nc_nutcase;3394433; said:
this seems like a pretty good test to prove his theory.
http://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=68458
FX5 + Modification
- Thread starter rasa92re
- Start date
this seems like a pretty good test to prove his theory.
http://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=68458
The1and only;3394512; said:
A very impressive comparative test with a lot of useful information…
Although I do not see how the biological comparison done in that thread has much practical value at all… There are numerous non filter related factors that could have influenced the results… and not very many filter related ones…
The key factors to increasing the bacteria population would be oxygenation and temperature… neither filter does anything to oxygenate the water at the intake nor within the filter… there was no mention of the experimental set up concerning potential oxygenation nor temperature control… It does seem like the authors were doing their best to offer a fair comparison and I am not challenging them on that, but since available surface area is the formidable difference, and in neither case was even a fraction of the available surface area populated with bacteria… I don’t see what that test was trying to prove…
Further more even if it is infallibly true that the Eheim can better serve the first week of a fishless cycle, does that mean a darn thing about use beyond the cycling period? For example a 2 gal wet dry would serve the first week of a fishless cycle far better than either of these filters… but may prove almost useless on a 500 gallon tank in the long run…
While I am not suggesting the Eheim isn’t a wonderful filter, nor am I arguing that either is a better filter… My argument is either filter, as originally designed to be used, will be able to offer healthy biological filtration to a well stocked tank provided the tank has been properly cycled…
…And the author of this thread would be better served to maximize the design of the filter he has as opposed to trying to twist it into the filter he doesn’t have…
Nutcase is right. I am going to major in cellular biology and the experiment does not factor in temperature, 02 saturation, and even ambient temperature (which could cause water temp. fluctuations in the long run). I want something that would maximize efficiency. I think that I am simply going to fill the FX5 with Eheim Substrat Pro and provide the maximum amount of surface area for the BB. I am just preparing for a potentially heavy bioload. I am on a tight fish budget so I need simplicity to achieve superior biological filtration.
The Eheim has a lower flow velocity through its media where as the Fx5 has a much higher velocity which can reduce the contact time with the media.
NC, on a bare tank, the Eheim 2080 did beat the Fx5 in bio filtration during the cycle period. Why? Well, the Eheim has more media, more cross sectional surface area and a lower flow all resulting in a lower flow velocity. Whether you want to say there are unnoticed factors that played in this role, the factors I mentioned could produce the result in this situation
Jgray152;3395100; said:
How much contact time does it take for bacteria to consume ammonia from the water?
Basically there will be a point where water moves past the bacteria too quickly for it to remove the ammonia (or nitrites) from the water... At that point the bacteria will starve at that location. The FX5 does not move water at a high enough velocity for this to be the case...
Up to that point there is water available with a given concentration of ammonia (or nitrite) therefore it has the same opportunity to be effective...
On the contrary if the water moves through at a slower rate, and the bacteria in the front of the filter eats all the ammonia from the water column... then there will be no ammonia in the water to feed bacteria in the back of the filter thus "Bio Media" in the back of the filter will be wasted space/investment...
You are building off of a commonly misunderstood internet myth on that point... feel free to research it ;-)
Jgray152;3395100; said:
What this test "proved" is : In which tank did the bacteria have a higher doubling time?
Since in neither tank was even a mere fraction of the available "surface area" in either filter used to capacity (to convert one dose of 4ppm), available surface area did not play a role in any way...
Velocity may have, but if you do the research suggested above to attempt to prove me wrong, you will learn that my point above is correct which renders this aspect irrelevant...
The temperature and oxygen become the two major influences on doubling time... Or the initial introduction of the bacteria that was required to start the cycle. One tank being closer to a door, a window, or a vent could have made a world of difference and gone unnoticed.
Thus, although many aspects of the above mentioned comparison are very worthwhile... the aspect of comparing "Biological Filtration" proved absolutely nothing... at least nothing of value outside of the lab it was tested in...
PS -
As I often feel the need to clarify, please do not take this personal. I am challenging theories… not people…
How do you know this? The cross section of the bio compartment for the Fx5 is only 6". Stuff that with bio media and you loose that area to only the voids between the media. This will force the flow to speed up must faster at 600 GPH than the 2080 at 300 GPH with it's larger available area.
I bet that not all of the ammonia, depending on the concentration will be consumed by the BB on the first pass.
What "myth" are you referring too? The myth that you are trying to bust in your thread? Or the so called myth saying water moving slower will allow the BB to be more efficient the first pass?
I have done lots of research months and months ago when this subject came up.
Maybe someone spit in the tank too and no one noticed or maybe a fly died in the tank and sped the process up, your trying to put more and more factors into play here. Yes they could make a difference but there is a LARGE significant difference in those two filters and why and how they perform.
I wouldn't say it proved nothing. Since there are very large significant differences between the filtration, it opens doors to possibilities.
Jgray, it felt like you took that disagreement a bit personal. I have no desire to argue… but am very willing to discuss differences of interpretations…
If bacteria is stuck to a surface in a filter… it is removing ammonia (or nitrite) in passing water… as long as the passing water has ammonia (or nitrite) in it the bacteria will be consuming it thus reducing the ammonia (or nitrite) in the passing water…
If water moves faster… the rate per minute the bacteria consumes will not decrease… although the rate per volume will decrease…
At some point the water will move too fast for the bacteria to “catch” the ammonia (or nitrite) and that point the bacteria at that location will suffer and die, while bacteria elsewhere will increase to “pick up the slack“.
The FX5 does not move water this fast. I know this because water treatment plants have used higher rates of water movement with success… I have used higher rates of water movement with success… and many many users have used the FX5 with success…
The “Myth” I am referring to is that water will move past bacteria so fast that it’s consuming rate will be reduced but not stopped… It’s simply not true that our filters function at such rates. If I am wrong please share some links to some scientific research that suggests otherwise. As if I am wrong I would sincerely like to be corrected.
As for your “spit in the tank or flies died” contribution… there is no need to forego logic and science. Please review my above comments and reply logically, scientifically or not at all. My points were scientific and logical… let’s keep this mature…
I would say it proved nothing and I explained in great detail why. The only counter that you offered above is that velocity may inhibit bacteria’s capacity to remove ammonia/nitrite, which I countered… The ball is in your court…
If bacteria is stuck to a surface in a filter… it is removing ammonia (or nitrite) in passing water… as long as the passing water has ammonia (or nitrite) in it the bacteria will be consuming it thus reducing the ammonia (or nitrite) in the passing water…
If water moves faster… the rate per minute the bacteria consumes will not decrease… although the rate per volume will decrease…
At some point the water will move too fast for the bacteria to “catch” the ammonia (or nitrite) and that point the bacteria at that location will suffer and die, while bacteria elsewhere will increase to “pick up the slack“.
The FX5 does not move water this fast. I know this because water treatment plants have used higher rates of water movement with success… I have used higher rates of water movement with success… and many many users have used the FX5 with success…
The “Myth” I am referring to is that water will move past bacteria so fast that it’s consuming rate will be reduced but not stopped… It’s simply not true that our filters function at such rates. If I am wrong please share some links to some scientific research that suggests otherwise. As if I am wrong I would sincerely like to be corrected.
As for your “spit in the tank or flies died” contribution… there is no need to forego logic and science. Please review my above comments and reply logically, scientifically or not at all. My points were scientific and logical… let’s keep this mature…
I would say it proved nothing and I explained in great detail why. The only counter that you offered above is that velocity may inhibit bacteria’s capacity to remove ammonia/nitrite, which I countered… The ball is in your court…
Yes water treatment plants move lots more water but there is also a much larger cross section area, larger volume of media and probably more contact time. You can have a high velocity of say 20 inches per second but still have the same contact time as velocity at 2 inches per second, just depends on how long the bio media compartment is.
So you agree that a filter with a slower velocity is more efficient at removing toxins in one pass than a filter with a higher velocity?
A filter moving 600 GPH compared to a filter moving 300 GPH will introduce more toxin volume into the filter therefor redesigning the the higher flowing filter will allow it to be more efficient on a single pass by removing more toxins per volume.
The Fx5 was designed kinda, backwards in its efficiency. Higher Flow Volume, Reduced Cross section area, increased velocity does not allow the filter to be very efficient at removing large volumes of toxins. Many of the toxins will pass right by the BB. Eheim 2080, 2260, 2262 are designed to remove large amounts of toxins in the first pass.
The obvious can't be ignored between the two filters. We have to understand as well that there were no bacteria to begin with in these filters.
I would rather design a filter to be more "single pass" efficient then design a filter that takes more passes to do the same work as the single pass efficient filter, with a slower flow and less energy consumption. Might as well get a Eheim 2080 and one power head which would kick the Fx5 in the butt.
Now lets pretend this aquarium has nothing but fish and the glass is scrubbed every day and there is a heavy stock in the tank. Almost any filter with bio media will work but I always prefer one that is more efficient.
BTW, I didn't take anything personal, its just how I type for some reason. So don't take what I type personal either
Also, I like your thread so I put it in my sig.
Tones do not transfer in text, so it’s easy to misunderstand moods… So since we are both smiling as we discuss a complex topic, I welcome the discourse
The “myth” I referenced a few posts up, and one I feel much of your current debate is embracing… is that bacteria are in any way inhibited by the higher flow rates found in some of our aquarium filters…
Bacteria consume ammonia (or nitrite) at a given rate per minute… So if 1 gallon of water passes by the bacteria in a minute… or if 10 gallons pass by the bacteria in a minute… the bacteria will consume the same amount of ammonia (or nitrite)…
Looking at that detail you are correct to conclude that when this takes place in a filter a higher % of the ammonia (or nitrite) in the water is removed per gallon treated at a lower flow rate… But more gallons are treated at the higher flow rate… Therefore each has an advantage…
When the two advantages are compared they will completely balance, because, as initially stated… Bacteria consume ammonia (or nitrite) at a given rate per minute…
I have to add in here, there is not your typical “quality vs. quantity” debate, as the quantity improves the quality… and as stated above, the two will perfectly balance at the end of the equation… This is not to say the FX5 and the Eheim will perfectly balance… it is to say two filters with different flow rates and different internal designs will completely balance if they contain the same quantity of bacteria.
I spoke with a friend (my girlfriend actually) who works at a Biology lab at a local university doing research with fruit flies and bacteria… and she suggested that bacteria would be able to remove ammonia (or nitrite) from the water flow at rates up to the approx rate it would take to dislodge the bacteria from it’s surface. She also pointed out that if for some reason the bacteria was unable to obtain ammonia (or nitrite) or otherwise get any of it’s needs met, it would simply “let go” and ride the current to a more suitable location. If it didn’t like where it landed, it would swim to a more suitable location. Yes, most bacterium, including all three genus’ of Ammonia Oxidizing Bacteria, can swim - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagella
I completely follow the line of thought you are using, and I agree that it is completely logical. But it is built on the assumption that the consumption rate of bacteria are influenced by the flow rates found within our aquarium filters… which is not a true assumption…
Rasa, if this tangent is in any way preventing you from having your questions answered, please let us know. I'm sure Jgray would be happy to take our debate to a different location/thread if need be
(which I admit we should have done anyway)
The “myth” I referenced a few posts up, and one I feel much of your current debate is embracing… is that bacteria are in any way inhibited by the higher flow rates found in some of our aquarium filters…
Bacteria consume ammonia (or nitrite) at a given rate per minute… So if 1 gallon of water passes by the bacteria in a minute… or if 10 gallons pass by the bacteria in a minute… the bacteria will consume the same amount of ammonia (or nitrite)…
Looking at that detail you are correct to conclude that when this takes place in a filter a higher % of the ammonia (or nitrite) in the water is removed per gallon treated at a lower flow rate… But more gallons are treated at the higher flow rate… Therefore each has an advantage…
When the two advantages are compared they will completely balance, because, as initially stated… Bacteria consume ammonia (or nitrite) at a given rate per minute…
I have to add in here, there is not your typical “quality vs. quantity” debate, as the quantity improves the quality… and as stated above, the two will perfectly balance at the end of the equation… This is not to say the FX5 and the Eheim will perfectly balance… it is to say two filters with different flow rates and different internal designs will completely balance if they contain the same quantity of bacteria.
I spoke with a friend (my girlfriend actually) who works at a Biology lab at a local university doing research with fruit flies and bacteria… and she suggested that bacteria would be able to remove ammonia (or nitrite) from the water flow at rates up to the approx rate it would take to dislodge the bacteria from it’s surface. She also pointed out that if for some reason the bacteria was unable to obtain ammonia (or nitrite) or otherwise get any of it’s needs met, it would simply “let go” and ride the current to a more suitable location. If it didn’t like where it landed, it would swim to a more suitable location. Yes, most bacterium, including all three genus’ of Ammonia Oxidizing Bacteria, can swim - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagella
I completely follow the line of thought you are using, and I agree that it is completely logical. But it is built on the assumption that the consumption rate of bacteria are influenced by the flow rates found within our aquarium filters… which is not a true assumption…
Rasa, if this tangent is in any way preventing you from having your questions answered, please let us know. I'm sure Jgray would be happy to take our debate to a different location/thread if need be
(which I admit we should have done anyway)Nutcase, I feel this discussion is not a tangent but is widely desired. I would prefer it happen on my thread, where in a quick search FX5 users will happily find information that will help them conclude what is the best way of going about in maximizing their filter's efficiency.
