|
Post by angelminx on Oct 28, 2014 1:37:35 GMT -5
Hey, Carl!
I was just catching up on Kevin's thread about his _____ butterkofferi (can't remember the genus name at the moment). You were talking about the sponge filters and having two separate "systems" being best because one of the sponges is the "Pro", and that got me to wondering about my 2 tanks.
Once I get the pre-filter for the 10G, I'll have the Whisper 20 HOB with either the Filter-Max I or II (which would you suggest?) on the right side of the tank; and I have a Hydro Sponge Filter 2 connected to a Whisper air pump that is rated for 10-30 gallons with ~29" of airline running between the pump and the gang valve, and another 10" between the valves and the filter (with a Discard-A-Stone) on the left side (the pump has to sit on the right hand side of the tank). I am temporarily using the Whisper 10i (internal filter) on the right hand side at the moment. How efficient do you think this is? I never really see any debris attach itself to the sponge filter, but I did rinse it out during the 25% H20 change between medication doses yesterday, and got a fair amount of dirty water from it.
For the 55G, I have the Rio 1000 (with the Filter-Max III attached) running to the XP2 (~5" between the Rio and the lift tube; ~31" from the lift tube to the XP2), and ~15" of tubing running from the XP2 to the Vecton-2, and ~20" from it to the universal return. The system starts out at the right-hand corner, and exits in the left-hand corner. On the right side of the brace is the Whisper 60 HOB with a Filter-Max 3 pre-filter. The XP2 has (2 of each) filter foam # 20 and #30 in the bottom basket, and in the top basket a little over 500ml Matrix topped by 2 micro filtration pads; the HOB is run with both Bio-Foam inserts (one on each side) and the filter-pouch inserts which may, or may not contain activated carbon. How well do you rate the water flow and effectiveness of this set-up? Is the head pressure OK for the Vecton this way? I always have debris stuck to the pre-filters.
Angelminx
|
|
|
Post by Carl on Oct 28, 2014 9:50:43 GMT -5
Either the Filter Max #1 or #2 would work with the Whisper 20 HOB for a 10 gallon aquarium, although I would prefer a bit more filter capacity and go with the #2 if there is enough room. The configurations seems OK to me, and it is not unusual to not see debris pulled into the more fine sponges such as your Hydro Sponge #2; your rinsing shows it is working just fine. Your 55 gallon tank filter configuration & pattern also seems to be OK. It is more typical to se debris "stuck" to the higher flow Pro or Filter Max #3 sponges too. As for head pressure, your flow rate would determine if this is correct or not, but just based on what you noted with debris stuck to the sponge going into the Rio Pump, I would say it is likely OK You could measure your flow rate as per the Head Pressure article. Reference: www.aquarium-pond-answers.com/2011/09/head-pressure-in-aquarium-and-pond.htmlCarl
|
|
|
Post by devonjohnsgard on Oct 28, 2014 10:31:57 GMT -5
Angelminx,
I would say both filtration set ups are fine IMO. With the Hydro Sponge, there will be a gentle flow and anything hooked up to a pump with have more flow and draw more debris to the filter. For the 10 gallon, the Filter Max 1 would do fine. The FM 2 would just hold more.
I also think the head pressure is fine for the vecton as this is a pretty typical set-up. I think the 55 gals filtration is good too.
I would be rinsing one of these sponges each week and switch between them every time.
Also, having a couple forms of filtration is better than one. So, I'm glad you are thinking about good filtration.
|
|
|
Post by angelminx on Oct 28, 2014 16:54:17 GMT -5
I think I'll go with the FM #2. I already have a couple of that size sponge as back-ups for the sponge filter. I'll be placing my order next month! Can't wait ! I LOVE buying new things for my fishies...if only I didn't have to spend money to do it !
|
|
eaf
New Member
Posts: 19
|
Post by eaf on Oct 25, 2015 17:45:17 GMT -5
Carl,
I've been researching Vecton UVs and came across this thread as well as the article that you're referring to.
You're wrong to say that putting UV sterilizer or filter below aquarium level is going to add extra head pressure due to height differences. Likewise incorrect is the statement about "one way" counting where you say that distance travelled by water from water level down to the filter/UV should not be counted whereas distance travelled on the way back should. In fact, both should be counted except that distance travelled down should be subtracted from the distance travelled up.
In equilibrium the weight of the water in the intake column is equalized by the weight of the water in the output one. In closed loop systems such as these ones the canister filter has to fight only filter media and pipe resistance, never the weight of the water column. It's a whole different story with a sump where the pump is bringing water from the sump up and has to really work against gravity. That's why canister filters usually have smaller pumps that have smaller wattage: they don't have to work as hard as sump pumps to provide the same GPH.
Sorry, couldn't help to resurrect this thread, as there is no way to leave a direct comment to that article, and while the rest of it was interesting read, the part about vertical pressure and conclusions were pretty misleading.
|
|
|
Post by Carl on Oct 26, 2015 9:29:24 GMT -5
Carl, I've been researching Vecton UVs and came across this thread as well as the article that you're referring to. You're wrong to say that putting UV sterilizer or filter below aquarium level is going to add extra head pressure due to height differences. Likewise incorrect is the statement about "one way" counting where you say that distance travelled by water from water level down to the filter/UV should not be counted whereas distance travelled on the way back should. In fact, both should be counted except that distance travelled down should be subtracted from the distance travelled up. In equilibrium the weight of the water in the intake column is equalized by the weight of the water in the output one. In closed loop systems such as these ones the canister filter has to fight only filter media and pipe resistance, never the weight of the water column. It's a whole different story with a sump where the pump is bringing water from the sump up and has to really work against gravity. That's why canister filters usually have smaller pumps that have smaller wattage: they don't have to work as hard as sump pumps to provide the same GPH. I agree and disagree with your statements. I will look at there I might have stated the distance traveled should not be counted, as I agree that it should be counted. However I disagree as to placement of the canister filter not affecting the head pressure. I have installed literally 100s of canister filters over the years and have moved many and observed notable difference in flow rates. Carl
|
|
eaf
New Member
Posts: 19
|
Post by eaf on Oct 26, 2015 9:57:01 GMT -5
Well, let me clarify it more. In one sentence: "canister setup does not suffer flow losses due to gravity at all, it does suffer flow losses due to tubing resistance"
Think of it, if you have a sump, and are pumping the water up, you have atmospheric pressure at the intake and you have atmospheric pressure plus the weight of the water column on the output of the pump. So before even moving anything the pump has to overcome the weight of that column, and that's where all those feet and 2.3ft/psi or 0.4psi/ft come from. If you have a canister on the other hand, you have atmospheric pressure plus the weight of the water column on the intake of the pump, and exactly the same on the output. So, all the pump has to do is to sustain frictional losses in the tubing.
Still, of course, the longer the tubing the harder the pump has to work due to increased frictional forces, maybe that's what you've been observing in practice, but this falls into that separate section of horizontal losses in your article, not vertical ones.
|
|
|
Post by Carl on Oct 26, 2015 10:07:15 GMT -5
This I can agree with. This water resistance would include water in the tubing.
The size of he tubing also makes a difference with lower diameter tubing providing more resistance and slower flow rates.
The UV itself also slows the flow rate as does any other "appliance" added down line from the canister filter (such as a FSB filter)
The question remains is why the same canister filter with the same length of the same diameter tubing when placed on a shelf next to the aquarium increases in flow from being earlier on the floor below the aquarium?
Carl
|
|
eaf
New Member
Posts: 19
|
Post by eaf on Oct 26, 2015 13:32:04 GMT -5
The location of the canister filter would not matter in this case. Sometimes it's recommended to put it higher to decrease the water pressure and minimize the risk of leaks. Performance-wise, it's the same.
|
|
|
Post by Carl on Oct 26, 2015 14:08:56 GMT -5
The location of the canister filter would not matter in this case. Sometimes it's recommended to put it higher to decrease the water pressure and minimize the risk of leaks. Performance-wise, it's the same. In theory this might be true, but in actual use I have measured differences. Some canister filters more than others. This might be due to impeller design, internal flow design, & intake and output design. I certainly do not argue the difference between a closed system and an open system and this having a more notable difference upon head pressure. I have in fact clarified this in the head pressure article as I agree that I co-mingled the terms. Carl
|
|
|
Post by Carl on Oct 26, 2015 15:44:19 GMT -5
We just double checked a Filstar S on an aquarium as per flow
The tests came back as subtle, as one would suspect in a closed canister filter system.
Using the filter at tank level then going to heights of 24 inches (A) then to 54 inches (B) No changes to tubing length were made
Results (A) a 7% decrease in flow (B) a 13% decrease in flow.
So changes were not significant as would be in an open system, but there were still changes in flow
Carl
|
|
|
Post by Carl on Oct 28, 2015 11:31:58 GMT -5
While I cannot fully explain the results based on your statement, which I agree with:
I would have to theorize that there are other variables at play and this is being looked at too one dimensionally.
An example might be the impeller, especially since your results with the Eheim showed less of a difference in the first step up. The Eheim has an impeller that is better designed for head pressure than the Filstar. This is also noted in the head pressure article.
Either way we do know that placement of a canister filter DOES matter as per flow rate
Carl
|
|