Amount of Bio-Media

[aaronb]

2 rays - 8"
2 arrows - 6"
2 pbass - 4"

i have other tanks i'm going to move them to as they get bigger.

With those sizes and if you're really moving them around when they get bigger I'd say you have plenty of filtration. I guess it depends on how big you're going to let them get before moving them. You might want to get another bass because they work better in groups of at least 3.

 

[shellies215]

Way to pimp that wet/dry! The 4 fx5 suggestion was an exaggeration based on the assumption he was way overstocked. Do I seriously have to spell that out for you?

Yes, I realize the 4 fx5's was a joke, but my comment about adding 20 was not directed at you. I was trying to explain that while fx5's are good,big mech. filters, the flow rate limits their bio efficiency, and a wet dry would be a more efficient solution.

 

[aaronb]

Yes, I realize the 4 fx5's was a joke, but my comment about adding 20 was not directed at you. I was trying to explain that while fx5's are good,big mech. filters, the flow rate limits their bio efficiency, and a wet dry would be a more efficient solution.

Touche!

 

[aaronb]

Yes, I realize the 4 fx5's was a joke, but my comment about adding 20 was not directed at you. I was trying to explain that while fx5's are good,big mech. filters, the flow rate limits their bio efficiency, and a wet dry would be a more efficient solution.

I actually think the fx5 does a good job on bio. I do understand the slow flowrate idea. I have wondered though if there really is the much loss in bio filtering with the faater flow rate. I thought even though it's less efficient that since it has more chances to filter it might be even or close.

 

[shellies215]

I'm sure the fx5 does a sufficient job of bio filtering, and there's room in there for tons of bio media, but the water has to be in contact with the bacteria long enough for it to process dissolved metabolites, and an fx5 isn't the ideal place for this to happen. It works, but other things work better, like a wet/dry trickle or a fluidized sand bed filter.

 

[aaronb]

Well from the way you make it sound anyone using an fx5 should always have ammonia and nitrites in their water because the bacteria doesn't have time to process it all. I know that's not the case. That's why I said maybe since the water goes through the filter more it gets it all because of more opportunity. I said I understood the wet/dry was more efficient. I just said I wondered if lack in efficiency was made up in overall operation of the filter.

 

[shellies215]

Hmmmm, I said I'm sure an fx5 is sufficient. Do you know what the word sufficient means? Where did I say anything about tanks with fx5' will have ammonia and nitrates? I didn't. Please don't take my words out of context. I never said fx5s don't do bio. I said there's other stuff that does it better.

 

[aaronb]

Well did you just ignore part of my previous comment so you could only pimp a wet/dry and fluidized bed? I said I understood the slow flow rate so I know a wet / dry is more efficient. You said the bacteria needed time which the fx5 wasn't the best environment for that. That led me to believe that you meant it wasn't removing everything. If a filter is removing all ammonia and nitrites it's hard to argue what filter is better or worse. It's only opinion at that point.

 

[shellies215]

First off, I'm not "pimping" anything, nor am I trying to downplay the fx5, but no matter what I have to say you're going to argue.

 

[aaronb]

It's cute the way you argue and then blame the other person. I started off with an observation that I said I wasn't sure of. I just thought it seemed like you didn't understand what I was saying or didn't care. The way you were talking made it seem like you only wanted to talk up how great a wet/dry is. If that's not the case you probably should figure out a better way of communicating. I'm sorry I misunderstood you whether your fault or mine.