200 gallon tank.. the next step
- Thread starter fishingaddict
- Start date
oh and another thing with wd's is i see alot of people only using half there wd tank they cut it in half and totaly waste half there space
example
hes only using about 1/3 of his tank big waste of space i see alot of people doing this and idk its not efficeint people
example
hes only using about 1/3 of his tank big waste of space i see alot of people doing this and idk its not efficeint people
It is called a wet DRY because the media thrives in a high oxygen environment, something that canisters lack. In order to do this, the bio-media has to be both wet and dry at times. If the water level was at the very top of the tank, then the media would only be able to get oxygen from the water. This is single factor that makes W/D more efficient than canisters. 
Well, both have goodsides and badsides. If you are using an external overflow, it can lose suction and you dry run your pump. Canisters on the other hand don't skim the surface and rid the tds floating on the surface. W/D may build up nitrates, but you can make it a w/d/refugium and have plants to export those nutrients. Canisters can clog up with waste making it harder for BB to do their job. Overflows can be a bit noisey, canisters are basically pretty quiet. Both are very efficient. But with a W/D you have more control over the amount of water movement. With 2 1" drain pipes you can get about 1300 gph of water flow, Use something that holds about 75 gallons for a W/D and put a pump that moves about 1200 gph and you will be good to go. Only fill the sump about 1/4 total heighth, and have your drains about even with the frame and you should be good to go either way. Canisters are no brainers, and only put out their max gph when new.
I have both, the W/D is far less maintenance, but the canister is far less a pain in the *** since it doesn't lose suction.
I have both, the W/D is far less maintenance, but the canister is far less a pain in the *** since it doesn't lose suction.
WyldFya;577902; said:It is called a wet DRY because the media thrives in a high oxygen environment, something that canisters lack. In order to do this, the bio-media has to be both wet and dry at times. If the water level was at the very top of the tank, then the media would only be able to get oxygen from the water. This is single factor that makes W/D more efficient than canisters.
im tryin to help this kid im partial wd or canister im just tryin to see whats best
and what i mean by waste of space is imagine in your mind taking that stack of bioballs and what not and puting a identical stack right next to it bam 2x media still gets wed and dry
I'm not saying that canisters aren't the best choice for small tanks. But in the interest of his tank he will be better off with a w/d for a tank that size. Cost is too high for filters that are able to do a tank that large. The FX5 is good, but same issue, there is a ton of foam, but a far smaller amount of bio-media. The Pro 3 is great (I have one) but the cost for one isn't enough for a tank of that size IMO. W/D filters are just better in this scenario IMO.
this imo is a very good and efficent wed dry desighn
compard to the wed dry pic i posted earlyer
what u see in the first pic is the prefilter/trickler
as it falls u get the wet than DRY affect air equals good
then it falls into the main we dry tank and ull notice its full of bio media that equals delicous my freind lots of bio media is good :]
compard to the wed dry pic i posted earlyer
what u see in the first pic is the prefilter/trickler
as it falls u get the wet than DRY affect air equals good
then it falls into the main we dry tank and ull notice its full of bio media that equals delicous my freind lots of bio media is good :]
That is a very good design. The prior posted w/d is not the design I would use. However, if I had that style I would use the second chamber for a refugium.
If you are worried about running the pump dry, the alternative is a sumpless w/d filter. This is done above the tank, and is far more efficient IMO, just not so good looking.Dominuslive;577904;577904 said:
