Trays in a canister filter. Why?

[Jc1119]

That's only because you use different types of media then. Cause removing 1 big filter sponge is even easyer than picking up trays one at a time, not to mention the fact that you would be able to pack ALOT more sponge into the canister without using the trays.

Hmm maybe this could work in my FX5, since the motor is at the very bottom of the canister

No, it doesnt have anything to do with media selection. The trays serve a flow function as well as a containment one. On the xp's, both the input and output are side by side on the top. The trays make sure the water flows all the way to the bottom of the canister before returning back up through the media... inside the trays. And there is very little wasted space in the canister with the trays in. You could not pack much more sponge in one of mine without the trays, aside from the fact that the media I'm using is much more effective than sponges. Not knocking sponges mind you, just pointing out the fact that there are more effective medias available.........

It would be worth a try on an Fx5 though, seeing as the design is different. I wouldnt fill it with sponges though. My choice would be pond matrix or ceramic rings. But then Id need some kind of bags or...........trays

 

[cjacob316]

canisters made to have trays need them for the thing to work properly

examples:
eheim (no baskets): water flows into the bottom, up through the media where the motor sits and pumps the water back to the tank
Basket canisters
Rena: water enters through the top, down the outside of the baskets, where it goes under the bottom basket then back up through the baskets that seal to the middle of the motor head where the impeller sits and pumps water back to the tank
C-series/cascades: water flows down though a "tubing" in the baskets then back up through the baskets and media into the motor head and back to the tank

if you remove the basket there is nothing to direct water flow and keep the water from just going right back to the tank and missing the media all together

 

[HrHagel]

No, it doesnt have anything to do with media selection. The trays serve a flow function as well as a containment one. On the xp's, both the input and output are side by side on the top. The trays make sure the water flows all the way to the bottom of the canister before returning back up through the media... inside the trays. And there is very little wasted space in the canister with the trays in. You could not pack much more sponge in one of mine without the trays, aside from the fact that the media I'm using is much more effective than sponges. Not knocking sponges mind you, just pointing out the fact that there are more effective medias available.........

It would be worth a try on an Fx5 though, seeing as the design is different. I wouldnt fill it with sponges though. My choice would be pond matrix or ceramic rings. But then Id need some kind of bags or...........trays

Yes i understand the principals of how different canisters direct the water through the basket, i just didn't think of it at the time of posting. So yes in a canister with intakes at the top without an already placed tube to direct flow to the bottom of the canister, the trays serve another purpose than simply dividing media.

In terms of your claim that there are far more effective media than sponges, well, you would have to eloborate a bit on that.

In terms of biological filtering there are media with a higher surface area than sponges, therefore allowing a greater number of bacteria reside in the same physical space as a sponge.

However, you can have a biological filter bigger than your aquarium itself, and it woud be no more effective than a small canister filter, when it comes to biological fitlering, that is if you had the same amount of waste created.
The biological bacteria will ONLY grow as many as there is "food" to "eat". Thus rendering all of that remaining un-populated media to be left with only 1 function, which is mechanical filtration. And for that my friend sponges are far superior than any Bioball/Ring and so on.

So basically what i'm saying is, in my case, i know for a fact that a canister filled with sponges will still supply enough surface area for bacteria to grow on, but at the same time deliver superior mechanical filtration than had i used other types of media mixed.

So the conclusion is: No, there isn't other more effecient media for my canisters than sponges, in my case

 

[HrHagel]

Biological filtering in general isn't really something that strains or is hard to achieve in any filtering device, when it comes to an aquarium enviroment.
Consider this, All bacteria needs is 1) Surface area to grow on 2) Waste to "eat".
In my aquarium, and by far the majority of aquariums over the world, there will be surface area all within the aquarium itself. Sand, Gravel, Driftwood, heck the glass itself is surface area that bacteria can, and most importantly DO grow on.

The only thing i'm personally looking for in a filter is Mechanical filtering, because i know Biological filtering is everywhere practically, and any mechanical filtration media also serves as biological filtration. It's inevitable. All i want is physical removal of debris of the aquarium water, into a filter unit, where i can later clean it off. And for that sponges and flow-rate is much more effecient than any of the Ceramic rings and other marketed "biological filtering media".

Now i'm not stating that biological filtering is overrated, because in reality it's the single most important aspect of an aquarium filter. What i'm saying is, the amount of "biological media" needed is HIGHLY overrated for the most part.

 

[Jc1119]

Yes i understand the principals of how different canisters direct the water through the basket, i just didn't think of it at the time of posting. So yes in a canister with intakes at the top without an already placed tube to direct flow to the bottom of the canister, the trays serve another purpose than simply dividing media.

In terms of your claim that there are far more effective media than sponges, well, you would have to eloborate a bit on that.

In terms of biological filtering there are media with a higher surface area than sponges, therefore allowing a greater number of bacteria reside in the same physical space as a sponge.

However, you can have a biological filter bigger than your aquarium itself, and it woud be no more effective than a small canister filter, when it comes to biological fitlering, that is if you had the same amount of waste created.
The biological bacteria will ONLY grow as many as there is "food" to "eat". Thus rendering all of that remaining un-populated media to be left with only 1 function, which is mechanical filtration. And for that my friend sponges are far superior than any Bioball/Ring and so on.

So basically what i'm saying is, in my case, i know for a fact that a canister filled with sponges will still supply enough surface area for bacteria to grow on, but at the same time deliver superior mechanical filtration than had i used other types of media mixed.

So the conclusion is: No, there isn't other more effecient media for my canisters than sponges, in my case

I see. You're primary reason is mechanical. I misunderstood. I always run alot of bio in all my canisters so I just assumed.

I do disagree with the effectiveness of a larger biofilter however. I understand that biofilter size has nothing to do with the load its able to handle given the time to build up, but one thing you're missing is the larger biofilters abilty to react and adjust to a change in the environment. IMO any change to the system, such as a dead fish or regular filter maintenance can be dealt with more quickly by a larger thinner biofilter. Its not like the right side is populated and the left side isnt. It's all populated, its just populated with a much larger more spread out colony.

Plus, with a little extrra bio around, I havent had to cycle a tank in years. Ive always got some bio seeded and ready to go

 

[Jc1119]

Biological filtering in general isn't really something that strains or is hard to achieve in any filtering device, when it comes to an aquarium enviroment.
Consider this, All bacteria needs is 1) Surface area to grow on 2) Waste to "eat".
In my aquarium, and by far the majority of aquariums over the world, there will be surface area all within the aquarium itself. Sand, Gravel, Driftwood, heck the glass itself is surface area that bacteria can, and most importantly DO grow on.

The only thing i'm personally looking for in a filter is Mechanical filtering, because i know Biological filtering is everywhere practically, and any mechanical filtration media also serves as biological filtration. It's inevitable. All i want is physical removal of debris of the aquarium water, into a filter unit, where i can later clean it off. And for that sponges and flow-rate is much more effecient than any of the Ceramic rings and other marketed "biological filtering media".

Now i'm not stating that biological filtering is overrated, because in reality it's the single most important aspect of an aquarium filter. What i'm saying is, the amount of "biological media" needed is HIGHLY overrated for the most part.

I understand bio growing everywhere within a system, but I prefer not to rely on "the tank" for bio filtration. I keep my glass too clean and move wood around a bit too much for my own piece of mind. Id rather fill a sump or a few canisters with bio, run a few strategically placed socks or pads around and call it. I typically run a little mech in my canisters to keep my bio cleaner, but my sump and canisters are basically homes for my bio. This way, anything I do to the tank or decor doesn't disrupt the system.

To each his own I suppose, because there are many ways to go about how to filter an aquarium, but I like knowing ecactly where my bio is. Filter socks and the few pads i do run provide all the mech I need.

 

[KaiserSousay]

An FX5 has approximately 20 litres of volume within the canister. However you can only pack 10-12 litres, at best, of actual media within it. Why do you think that is?

So, you are saying, if I could compress the trays into a lump they would displace 8-10 liters.
I`d really need to see it to believe that.

Other than that, we see eye to eye on the overwhelming BS about amounts of "bio" media touted.

If an FX5 is what you are looking at for your sponge can, jgray seems to be the man with the answers on the FX5.
I believe he even has a wb site devoted to modding this filter.

 

[jft]

Eheim classic filters are the best for contact time thats exactly what you want and no bypass of water thru the media if you want flow you use circulation pumps and powerheads just my two cents and 30 yrs of aquarium experience.

 

[Spiritofthesoul]

Sorry but the process is not as simple as that.

..... it is that simple

 

[HrHagel]

An FX5 has approximately 20 litres of volume within the canister. However you can only pack 10-12 litres, at best, of actual media within it. Why do you think that is?

So, you are saying, if I could compress the trays into a lump they would displace 8-10 liters.
I`d really need to see it to believe that.


Other than that, we see eye to eye on the overwhelming BS about amounts of "bio" media touted.

If an FX5 is what you are looking at for your sponge can, jgray seems to be the man with the answers on the FX5.
I believe he even has a wb site devoted to modding this filter.

No, i said the mass, but just as much the shape and limitations within the trays account for the loss of volume. My answer was in reguards to having sponges in mind, and how flexible mass can be packed in a relatively small amount of space. Remember, i didn't say kilograms of filter media, but litre's, where mass will vary depending on different types of media, within the same amount of volume in litre's.