Matten Filter for 300 - Umbee or Amphilophus heavy stocking

[Yoimbrian]

From the way I understand it...

-2x turnovers is a minimum, there is nothing bad about more
-the maximum flow rate comes in based on linear velocity, you need the velocity slow (10cm/min)
-there is a two fold reason for this. First, you want a thick layer of mulm to do the filtering, and high flow could dislodge it. Second, since it is a non pressurized system you need to have low velocity to have low pressure drop.

So the big point of comparison is yes your canister filter is going way higher velocity and yes it still works - but you need to open it up and clean it weekly (in comparison to yearly / never).

 

[dogofwar]

Jehmco sells the jumbo Lustar boxes: http://jehmco.com/html/box_filters.html

I just use the regular Lee's brand and run a bunch of air through them (and less air through the sponges / Poret).

Are you aware of an air driven box Filter big enough to keep a big tank clear? I tried two of the biggest (not that big though) that I could find and they didn’t do much good on my 300.

 

[dogofwar]

That's not quite right: the "thick layer of mulm" isn't doing the filtration. The micro-organisms on the Poret are (i.e. arachea and nitrifying bacteria). The buildup of mulm actually blocks the growth of these organisms and reduces flow through the filter (the same is true of crap coating the media in canister filters).

A lot of flow through Poret will absolutely collect more detritus / mulm (i.e. act as mechanical filtration) and clog (and require cleaning) sooner than with lower flow...without increasing biological capacity (much at least).

Anyone who's cleaned a Poret filter that's been running for awhile will find that it is a big mess and will have a bunch of gunk in it. Maybe slipping a trash bag around it before pulling out of the tank will be less of a mess...but it dumps basically all of the crud that's collected into the tank.

The big question is my mind is whether the mulm and detritus in the filter or when dumped back into the tank is just unsightly or whether it adversely affects water quality, especially over time.

The knock on undergravel filters is that over time detritus collects under the plate (and gravel)...and adversely affects water quality(?). How is this any different?

Matt

From the way I understand it...

-2x turnovers is a minimum, there is nothing bad about more
-the maximum flow rate comes in based on linear velocity, you need the velocity slow (10cm/min)
-there is a two fold reason for this. First, you want a thick layer of mulm to do the filtering, and high flow could dislodge it. Second, since it is a non pressurized system you need to have low velocity to have low pressure drop.

So the big point of comparison is yes your canister filter is going way higher velocity and yes it still works - but you need to open it up and clean it weekly (in comparison to yearly / never).

 

[NW Cichlid Keith]

Jehmco sells the jumbo Lustar boxes: http://jehmco.com/html/box_filters.html

I just use the regular Lee's brand and run a bunch of air through them (and less air through the sponges / Poret).

Yeah, I tried both without success - my clarity expectations must be too high - or I have too many big fish that I feed too much

 

[NW Cichlid Keith]

From the way I understand it...

-2x turnovers is a minimum, there is nothing bad about more
-the maximum flow rate comes in based on linear velocity, you need the velocity slow (10cm/min)
-there is a two fold reason for this. First, you want a thick layer of mulm to do the filtering, and high flow could dislodge it. Second, since it is a non pressurized system you need to have low velocity to have low pressure drop.

So the big point of comparison is yes your canister filter is going way higher velocity and yes it still works - but you need to open it up and clean it weekly (in comparison to yearly / never).

Thanks - can you detail out the velocity formula?

 

[Yoimbrian]

NW Cichlid Keith For velocity:

flow rate in gallons per hour x 63 = flow rate in cm3 per minute

convert length and width from inches to cm by multiplying by 2.54

Length (cm) x width (cm) = surface area (cm2)

velocity = flow rate (cm3 / min) / surface area (cm2) = velocity (cm / min)

According to the papers the goal is 5-10 cm / min, though it seems to be very flexible.

D dogofwar a few things...

1) let me be clear, I have precisely ZERO actual experience with these filters, everything I have said has been an open discussion based on my research and my interpretation of things.

2) both Swiss Tropicals and Fish2Water disagree with you, they both say the mulm is where a significant amount of bacteria resides, and thus filtration occurs, and both of them say never to disturb the mulm.

3) yes, it has already been noted that cleaning these filters dumps a significant amount of stuff back in to the tank. The reason a traditional matten filter is not concerned with that is they clean rarely or never - so it just isn't an issue. If used at a significantly higher flow rate than generally recommended (in order to remove particulate better), thus requiring frequent cleaning, this may become a very large issue. However, one other thing I have read in a few places is you can do a decent job of cleaning them without removing them from the aquarium by going up and down them with a gravel vacuum / python / etc. This would only get the surface of course so you would still need to clean the inside eventually - but it could greatly increase the duration between needing to fully take it out and clean it.

My plan, which is certainly subject to change between now and acquiring the aquarium, is to set the higher flow / mechanical section up with variable speed powerheads. I would then experiment with the flow rate, aiming for the slowest possible flow that still kept the water clear of particulate. As a second tier to the experiment I would also divide the mechanical filtration sections into smaller zones. This would not only make cleaning significantly easier, but it will also allow me to purchase different pore size foam to test which works the best.

If the mechanical filtration fails spectacularly it would then be time for plan B. That could either be an internal box filter of sorts, putting up a divider where the foam is and converting it to an internal sump, or setting up some sort of external mechanical filter (canister, pressurized filter sock, bead filter, etc). One thing I need to decide I guess is should I order the tank with extra drilled holes to prepare for plan B...?

 

[dogofwar]

I've been using Poret in several applications - dividers, air-driven filters, in sumps, dumps, HOBs, etc. - for years. Stephan Tanner (of Swiss Tropicals) has spoken at our club and we discussed some of these issues.

The Poret foam is a media for culturing bacteria and archaea (nitrifiers). If the media gets clogged with stuff/mulm, then the nitrifiers can't grow as well and come in contact with water. If the mulm itself were the nitrifier, then we would all just keep a bag of crud in our sumps or tanks (and not bio balls, foam, etc.) and it would filter them (which isn't the case).

The general consensus is that Poret needs to be removed and dunked / cleaned when flow decreases (because of mulm buildup).

While it "works" (and I've used Poret in sump and dump filters) as a mechanical media (it will collect a ton of gunk the same way that, say, floss will), It's better to use it in lower flow situations to increase the amount of time between cleanings. Sort of the same way it's a good idea to use a pre-filter on a canister filter to reduce the amount of crud sucked into it (and thus the frequency of cleaning)...

Matt

NW Cichlid Keith For velocity:

flow rate in gallons per hour x 63 = flow rate in cm3 per minute

convert length and width from inches to cm by multiplying by 2.54

Length (cm) x width (cm) = surface area (cm2)

velocity = flow rate (cm3 / min) / surface area (cm2) = velocity (cm / min)

According to the papers the goal is 5-10 cm / min, though it seems to be very flexible.

D dogofwar a few things...

1) let me be clear, I have precisely ZERO actual experience with these filters, everything I have said has been an open discussion based on my research and my interpretation of things.

2) both Swiss Tropicals and Fish2Water disagree with you, they both say the mulm is where a significant amount of bacteria resides, and thus filtration occurs, and both of them say never to disturb the mulm.

3) yes, it has already been noted that cleaning these filters dumps a significant amount of stuff back in to the tank. The reason a traditional matten filter is not concerned with that is they clean rarely or never - so it just isn't an issue. If used at a significantly higher flow rate than generally recommended (in order to remove particulate better), thus requiring frequent cleaning, this may become a very large issue. However, one other thing I have read in a few places is you can do a decent job of cleaning them without removing them from the aquarium by going up and down them with a gravel vacuum / python / etc. This would only get the surface of course so you would still need to clean the inside eventually - but it could greatly increase the duration between needing to fully take it out and clean it.

My plan, which is certainly subject to change between now and acquiring the aquarium, is to set the higher flow / mechanical section up with variable speed powerheads. I would then experiment with the flow rate, aiming for the slowest possible flow that still kept the water clear of particulate. As a second tier to the experiment I would also divide the mechanical filtration sections into smaller zones. This would not only make cleaning significantly easier, but it will also allow me to purchase different pore size foam to test which works the best.

If the mechanical filtration fails spectacularly it would then be time for plan B. That could either be an internal box filter of sorts, putting up a divider where the foam is and converting it to an internal sump, or setting up some sort of external mechanical filter (canister, pressurized filter sock, bead filter, etc). One thing I need to decide I guess is should I order the tank with extra drilled holes to prepare for plan B...?

 

[Yoimbrian]

Yea, that makes sense, it does seem to shine in lower flow. I guess I'll just have to play around with it.

I just now finished installing a side wall Matten Filter in my 20 gallon long tank, using an air lift to power it. My very first impressions are I'm impressed at how well the air lift works, I kicked up a bunch of gunk when I moved the old sponge filter (I didn't take it out, yet, just moved it) and you can see a flow profile inside of the tank with those particles (flowing away from the filter at the top, towards the filter at the bottom). As of writing this its been running about 15 minutes and the water is almost clear already.

It'll be a fun experiment trying it on my 20, but unfortunately I don't think it's a fair test. The surface area of filter to volume of tank water will be about double for the 20 gallon, and with the smaller tank I feel there are less concerns with dead spots and flow profiles and such. But, it's the best I can do and it'll be something at least, and there is at least one thing I can say with absolute certainty - I'm using the air lifters on my big tank.

 

[ahud]

I am really torn on MattenFilters. I have a corner filter on a 125g and two 10g tanks.

Pros:
-They look clean in my opinion
-Simple to install and run
-Cheap compared to other media

Cons
-Very hard to clean without making a mess
-Need low flow or else they are a detritus trap

In the future, I don't think I will continue using them unless it was for specific species. For example, the cornerfilter worked extremely well when I was housing a group of Apistogramma and pencilfish. The low flow suited the fish and the fish were so small that mechanical filtration was not needed beyond my normal gravel vacs.

Poret itself is great stuff. My points are pointed towards the in tank setups. I would certainly use poret for sumps where cleaning would be much easier.

 

[dogofwar]

Good summary!

Here's a point on which I'm still struggling: Is some detritus in the tank a bad thing (other than, of course aesthetically)?

Experienced fishkeepers argue both ways...

I've been a vigilant detritus-siphoner for many years and some really skilled folks have told me to chill out

Matt

I am really torn on MattenFilters. I have a corner filter on a 125g and two 10g tanks.

Pros:
-They look clean in my opinion
-Simple to install and run
-Cheap compared to other media

Cons
-Very hard to clean without making a mess
-Need low flow or else they are a detritus trap

In the future, I don't think I will continue using them unless it was for specific species. For example, the cornerfilter worked extremely well when I was housing a group of Apistogramma and pencilfish. The low flow suited the fish and the fish were so small that mechanical filtration was not needed beyond my normal gravel vacs.

Poret itself is great stuff. My points are pointed towards the in tank setups. I would certainly use poret for sumps where cleaning would be much easier.