Matten Filter for 300 - Umbee or Amphilophus heavy stocking

[Yoimbrian]

He didn't give math, but he also said he was giving a shortened response because he is at a conference this week. Hopefully he gives me more details when he gets back. His general logic though was the filters are so good you don't need them that large, and the bacteria adapt as necessary.

And yes, following the math gives larger than 8" for sure.

In the tanks listed above do they ever give the exact size they used? In the bigger one it's more than 8" for sure by the looks, but it's always hard to tell. Also, those tanks you linked don't exactly have sparkling water....

I'd be curious to know if more surface area helps mechanical filtration. I'd be willing to do 10 or 12" instead of 8" if it made the water clearer, but if it doesn't help then wouldn't bother.

Maybe I need to find a German friend to cruise the German forums, probably a lot more data over there....

 

[nzafi]

The 900g is off a website. The MFK member I spoke to and he didnt remember the exact size but confirmed he used the exact calculation I had.

You will not have sparkling water with HMF. You are using PPI that does not clog quickly and sponges act as bio with low turnover, they are better mechanical at high turnover. If you want sparkingling water you will need to go canister or sump.

 

[dogofwar]

No way that I would have thrown out the Poret. Letting it dry thoroughly would have killed anything that could have been on it. If you wanted to be extra sure, you could have soaked it in salt water for a week...

Depending on bio load, Poret needs to be rinsed fairly regularly as it can clog. Rinsing it - even in tap water - doesn't kill the bacteria on it (and these reproduce incredibly fast anyway). Poret coated in crud reduces the amount of bacteria (or nitrifiers like archaea) that can inhabit it, so cleaning can actually result in more of them in short order.

The biggest drawback of Poret in my experience is that cleaning it is exceedingly messy and a PITA. It will dump pounds of crud into the tank when you remove it. I tend to run (air-driven) box filters in the tank to provide mechanical filtration...and siphon the Poret but it's still a mess.

Matt

I am really curious how this will progress. The reason I setup a HMF filter on my 180g was because I plan on setting up a 500-600g tank and was thinking of doing HMF on that to save on cost. Unfortunately my experiment came to an end due to disease and needing to sanitize everything (had to toss my poret foam).

U urodoji seeing you use these exclusively, you have any pros/cons against a sump? I think one thing that stuck out to me was that due to low flow there was significantly more build up of waste on the bottom of the tank. I had a bare bottom so it was very obvious. Not sure I would do that again.

 

[dogofwar]

No way that I would have thrown out the Poret. Letting it dry thoroughly would have killed anything that could have been on it. If you wanted to be extra sure, you could have soaked it in salt water for a week...

Depending on bio load, Poret needs to be rinsed fairly regularly as it can clog. Rinsing it - even in tap water - doesn't kill the bacteria on it (and these reproduce incredibly fast anyway). Poret coated in crud reduces the amount of bacteria (or nitrifiers like archaea) that can inhabit it, so cleaning can actually result in more of them in short order.

The biggest drawback of Poret in my experience is that cleaning it is exceedingly messy and a PITA. It will dump pounds of crud into the tank when you remove it. I tend to run (air-driven) box filters in the tank to provide mechanical filtration...and siphon the Poret but it's still a mess.

Matt

I am really curious how this will progress. The reason I setup a HMF filter on my 180g was because I plan on setting up a 500-600g tank and was thinking of doing HMF on that to save on cost. Unfortunately my experiment came to an end due to disease and needing to sanitize everything (had to toss my poret foam).

U urodoji seeing you use these exclusively, you have any pros/cons against a sump? I think one thing that stuck out to me was that due to low flow there was significantly more build up of waste on the bottom of the tank. I had a bare bottom so it was very obvious. Not sure I would do that again.

 

[Yoimbrian]

I found a very interesting site.

http://fish2water.co.nz/hamburg-matten-filter.php (near the bottom, HMF 2.0!!)

Basically they are saying for larger tanks the debris floating around is indeed a problem, and you need to have higher flow rates to capture it. However, you also want the really low flow rates for the ideal biological filtration, so they split the filter in to two different sides - calling it the HMF 2.0. The mechanical side they cycle 10x per hour, the biological side they cycle 2.5 per hour.

This actually makes the most sense to me honestly, and would be fairly simple to implement. For my tank plan (in wall, so I have plenty of side wall space to use for filters since I only have one viewing side) I would probably design to give myself the most flexibility possible. For example I could have three sections of filters (one entire side wall divided in to two or even three, and then half of the other side wall). 1 of the sections could be 10 or 20 ppi foam, slow moving, NEVER cleaned - that would be the primary bio section. The other two sections could be dual layer of 20ppi and 30ppi, significantly higher flow rate, and plan on alternating cleaning them.

I also like the idea of dividing the side wall into two so it is more manageable sections. If I did a 3" piece of foam that is 24"x30" that is 9 gallons of water - so it would be HEAVY and you'd want to do your best to avoid losing that water into the tank because it will be loaded with the sludge you are trying to remove.

 

[NW Cichlid Keith]

I found a very interesting site.

http://fish2water.co.nz/hamburg-matten-filter.php (near the bottom, HMF 2.0!!)

Basically they are saying for larger tanks the debris floating around is indeed a problem, and you need to have higher flow rates to capture it. However, you also want the really low flow rates for the ideal biological filtration, so they split the filter in to two different sides - calling it the HMF 2.0. The mechanical side they cycle 10x per hour, the biological side they cycle 2.5 per hour.

This actually makes the most sense to me honestly, and would be fairly simple to implement. For my tank plan (in wall, so I have plenty of side wall space to use for filters since I only have one viewing side) I would probably design to give myself the most flexibility possible. For example I could have three sections of filters (one entire side wall divided in to two or even three, and then half of the other side wall). 1 of the sections could be 10 or 20 ppi foam, slow moving, NEVER cleaned - that would be the primary bio section. The other two sections could be dual layer of 20ppi and 30ppi, significantly higher flow rate, and plan on alternating cleaning them.

I also like the idea of dividing the side wall into two so it is more manageable sections. If I did a 3" piece of foam that is 24"x30" that is 9 gallons of water - so it would be HEAVY and you'd want to do your best to avoid losing that water into the tank because it will be loaded with the sludge you are trying to remove.

Very interesting idea. I think I will try something like this in my test case. Since I already have two pieces (3” 10 PPI and 4” 20 PPI) which one would be low flow and which one high flow? I’m thinking the 20 PPI for low flow. If I was building a tank from scratch, I could have it in the middle/back, to look like an overflow (with the two sections described above - low and high flow). Then you wouldn’t see from sides or corner - with the back wall black acrylic. You would give up some space, but just make the tank 6” wider

 

[Yoimbrian]

There is VERY little information that I can find about exact design for larger aquariums. I emailed the Fish2Water company, we'll see if they respond with advice.

For you I think 20 ppi is a very standard media and would be good for low flow. Set that part up and never touch it again.

High flow is the part I am trying to figure out. If you look at mat filter sump designs I feel they would be a good basis for high flow - most people with sumps go 5-10 turnovers per hour through their sump and thus have high linear velocity (probably way higher velocity than an in-tank filter because sumps usually have a much smaller cross-sectional area). In those designs it is standard to step up through the different porosities; such as 10 then 20 then 30 then 40.

http://fish2water.co.nz/filtration-design.php

I don't see why you couldn't apply that same logic to an internal matten filter.

Honestly I'll probably end just experimenting with it myself. Run the high flow part with variable speed powerheads, with the goal of balancing clear water with plugging (likely lowest flow rate possible and still have clear water). And then same thing with the filters, since they are primarily mechanical you can switch them out without crashing the tank, so maybe just buy a bunch of pieces and see what works best. It would cost a little more money than necessary, but once you find out what works best the extra foam could be used for other tanks or sold.

 

[dogofwar]

I use relatively slow flow for Poret.

Using it for high flow / mechanical uses is going to be a PITA. Much better to use other filtration that's easier to clean (I use air-driven box filters).

 

[NW Cichlid Keith]

I use relatively slow flow for Poret.

Using it for high flow / mechanical uses is going to be a PITA. Much better to use other filtration that's easier to clean (I use air-driven box filters).

Are you aware of an air driven box Filter big enough to keep a big tank clear? I tried two of the biggest (not that big though) that I could find and they didn’t do much good on my 300.

 

[NW Cichlid Keith]

I found a very interesting site.

http://fish2water.co.nz/hamburg-matten-filter.php (near the bottom, HMF 2.0!!)

Basically they are saying for larger tanks the debris floating around is indeed a problem, and you need to have higher flow rates to capture it. However, you also want the really low flow rates for the ideal biological filtration, so they split the filter in to two different sides - calling it the HMF 2.0. The mechanical side they cycle 10x per hour, the biological side they cycle 2.5 per hour.

This actually makes the most sense to me honestly, and would be fairly simple to implement. For my tank plan (in wall, so I have plenty of side wall space to use for filters since I only have one viewing side) I would probably design to give myself the most flexibility possible. For example I could have three sections of filters (one entire side wall divided in to two or even three, and then half of the other side wall). 1 of the sections could be 10 or 20 ppi foam, slow moving, NEVER cleaned - that would be the primary bio section. The other two sections could be dual layer of 20ppi and 30ppi, significantly higher flow rate, and plan on alternating cleaning them.

I also like the idea of dividing the side wall into two so it is more manageable sections. If I did a 3" piece of foam that is 24"x30" that is 9 gallons of water - so it would be HEAVY and you'd want to do your best to avoid losing that water into the tank because it will be loaded with the sludge you are trying to remove.

Anyone know why you want only 2.5x tank turnover flow for the biological and higher for mechanical - Vs just high for both with the larger mechanical in front? Even at 10x suggested for mechanical - water is moving faster in my canister filters and they handle biological filtration just fine.