Re: Eheim filter media options?
- From: "Fish2Keep" <fish2keep@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 18:03:49 GMT
"NetMax" <computeralias@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:g0rnf.1311$PQ3.306708@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "Bill Stock" <Me7@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1L2dnUV6VvyZswPeRVn-jw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> "NetMax" <computeralias@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:Fwpnf.1243$PQ3.292884@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> "Bill Stock" <Me7@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> news:jaednVnC7MM7lgPeRVn-gQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>
>>>> "Fish2Keep" <fish2keep@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>> news:gZenf.31248$xb2.5304@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> "Bill Stock" <Me7@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>> news:t9-dnRLA2rMgyAHeRVn-vw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>
>>>>> I've used both Ehiem and Fluval canister filters, I would rate Ehiem
>>>>> as being much better. The problem with the fluval canister filters is
>>>>> the water can flow outside the baskets
>>>>
>>>> Usually on the floor. (Kidding)
>>>>
>>>>> meaning the water is not filtered as well as how the Ehiem's work.
>>>>
>>>> I've read this a few times, but I wonder how signicant this is. It
>>>> would be interesting to do a controlled test to see how both filters
>>>> performed with varying particle sizes, given the same flow rate.
>>>
>>>
>>> For no-bypass systems (Eheim), I think the advantage is a higher
>>> filtration efficiency (particle removal efficiency as a function of
>>> water volume moved) but the disadvantage is there is a greater
>>> difference in flow rates from empty to filled, and in a worst case
>>> condition, your nitrifying bacteria could die off if the water flow was
>>> too low. Generally requires a pump with higher head pressure to
>>> compensate for this (push through the obstruction), and the impeller is
>>> (in theory) designed to free-spin (spin without damage in the absence of
>>> waterflow).
>>>
>>> By-pass systems (Fluval), conversely would have to move more water to
>>> achieve the higher efficiency, but even if the filter is clogged, the
>>> bypass ensures there is always a minimum water flow. Early Fluvals
>>> would still have a nitrifying bacteria die-off (the bypass went around
>>> the sponges), but the current Fluval's bypass keeps the bacteria in the
>>> main sponges alive. Generally this requires a less fault tolerant (less
>>> expensive) motor/impeller design, as there is less likely to be a
>>> significant reduction in flow (which acts as a coolant to the motor).
>>>
>>
>> Any idea what percentage gets bypassed on the various Fluvals?
>
> Nope, but it would be variable to the amount of back pressure caused by
> the build-up in the filter stages.
> --
> www.NetMax.tk
>
>>> With ideal maintenance: the Eheim is slightly better.
>>> With normal maintenance: comparable imo
>>> With poor maintenence: the Fluval is slightly better.
>>>
>>> In other words, a dozen of one, or twelve of another ;~) ...but it's
>>> still fun to watch the hype at work :o).
>>> --
>>> www.NetMax.tk
>>>
>>>>> http://www.fish2keep.com
>>>>> Share your fish keeping skills!!!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Everybody is different, I've used both types "Fluval and Ehiem" and would
rate the Ehiem's as a better overall canister filter myself. But each to
there own..
--
http://www.fish2keep.com
Tropical | Marine | Coldwater
Community Forums
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Eheim filter media options?
- From: NetMax
- Re: Eheim filter media options?
- References:
- Eheim filter media options?
- From: Bill Stock
- Re: Eheim filter media options?
- From: Fish2Keep
- Re: Eheim filter media options?
- From: Bill Stock
- Re: Eheim filter media options?
- From: NetMax
- Re: Eheim filter media options?
- From: Bill Stock
- Re: Eheim filter media options?
- From: NetMax
- Eheim filter media options?
- Prev by Date: Re: Noisy Aquaclear
- Next by Date: Re: Eheim filter media options?
- Previous by thread: Re: Eheim filter media options?
- Next by thread: Re: Eheim filter media options?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading