All points have there merit, but I think my point was to state that running them inline was to try to maximize filter media on a given amount of gallons and not increasing flow rate. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. Considering raising Piranhas I don't think you can over do the filtration the more the better. so if you can't run sumps for one reason or another I run canisters inline for my application It works great for me. Yes I agree canisters are not designed to run inline, but I like trying something out of the norm. Thanks to all for there in put its been great.
True Piranhas
- Thread starter big tank 135
- Start date
But you also have to understand that if one of those canister filters that are inline pump breaks or shuts down, your other filtered will automatically be forced to push water though a dead non moving pump and can stress and overheat the good pumps that are still working. For example you could never get away with doing inline with Fluval FX5. These filters shut themselves down to purge air trapped inside. You will never have all 3 filters inline shut down at the same time and restart at the same time. I believe I have a very good point and am hoping you run any canister filter you have the way it was designed to be set up. Your point in saying you would like try try new things out of the normal but it would be like me saying I will buy a car and run it with one tire flat and see how that turns out. Its all about being most efficient. If you think running canister filters inline is a good idea, dont you think most serious fish-keepers would have done it by now and tell everyone that is a good trick or idea. P.S. Why am I such a Fish Nerd? 
Point well taking, and you could be totally right and could apply to a lot of things.but all I can say is that I have 3 running inline with each other for about a year now with no problem at all, and it all works.
if you want to max out the media in those filters you can use one for mechanical filtration and others load with bio media only.
if you do not wish to increase the total float you can consider something like this:
place one filter intake in the tank, outlet in a sump (can be an old tank, clean rubbermaid container, clean garbage can, etc you get the idea.) second filter has both intake and outlet in the sump, third filter has intake in the sump and outlet in your main tank.
you can load the first filter with mechanical media and load second and third filter with bio media. this way you'll have same float as a single filter by maxing out the filter capacity of each media type.
it'll be similar like a wet/dry setup without getting an overflow and return pump (if you already have 3 ehiem)
The sump doesn't need to be big since you don't have to worry about overflow in the even of power outage but you need to make sure the intake flow = the output flow because different media will have different restrictions, especially when they start get clog up with debris.
there's also the risk in the event of filter number 1 and 3 malfunctions, then you'll either have a flood or two filters will be running dry and burns out.
to be on the safe side that you should run those canisters as they are designed.
but it's your tank and your filters so it's totally up to you.
if you do not wish to increase the total float you can consider something like this:
place one filter intake in the tank, outlet in a sump (can be an old tank, clean rubbermaid container, clean garbage can, etc you get the idea.) second filter has both intake and outlet in the sump, third filter has intake in the sump and outlet in your main tank.
you can load the first filter with mechanical media and load second and third filter with bio media. this way you'll have same float as a single filter by maxing out the filter capacity of each media type.
it'll be similar like a wet/dry setup without getting an overflow and return pump (if you already have 3 ehiem)
The sump doesn't need to be big since you don't have to worry about overflow in the even of power outage but you need to make sure the intake flow = the output flow because different media will have different restrictions, especially when they start get clog up with debris.
there's also the risk in the event of filter number 1 and 3 malfunctions, then you'll either have a flood or two filters will be running dry and burns out.
to be on the safe side that you should run those canisters as they are designed.
but it's your tank and your filters so it's totally up to you.
It's called tinkering with the norm, where is it written that you can't do this. different people are saying that this is not the best thing to do and it can break down ect, that apply's to all tank filters. So the point in hand here is that this all works and it does a great job that's the bottom line, who cares how canisters are to be used you could line up lets say 10 of these things under a tank with one intake and one exhaust in the tank and this system will do a magnificent job period.
this is the strangest thread i've read in awhile. How can someone say you have good points but then completely disregard them? I guess it's your money and your tanks so do as you please but i don't see the point of getting less out of the equipment you've dropped good money on. Sure it's out of the norm but at what cause? i think the advantages of running them the way they were designed to be used outweights the advantages of running them inline.
I can't see the disadvantage in running them either way. whether by itself or a bunch in line. I think every one is over looking something here. for the sake of discussion and taking into account every thing that has been said, where going to use a 135 gal tank no gravel in this tank, just a glass bottom. The idea behind this set up is not to have all kinds of intakes and exhaust lines in the tank, but to create a big nullifying bacteria bed.So it's a spin off of the in tank bottom filter that happens outside of the tank.I'm sure there are other ways,this is just the way I'm doing it and it works great.
you don't see the turnover rate being significantly less as a disadvantage? i'm not talking like 20 percent less, we're looking at atleast 50 percent less
No because this system is not totally concerned with turnover rate, it's to create a bacteria bed.depending on what you use in these canisters can effect turnover rate so the choice has to be right but in numbers this is where you get the filtration.
hahaha, it's yes or no...i totally get what you're saying, you're viewing a potential bigger more stable bacteria bed as an advantage...on the flip side of the same coin...the lower turnover rate would be an a disadvantage. just one example since you claim you don't see ANY disadvantages to either way of running the canisters.
