Bah, yes they are older technologies, but a nice oversized canister filter that has regular maitenence (cleaning) carbon and maybe some rock rubble IS a sealed sump with a filter sock. Hard to put a fuge in there maybe, but a cheap HOB filter and a desk light does that quite well. I'm quite fond of my Fluval FX 5's. I bet it does alot more than the Berlin skimmer I started this hobby with. I also have close to a TON (literally) of live rock, but they catch the yuck, and add decent flow to my sump. I also think UGFs have their place, again IF properly maintained.
canister filter
- Thread starter Elivia
- Start date
Help Support Reef Aquarium & Tank Building Forum:
Scooterman
Well-known member
I don't think that is the question here, more or less nitrification, you have so much water one measly filter isn't enough to show anything either way, also you have A ton of lr LOL!
yes, but I have 1700 gallons and overfeed everything. A well balanced 50 gallon tank w/ live rock and a sand bed could be run quite well on something like a fx5 I believe. Decent about of flow, and lots of room to put stuff in it (basically an overglorified 5 gallon bucket lots of room for rock). Is it as good as a 40B sump w/ fuge and a 300 dollar skimmer not really, but it can work quite well. And get someone in to the hobby until they feel like upgrading if done right.
So many people just follow the party line on what you"have" to do in this hobby. With preplanning, proper stocking and decent maintainece it can be done w/ much less.
A sump can do just as much or as little as a canister filter (IMO) depending on how its set up, and maintained.
So many people just follow the party line on what you"have" to do in this hobby. With preplanning, proper stocking and decent maintainece it can be done w/ much less.
A sump can do just as much or as little as a canister filter (IMO) depending on how its set up, and maintained.
Last edited:
ac7av
Bring on the FISH!
Yea, it had an attachment I connected a hose to and I would suck in dirty water and spit back out clean. The magnum 350 and H.O.T magnum canister filters both have the polishing cartridge.
I should hook something like that up. That just a great idea for a little cleaning when you don’t want to do a water change.
ac7av
Bring on the FISH!
Scooterman
Well-known member
Well apparently the thought that the canister can do it all without the LR, is what I was led to believe but now he seems to be saying with LR? I'm confused!
ac7av
Bring on the FISH!
Well apparently the thought that the canister can do it all without the LR, is what I was led to believe but now he seems to be saying with LR? I'm confused!
Well it started out that way because otherwise you could not tell if the canister would work if you put live rock or sand in the tank and then got blown out of proportion saying it was still a waste of time because it would be no better then a gold fish bowl.
I don’t know man, I think some people I know are very informed on here have been coming up with really strange comments that make no sense and I think it has a lot to do with the band wagon mentality. I like the 5 gallon bucket khaosinc, cheep, simple, and to the point. Just in my price range.
Last edited:
Well apparently the thought that the canister can do it all without the LR, is what I was led to believe but now he seems to be saying with LR? I'm confused!
I was just assuming there would be rock/corals/sand etc in the display.
DonW
R.I.P.
Well this conversation turned into a mess of back peddling. Weve got comments like using an fx5 which is a huge filter designed for like a 3 or 4 hundred gallon tank. Comments about people want to start off on the cheap. I really doubt anyone wanting to start off on the cheap with a 55 gallon aquarium has a spare fx5 just sitting around. More likely somthing like Krish mentioned a Magnum. That being the case there is NO possible way a guy could denitrify a 55 gallon tank with a magnum filled with LR, It would only hold a handfull or so. The test would be an excecise in futility. The comment about folks jumpimng on the band wagon, well that is probably true. There are many that just plain understand the facts and realize the futility of denitrification within a canister filter, if thats being on the band wagon then so be it.
Although a little on the harsh side. Skimmy is 100% correct. Suggesting that anyone start a marine aquarium with the hopes of denitrification with an little canister filter is just plain bad advice. Is a home test useful? Well some may be but the one mentioned in this thread is futile at best.
I'm all for using what you have and maybe running cabon or using it as a vacuum are options. But on the other hand attempting to denitrify a reef with a canister and adding sea life like corals, is irresponsible to say the least.
The denitrification process is not very complex but over simplifying it doesnt help anyone. Using a canister filter with a hand full LR even with a small tank of 10 gallons is like taking a knife to fight a war. Its just not going to work and has been proven time and time again.
Don
Although a little on the harsh side. Skimmy is 100% correct. Suggesting that anyone start a marine aquarium with the hopes of denitrification with an little canister filter is just plain bad advice. Is a home test useful? Well some may be but the one mentioned in this thread is futile at best.
I'm all for using what you have and maybe running cabon or using it as a vacuum are options. But on the other hand attempting to denitrify a reef with a canister and adding sea life like corals, is irresponsible to say the least.
The denitrification process is not very complex but over simplifying it doesnt help anyone. Using a canister filter with a hand full LR even with a small tank of 10 gallons is like taking a knife to fight a war. Its just not going to work and has been proven time and time again.
Don
Scooterman
Well-known member
Krish
RF STAFF
Don sure has a way with words :lol:
Skimmy
SKIM FU
yeah, just to set things straight,
i have no issue with someone like krish who has a magnum canister and employs it only for cleaning, instead of constant in line use.
as don mentioned, it's only the (lack of)denitrification i have issues with.
and the fact that people are lazy and never do the amount of maintenance they should...who is going to clean their canister filter every week?? very few people... same deal with U.G. filters...did they work?? well mostly...lol, but who is going to pull everything out of the aquarium and clean under the filter plates every 6-9 months?? yeah, maybe reverse flow them for a little longer use, but they will still wind-up impacted with goo and start to fail.
people, if you want a simple, hassel free method to attemp, then try the old school lee eng method with only live rock, live sand, flow, and light.
IMO, that would be vastly more stable then attempting to use a cannister filter. but there's alot more WC's involved, i can tell you that.
and you have to get the ratios of live rock and flow right for denitrification to be at it's best.
and you might as well pack it with macro algae too, as i think lee eng did as well.
natural, simple, but more work...these days, probably not a bad thing for a noob to go though...
i have no issue with someone like krish who has a magnum canister and employs it only for cleaning, instead of constant in line use.
as don mentioned, it's only the (lack of)denitrification i have issues with.
and the fact that people are lazy and never do the amount of maintenance they should...who is going to clean their canister filter every week?? very few people... same deal with U.G. filters...did they work?? well mostly...lol, but who is going to pull everything out of the aquarium and clean under the filter plates every 6-9 months?? yeah, maybe reverse flow them for a little longer use, but they will still wind-up impacted with goo and start to fail.
people, if you want a simple, hassel free method to attemp, then try the old school lee eng method with only live rock, live sand, flow, and light.
IMO, that would be vastly more stable then attempting to use a cannister filter. but there's alot more WC's involved, i can tell you that.
and you have to get the ratios of live rock and flow right for denitrification to be at it's best.
and you might as well pack it with macro algae too, as i think lee eng did as well.
natural, simple, but more work...these days, probably not a bad thing for a noob to go though...
Last edited:
ac7av
Bring on the FISH!
Well when you look at it like that then why do any of it at all?
UV filters are expensive and don’t do anything except voodoo stuff. Higher energy and heat costs.
Skimmers don’t remove all the protein in the water even if sized correctly. So you still have to change water. What a waste of time.
Carbon is exhausted too fast before you have to chance it. It becomes inefficient. Water changes again. Another waste of time. Just do more water changes and you will not need all this stuff.
Use the KISS principal and it will always work and no fooling around with a bunch of expensive equipment.
I mean what are we really tanking about?
What size sump/fuge is required to do the job in %? Is there a rule for this?
Let say the average canister filter is 5 gallons of space to a 20 gallon tank. Is this an expectable size to any 20 gallon for a sump/fuge full of a deep sand bed and macros, maybe a bag of carbon?
There is nothing expensive about a canister filter compared to any skimmer or sump/fung you can buy on the market that I know of. They all cost hundreds. Please don’t start with the cheep fleabay stuff.
UV filters are expensive and don’t do anything except voodoo stuff. Higher energy and heat costs.
Skimmers don’t remove all the protein in the water even if sized correctly. So you still have to change water. What a waste of time.
Carbon is exhausted too fast before you have to chance it. It becomes inefficient. Water changes again. Another waste of time. Just do more water changes and you will not need all this stuff.
Use the KISS principal and it will always work and no fooling around with a bunch of expensive equipment.
I mean what are we really tanking about?
What size sump/fuge is required to do the job in %? Is there a rule for this?
Let say the average canister filter is 5 gallons of space to a 20 gallon tank. Is this an expectable size to any 20 gallon for a sump/fuge full of a deep sand bed and macros, maybe a bag of carbon?
There is nothing expensive about a canister filter compared to any skimmer or sump/fung you can buy on the market that I know of. They all cost hundreds. Please don’t start with the cheep fleabay stuff.
DonW
R.I.P.
The fx5 @ $359 at smith and fosters is one of the largest caniter filter made. Its water capacity is not even 5 gallons. Its media capacity is 1.5 gallons. An average canister filter is a few quarts for a good sized one. This doesnt mean they hold a few quarts of media. The one like Krish has is very common and only holds about a pint of media. Yes just LR and sand will do more than a canister in terms of denitrification.
Don
Last edited:
ac7av
Bring on the FISH!
Okay Don thanks for that information on that filter.
I just popped the lid on the one I have to get the internal volume of the canister and it comes to 832 cubic inches or 3.6 US gallons. Now I know this is not close to the biggest filter on the marked and I spent less then $100 on it from fleabay. It has 4 trays in it. Each try will hold more then a quart of material. Even when I fill one try with carbon I have to top the tank with at least 3 gallons of water when it fills up.
So in conclusion what I’m going to do is just do this anyway. It’s apparent that regardless of the outcome it will be completely useless. After all if I build a somewhat normal tank with the rule of thumb amount of rock and sand and if the outcome is a well balanced system it will have been with no help from the canister. If I build a tank with nothing in it except the canister filter and the outcome is a well balanced system then the information on how to do it is still useless. If I build a tank ether way with or with out live rock and sand and the outcome is an unbalanced system then it will be all because of the filter. Since it is apparent that to some people any information ether way will be useless then I will just do it anyway for anyone that is as least interested in it.
I just popped the lid on the one I have to get the internal volume of the canister and it comes to 832 cubic inches or 3.6 US gallons. Now I know this is not close to the biggest filter on the marked and I spent less then $100 on it from fleabay. It has 4 trays in it. Each try will hold more then a quart of material. Even when I fill one try with carbon I have to top the tank with at least 3 gallons of water when it fills up.
So in conclusion what I’m going to do is just do this anyway. It’s apparent that regardless of the outcome it will be completely useless. After all if I build a somewhat normal tank with the rule of thumb amount of rock and sand and if the outcome is a well balanced system it will have been with no help from the canister. If I build a tank with nothing in it except the canister filter and the outcome is a well balanced system then the information on how to do it is still useless. If I build a tank ether way with or with out live rock and sand and the outcome is an unbalanced system then it will be all because of the filter. Since it is apparent that to some people any information ether way will be useless then I will just do it anyway for anyone that is as least interested in it.
Last edited:
Krish
RF STAFF
Not everyone is going to agree with everything each one of us does no matter what it is. Some people swear by skimmers and some say they are a waste of time. If doing your experiment makes you happy whether it has already been proven or not, then do what makes you happy. Nothing better than personal experience.
Scooterman
Well-known member
Krish
RF STAFF
LOL!!! Well I know one thing is for sure...We need water! :shock:
Similar threads
- Locked
