Ceramic Rings - Are they all the SAME?

[Sheldon_Goldwing]

Okay,

I read the Filtering 101 and many ‘media’ posts but I can’t seem to find if all Ceramic Rings are basically the same? If so they sell them by volume, weight, etc so it is hard for me to know which is the best deal. Is the 1 liter from RENA the same buy as the pouch from Cascade? Are the Fluval 500 grams/17 oz more than RENA’s 1 liter? Should I consider a different one altogether?

It is going in my new XP4 (Which arrived Saturday but was damaged. - Broken in several places on the pump where the gasket meets the filter stuff missing in the box – very sad.)

I plan on using the Foam pads it was suppose to come with but did not, the handful of Stars they sent with some Ceramic Rings I need to buy. On the top two trays I want to use Matrix and Purigen.

Anyway, please help me if you can. Thanks!
Sheldon

 

[Chizzle]

They are basically the same. I got 15 lbs from a friend that bought his from Charlie and the Fish Tank Factory. Cost around $4/lb. A lot better than buying fluval for ~$10/lb.

 

[ziggy2]

I agree, they are all about the same. You pay a lot for the brand name.

 

[aclockworkorange]

They aren't the same if we're talking about surface area.

 

[Joe M]

They aren't the same if we're talking about surface area.

I agree. I recently realized that my uncle was using all prefilter rings in his sump. They have very little surface area compared to actual rings meant for bio, and Ive seen people confuse the two all the time.

 

[Burto]

For all the manufacturers' talk of surface area and the claim or insinuation that more surface area = better filter media, I've never seen any evidence substantiating it. Is the internal surface area of sintered glass and ceramic media even accessible? Does it clog and become inaccessible? If so how long does that take?
No doubt a litre of matrix has more surface area than a litre of pot scrubbers, but is it actually a better biological filter media? If it is, how can we prove that? Comparing surface areas doesn't substantiate performance as filter media.

Further, if a media has a given amount of surface area, how much is actually needed? How much is enough and how much is just a waste of space and money?

Posted on mobile.monsterfishkeepers.com

 

[Red_Belly_Pacu]

A vendor here is selling ceramic rings for about $3-$4 a pound. He stated that he can get cheaper ceramic rings with less pores in them for about $1 a pound. So in his view, some ceramic rings are of lower quality.

 

[calioutlaw1a]

For all the manufacturers' talk of surface area and the claim or insinuation that more surface area = better filter media, I've never seen any evidence substantiating it. Is the internal surface area of sintered glass and ceramic media even accessible? Does it clog and become inaccessible? If so how long does that take?
No doubt a litre of matrix has more surface area than a litre of pot scrubbers, but is it actually a better biological filter media? If it is, how can we prove that? Comparing surface areas doesn't substantiate performance as filter media.

Further, if a media has a given amount of surface area, how much is actually needed? How much is enough and how much is just a waste of space and money?

Posted on mobile.monsterfishkeepers.com

You bring up a good point, and one that is often overlooked. Different medias with varying amounts of porosity are available, but it turns out that pores greater than 0.4 microns allow for enough water penetration to bring nutrients to bacteria, and therefore any pores less than 0.4 microns are biologically useless.

For further reading: http://www.seachem.com/support/SpecificSurface.pdf

As far as clogging of media goes, as long as the media is placed after sufficient mechanical filtration this should never be an issue. Very small particles that could potentially lodge in the media should be broken down fairly rapidly, and themselves provide surface area for bacteria to grow while breaking it down.

The amount of media needed is based on bioload, though manufacturers provide rough estimates based on tank size. I've never actually seen any research to show the amount of surface area needed, though this can be determined by trial and error by us.

This is an interesting point though, because many of us debate about one filter being better than another based on the amount of biomedia it can hold. For example, many argue that the Eheim 2262 is better than the FX5 because it can hold more biomedia. However, no one has ever shown that this extra media is necessary.

 

[KaiserSousay]

However, no one has ever shown that this extra media is necessary.

Even if you had "hard science" to back that up, there are many who would not believe it.

I`m pretty sure, that for the avarage tank, you wouldn`t notice any difference between all the different ceramic medias performance.

 

[aclockworkorange]

However, no one has ever shown that this extra media is necessary.

Even if you had "hard science" to back that up, there are many who would not believe it.

I`m pretty sure, that for the avarage tank, you wouldn`t notice any difference between all the different ceramic medias performance.

Yup, I didn't want to get too involved in this thread but I would have to agree. It's not like more bio media than necessary does anything--your BB colony will only grow as large as its food source of your tank bioload. Unless you are really overstocked, I don't think it would be an issue. I mean, a single decent sized sponge filter can handle pretty massive bioloads by itself.
But, I will admit guilt to buying nice ceramic media anyway.
Next FX5 I fill I'm goin' the cheap route.