is it better to flow more gph over filter media. ie; if i hook a 800gph pump to my 180gph fluval canister and flow 800gph over the media will it have a negative effect on BB or will the amount of BB be able to convert the harmful toxins in the water moving that fast, i mean i geuss it will be the same amount of amonia and nitrites but would this actually turnover the water in my tank as a larger filter would?
is more gph better?
- Thread starter whatsepultra
- Start date
This is definitely a topic for debate. I would really try to design my turnover rate to manage the debris and detritus. Get enough flow to clean to your liking and leave it at that.
I would not recommend adding an additional pump to your canister filter. Is it broken?
I would not recommend adding an additional pump to your canister filter. Is it broken?
its not broken just 180 gph isnt much and its not my only filter but i would like to have a really good diy filter im on a budget i wouldnt be runnig the fluval pump at the same time just the higher gph pump i have a large oscar and two jack dempseys and they are very messy eaters my tank is always clean and im bored so i want a really bad ass filter dont ask me why. i would just buy a larger tank to support my addiction but i live on the 2nd story of an old apt building floor might cave in lol it sucks!!!
It is a very bad idea to put an 800 gph pump on a cansiter that is designed with a 180 gph pump in it...
The seals on the 180 gph canister are not designed to withstand the pressure caused by an 800 gph pump...
There is little available "fact" readily available regarding "maximum flow rates" for Ammonia/Nitrite oxidizing bacteria to function at...
When having this conversation, we must keep in mind that the velocity of the water is not determined by gph alone... it is determined by gph per volume...
This means, if you push 100 gph through a 1/4" diamter tube, it will move at a much higher velocity (or speed if you will...) than if you push 100 gph through a 10" diameter tube...
Based on the information I've found... it would take a velocity far greater than anything we create in our filters to move the water through media "to fast" for our bacteria to do it's job...
The seals on the 180 gph canister are not designed to withstand the pressure caused by an 800 gph pump...
There is little available "fact" readily available regarding "maximum flow rates" for Ammonia/Nitrite oxidizing bacteria to function at...
When having this conversation, we must keep in mind that the velocity of the water is not determined by gph alone... it is determined by gph per volume...
This means, if you push 100 gph through a 1/4" diamter tube, it will move at a much higher velocity (or speed if you will...) than if you push 100 gph through a 10" diameter tube...
Based on the information I've found... it would take a velocity far greater than anything we create in our filters to move the water through media "to fast" for our bacteria to do it's job...
whatsepultra;3547354; said:
DO I see another setup?? I mean that in 2 different ways. Haha J/K
I think there would definitley be a max flow that the BB would no longer benifit from the water movement. I think at the example given you woul blow it all out and it would end up in the water and possibly be on the walls of your tank unless the flow was still so great that it never has a chance to colonize on a surface. Aeration is important, but I am sure it can be over done.
When thinking of high pressure or massive water flow I think of whitewater rivers. So this is an interesting topic. Although I think it is hard to use that for an example because of the constant "water change" in affect.
I am interested if there are any actual reports on this. As I am waiting for other responses I might just start a search for this
there would be, but it would be tough to quantify.
the slower the flow rate the more contact time the bacteria have with the available ammonia so the greater the reduction.
however, you can't go too slow as the dissolved oxygen would be depleted and not replenished by new water quickly enough if the flow is quite low.
so there is a balance here.
trickle filters (as an example) work by getting the best of both worlds here - lots of contact time, but still lots of D.O. because the media is exposed directly to air and the water falling onto it picks up D.O. as it falls.
as far as blowing bacteria off media, the water pressure would have to be quite high for this to occur. bacteria stick quite well to media and to each other (via their peptidoglycan layer on their cell walls - makes them sticky) so I doubt even putting a stronger pump would blow bacteria out.
however, you may find that ammonia removal efficiency is reduced from the reduced contract time. but you many not.
think of bacteria as a magnet. think of ammonia as a nail.
and you are throwing the nail past the magnet.
which is more likely to make the nail stick to the magnet?
a fast throw or a slow throw?
the slow one.
however, you get more throws with a fast throw than a slow throw..so you probably get the nail stuck anyway. it just took more tries.
thats sort of one way to think about it. lol
so, its impossible to say whether you will see any change. on one hand, contract time is reduced. however, the given amount of ammonia per liter of water has many more passes over the bacteria per hour than with the slower pump, so you may get the same removal anyway. you can't really tell...
its tough to say really.
I would be concerned about the filter seals being able to handle the extra pressure though. you would be trying to pump more water through the same tube/filter case and that means the pressure will go up. you may risk a canister leak that way.
so I probably wouldn't do it.
hope this helps
-12 Volt
I'll admit first off i haven't completely read the thread concerning overdoing bio or any of the flow-rate topics of late but, is there a common consensus on turnover rate based on surface area and stock? ex. My 300 is heavily stocked and i run a 55gal sump w/ 250 scrubbies, bio balls that take up an area of about 28"x12"x10" (piled on top of the scrubbies), w/ a mag 24 returning @ 4' of head. i do 50% wc 2x a week. it seems completely adequate. does this sound sufficient? i honestly never use test kits unless i have problem, which are very few and far between, so i can't tell you parameters.
I am the same way. I literally haven't done a water test in years. I have them all on hand, but they collect dust. I change my tank weekly and things stay stable..
the thing is, I never have water quality issues because I change the water religiously. but I have had issues when I have added medications that wiped out my biofilter. that was probaby the last time I did a test LOL
12 Volt Man;3549786; said:
agreed. IMO most (99%) problems can be eliminated with proper quarantine and religious water changes. if i think anything at all is looking odd i do a big (60%) every couple days. I think it's Nic who's always ranting about K.I.S.S.
and i agree 100%