michael (Jul 20, 2010)

If you wanted to incorporate a bog filter in an aquarium it would be easy. Hang the lights above the tank, and let them overlap a large HOB filter. Instead of putting media in the filter, just put in rooting cuttings of emersed plants.

The bog filter is so effective for ponds, that in Europe it is used to treat water in public swimming pools--no chlorine! The filter does need to be big, anywhere from 50% to 100% the surface area of the pond or swimming pool.


----------



## Newt (Apr 1, 2004)

I believe the correct engineering term for moving bed media is 'fluidized' bio bed media.


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

According to this Australian guy a fluidized bed filter (with sand, not K1 rings) measuring 3" in diameter and 2' tall is enough for a 300 gal tank:
http://www.aquarticles.com/articles/management/Wilkins_Fluidised_Bed_Filters.html


----------



## fishyjoe24 (May 18, 2010)

yes fluidized bed filters are awesome. they can old a lot of good bacteria in the sand... I had one rate for a 600 gallon on my 225g tall and had no problems, and I had big silver dollars in it. the only draw back, is I've heard that nitrates can spike if power goes out and they stop.


----------



## AquaBarren (Nov 6, 2009)

Is Eheim's wet/dry a fluidized bed? Wonder if they are more susceptible to clogging if not fronted with good mechanical filtration.


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

Eheim wet/dry is a ridiculous contraption that basically does ebb and flow - fills the canister with water and then drains it. The idea is that the bacteria will love the exposure to air every 2-3 minutes and they probably do. The water movement does not suspend the media in any way.

Think of it as filling a bucket with water and draining carefullyit in 2-3 min. That's it. 

The Eheim wet/dry filter forces you to have a 3-rd hose haning on the tank, it is noisy, has flimsy O-rings, the clips fall out when you open the filter, and the housing is made of thin plastic. It also has the simplest hose to housing connection I've ever seen, very nice. Overall the wet/dry is a fluke in Eheim's line of filters.

--Nikolay


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

fishyjoe24 said:


> yes fluidized bed filters are awesome. ... the only draw back, is I've heard that nitrates can spike if power goes out and they stop.


I'm going to use that quote to remind everybody of the fact that in all filters this very thing happens when the flow is reduced. At least part of the "good" filtration turns to "bad" filtration. You still have flow but the filter does not work as you think it does.

That's the reason ADA uses lava rock and pressure rated pumps. That way you do not risk reducing the flow and getting "bad" filtration without knowing it.

In a fluidized bed K1 filter that insurance is enhanced even more - the media cannot clog during normal operation and cannot compact if there is a power outage. Anaerobic activity will eventually take place but much slower than a compacted sand fluidized bed filter.

By the way if you detach your canister filter from the tank and remove the hoses you can store it full of water not more than 3 days until it starts to stink (anaerobic processes). But if you remove the water you can store it for no less than 6 weeks, connect it back up and the bacteria will be fine. I have done that numerous times and have noticed that the bacteria stays alive and ready in humid environment, even if the storage room temperature is about 100F. That means the the perfect canister filter (that I'm inventing every day) should have a feature that drains it if there is a power outage. And fills it back up when the power comes back.

--Nikolay


----------



## fishyjoe24 (May 18, 2010)

that sounds like the hagen fx5's. it has a drain part down at the bottom, so with a turn of the knob you can turn and hook a hose up to it to drain it... I wonder if canister manufactors would do that on all there filters. then if the power goes out it will drain the water to a special chamber. then ones power is restored it will return the water in to the canister and work as normal..

um now to invent something like that .....


----------



## AquaBarren (Nov 6, 2009)

No wonder the eheim wet/dry isn't popular. 

Niko,

What does yournperfect filter look like so far? I know, you're not talking so not to stir up debate and a lot of useless banter of prejudices and little fact.

Fwiw, I've become a fan of removable cartridges - mechanical and chemical such as the fluval Gs. Makes maintenance very fast and easy. Unless of course you decide that bio media only with a high pressure pump is the way to go - Ada style. Even then though a separate chamber that can optionally be filled with extras like peat, purigen, whatever is a nice option.

Detachable power cord as the eheim pro III too. 

Curious to hear the masters dream filter. 

When does it go to manufacture?


----------



## Newt (Apr 1, 2004)

AquaBarren said:


> ..........................................................................
> 
> Niko,
> 
> ...


Yes, when will we see the N1A1 ready to go filter.


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

AquaBarren,

In case you have not noticed - I make fun of myself all the time. That's why I said I'm inventing the canister filter of the future every day. As the Portuguese say about some people "Apprentice in everything - master of nothing." I have some observations that probably make sense, but to make an actual all-in-one-all-insured-hands-free canister filter seems impossible. Or it will be some contraption akin to the systems that some reefer guys have - expensive and complicated electronics/wiring/piping that monitor/adjust everything and are not suitable for the average hobbyists.

Look at these fluidized bed filters with K1 media that we started to discuss lately. All you have to do to experiment with a canister filter full of K1 is to buy the Ocean-Clear or Nu-Clear transparent canister housing and put some K1 in it. That's it. If it really works there will be next to nothing to improve. And I can only guess I'd not be the only person that would probably open the cabinet every day to stare at the dancing plastic media just because it's such a simple and cool idea 















I do agree about removable cartridges. For almost 2 months now I have a micron filter on my big tank in an effort to reduce the particles floating all over and bring the tank to a good state. I have to clean that micron fabric every 2 days or it clogs, even if the water looks completely clear. It would be great if one could swap cartridges but only with the added convenience of not having to dump and refill the water in the filter itself. When you remove the cartdridge it "sheds" some of the loose particles and you need to dump that water and refill the filter. That's another good guideline for the "filter of the future"...

Overall - I think we all are interested in filtration that actually, really, works. Every time. A little extra inconvenience cleaing a filter is ok if we know what is going on and if we can setup a nearly problem free tank every time. With Lava Rock only and with this K1 we maybe actually having to clean the filter very infrequently. And if the tank is doing well because the main maintenance unit (the filter) is working well - then we are well ahead in this game. Or should I say "starting to catch up with the Japanese", hahah

--Nikolay


----------



## Newt (Apr 1, 2004)

Niko,
If using the filter above with lava rock or K1 media you would remove the pleated mechanical filter, correct?


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

Here are 2 thoughts on the K1 moving bed filter and its possible incarnation into a canister:

1. Looking at this video:





So the idea is that the "gears" that have the bacteria stuck to them hit each other every so often, or brush against each other. As a result the dead bacteria, or the old bacteria, falls off leaving the strong active bacteria exposed to the water. The "gears" are designed in such a way that in normal operation you cannot shake off all the bacteria. So you are always left with only the best.

Question: What happens to the old bacteria? Does it just disolve in the water somehow?
Reason to ask is that if you stuff a canister filter with K1 and over time there is stuff settling on the bottom that might be a problem. I actually do not think there is anything settling and accumulatin too quickly but how does it really work?

2. Pumping Oxygen in the canister
I think we will all agree - with Oxygen the bacteria will work better. But it will work good without pumping extra Oxygen too. After all that is how canister filters have been working forever now - no Oxygen, the bacteria works at only part the potential efficiency. ADA goes the extra mile to aerate the aquarium at night - in order to help both bacteria and plants. So a K1 canister filter with no Oxygen being pumped in the canister will work. Just not as efficient as it could.

Question: What size media chamber and how much K1 media is needed to equip a certain size tank with adequate K1 canister filtration?

Overall - both question are not too critical. I do believe that a K1 canister filter will work just at least as good as a Lava Rock one. But it'd be nice to have answers.

--Nikolay


----------



## Michael (Jul 20, 2010)

Nikolay, when we re-elected you as president of DFWAPC, we actually made a mistake. We should have made you Philosopher King instead!


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

Please. As many of you must have figured out already this forum is one of the few places where I feel I can actually contribute something meaningful to a cause. I hope the situation is more fun to everybody participating in the discussion than it is for me in reality - struggling to find an identity between jobs and plans for the future. Here I contribute not so much with knowledge but more with drive to know more. 

So... it's all words. Speculations maybe. I've seen K1 only once, never used it etc. but look at what I have to say about it! And you got to see me saying "Oh, the ADA flow pattern is like a double 'U' - not only vertical, but horizontal too. It involves all the water in the tank." I learned that from people responding to this thread. Who's smart now?

I just saw this thread has about 3,000 views and about 180 responses. Glad to see I'm not the only one finding this topic interesting.

--Nikolay


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

Newt said:


> Niko,
> If using the filter above with lava rock or K1 media you would remove the pleated mechanical filter, correct?


Yes, yes - no micron filtration. It wil basically be a canister full of water + as much of the K1 as you need to use. Nothing else.

I guess.. depending on the implementation... one could make this K1 canister filter look like an amusing piece of art or a cheesy toy. Say like this Lava lamp in the Korean metro, haha:










--Nikolay


----------



## Newt (Apr 1, 2004)

I suppose you could do the samething using a tank as a sump filter. Add K1, aeration devices, flow/turbulence via pump action.


----------



## flashbang009 (Aug 6, 2009)

That's what we've been discussing in the K1 thread adjacent to this one. My most recent idea for small tanks was using a HOB filter with airstone in the filter. 

If we were to diffuse the oxygen very well before it hit the canister, would the flow from the canister be enough to turn the K1? If so, then we could just set up a reactor inline with the canister filter (potentially fill that with k1 too? Or simply fill the reactor.. hmm) to diffuse the O2, and then have k1 in the canister filter? If the flow was strong enough to turn the k1, then problem solved. Diffuse o2 before the canister... 

I like the look of that filter you posted Niko.


----------



## Michael (Jul 20, 2010)

Re using K1 media in a canister filter, we may be over-thinking this a little. Water coming into the canister has enough oxygen in it to keep the fish alive, right? Then it should be enough for the microorganisms. Most (all?) canisters move the water from bottom of the canister to the top. Assuming flow is sufficient, this should be enough to keep the K1 media moving since it is engineered to be near neutral bouyancy when mature. This may not produce maximum efficiency from the media, but that probably is not necessary.

So, who's going to try it? If I ever get a stand for my new 40B, I will!


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

The way I see the experimental canister filter is that it has got to be clear so you can see how the media is moving inside.

Cheapest clear canister housing would be one for drinking water filtration. About $25-30 a piece:
http://www.airwaterice.com/product/WE-H6010CW/Clear-10-x-14-Housing-with-Cap.html

You can daisy-chain 2 or 3 of them, why not. Or spend the money ($130) for the big OceanClear/NuClear.

I suspect that maybe one needs to be able to vary the flow through the filter for optimal movement of the K1 media. Other than that I thing K1 will work just fine in a canister.

--Nikolay


----------



## digital_gods (Apr 23, 2010)

Just a thought, could a large protein skimmer be converted into a k1 moving bed filter?


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

Well,

Here's another way to look at this and the other thread's topics (which is filtration and flow):

I went to Oliver Knott's gallery and looked around for information on filtration. There is barely any. On some tanks he lists a few or more things about light, substrate and other amazing stuff. But filtration is always pretty vague and usually not even listed.

*LINK 1*
Note something on the first link. Look at the 2 filters. This is a 1500 gal. tank. 
http://www.pbase.com/plantella/image/83084274

The filters are designed to filter a swimming pool. Such filters have a normal operating flow of at least 1800 gph. Each:

We don't know if Oliver runs that much flow through them of course. But it certainly tells us someting about the ratio Filter Volume to Tank Volume. And we'd be foolish to assume the pumps are only say... 500 gph for each filter:
http://www.pbase.com/plantella/image/83084274

Now note - even after 3 months this tank layout is VERY open. Flow is not really blocked in any considerable way.

*LINK 2*
Now look at this link:
http://www.pbase.com/plantella/330hnlme

This is a 100 gal. tank. It has two big Eheim filters. Combined flow is at least 700 gph at the filter level. Depending on the filter media these filters provide actual in-tank flow of at least 3 times the tank volume per hour. BUT! Note how open the aquascape is. This tank does not need 8-10x the tank volume an hour:
http://www.pbase.com/plantella/image/94446900

*LINK 3*
This is 350 gal. tank. This one is stuffed with plants. Meaning the flow in this tank is severely blocked. 
http://www.pbase.com/plantella/image/108395231

Now look at the filtration. Note the 2 (two!) orange containers in the back. Once again - these are designed for flows of at least 1800 gph. Each. And note the pipe sizes - they are huge. Meaning the flow is not restricted by the pipes:
http://www.pbase.com/plantella/image/94764801

*LINK 4*
Now look at this tank. 150 gallons. With 1 (one) Fluval filter under it. VERY much like what most of us have at home:
http://www.pbase.com/plantella/image/120875006
http://www.pbase.com/plantella/image/120875007

What is peculiar in that setup? Other than the crazy rocks.
It is an open layout. About as open as I can stand it with these rocks. That tank doesn't need a huge flow. Hence the choice of flow - very low. And once again - if there is only Lava rock in that filter its performance is improved beyond what the designers conceived. Am I the only one that suspects that Oliver has some knowledge how Amano sets up his filters and probably emulates it from time to time?

Now note - we do not see additional pumps, powerheads, Koralias etc. in any of the tanks.

So here we have it - another speculation about filtration.

What does all that tell you and your canister filter humming dutifuly along under your tank?

- Filter volume vs. Tank volume
- Filter output
- Filter outpus vs. amount of plants
- Filter media
- Pipe sizes
- Pipe placing
- Extra devices for water movement

--Nikolay


----------



## Newt (Apr 1, 2004)

Niko,

With the high pump volume to tank size ratio and lava rock filtration you recommend what do you recommend for weekly water changes? I may have missed it on my read thru of the thread.


----------



## TAB (Feb 7, 2009)

I wonder if you could power a k1 system by gravity thru a stand pipe that suck in air.( standard, durso just can't be one that is throttled)

Put the media in basicly what ammounts to a degasing column. Which is nothing more then 3 diffrent size pipes, one inside the other.

The trick would be getting the right ammount of flow so that the media moves. which is simple trial and error.

later tonight I can draw up a simple sketch of what I'm talking about.


The only real draw back I can see about a system like that would be the noise.

They make culture vessels that are realtivly clear and have conical bottums. Not exactly cheap, but I bet they would make a very good starting point.


----------



## JustLikeAPill (Oct 9, 2006)

In my Ecco 2236, I have removed the bottoms to two out of three baskets (so that there is a lid and a bottom grid of the bottom basket, but the two baskets in between have no bottoms) and filled it with bio rio. After seeing this, I have an idea if anyone wants to use this stuff but not in the tank. 

I can see how adding a liter and a half to two liters (capacity is like three liters) would allow the media to swirl around inside the one big canister basket. There would be no air bubbles.... it wouldn't help you filter out particulates and you couldn't see it swirl around, but just an idea to throw out there if no one wants a juice bottle inside their tank. The media would (should) still swirl around and bump into each other.


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

Newt said:


> Niko,
> 
> With the high pump volume to tank size ratio and lava rock filtration you recommend what do you recommend for weekly water changes? I may have missed it on my read thru of the thread.


I believe that the answer to the question "How important is a water change?" is another question: "Have you seen a tank that has been stable and running well for a long time?"

As I've said before - such tanks are a different beast. You can leave them without maintenance until they evaporate half way. You can stop fertilizing whatsoever. You can forget the lights on or off. Nothing that you do will be a problem. The tank will stay clean.

So to me the idea is to get the tank going properly. Water changes like a clockwork. And after some time the tank becomes a completely hands off system. Take care of it whenever you feel. I've had tanks like that. Actually I have one right now.

And I have another tank which, after about three 30% water changes (1 every other day), stabilizes to a very clean state. The Bolbitis grows very well without CO2 but the minor Cladophora and BBA that I don't manage to remove completely doe not grow. It takes a month without water changes for the Bolbitis to stop growing and the Cladophora to slowly start to take over. 2 water changes in the span of 4 days and the good trend is up again. So I'd say a water change is indeed important - it brings the tank to a stable state that takes quite a long time to disturb.

But let's forget my measly experience and let's speculate on what ADG does. Do we believe they have fragile systems that give them a headache unless they service them meticulously every week or every few days. I really doubt it. Houston is a huge city and I don't think they have to drive huge distances every day just to keep up with finicky aquariums. So what is it that they most likely put in place to have the least trouble?

I bet the answer of Knott, Senske, and Amano is about the same. And it is not EI, PPS, special lights, substrates, water changes. Most likely it is "reliable filtration". And "good flow".

Still - if you ask Jeff Senske he will tell you that a water change is the first reaction to very much any issue. Clean the water and the tank from whatever is causing the problem. I've heard that at times with dirty tanks he does a "flush" - basically letting declorinated water run through the tank until all the trash is removed. That's probably establising a good starting point for the biofiltration to start anew. So I guess a good water change is always a good idea. Look at Amano - I don't even know if he has a tank in which he does not change 1/3 of the water every week. Luis Navarro does water changes religiously. If you see his tanks live you may ask just like I almost did - "You better fill this tank with water, because the plants will dry up."

--Nikolay


----------



## joshvito (Apr 6, 2009)

referring back to the post from Niko...

I use to live in Pittsburgh, they have a great aquarium.
If you ever get a chance, visit the zoo/aquarium.

Each year, the local aquarium club I was part of, gets a behind the scenes tour. We were asking about filtration, specifically on the smaller 100G display tanks. Almost all of their tanks have pool filters just like in the post above. Their large amazon display has sand filters so large, you can walk inside the compartment when it is off, to clean it.

IMO, It is a shame, that the hobby filter companies rate their filters for tank size, because it is probably the main source of misconceptions between hobbyists.


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

Aha!

This last post ... here are a few ideas flowing from it:

1. Our club can probably try to arrange a behind-the-scenes visit to the Dallas World Aquarium.

This thing is huge - imagine 8 ft. aligator gars, cats, arapaimas, and manatees (if I'm not mistaken). They also have quite a few "standard" aquariums that I remember as exceptionally ugly from a visit years ago. Good idea to try to arrange a meeting. Last meeting years ago they did not cut us any slack and we had to basically get in as regular visitors. Maybe the times are different now.

Think these fish need a Fluval?









Dallas World Aquaruim on Google:
http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&...=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&biw=1276&bih=647

2. The aquarium hobby, not only planted tanks, seems to need an improved understanding about filtration. The only way this "new understaning" can happen is active discussion AND images of filters + successful tanks. It doesn't matter that at times it does feels like we are talking about simple and stupid things (as some of us think about this discussion). More images like this one and we will probably start to think more about filtration:
http://i.pbase.com/o6/11/259611/1/83084274.yYMKcgus.250707.jpg

3. Stuck at home because of the DFW freeze over I spend many hours yesterday trying to find an affordable and good quality filter canister that is a good size too. You cannot find one. Not cheap enough. Not even on alibaba.com - the source of all Asian goods that flow into our lives. Heck I even looked at pressure cookers and I tell you some of them would make a damn good filter housing (but cost like $400):









So I started to look for ways to actually manufacture a good size canister that is affordable. Maybe something will come out of this. But it will work only if many people understand the need for a different kind of filtration, its size and media.

--Nikolay


----------



## Michael (Jul 20, 2010)

Niko, let's talk about a real world example. What would you think about an Eheim 2217 on a 40 gallon tank? Given our discussion, would flow rate and media volume be enough? BTW, what IS the flow rate on a 2217? I can't find that information in the manual I downloaded.

Second, what would the optimal media for that filter be, excluding ADA Bio Rio for cost reasons? If the answer is lava rock, what should the particle size be? Should a combination of several media be used? Let's ignore the establishment period, and consider only the maintenance of a mature aquarium.


----------



## TAB (Feb 7, 2009)

Niko, fiber glass or injected molded plastic are going to be the only real cheap options for a larger canister.

Fiber glass can be done at home cheap, but its a mess. the injected molded plastic is cheap per unit but the moldes are $$$$$

anodized aluminum is a very bad choice, more so if you have a acide tank. acids will strip off ions as well as destroy the anodizing, which means raw AL will be exposed to water. Bad mojo.


I spose you could hunt down some large diamter PVC pipe scraps from a water district or something simlar, but then you have the issue of making flanges for them.


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

Michael,

*Eheim 2217 flow rate*
2217 is 264 gph. Once again - all canister filters, especially Eheims, are designed for fish-only aquariums which do not require high flow rates as planted tanks do. The decision to equip the filter with a more powerful pump depends on the layout - if it's open (iwagumi or short plants) you do not need extra flow.

*Optimal Flow rate vs. tank volume*
Because of misunderstanding how filtration needs to be setup many people have come up with the rule "water flow needs to be 8-10x the tank volume per hour". This rule varies depending on media used, tank layout, pipe placing, tank dimensions.

If you want to keep the rule for your 40 gal. tank you need to hook up a 400 gph pump to the Eheim 2217. From what I read because of the diameter of the media baskets the Eheim 2217 canister filter can be equipped with a pump that is up to 450 gph. Above that rate the filter size is the limiting factor - it will not allow for efficient filtration because the flow gets too agressive inside the cansiter. In reallity if you want 450 gph actual flow you will need to use a 550 gph pump because the flow rate losses in the hoses going up and down the tank and the media itself.

*Optimal Filter volume vs. tank volume*
Based on scientific research there is a loose rule for aquariums that states "the filter volume needs to be 8-10% the tank volume". From my previous post showing Oliver Knott's tanks + filtration it appears that this rule is VERY much a must if you want proper filtration.

If you want to keep the rule then you need a filter that holds 3-4 gallons of biomedia. If I'm not mistaken the capacity of the Eheim 2217 is 3 gallons (height 16", diameter 8" - please correct me if I'm wrong). So according to the rule Eheim 2217's volume is good for a 40-50 gallon tank.

*Actual flow in your tank*
The flow can be what the filter provides if the tank layout is pretty open and the tank is not some funky shape. If you will have a lot of plants then you most likely need more flow - just add an in-tank pump connected to the filter intake (pushing water in the filter and hidden behind the plants - many plants is your first reason to add this pump so now you can use them to hide the pump I guess).

Do not forget that additional contraptions to increase the flow need not be used. If you decide to use them make sure they aid the overal U-shaped pattern from filter outflow to filter intake. Do not get smart and create turbulence zones by having pumps shoot water across the main flow or against it - that's counterproductive.

*Biomedia*
I'd use only biomedia. No mechanical media inside the filter. I'd buy Eheim's Ehvilav - basically Lava Rock. It has uniform particle size. Buying Lava Rock from Home Depot involves crushing it and selecting pieces with about the same size which is too much effort. I also suspect that instead of the pricey Ehvilav you can get away with cheap Chinese medias. It's hard for me to imagine they make fake lava rock that is not very porous. But once again - Ehvilav is not that expensive anyway - 4 gallons for $40.

*Prefilter in the tank*
I would also strongly suggest putting a sponge prefilter in the tank - on the intake pipe of the filter. Until the tank is stable and produces zero visible waste you do not want any visible debries getting inside the filter.

All of the above suggestions are not written in stone. You can have a beautiful clean tank even if you intentionally do everything against what I just wrote. Does it make sense to follow what I described above? You decide.

--Nikolay


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

Tab,

I have some experience working with fiberglass. What I see as a problem is making the final product look good. It will take quite a bit of effort.

It seems to me that a large diameter PVC pipe and a flange routed from sheet PVC is the cheapest way to make a canister. 

Do you know how PVC holds long term to water? This questions seems dumb but yesterday I heard about Chlorine gas from PVC damaging electronic equipment so cutting on certain computer controlled devices is not a good idea. So I have to ask about PVC schedule 80 falling apart after 5 years exposure to slightly acidic 75F temperature aquarium water.

--Nikolay


----------



## TAB (Feb 7, 2009)

if its safe to be used for drinking water, so it has to be some what safe. PVC does break down over time.


----------



## Michael (Jul 20, 2010)

Nikolay, you are a font of wisdom!

The layout planned for this tank does not have complex or bulky hardscape, but it will have lots of plants. So we must assume a fairly congested design needing more flow.

"Based on scientific research there is a loose rule for aquariums that states "the filter volume needs to be 8-10% the tank volume". From my previous post showing Oliver Knott's tanks + filtration it appears that this rule is VERY much a must if you want proper filtration. . .If you want to keep the rule then you need a filter that holds 3-4 gallons of biomedia. If I'm not mistaken the capacity of the Eheim 2217 is 3 gallons (height 16", diameter 8" - please correct me if I'm wrong). So according to the rule Eheim 2217's volume is good for a 40-50 gallon tank."

The actual volume available for media in an Ehheim 2217 as I measure it is 385 cu. in., or about 1.66 gallons. So this is about half of what is required by "Knott's Rule". 

"If you want to keep the rule for your 40 gal. tank you need to hook up a 400 gph pump to the Eheim 2217." 

Since the 2217 has only half the volume of media necessary for a 40 g tank, will it help to increase flow rate through the filter? Or will we be pushing too much water through too little media?

"If you will have a lot of plants then you most likely need more flow - just add an in-tank pump connected to the filter intake."

Is this a simple additive function? In other words, assuming the 2217 has a flow rate of about 250 gph, if we put another 250 gph pump on the filter intake, does this equal 500 gph? Do two pumps in series work this way?

"Do not forget that additional contraptions to increase the flow need not be used. If you decide to use them make sure they aid the overal U-shaped pattern from filter outflow to filter intake."

Since the 2217 has only half the media volume that we want, would it be better to increase flow with additional power heads, rather than adding a pump to the intake? I've planned the layout with two possible locations for powerheads that I think will contribute to the desired overall flow pattern. These powerheads basically would boost the return flow along the bottom to the intake.

"I'd use only biomedia. No mechanical media inside the filter. I'd buy Eheim's Ehvilav - basically Lava Rock. It has uniform particle size. Buying Lava Rock from Home Depot involves crushing it and selecting pieces with about the same size which is too much effort."

My business/disposable income is so bad right now that it is more attractive to crush some lava rock that I already own instead of buying lava rock with a pedigree. How big should I make the pieces?

"I would also strongly suggest putting a sponge prefilter in the tank - on the intake pipe of the filter. Until the tank is stable and produces zero visible waste you do not want any visible debries getting inside the filter."

Yes--I already do this to keep my shrimp from being sucked into the filter. I have come to regard shrimp (like snails) as a valuable component in the ecosystem of the tank even if I rarely see them.

Obviously, I am asking all these questions because I am trying to make the equipment I already have work efficiently. But they are also an example of applying our discussion to a practical example, and how the result may not be what you would expect.

--Michael


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

Michael,

Ok I was wrong on the filter volume, as I suspected. But there is something more important here for everybody to note:

It is a counterintuitive thing so to undersand the claim read it carefully and take it as a given at least until you get it:

The filter volume is not connected with the max. flow that you can run through it. 
The cross section of the filter is connected with the max. flow that you can run through it.

So a filter measuring 8" in diameter can handle 450 gph of flow. The height of the filter does not matter. Meaning - the filter volume does not affect the max. flow we can run through it.

Example: 
Filter A - 8" diameter, 6" tall. 
Filter B - 8" diameter, 16" tall. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
** Both filters can sustain a max. flow of 450 gph. **
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Filter A is smaller volume - good for maybe a 5-10 gal. tank
Filter B is larger volume - good for 40-50 gal. tank.

All that sounds a bit off. Because it says that with a small size filter you run 450 gph. of flow. And with a much larger filter you are limited to the same 450 gph. But remember - it is the cross section that counts. Want larger flow rate - get a larger cross section filter.

Practically - for your 40 gal tank the Eheim 2217 has a cross section large enough to run 450 gph. That is 10X the tank volume an hour so you are good.

But Eheim 2217 can not hold biomedia that is 10% of your 40 gal. tank volume. It holds media that is 10% of a 17 gallon tank. Hm, seems wrong? Look at the following picture. Amano has decided to use Eheims that are about the size of your Eheim 2217 on tanks that are much less than 40 gals:









While trying to visualize the Eheim 2217 and its size I can't help but use conversion to metric units. And then convert back to Imperial units to try to double check myself. I get confused. Ok, I'm not that smart but here's a better way to figure out if a filter is good for your tank ( in other words - is your filter's volume 10% of your tank volume):
*Can you put 10 (ten) Eheim 2217s inside your 40 gallon tank?*
Count only the biomedia. And if you can fit more than 10 filters then these filters are too small for your size tank. Genius!
Sorry for using the same picture but look - how many of the blue filters can you fit in the aquarium they service? And don't forget - this tank is VERY open layout - it does not really need 10% of its volume to be filter media:
http://i.pbase.com/o6/11/259611/1/83084274.yYMKcgus.250707.jpg

So - always look for a general visual ratio of the size of the filter vs. the size of the tank. Hm, interesting! Easy visual way to roughly figure out you do or you do not have enough biomedia volume.

*Since the 2217 has only half the volume of media necessary for a 40 g tank, will it help to increase flow rate through the filter? Or will we be pushing too much water through too little media?*
No, you cannot increase the flow through a small filter to get more efficient filtration. At least you cannot increase above the maxium. In your case the Eheim 2217 can sustain max. of 450 gph. Larger flow will disturb the bacteria.

*...assuming the 2217 has a flow rate of about 250 gph, if we put another 250 gph pump on the filter intake, does this equal 500 gph? Do two pumps in series work this way?*
No. You cannot connect one pump to the outtake of another and get a double flow. The second pump will not benefit at all from having lots of flow being pumped into it's intake. I don't know why, maybe someone will explain this in layman's terms.

*Since the 2217 has only half the media volume that we want, would it be better to increase flow with additional power heads, rather than adding a pump to the intake?*
Yes. I say that despite the advice to never used additonal in-tank pumps that are not part of the filter. I say that because that's exactly what I have done in my big tank and I see really, really good results. So - greater in-tank flow + measly filter volume is better than low in-tank flow + measly filter volume. Downside is ugly equipment in the tank and (this is also counterintuitive) probably flow pattern that does not efficiently stir all the water in the tank like a good U-shaped flow pattern does. 
Anyway - make the leaves of all your plant wave in the current with in-tank pumps and see if the tank does better than before. As I said - you can have a beautiful tank without following any of the things we discuss here. But all the big names do what they do because of good reasons, we can't deny that.

*Size of the Lava Rock that you crush yourself?*
Here's a funny thing - despite all my lofty writings I have never seen ADA's Lava Rock (called Bio Rio) myslef. Someone here or in the other thread described the size. Find that information. And good luck getting a lot of similarly sized pieces. I've hammered lava rock myself and quickly learned that the resulting pieces just flat out refuse to be the size I want them to be 

I too hope that from all this discussion something useful will come up. As I've said before - often typing a new post helps me put things into perspective for myself. Like the easy filter selection rule-of-thumb: "Will this here canister filter fit 10 times in my 75 gallon tank?"

--Nikolay


----------



## flashbang009 (Aug 6, 2009)

I initially used lava rock that was close to an 1" in diameter, but too much reduced the flow tremendously. I reduced the amount of rock in the filter and now it works fine. To my surprise, there was plenty of ~1" diameter rock in the regular bag that I didn't need to crush, for my 150, 75, and 10 gallon filter.


----------



## flashbang009 (Aug 6, 2009)

Here's a site with some pretty cheap canisters: http://www.truaqua.com/index.html

Another cheap canister here on ebay. I attached a picture from that ad, i'm not quite sure what the attachment is on the top of the intake... skimmer perhaps?


----------



## JustLikeAPill (Oct 9, 2006)

Niko, those are Eheim 2211 filters. They only hold a liter of media. The flow rate is like 80 GPH before you consider the twists and turns etc. which is really good for the mini M and mini S since they are about 5.5 gallons and 3.5 gallons respectively. 

The mini m is about 20 liters and the mini s is about 13 liters, give or take. That means the biomedia capacity of the 2211 is about half of what you suggest is needed for the mini S and about 300 ml's short of what you suggest for the mini s. Realistically I don't think being 300 ml's short matters. 


Let's look at the "standard" setup by ADA. It's a superjet ES600 on a 60-P. The media capacity of the ES600 is 6 liters and the volume of a 60-P is 60 liters. That meets the 10% recommendation being discussed. It's a lot of media! The flow is 360 liters per hour which is only 6x the volume of the tank. Usually we say 5-10X is what we should aim for (I aim for 10X) so 6X isn't that much above 5X, just an extra 60 liters per hour. 

360 liters per hour is 95 gallons per hour. Not close to the 160-170 gph that I would personally use on a 16-17 gallon tank.... but it holds a lot of media and the slow flow allows for good biological filtration through all that media. Off the top of my head, each series of superjet filters meets the 10% volume you are recommending for it's corresponding size aquarium, and within each series you can have more and more media but the smallest one is at least 10% and the flow remains the same for the whole series (I think there are three per series with the base model being ES and the higher capacity models being EX with yet a third even higher capacity in each series being EX2)

I guess it just wasn't practical to make a superjet filter that is sized for the mini M S and L, so they just use Eheim 2211's. An Eheim 2213 would be too fast even though it holds more media. 

The superjet filters are really, really pretty but... if you have a cabinet to hide a green Eheim in I can't see spending $600 for even the smallest superjet. It's just a really pretty Eheim classic.


----------



## Michael (Jul 20, 2010)

Niko, thanks so much! Every reply makes sense to me. The cross section of the filter would be the limiting factor to flow. And when I asked the question about adding a pump to the intake of the Eheim, I would have been surprised if you said it would work. For some reason I just didn't think an arrangement of pumps in series would be the simple fix. It actually might work better to put a 500 gph pump on the Eheim intake, and not bother to plug in the Eheim itself. Which I just might try, LOL.

Back to the auxillary in-tank pumps. I've been experimenting with flow in my 20, and I've been able to boost the circular pattern produced by the HOB filter with a power head. I'll do some more work on that until all the plants ripple in the current, and see what happens.

BTW, I share your confusion and frustration with the English system of measurements. I worked in medical research for a while, and used the metric system every day. Now when I have to compute fractions and convert from cubic inches to gallons to fluid ounces, it makes me want to scream and tear out my hair.

All of this really does help with planning my new tank.

Jason, thanks for the link to those canisters. I notice that some of them have clear media chambers--this would work for our parallel discussion of the use of fluid bed media in canister filters for aquaria. When you said that you initially used too much lava rock in your filters, how much was too much? I probably have enough of lava rock that went through a 1" screen to completely fill my Eheim. How full should the canister on my Eheim be?


----------



## fishyjoe24 (May 18, 2010)

that ebay canister looks just like a plen plex casade 1000 just a different color.


----------



## Aquaticz (May 22, 2009)

I knew a guy in fountain Valley that had a 5,000 gal pond. Filed with aquatic turtles. Water was crystal clerk & it was a huge sand filter,maybe a 500 gal container. His place was awesome


----------



## flashbang009 (Aug 6, 2009)

Michael, 

On my Eheim 2213 for the 10 gallon, the lava rock is about 1/2 to 3/4 of the canister volume. 

On the K1 media note, the speaker at our aquarium society meeting talked about saltwater tanks, but the part that caught my attention was his visit to a michigan aquarium lab. He mentioned that in the late 80's the guy that was in charge of the tanks was giving him a tour, when he spotted a bunch of 5 gallon containers in front of all the tanks. He asked what they were for; they had an airstone, sand, powerheads, and inflow/outflow tubes. The guy said "Oh, I'm taking all my nitrates out". Now granted there must have been more to this conversation, but the concept remains the same. He was using a powerhead to move aragonite sand in a bucket, almost exactly similar to the k1 filters. And this was happening right around the k1 invention. This was in a saltwater tank, but the concept is still the same.


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/...-discussions/76557-circulation-seems-key.html


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

An observation in my big tank today:

Ever since I started cleaning the tank actively in Nov 2010 I've had some amount of surface scum in the tank. Initially I attributed it to my constant pulling of algae, breaking them and their juices oozing in the water.

But in the last few days I started to think that what I see is indeed a good thing. There is a possibility that the surface film is actually algae juices from the algae I see disappearing. The Bolbitis in that tank is so healthy that I don't see how it can be leeching anything. The only thing that is definitely dying are the algae.

As we all know well ADA's Lily Pipe can be used to remove surface scum. It appears to me now that it could be seen as the last blow in the fight against algae - removing the last remnants of the poor things if they manage to pop up in a carefully designed system.

I maybe wrong, but honestly unless the fish (tetras, lots of them) in my tank promote the appearance of the slime then I don't see any other reason for that organic accumulation. Other than apaprently dying algae (although not many left)

--Nikolay


----------



## OTPT (Sep 27, 2010)

I think I've read every page of this thread but still not sure if anyone had mentioned about ADA Suikei data.

http://aquajournal.net/suikei_data/index.html

Most of the first 7 tanks have media volume just 2-3.3% of tank volume. The rest are probably quite the same, I just stopped looking at them.

Anyway, if I can have more media, I will add it. Seems no down side doing that.


----------



## OTPT (Sep 27, 2010)

Michael said:


> Niko, let's talk about a real world example. What would you think about an Eheim 2217 on a 40 gallon tank? Given our discussion, would flow rate and media volume be enough? BTW, what IS the flow rate on a 2217? I can't find that information in the manual I downloaded.
> 
> Second, what would the optimal media for that filter be, excluding ADA Bio Rio for cost reasons? If the answer is lava rock, what should the particle size be? Should a combination of several media be used? Let's ignore the establishment period, and consider only the maintenance of a mature aquarium.


The 2217 is no slouch when looking at power of the pump.
20 watt, 1000 litre/hr, 2.3 head max at 50Hz.

It's just a tiny bit less powerful than ADA ES1200. 
26-31 watt, 960 litre/hr, 2.4 head max at 50Hz.

http://www.my-mac.net/forum/viewtop...k=t&sd=a&sid=c94be915d5a55f3a47a530523c7755f6

I read that in USA, it is 110v/60Hz which makes the flow rate change.
But I can't find Eheim specs at 60Hz, while ADA provide that info in their website.

It's a shame that 2217 contains just half media of an ES1200. May be that's a 
reason that there are Eheim's Sub-filters (body without pump) selling in Japan.
http://en.item.rakuten.com/chanet/10564/


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

*Is filter volume that important?*
Lately, because of the success cleaning my own big tank + some early reports of success I started to think that adjusting the flow alone could be enough to improve aquariums in trouble. After all the easiest thing is to first try to improve the flow rate and flow pattern and see if things work out. So far it looks like that is true. That made me wonder if the filter volume is that important.

*Is flow rate that important?*
While adjusting the flow rate in my own tank I noticed that very small changes of the way I positioned the filter outflow made all the leaves of the Bolbitis move or stop moving. So it was the same flow but directed just a tad different that made the difference. Literally - a 1/2" movement of the outtake made a difference. That made me wonder if the flow rate is that important.

*Is the flow pattern that important?*
In my big tank the flow is chaotic. I do have water shooting across the U shaped flow pattern that I try to establish. But what I noticed is that if the leaves of the Bolbitis are waving in the current the algea literally disappears in 1-2 days. And I see surface film which I attribute to the dying algae oozing juices in the water. Lowering the chaotic flow leads to the Bolbitis leaves not moving any more. Algae eventually returns. Make the leaves wave again and algae goes away. That made me wonder if the U shaped flow pattern is that important if you provide a lot of flow.

From all this one can conclude that MAYBE there are ways to do everything "properly" but it is what works for you that matters. ADA sets up their tanks using approaches that work for them. And they want to sell you a system that works every single time for you. But most people in the US have tanks that are a motley assembly of who knows what equipment. Understanding how everything can work well together can actually make it work very well. The moral of this story is that yes, there will be differences from what ADA does.

Well, I didn't want this thread to get into details of the ADA system. But the writings above force us to look closer at ADA's approach.

*1.* The typical US planted aquarium contains too much fertilizers floating around. ADA consistently reports nutrient readins so low that to us they look like zeroes compared to our own readings. How many people here run their tanks with ZERO Ammonia, Nitrite, Nitrate, Phosphate? I hope that after the recent discussion of flow and filtration you could agree that your Ammonia maybe spiking every so often without you suspecting it.

*2.* The typical US hobbysit is not concerned with how much organics float around their tank. COD is a measure of that. ADA consistently reports extremely low COD. How many people here even know what is their COD?

*3.* The typical US tank has a pH of 6.5. As I've explained in another thread about biofiltration low pH makes the bacteria inefficient. ADA consistently reports pH=6.8.

These 3 points alone are enough to explain why we find that we might need larger filters and more flow. But to that we could add things like using pressure rated pumps and only bio-media. One other factor that has a huge impact is the flow pattern. Very small changes in the way you position the outflow make a big difference how the water flows in your tank.

Here's the relevant data about volumes and flows from the Suikei site that OTPT linked to:
http://aquajournal.net/suikei_data/index.html

Filter specs here:
http://www.adana.com.sg/productsPage/ada_filtration.html

The filter flows that follow are the Japanese version because these tanks are in Japan and not in the US. These same filters will produce more flow in the US because here we have "bigger and better" electricity (60 Hz).

*TANK 1:*
http://aquajournal.net/suikei_data/007/img/gallery_01_s.jpg

Aquarium size: W200 x D70 x H60 (cm) 
Aquarium Volume: 240 gal. (empty)

Filtration: Super Jet Filter 2400 EX x 2 <-- Note ADA uses two of these filters
Filter volume: 10 gal. x2
Filter flow: 460 gph x2
---------------------------------------------------------
240 gal. tank -- Filter volume: 20 gal -- Flow: 920 gph.
Filter is 10% of the tank volume.
Flow is: 4x the tank volume

*TANK 2:*
http://aquajournal.net/suikei_data/007/img/gallery_02_s.jpg

Aquarium size: W90 x D45 x H60 (cm)
Aquarium Volume: 70 gal. (empty)

Filtration: Super Jet Filter ES-1200
Filter volume: 3.4 gal.
Filter flow: 270 gph 
---------------------------------------------------------
70 gal. tank -- Filter volume: 3.4 gal -- Flow: 270 gph.
Filter is 5% of the tank volume.
Flow is: 4x the tank volume

*TANK 3:*
http://aquajournal.net/suikei_data/007/img/gallery_03_s.jpg

Aquarium size: W120 x D45 x H60 (cm)
Aquarium Volume: 93 gal. (empty)

Filtration: Super Jet Filter ES-1200
Filter volume: 3.4 gal.
Filter flow: 270 gph 
---------------------------------------------------------
93 gal. tank -- Filter volume: 3.4 gal -- Flow: 270 gph.
Filter is 3.7% of the tank volume.
Flow is: 3x the tank volume

So from the above numbers I can conclude that for a standard size 55 gal tank I need 200 gph of flow + a filter holding 2-3 gallons of media. Does that sounds like a good setup to you? ADA can do it...

Once again - remember that emulating those numbers is more or less guaranteed success if you take everything else into consideration. Uderstanding how it all works will definitely help you avoid mistakes with your own system

And no, I do not think I understand it all. I'm excited with the feeling that after all these years I think I understand more. So far this has lead me to some pretty simple conclusions. But with more insight.

--Nikolay


----------



## JustLikeAPill (Oct 9, 2006)

So it looks to me based on the use of superjet filters that 5% volume ls good but 10% is better. I was feeling inadequate since my filter holds 5% and not 10% ; ) 

It is cool that Eheim is selling motor less filters. That is a "real" Eheim product that Eheim sells, right? This has been discussed several times and the consensus is "it should be OK but who really knows" and now that Eheim is saying it's fine, it makes me want to buy an Eheim classic with a broken pump and do it myself. One filter loaded with Poret and one loaded with bio rio. Or maybe just bio rio (great stuff!)


About the COD test that ADA sells... I have wondered about it but I don't know of anyone who uses them, cares, and i don't know what they are. I do 33% weekly water changes, use a lot of purogen, and have no fish so I'm assuming it's probably 0 anyway.


----------



## Michael (Jul 20, 2010)

So back to my 40 gallon tank:

Eheim 2217 at ~250 gph = flow of 6.25x tank volume

Eheim with 1.66 gal bio-media = 4% of tank volume

So in comparison to the ADA examples above, I would have more flow than needed, and filter volume at minimum. I notice that the ADA example with the lowest % filter volume is an open, relatively sparsely planted design.

But the other two examples do not follow the same trend. The ADA tank with the highest % filter volume looks to have a "medium" dense design. The intermediate tank has very dense planting. Of course we may not be able to see important details in the photographs.

Let's assume I set the tank up with the current equipment. If I notice problems, especially algae growth, it would seem that my first approach should be to devise a way of increasing the volume of media in my filtration system. This would be instead of adding more flow.

How about an auxillary in-line media chamber? Maybe someone's old Eheim with a burned-out pump.


----------



## strat100 (Jan 31, 2011)

IF we need more biological media could you use a fluidized sand filter?You can get them in all sizes to in the stand etc.:-k


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

Michael,

I think you should try to see how the 40 gals. works with the 2217 as it is. What could be useful from this thread is:

- Make sure you distribute the flow in the best way you can. It looks like if there is any "rule" it is simple - if you can make all your plant leaves move you are in good shape. If you can do that with the Eheim only then great.

- Have as much biomedia as you can.

- If you are adding more biomedia in-line with the current filter your flow will drop at least a little. Consider adding more flow at that time.

- In the first month of the tank life use activated carbon

- Seed the filter before hooking it up to the new tank

- It makes sense to bubble air in the tank at night - to help the bacteria in the filter work better.

And if you have a fluidized bed filter chamber already consider using it. Also - I would advice for using very careful fertilization but I think you know what you are doing considering your beautiful lush tank in the entry of your house.

Strat,

I do not know why ADA has not pushed fluidized bed filters more. Considering what Amano himself says about filtration and Oxygen:
http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/...15-k1-filter-makeing-videos-some-other-4.html

I can only guess that the issues associated with a sand filters has kept ADA off them. Settling and quick toxicity in the event of failure that is. Maybe.

--Nikolay


----------



## Michael (Jul 20, 2010)

Niko, I've got a hot lead on a stand for the tank, so I may be able to put all this into practice soon!

Funny you should mention seeding the filter. Just today I decided to start putting lava rock in the HOBs on my other two tanks so that it would be ready for the 40 gallon. Per your helpful suggestion, after a batch of lava rock is well-started, it will be moved to a tray of shallow water where the microbes can stay alive while another batch is started.

Thank you for the compliment on my 20 gallon. That tank is pure Walstad--light, soil, fish food, fish excreta, and circulation. No ferts, no CO2.


----------



## Diana K (Dec 20, 2007)

I have set up a small "bog" over a 45 gallon tank. 
I used a plastic window box sort of planter that is about 2' long, 6" x 6" cross section. I filled it with lava rock that is about 3/8" diameter. (Available in rock yards) I set up a mesh at the inlet end so I could clean the mesh and not let too much debris get into the rock. Outlet is through a couple of bulkhead fittings and a bit of tubing into the tank. The whole thing sits on top of the tank. 
Then I hooked up a pump of about 100gph and let it run. I have a coarse sponge over the intake of the pump. (Aquaclear filter sponge)
I cleaned the mesh once, but it did not really need it even then. A year or two ago, after it had been running for a couple of years I took the whole box outside and ran a hose through it to clean out the lava rock. Nothing came out of it. The lava rock seems not to stop the fine debris that gets through the sponge.
This sort of set up grows house plants like crazy. I had the most beautiful Maranta relative in there! Now it is a Heartleaf Philodendron. 
It is probably a bio filter in both senses, plants and bacteria, Nitrospiros and others. 
The volume is nowhere near the 10% of the tank, but it is not the only filter on the tank. 

I originally based the idea on the bog style filters for ponds.
~ Emersed plants grow better because they have unlimited CO2 from the air.
~Bog filter is roughly 10% of the volume of the pond, but usually rather shallow, so more surface area per gallon. 

I have a bog filter on my pond. It is incorporated into the overall design. 
250 gallon main pond at the lowest end. 3' deep in the middle, but shelved so I can put pots of shallow water plants around the sides. 
1000 gph sump pump pumps water about 20' horizontally and 4' up to a water fall that splashes from between some rocks. Careful work with colored concrete to make this look natural. This water falls into a 45 gallon pre-fab pond, then spills over into the bog. 
The bog was created by excavating an area as wide as the pond (about 6'), and about 12' long. It is less than 2' deep at the deepest. Mostly it is filled with peat moss. A special kind of weed mat keeps an area clear for a cobblestone stream bed. This zig-zags through the peat moss and ultimately spills about 16" into the main pond. 

The pond has housed up to a dozen goldfish (until the raccoons found them) and the water was always clear, though debris would settle on the bottom. It was hard to keep plants in the pond because the Golds would nibble any underwater parts. 

The bog is planted with Japanese Iris, Calla Lily, Canna Lily, Sedge and some other things, that vary as some things survive and others die. 
I tore it apart a few years ago, looking for a leak (The leak was not in the bog) and there were no bad smells, the plant roots were well distributed throughout the peat moss. 

I have several brands and models of filters on many tanks. I have modified the intake by using PVC Ts to create several intake points. Then I put an Aquaclear sponge, or a coarser sponge over the intake point. 
These sponges plug up pretty fast if I have disturbed anything in the tank, so a few days after a major cleaning I need to rinse out the sponges. Then everything is stable for a few weeks. The coarser sponges allow more debris through, so do not plug up so fast. 
Basic water flow in most tanks is:
Inlet at the top-back-middle. Spray bar or HOB weir. Some are the point source sort of outlet of the Fluval *04 series. Aimed at the front of the tank. 
Inlets are at the bottom back, several sponge covered inlets depending on the flow from the filter.


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

In case someone has missed the following two funnies here they are:

http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/...r-makeing-videos-some-other-4.html#post579096

http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/...r-makeing-videos-some-other-4.html#post579098

--Nikolay


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

Hm, here's another observation:

I have successfully cleared my big tank from algae using just increased flow. Here's a picture in the process of clearing. Note the Cladophora and BBA on the wood:

https://picasaweb.google.com/ddasega/6FtAquariumAtHome#5551654811274126626

As I said before - after I cleared the tank I let it go down. For a month I did not clean the clogged pumps. Algae came back and the Bolbitis stopped growing.

After that it took only about 3 days of increased flow and the algae just about disappeared.

The effect was especially visible on the leaves of the Bolbitis waving on the current. On the first day the algae shriveled up and by day 3 only small remnants remained in isolated places.

Today I was admiring the clean tank and I could not help but wonder: What prevents the algae from growing on the wood or the rocks? To at least try to grow! I understand that better plant health leads to less algae, but I refuse to believe that my tank has completely clean water. After all all these fish have got to dirty up the tank - at least enough for some algae to show up. If not on the super healthy plant then on the soft Manzanita wood.

What I see instead is a Bolbitis has already started again to shoot huge leaves. And wood that just does not grow algae any more. Only small algae dots are left.

If the increased flow is the reason for all of that I think all these pages of writings were worth it.

--Nikolay


----------



## Michael (Jul 20, 2010)

Increased flow, AND careful placement of all the devices to boost the circular pattern of flow in the tank.

It is really interesting to read the anecdotal information coming in from different people in different threads who have made these changes in their tanks.


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

Can someone tell me what is the filter under this tank?

What is the flow of that filter?

How much media does it hold?

Tank is 70 gallons (40" long X 20" tall X 20" wide).

Go ahead surprise me 

http://www.naacademy.pl/Galerie/110x50x50-Setup,1,0,10,409.htm?photo=71

http://www.naacademy.pl/Galerie/110x50x50-Setup,1,0,10,409.htm?photo=67

--Nikolay


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

Here, I found it:

This *open space aquascape* in a *70 gallon tank* has an Eheim Pro 3 filter - model 2080.

*450 gph*

*3.5 gallons of media*

The flow is 7.5x the tank volume.
The filter media is 5.5% of the tank volume.

(I figure actual water volume as 60 gals. It's probably about 57.)

--Nikolay


----------



## Newt (Apr 1, 2004)

I believe its an Eheim Pro3. Hard to tell which size. Perhaps 2075 or a 2080.


----------



## Zabman14u (Jun 20, 2009)

having spent the last few minutes reading almost every post on this thread... ok maybe it was more like 3 or 4 days, i have thought about other discussions and "tips" i have seen on this and other sites regarding planted tank setups. but first i think im going to "try" to recap what major points i have read on here that may/may not be correct. some things im adding in here from my own experience with mostly outside the tank stuff from being a tool maker (hydrolics classes) being a carpenter (plumbing and electrical) and race cars (engine exhaust and intake flow and aerodynamics)

1) _TAKE FLOW_ (im using underscores here since niko is using bolds for his titling. i dont want people to get confused as im learning from him and others.) i think we have agreed that we need to establish a flow pattern in the tank. the flow pattern does two things in the water, it disperses nutrients and CO2/O2 around the tank and picks up junk and returns it to the filter to get broken down by bacteria. the amount of flow is a variable due to different tank restrictions in the water such as plants, decorations, fish, other equipment, even the distance that the water flow must travel. the flow in the tank should be set up so that it avoids stagnant water spots. having water moving in just a circular pattern tends to leave stagnate spots in the center of the tank where sediment settles. by placing the output of the tank more in the center of the tank, it gives the flow a more of a swirl pattern (again neglecting other stuff in the tank) so that once the water reaches the other side of the tank via center it hits the opposite glass and disperses out away from the source. from the opposite glass the water goes in all directions, up down, left and right and returns back to the supply inlet of the filter which, in Amano's tanks is conveniently located near his lilly pipe. the object is to get water moving everywhere AND to return back to the pickup point of the filter. its not so much of a 3-dimensional "double U" but a 3-dimensional "double W" ore maybe a "double ---3|" where the underline is the opposite glass of the water supply. this seems to be the theory of why you dont see spray bars. locating this water jet in a clear spot in your tank should yield the more "efficient" water flow. the flow rate needed to do is, is a variable of direction of flow, and obstructions of flow.

2) _pump flow_ now the elusive part is overall pump flow and media flow. i think there are several variables here but one general concept. the more flow you get threw more bio media the better. its kinda like having a car too fast like a nice hot BMW. no such thing unless your the cops (which in this case would be algae). you have to keep flow rates going threw the bio media as high as possible so that the bacteria gets fed nutrients and oxygen. you also want as much bio material as possible.

now the first thing about water pumps is that the power is not in the pump itself, it is the motor that turns the pump. its basically torque. the motor wants to turn at a particular speed and that is what turns the pump at a particular speed and that is what creates our water flow. the pump itself determines the flow rate at a given speed. the more restrictions you put in the water flow whether it is too much bio material, bends in the hoses, plugged filters, rippled walled flex hoses vs smooth wall hoses, tight 90* fittings, tubing diameter, your child's passifier, what ever, the more power it is going to take to turn the pump to achieve the original flow. the higher the flow rate, the more prone to slow down once these things start pushing back. i think (not sure here) that the power is basicly measured in head height). the more head height the more higher your pump can force water away from the tank height and that takes some some serious power.

what does this have to do with filter flow, the more powerful your pump input is (motor) the more water you can force threw more restrictive bio material. the faster the flow threw the bio material brakes up water causing the water to "cavitate" and actually creates air bubbles. these air bubbles may actually help feed the bacteria in our filters. remember the bigger the filter material, in the case of this thread seems to favor lava rock, the less restrictive it is to the water flow but the less surface area you have compared to smaller chunks. niko and some others suggests 3/4-1" pieces.

3) _plumbing_ i think we all agree that plumbing can be very restrictive if not properly done. tight bends and rippled walled hoses causes a lot of turbulence and back pressure in water flow. ways to reduce this is straight wall hoses with gentle bends. watch 90* bends in PVC pipes as they sometimes have sharp points on the inside of the radius. using hoses with light bends, no kinks, is your least restrictive setup. pipe size also is a concern. the larger the diameter the more flow you are capable of producing... but you loose fluid velocity. for the inlet into the pump, i would suggest using larger diameter tubing to help reduce the amount of drag on your pump. now the question here is, we have all these high flow pumps going into tanks like Amano's, is he aiming more for water speed or just general flow? does the inertia of water flow travel just as far in a long tank with flow alone or does the water need to go faster initially? im almost thinking speed is key here to help pick up junk settling on the bottom of the tank. if we were just pushing nutrients, i dont think it really matters.

4) _CO2_ i have seen in the past people suggesting plumbing up their CO2 into the inlet side of the filter to let the material of the filter help diffuse the CO2 into the water. i dont think doing this is such a bright idea. bacteria requires O2 to thrive. if dropping your PH down to 6.5 as niko suggested, drastically reduces the effectiveness of the bacteria, i dont think adding CO2 to it is a good idea. not even in the least bit. if you really want to add CO2 into your filter, add it after the filter material on the output side. Amano's filters show his CO2 setup on the opposite side of the tank as the filter supply and pressure.

5) _aeration_ i think we have also concluded that adding either an air stone or air wand in your tank will drastically improve bacteria efficiency at night when the lights turn off because we all know, the fish dont stop poopin when the lights are out.

now these are just my thought and my take on what has been discussed in the previous... 24 pages. i would like to see if other people generally agree with what i have said or if they have another direction of thinking? thats the beauty of a forum. and then the tricky part... practicing what i preach. i hopefully have a used Fuval 405 coming for use in my 30 gal ro replace my aqua-tech 30-60 HOB filter. it has 340 gph and 2.25 gal of filter volume. i think that should be enough :badgrin:


----------



## fishyjoe24 (May 18, 2010)

speaking of hobs, am I the only one that does this. I don't use the carbon pads I take those out. by bio media, and go to shoe store take a few of the free woman panyhose stocking that they have in the woman shoe sections to try on shoes, go home clean them with tap and prime. then throw the bio media in them, then put them in the chamber port of the hob... this gives a place for a decent amount of biomedia when you are limited on money for a filter...


----------



## Diana K (Dec 20, 2007)

Zabman, point #2:
Too fast a water flow is detrimental to the bacteria. Using a coarse media with finer holes works well because the fast flow through the media is OK, the bacteria are in the smaller holes and not exposed to the fast flow. The water slows as it enters the small holes. 

Too fast a water flow is also detrimental to the plants. The leaves get torn apart in the flow. 

Otherwise, yes, a lot of water flow will keep the debris in suspension, and correctly directing the flow will get that debris to the filter intake so it is removed from the tank. 

I think you are correct in assuming that for oxygen, CO2 and fertilizer movement, keeping these available at a steady rate to fish and plants does not require high flow rate, but does call for a good layout of the inlet(s) and outlet(s) so all the water is circulated. 
It may call for a high rate out of a single outlet in a large tank or else the water movement dies and the tank develops stagnant areas. 

fishyjoe, I also use nylon stockings as media bags. I start with knee-his and cut to suit the project. Smaller filters, I can get about 3 bags out of 1 knee-hi. Larger filters, 2 bags out of 1 knee-hi.
When I am making softer water for the fish I put a whole knee-hi of peat moss in a garbage can of water and soak overnight. 
I do not use the provided cartridges of carbon in HOBs. 
I usually set them up with an Aquaclear sponge, then some finer media. The bacteria will grow on the sponges and other media, and I get mechanical filtration this way, too. 
I keep the cartridges in case of emergency, or to remove medications from the tank. I have had some cartridges sitting around, just waiting for a use for about 10 years.


----------



## Ekrindul (Jul 3, 2010)

Having just read through Zabman's post--in which he lists several areas we all should consider as we try to establish a successful tank--I'd like to add one component to this discussion that I haven't seen mentioned much, and which may seem a bit obvious to point out, but which I think is absolutely essential to keeping a successful aquarium: observation. 

Why is observation important? This is a discussion of filtration, right? Yeah, it is. But we have to consider the timelines of our subjects when we try to understand them. Our subjects, of course, are our plants and the creatures that live among them. Our plants do not expose the effects of change quickly, as we understand it; they move a bit slower than us. You can, however, see a timeline of change in their green face, if you wait long enough. 

My point is this. When you make a change to your setup, keep a journal--written or mental--of the state of things and note how things changed. The evidence of the results is what matters, not the change itself. Notice that Niko does this. I've been reading this thread, looking out for one single thing: is Niko's algae gone in his bolbitus tank. I want to know if the changes he's made worked. Hypothesis is interesting, but testing is what makes hypothesis theory. 

We can post all day about "I did this" or "I did that", but we need some follow up a few weeks later with the results or it's all just talk. 

With this in mind, I'll say on my part, that I've gone against the grain and setup a circulation pattern that moves from the top of the back side of the tank with the flow directed at the front glass, which pushes the water down to the substrate and back along the bottom into the base of the plants. My setup has been a 55 gallon tank with a Rena XP4 on the right side, using the spray bar with the outlets pointed at the bottom front of the glass, so that the output goes as far as possible before hitting an impediment. The intake is on the right side also. 

I then have an Eheim 2236 on the left side with the outlet spraying into the surface to create some turbidity, directed to the right side as much as possible. The intake is on the left side of the tank. 

Then I have two Koralia Nano 425s sitting side by side on the left side, just right of the output of the Eheim, as near the surface as possible, pointed at the front glass, aimed as low as the Koralia design allows. I set them up this way to mirror the flow of the Rena on the other side of tank as much as possible. 

So far, I have seen increased growth of my Heteranthera zosterifolia on the left side. The layout above increased flow to this plant quite a bit. I've also seen increased growth in my limnophila aromatica on the right side. Again, increased flow seems to have been a factor. Slowed growth in the middle on my h polysperma. This is the weakest area of flow, so a trend seems to be established, especially considering the h polysperma should be the fastest growing plant in the tank. As far as algae, all I can find is some GSA on the front glass, mostly in the center of the tank. Again, lowest area flow. During water change, finding almost nothing to vacuum except within my staurogyne field, which is about 30 inches long, 6 inches wide, and acts as a nice mechanical filter. No fish losses in last six weeks, or when thread began, expect for two dwarf gourami whom I suspect are iridovirus victims (I've had a rash of these, having lost several dwarf gourami in the last 90 days). My water clears within an hour after feeding with this setup, and I feed heavy. In the evening, once reflections from the windows are minimal, my fish look like they are swimming through the air, so the water is clean.

My 29 gallon tank has a similar setup, but with two eheim 2232 and 2234 filters, one on each side, with both outputs aimed at the surface to create turbidity. I have more meat eaters in this tank, so a heavy blood worm diet requires more aeration to combat the lipid surface scum. Then I have two Koralia Nano 425s, one on each side just below the Eheim outputs, pointed at the bottom front glass. Needless to say, this tank has even higher flow rate than the 55 gallon tank. 

For whatever reason, I have more to vacuum in this tank than the larger one. Per volume, the fish load is the same, and the livestock is very similar (cories, bristlenose, RCS and snails). The water is just as clean, if not more so. Algae is even less prevalent in this tank with almost no GSA to speak of. 

The higher aeration is the only reason I can see for the lesser degree of GSA, as the PO4 dosing is similar per volume and the lighting level is the same in both tanks. Why I have more substrate trash though, I am not sure. The most likely possibility, however, seems to be that the larger tank has 4 adult cories, whereas, the smaller tank has juvenile cories.

Each of these tanks has a large amount of anubias, also. In the larger tank, the leaves of the anubias are always clean. In the smaller tank, they are always covered in trash. I don't see anymore fish/shrimp activity on the leaves of the anubias in one tank versus the other, so I can dismiss the fish as the reason for one being cleaner than the other. This leaves flow, which is higher in the smaller tank. Even when I have directed a Koralia into the anubias in the smaller tank, I still do not see the problem resolve itself. Thus far, I have not been able to come to a sensible conclusion on why the 55 is cleaner than the 29. However, one potential cause could be the diet of the fish. Having fewer herbivorous fish in the smaller tank ... Perhaps they are less efficient with their waste? I'll be looking into that.


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

Ekrindul,

I am the greatest internet aquarist you will ever know. Seriously. Instead of tinkering with my tanks I like to write lengthy posts speculating about things I believe are or utmost importance to this hobby. But when I decide to write it is because I either have read something that made sense or have experience that seems to prove my speculations.

Here's an example. Read items 10 and 11 in this post:

http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/...s/76557-circulation-seems-key.html#post578948

Basically I have a 160 gal. tank that is nearly impossible to clear up from algae completely. Not just a tough case:

https://picasaweb.google.com/ddasega/6FtAquariumAtHome#

- Filters that are too small compared to the size of the tank
- Flow that was too slow
- Flow pattern was and is very much chaotic
- Way too many fish - I dump 1/2 cup of dry food in that tank every single day.
- One single plant, not a nutrient sponge either
- Low light (1 wpg)
- No CO2

Stuff many fish in a tank, feed them a lot, do not pump CO2, have low light, small filters, low flow, chaotic flow.... Try to get rid of algae? Are you kidding me?

You can read my experience after I increased the flow about 5 times. Note - I did change water every other day too. But also note - when I stopped taking care of the tank for a month it took a long time for things to start going bad again. And items 10 and 11 show that it was VERY easy to fix things.

What I have now is Bolbitis ramping up again for very vigorous growth. Algae that just sits in hidden places where it's hard to see and does NOT grow. I actually keep minor portions of algae without touching them so I see how they act. There is ZERO growth. I now know that once I clear literally 100% of the algae with extreme every-other-day water changes I can easily maintain that "impossible" tank by doing a normal 1 water change a week.

And mind you - no added fertilizers. No ratios, availability, fertilators, chelators... Fish waste (it never accumulates anywhere), CO2 from breathing, micros from tap water. 100% hands off tank - feed fish every day, change 25% of water once a week. And water changes are NOT vacuuming anything - just stick a hose in the middle of the water and syphon it out.

Beats me how (maybe Metrofish's magical flake food) but 5 min. after I dump the 1/2 cup of food in the tank the water is completely clean again. There is no residual opalescence. No invisible particles that make the water kind of milky for some time. 5 min. and the tank is crystal clear again.

As I said before - I have been seeing surface film after I increased the flow. My guess is that the dying algae ooze their juices in the water and form the oily film. I do not know if I'm right but now that I have minimal algae left the surface film is much less. The Bolbitis has a few damaged looking leaves. They always get algae first and deteriorate quickly. Now I see them "frozen in time" - they do not get algae and do not deteriorate either. They look like zombies - dead but with a litle life in them. My point is - the Bolbitis is really in exceptional health - maintaining even the damaged leaves in the best shape they can be.

Now I can NOT say that my experience is a sure way to run every single tank successfully. Maybe I have good tap water. Tank has been running for 4 years now (without plants or with big algae issues, monstrous rather). But what I know is that frequent water changes and low flow (230 gph in this 160 gal. tank) did not improve it the least bit.

So bottom line for me is - there is something in the flow rate that is VERY important. In this thread we ended up trying to find out what it is by looking at many things. Do all these things improve every single tank? I think so. Still - as I've been saying lately - whatever you do if you only make the plant leaves gently move in the current you may have done all that your tank needs. No mandatory U-flow, no special placing of the pipes, no laminar movement, no new big filter.

What makes this hobby confusing is that we don't have answers to some things that seem very clear. Like your 55 and 29 gal tanks.Some of you may remember that at the ADG gallery in Houston they have 3 identical tanks that you see as soon as you walk in the door. Nothing differs in these tanks - same size, equipment, and care. Except that the right one was always problematic. Back in 2003-2006 I think they changed it many times to a final state that was both beautiful and manageable. Why was that happening even with people that have so much experience?

--Nikolay


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

Zabman,

I have said that in the "Dummy questions" from a year ago - the flow through the biofilter needs to be slow. 

So we are in a predicament - we need good strong flow in the tank but slow flow through the filter.

The only way to do that is to have a large size filter. So the water flow coming fast and strong from the aquarium slows down going through the biofilter.

Think of it as "time to react". The bacteria needs time to bite, chew, and gulp the waste. That is an oversimplification but I guess it will stick to one's mind. So the flow through the filter needs to be slow.

But not too slow. As I said before - the Germans have figured out the optimal flow for their Poret foam. Flow that is too fast is not good. But flow that is too slow actually causes the biofilter to MAKE Ammonia (the very thing they normally eat).

I think that ADA has figured out the size of their filters based on the compromise "filter size vs. optimal flow". Overall it does make a sense to use the largest filter you can. But not to the point of reducing the flow to a slow trickle through the filter (Ammonia making levels).

--Nikolay


----------



## walterk (Feb 13, 2010)

niko said:


> Can someone tell me what is the filter under this tank?
> 
> What is the flow of that filter?
> 
> ...


Niko -

It's interesting what was changed from those first pics. Note the second filter on the right (a smaller Eheim, and the direction of flow of the two filters).

http://www.naacademy.pl/Galerie/110x50x50-Setup,1,0,10,409.htm?photo=73


----------



## flashbang009 (Aug 6, 2009)

In my 10 gallon tank with the minimalist layout, I have an eheim 2213 providing filtration. Had i used a standard nozzle, I believe my plants and shrimp would be thrown all over the place inside the tank, seeing as the gph is 116. However, using knock off lily pipes, The flow is extremely gentle, but still pulls the detritus off of the gravel. I have hairgrass in the back of the tank, and as the flow hits the opposite glass, it gently bends the hairgrass over. Becuase of this, I think that the outflow shape is in fact very important as was discussed a while ago in this thread. The shape of the lily pipe allows the water to expand in a controlled way, which gives you the strong flow without being a fast flow.


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

And here is my latest observation.

About 2 years ago I setup a 10 gallon tank at a friend's house. They wanted 2 goldfish so they got them. I was convinced that they are not going to keep up with the water changes and the tank will look like pea soup in about... hmmm.. a week!

To this day, after 2 years, the tank looks as if I set it up 1 hour ago. Completely clean. Artificially clean look! The 2 goldfish have grown and come to nibble on my finger feeling very safe in their home.

Here's my highly scientific experiment that took place last night. It had to do with observing how the particles move around the tank.

1. Tank has no plants. Just gravel and a few golf-size rocks white as snow. Nothing obstructs the flow.

2. HOB filter hangs on the left side. Shoots water close to the surface. Sucks water under the outflow.

So here's what I did - I just shook the filter cartridge in the HOB filter. That released quite a few debries that imediately shot acros the tank. Going to the right. They reached the opposite side (the right side glass). They went down. Then they went along the bottom (headed to the left).

The big pieces get wedged in the gravle. About 1-1/2" from the glass they have already settled on the gravel.

The small pieces float all the way back to the left. BUT! A lot of them go to the sides. A lot of them linger by the suction.

Still - there is a definite U-shaped flow pattern in that tank. Strong flow. Unobstructed flow.

Observatons I can't deny:
Large particles WILL settle no matter what.
Small particles are carried to the suction but not necessarily get sucked by it right away.
Small particles tend to go to the side of the main flow along the bottom.
Small particles spend some time close to the suction before being sucked in.
Some small particles make a few other rounds on the U-shaped ride.

Conclusions:
Small particles make or break the tank. 
The goal is to involve small particles in a directed movement.
The goal is to let small particles sidetrack as little as possible.
The goal is to involve small particles in a movement that pulls them from the bottom and from the sides.

Once again we are back to flow and flow pattern.

But I want to make an additional comment to this. It's about "making small particles":
Some years ago I noticed that if I add snails, Amano shrimp and dwarf shrimp in a tank the visible waste on the bottom is reduced about 70%. A tank with only Amanos + snails is considerably dirtier. I started to believe that having many "points of waste processing" is a very good idea. And the goal is to "grind" the waste to finer and finer particles so it probably easier for the bacteria to grab and process. Now I think that fine particles that are moved in a directed way in the tank lead to a cleaner tank. Or... they will linger in the tank and cause all sorts of unexplicable issues.

--Nikolay


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

walterk said:


> Niko -
> 
> It's interesting what was changed from those first pics. Note the second filter on the right (a smaller Eheim, and the direction of flow of the two filters).
> 
> http://www.naacademy.pl/Galerie/110x50x50-Setup,1,0,10,409.htm?photo=73


Aha! Blue murder! You cought them in the act of increasing filter volume and flow. On an open layout tank too!

These people have no shame! What's the flow on that 60 gal. tank now? 450 gph + another 200 I guess? Geez!

As I calmed down I noticed something... Actually they have 2 filters on that tank when it was still young. Look at the plants. The 2 filters were hooked up to the tank when the carpet was still filling. Later, when things got established they went back to the measly 450 gph. of flow. The additional filter may have been full of Activated Carbon.

--Nikolay


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

flashbang009 said:


> In my 10 gallon tank with the minimalist layout, I have an eheim 2213 providing filtration. Had i used a standard nozzle, I believe my plants and shrimp would be thrown all over the place inside the tank, seeing as the gph is 116. However, using knock off lily pipes, The flow is extremely gentle, but still pulls the detritus off of the gravel. I have hairgrass in the back of the tank, and as the flow hits the opposite glass, it gently bends the hairgrass over. Becuase of this, I think that the outflow shape is in fact very important as was discussed a while ago in this thread. The shape of the lily pipe allows the water to expand in a controlled way, which gives you the strong flow without being a fast flow.


We have all gradually arrived to this same thought - large flow needs to not be blowing things away in our tanks. But look at the San Marcos river. That's what Phil told me 2 months ago when we were trying to figure out this flow business. The flow in that river is huge + smooth:

https://picasaweb.google.com/ddasega/SanMarcosRiverMay172008#5201553071474435426

https://picasaweb.google.com/ddasega/SanMarcosRiverMay172008#5201553075769402738

Look at the wild rice in it (the long dark green plant). Seeing it live you will notice it gently moves in the current. I wish I remembered the flow rate/hr. that Casey (our guide studying plants and fish in the river) told us about. It was huge I assure you. But you cannot tell by looking at the river. The smooth movement fools you. Good idea to try it in your tank? You decide.

And another thing.. Must have been 2006 or so, I talked with Luis Navarro about filters. I mentioned that certain filter will blow everything out of the tank because it was too strong. He said (I think) "Well, yes, modify the outtake, I do that all the time." If you don't know who Luis is or have not seen pictures of his tanks do a little googling. His water clarity and plant health are scary.

--Nikolay


----------



## Zabman14u (Jun 20, 2009)

niko said:


> Zabman,
> 
> I have said that in the "Dummy questions" from a year ago - the flow through the biofilter needs to be slow.
> 
> ...


so basically what you are saying is that increasing the flow rate threw a smaller filter is a bad idea considering that you are trying to cram more water threw the same space in the same amount of time (more speed). or is this what you mean by how canister filter can get more flow? that the filters basically come with a bare minimum flow rate to function and when we "over pack" the filter with media that it no longer works properly?

if you have a filter that you feel the flow rate may be too fast, can you put in more bio-material in the filter to slow the water flow with little to no ill-effects with in reason or does the above senerio create more problems and you would be better off redirecting the water?

just trying to clarify my thinking.


----------



## Zabman14u (Jun 20, 2009)

niko, 

also for the 30 gal that i PMed you about earlier, do you think an Eheim 2217 is sufficient or would you rather see the fluval 405? we are talking 1.5g filtration and 263gph vs 2.25g filtration and 340gph.


----------



## Jsthomas (Nov 3, 2010)

Niko this is what I was asking about in that other thread in the general plant forum. I have a 2217 on a 29G, and the spray bar blows everything away. The only issue on switching to a lily, or knock off lily is the price, and finding a reliable source. Unless there is another cheaper, easier alternative?


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

In this video (starting about 1:30) you can see quite a bit of flow, plant leaves moving, and even fish swimming against the current.

http://www.aquanet.tv/Video/258-takashi-amano-der-meister-der-naturaquarien-im-interview-langversion

Draw your own conclusions.

--Nikolay


----------



## fishyjoe24 (May 18, 2010)

well looking at my freshwater and saltwater tank, and all the filter talk I have thought about this... (evaporation)--the water height changed the level of light penetration - Which changes water pressure, Water Temperature, Light Dispersion,etc. so the grow of plants would be effected. could certain lighting and certain filtering play a roll on a tank lay out...

look at amano tank designs.. the intake and the out take are on the sides, as to where most of us have the intake and outtake on the back..

also look at his lighting, they all seem to be MH metal hailagent(spelling?) lighting.


----------



## Zabman14u (Jun 20, 2009)

need a version of that video without the japaneese voice over haha. i think i understood 2 words because they are names. very nice post though niko

fishyjoe, i have noticed the outflow and intake on the sides as well. i "think" it is because the water can travel farther without obstructions to disrupt flow. if you put the outflow on the back of the tank. the water flow will hit the front glass much quicker and then the water flow will scatter at a much slower flow rate.


----------



## JustLikeAPill (Oct 9, 2006)

An English version would be great without the voiceover. It looks really interesting!


----------



## flashbang009 (Aug 6, 2009)

He wears that shirt to an interview with Amano?? 

And was that a reef tank back there? I had no idea they had reef tanks at the gallery..


----------



## jeff5614 (Feb 15, 2006)

I've read through this thread a couple of times and one of things that has always stood out to me regarding ADA setups is the lack of N and PO4 in the water column. I realize those are supplied through the substrate by the use of AS which exhausts itself after a year or so. ADA makes a product called MultiBottom that they recommend for inserting into the substrate after a year or so to compensate for the exhaustion of the nutrients. From the description it seems to be traces and no macros. I'm curious if any of you all use a mostly substrate based fertilization aside from AS or MTS as in some sort of tabs in an inert substrate and what you use.


----------



## flashbang009 (Aug 6, 2009)

I started using Osmocote Plus in my 75g with Flourite. Here's the thread on it. If you want to discuss it, feel free to comment on that thread to avoid getting off track on this thread.


----------



## jeff5614 (Feb 15, 2006)

flashbang009 said:


> I started using Osmocote Plus in my 75g with Flourite. Here's the thread on it. If you want to discuss it, feel free to comment on that thread to avoid getting off track on this thread.


Thanks for the link. My apologies on straying from the posted topic. I seem to remember, or at least thought I remember, a bit of posting regarding ferts in the thread so it seemed an appropriate question at the time.


----------



## GDP (Apr 2, 2011)

I just want to say thanks a lot to this thread for making me change my entire tank 2 times now lol.

A lot of interesting and useful information in this thread. I can tell you guys that the ehiem spray bar and intake configuration sucks. I think the biggest problem with cansiter filters would be the reliance on gravity to feed the intake. Not a big fan of that.

Im about to pickup a lily pipe outflow and eventually intake. I will report back on that. Attached is my current setup. As you can see if fails to clean the tank of the fine particles. It has been sitting there like this for a few days now.

If you are curious this is going to be an iwugami style tank. The driftwood is being replaced with ryouh stone as soon as I get it in. And the top layer of gravel will have a layer of aqua soil put on it. Underneath the black gravel now is florite.


----------



## digital_gods (Apr 23, 2010)

This thread has certainly changed the way I have the water flow in my tank. GPD, I totally agree with you about the eheim spray bar. Instead of buying expensive Lilly pipes, I modified the output pipe instead. I cut the 90 degree bend off and connected the spray bar running parallel with the intake pipe. I directed the flow to create a curtain of water running from left to right side of the tank. Keeping everything on the leftside of the tank.


----------



## Markw78 (May 6, 2004)

I didn't read all 26 pages yet, wow... So sorry if these have already been mentioned already.

"I saw a comparison study of flow in gph on the net between filters. It said basically that when you add right angles and such and don't use the assumed head height you will not get the same gph"

That's not 100% true in a closed loop system. There is essentially no head height on closed loops. Head pressure is used when pushing water up from a lower point. In a closed loop system you have water pressure pushing down into the pump at the same force of head pressure it would have returning to the tank, effectively negating that factor completely.

When plumbing a pump (probably not so much a small canister) always step up the plumbing size. On my 1" outlet pumps, the first piece of PVC I attach is a 1.2" adapter. This will help alleviate some of the back pressure added from 90 degree angles and such. If possible avoid these and instead use 2, 45 degree bends, or a flexible hose.

10x tank volume GPH minimum. I've seen Reef systems (yes, granted a different animal) over 40x volume GPH.

I like to use high GPH with wide returns, this provides amazing water flow and turnover, and keeps the velocity down so as not to blow fish and plants around.

Good post!


----------



## Aquaticz (May 22, 2009)

First off I want to thank all who participated. Next a big thanks to Niko for opening up my mind. I have been playing around with tanks and water for many years. It was this thread that I *think* got me over the hump. Based on this thread I did the following....
Modified eheim spray bar by cutting in half and then mounting about 4" below the water line so the water is pushed length wise across the tank. I have the intake on the same side with the strainer just above the substrate. In a 55 gal standard tank this gives me nice flow that breaks the water surface slightly. I then removed the standard eheim media balls & replaced with lava rock from home depot. I use the bottom sponge with rock on top but filled only about two thirds full. I then placed a high micro fiber cloth on top to grab the small stuff. I also re landscaped the tank thinking about flow the entire time. This has worked like a charm for me. The tank is clearer than it has ever been. Initially when re doing this tank I added a small power head on the lower left pane and a korallia on the opposite side. It created plenty of flow but I found through observation that it was just blowing stuff all around. The fish did not seem to like it either and they took to hiding in the denser foliage. I also did one other thing that may have also contributed. I grew a carpet of glasso and kept it trim so it would hang the substrate tightly. It was my first attempt that made me think about trimming it because it was harboring some left over BBA. I tuned up the CO2 used a small amount of excel at WC day -for three weeks. Now tank looks fantastic. The modifications to the spray bar, the media and aquascape all with flow in mind has made a HUGE difference . Thanks everyone 
__________________


----------



## mrchach (Oct 16, 2010)

What happens if you push water into a filter at a higher rate then it pulls it out?
What happens if you push water into a filter period?


----------



## JustLikeAPill (Oct 9, 2006)

Pressure coud build up and water could leak out/seals could break.

Or maybe that wouldn't happen, but it is possible and is not how the filters were designed to work so if you try, do so at your own risk.


----------



## mrchach (Oct 16, 2010)

a couple of questions about filtration... you guys seem to know alot

1. cannister filters pull water out of the filter instead of push it through, why?
2. the visible force exerted by the intake and output are way different. why?


----------



## digital_gods (Apr 23, 2010)

mrchach said:


> a couple of questions about filtration... you guys seem to know alot
> 
> 1. cannister filters pull water out of the filter instead of push it through, why?
> 2. the visible force exerted by the intake and output are way different. why?


Answers:
1. Smart design to improve the longevity of impeller and impeller shaft. Time the water reaches the impeller, it is already filtered and cleaned. Where as HOB filters, pull the water in first and everything with it. They clog up easy.

2. The force will be less on the return because of resistance caused from traveling through filter media.


----------



## OTPT (Sep 27, 2010)

Output is directional/focused while intake is not.


----------



## Michael (Jul 20, 2010)

OTPT said:


> Output is directional/focused while intake is not.


Exactly. Intake pulls a given amount of water through many openings with a large total area. Output forces the same volume of water through much smaller opening(s).


----------



## mrchach (Oct 16, 2010)

Michael said:


> Exactly. Intake pulls a given amount of water through many openings with a large total area. Output forces the same volume of water through much smaller opening(s).


what if the intake and output are the exact same size


----------



## Michael (Jul 20, 2010)

They never are on standard equipment. Intake is always larger so that the flow rate of the filter is not limited by a small opening.

If you modified the equipment so that the openings were the same size, then you would have equal velocity and volume through both. But it still might not look or feel the same because the output is focused and unidirectional, as OTPT says.


----------



## ObiQuiet (Oct 9, 2009)

This conversation reminded me of a great and easy simulation of fluid dynamics -- "Plasma Pong" is a PC game. It has a "sandbox" mode where you can create sources and sinks and then see how the fluid direction, speed, and pressure change around walls.

It's ideal if you want to get a feel for how fluid flows: "Why is the force greater on outflow, than on intake?".

It could even work as a sketch book for trying out some of the ideas in this thread. Here's a simple one:








http://download.cnet.com/Plasma-Pong/3000-2099_4-10511143.html


----------



## mrchach (Oct 16, 2010)

ObiQuiet said:


> This conversation reminded me of a great and easy simulation of fluid dynamics -- "Plasma Pong" is a PC game. It has a "sandbox" mode where you can create sources and sinks and then see how the fluid direction, speed, and pressure change around walls.
> 
> It's ideal if you want to get a feel for how fluid flows: "Why is the force greater on outflow, than on intake?".
> 
> ...


i got a great score on that game like... 4 years ago... addicting

interesting i would have never though of using it for that purpose... it would probably be good.

I stumbled upon something here.
USE OF COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS (CFD) TO MODEL FLOW AT PUMP INTAKES
http://www.wpi.edu/Pubs/ETD/Available/etd-093099-135917/unrestricted/jroberge.pdf


----------



## Phil Edwards (Jan 22, 2004)

*1. cannister filters pull water out of the filter instead of push it through, why?*

Canisters actually push water instead of pulling. They're gravity fed, which is why the impeller needs to be under the tank or below the water line. The water is pushed through the outlet.

*2. the visible force exerted by the intake and output are way different. why? *

In truth, there is no force exerted by the intake. The acceleration of gravity on the water in the aquarium and the negative pressure created by the impeller act to move water through the filter. Any positive pressure ("force") is exerted on the outlet side. Even if the intake, outlet, and tubing are exactly equivalent in diameter you're going to experience greater "visible force" from the outlet than the intake.

Here's a twist to think about; theoretically there is greater negative pressure being exerted on the intake than there is positive pressure exerted on the outlet. Why? Gravity is acting against the water moving back into the tank whereas gravity is helping to draw water into the filter. It would go something (very crudely) like this: F (outlet) = (+pressure - gravity) F (inlet) = (-pressure + gravity). If pressure is equal to 10 and gravity is equal to 9.81 then F(outlet) = 0.19 and F(inlet) = 19.81. Because outlet velocity determines the vaccuum (-pressure) we can assume any resistence created by the filter media has equivalent effect on both the intake and outlet, and therefore ignore it.

If you want to get into differential calculus, and some of us nerdy people like to, consider the effect of gravity being a continuous, rather than discrete, value. The greater the distance between the impeller and discharge point, the greater the negative pressure gravity will exert on F(outlet); that's what's called head pressure.

LOTS OF FUN, WEEEEE!

Phil Nye, the Science Guy.


----------



## bosmahe1 (May 14, 2005)

Phil Edwards said:


> *1. cannister filters pull water out of the filter instead of push it through, why?*
> 
> Canisters actually push water instead of pulling. They're gravity fed, which is why the impeller needs to be under the tank or below the water line. The water is pushed through the outlet.
> 
> ...


Phil,

Very interesting, very helpful information, thanks. One question. You stated, "Because outlet velocity determines the vaccuum (-pressure) we can assume any resistence created by the filter media has equivalent effect on both the intake and outlet, and therefore ignore it."

Does this mean that the resistance of the media has no effect? Wouldn't the flow still be higher with a filter filled with just ceramic rings vs. very dense sponges?


----------



## killacross (Apr 29, 2010)

no, hes saying the filter media affects both sides equally

so it can either be 0 on both (no media)
or stop both sides (if permeability is very very low)

but it affects both sides equally


----------



## mrchach (Oct 16, 2010)

Phil Edwards said:


> *1. cannister filters pull water out of the filter instead of push it through, why?*
> 
> Canisters actually push water instead of pulling. They're gravity fed, which is why the impeller needs to be under the tank or below the water line. The water is pushed through the outlet.
> 
> ...


so if a empeller was 5" away from the discharge on a given system
and a empeller was 20" away from the discharge on the same system

the first empeller would have less negative pressure exerted on the outlet and therefore a higher flow rating?


----------



## Phil Edwards (Jan 22, 2004)

Exactly. The greater the length of tubing and vertical distance between the impeller and outlet, the greater the head pressure. As head increases discharge will decrease, unless you have a pressure rated pump which can compensate for head pressure. 

Cheers,
Phil


----------



## mrchach (Oct 16, 2010)

But what about the head pressure behind the impeller? Now its pulling this head pressure not pushing it. And how does that affect it? :frusty:


----------



## Phil Edwards (Jan 22, 2004)

Head pressure applies only when moving against gravity, not with it; ie outlet rather than inlet.


----------



## mrchach (Oct 16, 2010)

Phil Edwards said:


> Head pressure applies only when moving against gravity, not with it; ie outlet rather than inlet.


yes. but what i am referring to is... ok!

you have a 5 foot intake hose and 5 foot output hose

the impeller is 6" from the spray bar on the end of the out take, that would leave roughly 4 feet 6 inches of water being affected by gravity


----------



## Markw78 (May 6, 2004)

mrchach said:


> yes. but what i am referring to is... ok!
> 
> you have a 5 foot intake hose and 5 foot output hose
> 
> the impeller is 6" from the spray bar on the end of the out take, that would leave roughly 4 feet 6 inches of water being affected by gravity


I'm not sure I follow... the pump should always be at the lowest point of the system, not sure how the impeller would be 6" from a spray bar? Should never use a pump to pull water up, and likewise never restrict flow before a pump, always after. Sorry if that's not what you meant lol

If you do mean the pump at the bottom, then as long as its a closed loop (and not an open sump type setup) you also have 5 feet of gravity pushing water down into the pump, which essentially negates the head pressure on the return.


----------



## mrchach (Oct 16, 2010)

inside the cannister the pump pulls the water up right?

assuming that the impeller was not inside the cannister but was placed as i said, what effect would this have?


----------



## fishyjoe24 (May 18, 2010)

the less pathes the water has to follow the more it will move throw the filter and tank, just look at us, and other reef people. ( i have both planted and saltwater tanks).... ever notice a reef ready tank thetubes are straight up and down no bends.

why no bends, because thebends will redose the flow.. plus thegravity of a over flow, or a canister the "return" pump has to keep up with that gravity flow of wants coming down, to return the water back to the tank.. when I see filters rated for 55g, I laugh. I get in to debates with people it says rated for 55g, and I say it's not really going to do so many gallons per hour or your size tank, look at the size of your canister and your tank, and the size of thereturn pump.


----------



## Gumbie (Apr 18, 2011)

It took me many hours to plow through this very “exciting” filtration thread. Most of it was over my head, but I read to the last post. I then sat down in front of my tanks and studied the way the plants swayed, how the fish chased the food around, how the bubbles from the HOB moved through the tank, and what appeared to be dead zones. I’ve had no problems with fish, plants, algae. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it?

UPS says my new Eheim Classic cannister filter will arrive tomorrow. I think it may have been subliminal messages.


----------



## fishyjoe24 (May 18, 2010)

have fun with the eheim I heard the are number#1 in the market, i just got a used one for have yet to set it up. yep this tread has helped me out a lot.


----------



## Nirosh (Feb 25, 2011)

*I say 5W motor and home made sponge filter for 3000 Ltr Out side Tank.. You say no???*

You talk about filters.. I talk about an out side, 3000 ltr tank, that runs with a 5 W motor and a sponge filter.. You cannot believe it..

Then have a look..

Low-tech natural self sufficient planted aquarium


----------



## digital_gods (Apr 23, 2010)

I've recently added natural filters to a few of my tanks. Yellow sandshell mussels. I don't know how well they do at filtering but it's interesting to have in the tank. They like to travel to different parts of the tanks.


----------



## Tex Gal (Nov 1, 2007)

*Re: I say 5W motor and home made sponge filter for 3000 Ltr Out side Tank.. You say n*



Nirosh said:


> You talk about filters.. I talk about an out side, 3000 ltr tank, that runs with a 5 W motor and a sponge filter.. You cannot believe it..
> 
> Then have a look..
> 
> Low-tech natural self sufficient planted aquarium


That is pretty incredible. There is no algae to speak of either. ...And he doesn't even feed the fish! There must be enough bugs to sustain them. He did have some live bearers in there so that is one source of food. Pretty amazing!


----------



## flashbang009 (Aug 6, 2009)

That mussel idea is interesting. I'd be interested in hearing more about it!


----------



## digital_gods (Apr 23, 2010)

They don't pull out the Nitrites/Nitrates but what they do is clear out the partials of the water. They do require a balance of bioload and plants to help keep the nitrates low. One of my tanks(one shown) bioload was to heavy for them to survive. I found them all dead this week in that particular tank. When one dies, it can quickly foul up the water and cause nitrite/nitrate spike which will kill the rest in your tank. This tank had a HOB filter on it. The other tanks all have canister filters on them which keeps the tanks clean and water moving.


----------



## abdb (Mar 8, 2012)

niko said:


> In this video (starting about 1:30) you can see quite a bit of flow, plant leaves moving, and even fish swimming against the current.
> 
> http://www.aquanet.tv/Video/258-takashi-amano-der-meister-der-naturaquarien-im-interview-langversion
> 
> ...


Sorry to dig up an old thread, but I just joined the site. In case someone is still looking for the English version, it's here:

http://en.aquanet.tv/Video/205-taka...e-master-of-nature-aquariums-by-chris-lukhaup

I can't explain the t-shirt, but they have a lot of very informative videos in English if you have the time to kill (click on the videos link on that page).

In case you want to see Amano's home tank they talk about in the video:











Thanks Niko for the informative thread. This site has been invaluable for me getting started in the hobby.


----------



## OTPT (Sep 27, 2010)

abdb said:


> Sorry to dig up an old thread, but I just joined the site. In case someone is still looking for the English version, it's here:
> 
> http://en.aquanet.tv/Video/205-taka...e-master-of-nature-aquariums-by-chris-lukhaup


Took ages to load. So I let it load until finish, expecting I could replay it smoothly like youtube.
But it did the reloading all over again. So, no thanks.


----------



## fishyjoe24 (May 18, 2010)

OTPT said:


> Took ages to load. So I let it load until finish, expecting I could replay it smoothly like youtube.
> But it did the reloading all over again. So, no thanks.


load right up for me.


----------



## DaTrueDave (Dec 28, 2003)

fishyjoe24 said:


> load right up for me.


Page won't even load for me.


----------



## fishyjoe24 (May 18, 2010)

DaTrueDave said:


> Page won't even load for me.


how old is your :typing: and are you on t1 cable, dsl, or dial up?


----------



## mudboots (Jun 24, 2009)

Bumping this thread for personal reasons 

I got through some but will have to come back later to read more, and I don't want it to get lost in the mix...


----------



## Phil Edwards (Jan 22, 2004)

Jeez. Y'all are still talking about filters?


----------



## Michael (Jul 20, 2010)

Return of the prodigal! Phil, what have you been up to?


----------



## mudboots (Jun 24, 2009)

I can't help but imagine one of those shallow, broad reef tanks (36"x36"x8") as the filter box sitting adjacent to and slightly above the aqaurium, with one side trimmed down in such as way as to flow into the aquarium. That'd be one heck of an expensive filter box, but it'd sure hold a lot of media and allow for some good flow.

Anyway, this thread is a tremendous help in tackling the "why" and "what" of filtration. Thanks for letting me spy in on it :spy:


----------



## Phil Edwards (Jan 22, 2004)

Michael, I'm currently teaching English in Japan.  Yourself?


----------



## ROB.LTX (Apr 1, 2012)

niko said:


> San Marcos.
> 
> For those that have never gone or never seen pictures here it is. And read the comments:
> 
> ...


ive been to san marcos wonderful place love the boat ride with the see through floor.


----------



## Michael (Jul 20, 2010)

Phil Edwards said:


> Michael, I'm currently teaching English in Japan.  Yourself?


That is pretty cool!

The economy has improved enough that I am practicing landscape architecture again. For a while I was considering a career change as a Walmart greeter, but I lack the necessary temperment.


----------



## fishyjoe24 (May 18, 2010)

Phil Edwards said:


> Michael, I'm currently teaching English in Japan.  Yourself?


japan  will go car shopping for me, and I'll pay you back... please send me a r32 gt-t or r32 gtr. maybe even a new r36 gtr,ae 86,ke 70, or a the evolution lancer 433. :snakeman:

how did you find your way to japan? my friend offered me a place to stay over there said it was real cheap to leave over there. only thing plane ticket would be around 2,000 dollars..


----------



## Michael (Jul 20, 2010)

Do we want to make this thread a sticky? I find myself refering people to it frequently.


----------



## Window7 (Feb 23, 2012)

If your a student you can get cheap ticket, my gf went to hong kong for school and she pay $3000 for 3 people .



fishyjoe24 said:


> how did you find your way to japan? my friend offered me a place to stay over there said it was real cheap to leave over there. only thing plane ticket would be around 2,000 dollars..


IMO doesnt matter how cheap a filter is made, as long you use the filter for what it build for you have nothing to worry. Why pay $300 for a FX5 when you can pay $60 for a china brand FX5(odyssea cfs 500) Or Why pay $80-150 on a Marineland C-series filter when you can pay $50-150 on a china brand Marineland C-series(sunsun)? 

I Own 5 FX5 and 1 CFS500 and I got nothing to Compare. Other than the china brand is just made of Cheap Plastics.


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

Cheap plastic is an understatement. Have you seen plastic disintegrate like bread soaked in water? That is what happened to one of my cheap Chinese filters. I can't even explain how the plastic looked and felt to the touch. 

No commercially available filter is designed well except maybe ADA's. The first thing that is a problem is the insufficient canister/box volume. The amazing idea to stuff both mechanical and biological filtration in one housing is the next bad thing. Then there are the insufficient flow rates, the stupid hose connections, ugly in and outflows, hard and/or ugly hoses made by the Adams family and so on.


----------



## jeff5614 (Feb 15, 2006)

..


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

Let's see who does a better job - TFH, ADA's marketing machine, or an obscure writer disappearing into oblivion because no one wants to hear what he has to say. Links need a translator:

http://bialix.com/amania/Chapters/Tech/filter-main.html
http://bialix.com/amania/Chapters/Tech/filter-circ.html
http://bialix.com/amania/Chapters/Tech/filter-slime.html
http://bialix.com/amania/Chapters/Tech/filter-pump.html
http://bialix.com/amania/Chapters/Tech/filter-mass.html
http://bialix.com/amania/Chapters/Tech/filter-ada.html
http://bialix.com/amania/Chapters/Tech/filter-jblcristal.html
http://bialix.com/amania/Chapters/Tech/filter-tetraex1200.html
http://bialix.com/amania/Chapters/Tech/filter-eheimecco.html
http://bialix.com/amania/Chapters/Tech/filter-eheimpro2.html
http://bialix.com/amania/Chapters/Tech/filter-eheimpro3.html
http://bialix.com/amania/Chapters/Tech/filter-intervall.html
http://bialix.com/amania/Chapters/Tech/filter-estro-sieve.html
http://bialix.com/amania/Chapters/Tech/filter-sump.html

But wait. Why get a headache from all that reading if I can do everything I want with EI?
Nevermind filtration.


----------



## jeff5614 (Feb 15, 2006)

niko;658486
But wait. Why get a headache from all that reading if I can do everything I want with EI?
Nevermind filtration.[/QUOTE said:


> It's fine to disagree and offer alternative and possibly better ways to run a tank but the usual and very repeated sarcastic comments don't really work to advance an idea.


----------



## houseofcards (Feb 16, 2005)

jeff5614 said:


> It's fine to disagree and offer alternative and possibly better ways to run a tank but the usual and very repeated sarcastic comments don't really work to advance an idea.


Have to agree. To constantly bring up EI in almost every thread even when it isn't relevant takes away from any information that might be valuable. There is no real debate between EI and ADA they obviously book work. There's no battle to be won, just sarcastic comments as jeff5614 pointed out.


----------



## Luminescent (Aug 14, 2013)

niko said:


> ....And distributing the flow over the entire biofilter media is another problem to solve.
> 
> So the Japanese once again have figured it out. Bigger size biomedia with enough gaps to let the water channel through it. Does not clog. Doesn't need frequent rinsing. Does not have pores that are too fine. Fits in a canister that is cylindrical, not some kind of funky shallow box. The pump is pressure rated - if there is any clogging it ramps up and maintains the flow as if nothing happened.
> 
> --Nikolay


We were building our own reef sumps as soon as the large Oceanics with drillable bottoms hit the American Market. My sump? Prefilter sponge with large pores, then to a spray bar that spun in a circle, dropped down into the first 4 inches of a 5 Gallon Bucket full but for the top 6 inches with chunks of lava rock.

At the bottom of that I had a raised grate with 3 inch 'legs' of pvc pipe and a hole at the bottom side of the bucket. From there short piece of pvc to another 5 gallon bucket of mixed, very coarse crushed coral that had been sieved to remove the small particles.

That bucket had a hole at the top - above the crushed coral and piped over to a clear 15 high that had the sump in it. And I used a pond sump pump in that along with a DIY protein skimmer. It returned to a spray bar across the back of the tank.

It worked like a dream.


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

Actually the Japanese have not figured out a filter that stays clean for a long time. At the time I posted that I didn't know. ADA's pumice serves as both biomedia and mechanical media. Meaning that it does need frequent rinsing (about once a month).

ADA's filter media and its maintenance is a trade off - you get a cool looking canister filter that it is easy to fit under the tank. You do not mess with different medias. That's all fine and dandy but it relies on the tank running very clean. That's why their tanks have few fish. Try overloading the tank with a few extra fish and all that "amazing" filtration system will peter out in no time. As always - a part of a system works only within the frame of the system. But in this hobby most people don't think even close to that. It's all about cheap, easy, more is better and so on.

Luminescent,

Your filter sounds too complicated for the average hobbyist. No matter how well it works. The average planted tank enthusiast doesn't even know the basics of filtration.

One thing in your description is interesting to me - the spinning spray bar. I've been looking at some UK designed filters that self clean by using a spinning spray bar. In your case I assume you installed that spinning spraybar to ensure even flow of the water through the lava rock in the 5 gal. bucket. Are there any other reasons to use that spinning spraybar?

Also, look here. I heard that yesterday on radio. It's indeed amazing how way off most of us are in understanding or willing to understand this hobby:
http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/filtration/88696-you-need-read.html#post660029


----------



## Luminescent (Aug 14, 2013)

niko said:


> Luminescent,
> 
> Your filter sounds too complicated for the average hobbyist. No matter how well it works. The average planted tank enthusiast doesn't even know the basics of filtration.
> 
> ...


-------------------
I would never make anything that intense for a planted tank. That was for a reef system. But there is no reason not to use things like lava rock (lightly rinsed my buckets out about every 6 mos with Oceanic water) and large pore pre-filter sponge (in the corner overflow compartment on the back corner of the tank- it was bottom drilled).

The coarse pre-filter sponge was rinsed in my partial water change water once a week.

We used to make the spinning spray bars when I was a manager at a large aquarium in the 80's.

Another reason for them was to boost oxygenation of the water after the prefilter and before it hit the nitrobacteria in the lava rock.

How you drill the bar- the force of the water makes it spin, like in your dishwasher. I just found a pic of a guy holding a giant one for a pond.

The important thing is the pre-filter, it's necessary to prevent hole clogs.

I made my spray-bar to fit just inside the top of a 5 gallon bucket and cover the media thoroughly as it spun.


----------



## niru (Feb 8, 2012)

Hello All

I have been a vivid reader of loads of posts here, though havent posted myself. I am from Swissland, in Europe. Have a 45 gal tank (had another 70 ltr, but gave away for lack of time), well planted, with CO2. Will detail my tank in another post someday soon.

I have been reading this post with interest, and have a few observations to make; hence this post. Please forgive me for intruding, and apologies if I manage to not convey properly (english is not a Swiss language..). Feel free to criticise my personal opinions (in a civilised sense)..

The intentions of the OP (original poster) are well and meant for not so naive enthusiast, but are very qualitative, empirical, and draw loads of heuristic inferences without actually understanding the details of scientific facts and rationale. Plus there is a lot of bashing going around for methods and concepts which people either dont like personally, have issues with their originator, or simply dont understand (EI & Tom Barr is a prime case here). I also observe a huge amount of blind following: since ADA has done this (looking only at their pictures & advertising catalogues; not necessarily grasping the science behind), this MUST be the only way... kind of faith-based reasoning..

But as someone pointed out, different methods work for different people. I gather that the discussion is mainly a scientific one.. Many posts are indeed in this direction, but most are not.

Aquaria are semi-closed systems. We intervene the tanks so as to mimic natural processes: flows, filterations, CO2, lighting, fertilization etc.. I am specifically talking about planted tanks (any taste: el natural, hi-tech, ada style, dutch/nature scapes..). Basic principle would be to provide all the things that plants need to grow, sustain and flourish.

Lets take ferts: ADA & Walstad types follow this through substrate. ADA is a processed clay that has high CEC, is breathable, and has loads of slow-release ferts (macros mostly) that get leached out to the water with time. These guys have done research on different water types (kH, pH, gH, etc), and timescales needed for these ferts to leach out. Thats why they have a different liquid fert dosing schedules depending on how old/new the tank is. This way they have made sure that plants can access required amounts of ferts (via roots) & also via water over the lifetime of Amazonia. Then they suggest you to replace it. But most hobbists neednt. Adding osmocote or similar balls deep into soil periodically mimics the ADA type substrate dosing, supplemented by water dosing. Other methods like EI, PMDD, etc have differing routes to provide ferts to plants. There are loads of great tanks out there which use inert but high CEC substrates like Akadama, or even small bonsai soils (essentially heat tempered clay) with very high NO3, PO4, K levels in their waters and never have algae issues. In a scientific discussion these methods shouldnt be boycotted. There are scientific methods & ideas behind them. If things are too complicated for you, doesnt mean that those methods are dead wrong..

The main topic in the current posts is filteration:

We all use impeller pumps in our cannisters. They are limited by pressure heads since they push water from the cannister through the tube towards the tank. Longer/higher the tank & cannister-o/p tube length, less the gph flow rate.. And rather than simply getting excited about these rules "10X the flow" & "cannister volume should be at least 10% of tank volume", because Ada or someone else has done this & their pictures show this, stop and ask why? There are loads of posts on the size of lava rock, should it be broken, or should I buy Ada rocks, is rock better than something else...., again ask why? Below is one simple calculation one might do so as to try justifying the numbers we get to see around, etc.. This is just 1 example. My point is we ought to always demand a reasoning.. not behave like cult fanatics.

Assume the tank has a volume V gallons. If I assume (simplistically, ignoring the difficulties etc) that my cannister provides a 10X flow through the tank, then the flow rate is 10V gph. Now assume that my cannister is 10% volume of the tank. i.e. cannister volume is V/10 gallons. This means my cannister water is being replaced 100 times per hour ( 10V gph / [V/10 gallons] = 100 / hour). This is 100 * (V/10) = 10*V gallons of water gets flushed into our cannister per hour. Now starts the tricky part. Given the volume of the media inside the cannister, one needs to know how much of this water is being seen by the bacteria/microfauna sitting in those lava rocks or whatever.
The water is sitting in a volume, but the bacteria live on the surface. So how much water do these bacteria actually process? This comes in three parts: the contact area of the water with bacteria, how fast the water flows past them, and how long do the bacteria need to process a given amount of water in their contact.

The first will depend on how "porous" the material is & how fast it gets clogged. From school geomerty we know that for a sphere, the volume is (4/3) Pi r^3, and the surface area is 4 Pi r^2. So assume that all lava-rock spaces are small spheres. Then the fraction of water inside each sphere that "touches" the surface of the sphere (& hence the bacteria) is (Area/Volume) = (3/r). So smaller the size of these spaces (i.e. small r-value), more is the amount of water available to bacteria to feed on). But if the stuff starts clogging, its useless. Hence we ought to do mechanical filteration beforehand, and periodically clean the filters. (The clogged muck also increases the BOD, etc but thats another dimension to the story).

We already know the answer to the second issue: how fast water flows past the media. The third one i.e. how long it takes for bacteria to process the water is complicated, and depends on which strains we are talking (there are competing strains here, some which increase NO2, some which increase NO3, each with differing lifetimes, efficiencies; how much aerobic/anaerobic the place is, etc..). Perhaps a trained person (Phil??) can shed light into this. Would these timescales of bacterial water clensing, water flow-rates and availability etc match the tank & cannister specifications, how one can improve the biological filteration?? BTW, this will also depend on the biomass in our tanks.. yet another variable.

So then you start to see how to figure out the reasons behind the successful tanks/methods. The tank itself provides a HUGE biofilter in itself. All the stuff inside the tank including the substrate has a biofilm full of microfauna doing exactly the same job as your filter bacteria.

I really didnt understand why there was so many posts on the flow pattern needs inside the tank. The flow in the tank is needed for maintaining a uniformity in, say, temperature, fert & CO2 availability, and transporting locally generated organic excretants ultimately to the filter to get cleaned. For such a need, clearly a lamilar flow that is self-constructive (i.e. follows a U- or sircular pattern accross the tank), and reaches every nook and corner of the tank is desirable. The flow speed should assist the transport of ferts to plant leaves. As I mentioned above, plants have an active biofilm around them. Plus water has high surface tension, which means there is a boundary layer between the tank-water, and each leaf/plant. This layer prevents/stops easy transport of ferts/CO2/O2 accross the plant & surrounding water. Thats why stagnant water leads to mushy plants.. The flow speed should be such that it helps fert transport accross this layer, but not too fast so as to damage the leaf cell structure. An easy ball-park estimate of this is "all plants should essentially sway in the flow".

Turbulent flows lead to eddies/vortices that hinder any of the above & hence should be avoided. The water simply keeps moving round&round in ever decreasing circles withough actually going anywhere.

Clearly lily-pipes and/or spray bars, and/or well designed HOB type filters, and/or Koralia type pumps all, when placed properly, achieve this. Aesthetic choice is yours, but please dont try justifying Ada lily-pipes alone because nothing else worked for you, and that Ada has done this, so it must be the ONLY correct way. Understand the basic geometric requirements, flow patterns in your hardscaped tanks, and then proceed.

Ok, I will end first part of my ramblings. More to come, but feel free to comment. Just remember that in Europe, or far east large number of hobbists have great tanks, fantastic scapes, very active flora & fauna in their tanks (even non-Ada ones!!). We all play around, but surely apply some scientific means (if you are that inclined; you can succeed using only common sense & without the need for all the deeper understandings).

cheers
niru


----------



## Luminescent (Aug 14, 2013)

Applause!
Agree 100%, niru.


----------



## Phil Edwards (Jan 22, 2004)

Very well said Niru. I wish my German, French, and/or Italian were as good as your English! 

I'm sorry, but microbiology is one of my weaknesses. I don't know off the top of my head how quickly different strains/species will process the C, N, and P in a system. I'm of the opinion that each system is unique so making generalizations about microbial uptake is pretty much useless to. My belief/philosophy is to move water as slowly through the filter as possible while maintaining a wholly aerobic environment. The more contact time water has with media and microbes the better it's going to get cleaned. Filters are there mostly to process biological wastes and organic molecules into inorganic ones that the plants can then take up easily, in my opinion. As such they're a supplemental, but essential, part of the whole system's filtration capacity.


----------



## BriDroid (Oct 2, 2012)

Well said Niru. I feel similar to you, there is no right or wrong way to have a beautiful planted tank. I get sick of reading someone post "it's all your fault cause you didn't do X", instead of helping them grow and learn different techniques.

Thank you for posting that!


----------

