Help me decide brand of filter and heater, please :)

[Harry Muscle]

I'm hoping to go shopping for some of the equipment I will need for my new
planted 55G tank and I'm having a really hard time deciding which brand of
filter and heater to go with. I know I want a canister filter ... they seem
to be the best you can get, and I've narrowed it down to two brands:

Eheim Ecco 2231 (or maybe 2233)
OR
Filstar XP1 (or maybe XP2)

I like the Filstar cause they provide way more gph than the Ecco, they're
also a little bit cheaper, and I believe they hold more media, however,
Eheim seems to be king of canister filters. Anyway, looking for input to
help me decide.

Same dilemma with the heaters, I got it narrowed down, but can't decide. I
need a heater to backup my 100W substrate heating cables, and here are the
choices:

Ebo-Jager 50W
OR
Tronic 50W

I like the Tronic cause it's solid state, no contacts to stick, etc., which
means that if it fails, there's a better chance it will fail OFF. However,
once again, Ebo-Jager seems to be king of the heater world.

Thanks,
Harry

P.S. If you're wondering why I'm going with so little heating, check out:

http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Lab/2024/thermo1.html
http://www.kernsanalysis.com/HeaterCalculator.cgi

apparently all I need is around 125W.




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[NetMax]

"Harry Muscle" > wrote in message
...
> I'm hoping to go shopping for some of the equipment I will need for my
new
> planted 55G tank and I'm having a really hard time deciding which brand
of
> filter and heater to go with. I know I want a canister filter ... they
seem
> to be the best you can get, and I've narrowed it down to two brands:

What gets reported by people about their filters gets outdated very
quickly as manufacturer's release hardware revisions correcting any
problems found. Many of these revisions are not evident in the model
number. Check out the Fluval 304 or 404. The latest model has MSF
stamped on the chassis and uses cantilevered handles. This is what I
would purchase at this time.

With canisters, gph is not an indicator of quality. I have an Eheim
which runs 2X tank gph and it works fine. Filtering efficiency is not
determined by gph. In fact, low gph is often to your advantage, once you
have met the minimum flow needed to perform your mechanical pick-up
power, and create enough turbulence to have a uniform water temperature.
With canisters, torque would be a useful specification (the ability to
maintain a flowrate while the media fills and begins to slow things
down). Unfortunately, torque is not a published spec and the closest
equivilant (head pressure) is not really applicable to closed systems
like canisters.

> Same dilemma with the heaters, I got it narrowed down, but can't
decide. I
> need a heater to backup my 100W substrate heating cables, and here are
the
> choices:
>
> Ebo-Jager 50W
> OR
> Tronic 50W

Submersible heaters come in 2 flavours, analog or digital thermostats.
Other specs of interest are (in descending priority) temperature
stability, glass thickness, and temperature accuracy. In some cases,
overall size can be very important as well. The types I use are Thermal,
Tronic and Rena. None are as good as you would like, nor as bad as
anyone can claim ;~) I do like the Tronic because whenever I forget to
turn off the heater when servicing a tank (and the water level drops
below the heater), the Tronic automatical switches off. As long as I
don't let cold water contact the glass when it's hot, the heater will
reset itself and work properly (it doesn't burn itself out). It does
leave a slight burnt ozone smell in the air to remind me of the stupid
thing I've done (forgetting to unplug it), but since it's right, I can't
complain.

NetMax

[Sue]

>
> Eheim Ecco 2231 (or maybe 2233)
> OR
> Filstar XP1 (or maybe XP2)
>
> I like the Filstar cause they provide way more gph than the Ecco, they're
> also a little bit cheaper, and I believe they hold more media, however,
> Eheim seems to be king of canister filters. Anyway, looking for input to
> help me decide.

Eheims are considered pretty reliable but can't help you choose as I've not
used the other.
I always use two filters on my larger tanks.
> Same dilemma with the heaters, I got it narrowed down, but can't decide.
I
> need a heater to backup my 100W substrate heating cables, and here are the
> choices:
>
> Ebo-Jager 50W
> OR
> Tronic 50W
> P.S. If you're wondering why I'm going with so little heating, check out:

> apparently all I need is around 125W.

For a backup you need a heater that could heat the tank by itself if the
other heater failed so you need a 125w & either make would do.

Sue

[Harry Muscle]

"NetMax" > wrote in message
...
>
SNIP
>
> What gets reported by people about their filters gets outdated very
> quickly as manufacturer's release hardware revisions correcting any
> problems found. Many of these revisions are not evident in the model
> number. Check out the Fluval 304 or 404. The latest model has MSF
> stamped on the chassis and uses cantileve les. This is what I
> would purchase at this time.
SNIP
>
> NetMax
>

Thanks NetMax, I'm just a little worried about the Fluvals since there have
been way more reports about problems with them than any other canister
filter that I have read about. Granted, these were probably about the older
, however, I also came across this review of what I'm guessing is the
latest edition of the Fluvals, since they call it the MSF model:

http://www.fishinthe.net/html/reviews-11.html

I didn't like what they said about the maintenance aspect of these filters
in that review, especially since, on another site (which I can't find the
URL for right now) a quick comparison between the Fluvals and the Filstar
filters gave the Fluval 2 out of 5 for maintenance, while the Filstar got 5.
There was no more explanation as to why, etc, but it makes me think that it
probably doesn't clog as quickly and it's easier to clean. If I find that
site with that comparison, I'll post it.

Thanks,
Harry





-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[NetMax]

"Harry Muscle" > wrote in message
...
> "NetMax" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> SNIP
> >
> > What gets reported by people about their filters gets outdated very
> > quickly as manufacturer's release hardware revisions correcting any
> > problems found. Many of these revisions are not evident in the model
> > number. Check out the Fluval 304 or 404. The latest model has MSF
> > stamped on the chassis and uses cantileve les. This is what I
> > would purchase at this time.
> SNIP
> >
> > NetMax
> >
>
> Thanks NetMax, I'm just a little worried about the Fluvals since there
have
> been way more reports about problems with them than any other canister
> filter that I have read about. Granted, these were probably about the
older
> , however, I also came across this review of what I'm guessing is
the
> latest edition of the Fluvals, since they call it the MSF model:
>
> http://www.fishinthe.net/html/reviews-11.html
>
> I didn't like what they said about the maintenance aspect of these
filters
> in that review, especially since, on another site (which I can't find
the
> URL for right now) a quick comparison between the Fluvals and the
Filstar
> filters gave the Fluval 2 out of 5 for maintenance, while the Filstar
got 5.
> There was no more explanation as to why, etc, but it makes me think
that it
> probably doesn't clog as quickly and it's easier to clean. If I find
that
> site with that comparison, I'll post it.
>
> Thanks,
> Harry

Thanks for the link. The first reviewer detailed his findings more, but
had issues with maintenance. The next 7 reviewers thought is was easy to
clean but offered little details. It's always interesting the extremes
you can get from anecdotal reporting, though it's hard to imagine a
scenario which would require cleaning a canister filter every 2 weeks.

Two of my home canisters are Fluvals, eight of my work canisters are
Fluvals and I get feedback from many customers on the various filters I
sell or that they have purchased elsewhere. I also supply replacement
filter components to a wide demography (I have no competitor in my
store's neighbourhood), so I like to think I have a good handle on issues
such as serviceability and parts most likely to be replaced.

I can tell you that all my work Fluvals are on planted tanks, and some of
them *blush* I have not cleaned in over a year. I _do_ open them
periodically, but if everything looks good, I just give the bio-max a
rinse and back in it goes. Depending on your fish-load, you might find
that no accumulation occurs, (which one of my customers finds very
confusing, but his tank is overfiltered).

Servicing is flipping up 2 switches, 2 side latches and pulling the foam
or the media compartments upwards. I don't clean the impeller for normal
maintenance (though I probably should). My biggest complaint about
canisters is priming them, but newer models have very little air
entrapment, so it's just a technique to get used to. I start them dry
with the outlet in a pail. I then suck on the outlet and listen to the
water rush down into the filter and wait for it to reach the outlet.
Then I put the outlet where it belongs and turn it on. When servicing,
replace the canister as full of water as possible and there is no priming
needed, plug & go. This technique works equally well on all canister
models, regardless if they have priming capability (these priming pumps
have never impressed me and I would not pay extra for the feature). Some
very old canisters had pockets of air entrapment which would take several
hours to clear (shake the canister for a new batch of bubbles), but all
the newer models have the water move up the canister, taking air bubbles
with them.

Not much to say about impellers and catching debris. Impeller blades
either fold forwards (aggressive and high water flow), or they fold
backwards (runs quieter traps less material but has much lower torque) or
are straight-bladed (compromise between maintenance & torque). Next time
your canister is open, check your impeller blades orientation, but AFAIK,
all the canister manufacturers are using straight-blade design these
days, so there should be no significant differences between any of the
makes & models (all other things being equal, like the use of similar
strainers).

Like I've said before, with only one exception, all the big name
manufacturers have designs which have evolved through many years of
fine-tuning, so IMO there are no filters to avoid. The one exception is
a company which re-brands the Marineland Penguin into a cheaper filter by
eliminating the bio-wheel. This apparent cost saving renders an
excellent design to be almost useless. How can you preserve your
nitrifying bacteria when you need to throw it away with a proprietary
filter pouch full of carbon? This was a case of the accountants decision
over-riding the designers and common sense.

Like I said, IMHO, best value today, check out the Fluval 304 or 404 for
yourself. Have someone show you exactly how it gets serviced. Compare
it with other manufacturers. Check what parts are washable or need to be
replaced. Compare the surface area of the pre-filter sponge. Internet
research is great, but it's never the complete story, and not everyone's
expectations and applications will be the same.

NetMax

[Harry Muscle]

"NetMax" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "Harry Muscle" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "NetMax" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > SNIP
> > >
> > > What gets reported by people about their filters gets outdated very
> > > quickly as manufacturer's release hardware revisions correcting any
> > > problems found. Many of these revisions are not evident in the model
> > > number. Check out the Fluval 304 or 404. The latest model has MSF
> > > stamped on the chassis and uses cantileve les. This is what I
> > > would purchase at this time.
> > SNIP
> > >
> > > NetMax
> > >
> >
> > Thanks NetMax, I'm just a little worried about the Fluvals since there
> have
> > been way more reports about problems with them than any other canister
> > filter that I have read about. Granted, these were probably about the
> older
> > , however, I also came across this review of what I'm guessing is
> the
> > latest edition of the Fluvals, since they call it the MSF model:
> >
> > http://www.fishinthe.net/html/reviews-11.html
> >
> > I didn't like what they said about the maintenance aspect of these
> filters
> > in that review, especially since, on another site (which I can't find
> the
> > URL for right now) a quick comparison between the Fluvals and the
> Filstar
> > filters gave the Fluval 2 out of 5 for maintenance, while the Filstar
> got 5.
> > There was no more explanation as to why, etc, but it makes me think
> that it
> > probably doesn't clog as quickly and it's easier to clean. If I find
> that
> > site with that comparison, I'll post it.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Harry
>
> Thanks for the link. The first reviewer detailed his findings more, but
> had issues with maintenance. The next 7 reviewers thought is was easy to
> clean but offered little details. It's always interesting the extremes
> you can get from anecdotal reporting, though it's hard to imagine a
> scenario which would require cleaning a canister filter every 2 weeks.
>
> Two of my home canisters are Fluvals, eight of my work canisters are
> Fluvals and I get feedback from many customers on the various filters I
> sell or that they have purchased elsewhere. I also supply rep ment
> filter components to a wide demography (I have no competitor in my
> store's neighbourhood), so I like to think I have a good handle on issues
> such as serviceability and parts most likely to be rep d.
>
> I can tell you that all my work Fluvals are on planted tanks, and some of
> them *blush* I have not cleaned in over a year. I _do_ open them
> periodically, but if everything looks good, I just give the bio-max a
> rinse and back in it goes. Depending on your fish-load, you might find
> that no accumulation occurs, (which one of my customers finds very
> confusing, but his tank is overfiltered).
>
> Servicing is flipping up 2 switches, 2 side latches and pulling the foam
> or the media compartments upwards. I don't clean the impeller for normal
> maintenance (though I probably should). My biggest complaint about
> canisters is priming them, but newer have very little air
> entrapment, so it's just a technique to get used to. I start them dry
> with the outlet in a pail. I then suck on the outlet and listen to the
> water rush down into the filter and wait for it to reach the outlet.
> Then I put the outlet where it belongs and turn it on. When servicing,
> rep the canister as full of water as possible and there is no priming
> needed, plug & go. This technique works equally well on all canister
> , regardless if they have priming capability (these priming pumps
> have never impressed me and I would not pay extra for the feature). Some
> very old canisters had pockets of air entrapment which would take several
> hours to clear (shake the canister for a new batch of bubb ), ut all
> the newer have the water move up the canister, taking air bubbles
> with them.
>
> Not much to say about impellers and catching debris. Impeller blades
> either fold forwards (aggressive and high water flow), or they fold
> backwards (runs quieter traps less material but has much lower torque) or
> are straight-bladed (compromise between maintenance & torque). Next time
> your canister is open, check your impeller blades orientation, but AFAIK,
> all the canister manufacturers are using straight-blade design these
> days, so there should be no significant differences between any of the
> makes & (all other things being equal, like the use of similar
> strainers).
>
> Like I've said before, with only one exception, all the big name
> manufacturers have designs which have evolved through many years of
> fine-tuning, so IMO there are no filters to avoid. The one exception is
> a company which re-brands the Marineland Penguin into a cheaper filter by
> eliminating the bio-wheel. This apparent cost saving renders an
> excellent design to be almost useless. How can you preserve your
> nitrifying bacteria when you need to throw it away with a proprietary
> filter pouch full of carbon? This was a case of the accountants decision
> over-riding the designers and common sense.
>
> Like I said, IMHO, best value today, check out the Fluval 304 or 404 for
> yourself. Have someone show you exactly how it gets serviced. Compare
> it with other manufacturers. Check what parts are washable or need to be
> rep d. Compare the surface area of the pre-filter sponge. Internet
> research is great, but it's never the complete story, and not everyone's
> expectations and applications will be the same.
>
> NetMax
>
>

Thank you for the response. Btw, do you sell other brands of filters, or
just the Fluvals? Would you happen to have any customer experiences you
could share about the Filstar filters? To be honest, I'm starting to think
it's gonna be between Filstar and Fluval for me now instead of Filstar vs.
Eheim. Btw, how much do you charge for the Fluval 304 and 404?

Thanks,
Harry

P.S. Have you ever had any problems with the 304/404 leaking or heard of
any customers having this problem? That is my biggest fear with these
filters.




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[John]

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:24:42 -0500, "NetMax"
-snip-
>> , however, I also came across this review of what I'm guessing is
>the
>> latest edition of the Fluvals, since they call it the MSF model:
>>
>> http://www.fishinthe.net/html/reviews-11.html
>>

You know, if you actually read the entire review you will find that
this guy is using the wrong type of media with the fluval's. He is
using "Floss" which will clog everytime! Instead of using the filter
material that is recomended by Fluval...

>
>Thanks for the link. The first reviewer detailed his findings more, but
>had issues with maintenance. The next 7 reviewers thought is was easy to
>clean but offered little details. It's always interesting the extremes
>you can get from anecdotal reporting, though it's hard to imagine a
>scenario which would require cleaning a canister filter every 2 weeks.
- snip-
see above

>I can tell you that all my work Fluvals are on planted tanks, and some of
>them *blush* I have not cleaned in over a year. I _do_ open them
>periodically, but if everything looks good, I just give the bio-max a
>rinse and back in it goes. Depending on your fish-load, you might find
>that no accumulation occurs, (which one of my customers finds very
>confusing, but his tank is overfiltered).

Simple question for you then netmax would be what media are you using
in your filters? Only biomax and the foam prefilters or are you also
using additional media of some other type?

[NetMax]

"Harry Muscle" > wrote in message
...
>
> "NetMax" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >
> > "Harry Muscle" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > "NetMax" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
<snip>
>
> Thank you for the response. Btw, do you sell other brands of filters,
or
> just the Fluvals? Would you happen to have any customer experiences
you
> could share about the Filstar filters? To be honest, I'm starting to
think
> it's gonna be between Filstar and Fluval for me now instead of Filstar
vs.
> Eheim. Btw, how much do you charge for the Fluval 304 and 404?

I carry all the Hagen & Marineland brands. I've no experience with the
Filstar. I can't remember offhand my pricing (and I'm up in Canada), but
what is more important for you is how much you have to pay ;~). I'm told
that the best pricing is on-line, but you want to ensure that you are
getting the latest model of anything.

>
> Thanks,
> Harry
>
> P.S. Have you ever had any problems with the 304/404 leaking or heard
of
> any customers having this problem? That is my biggest fear with these
> filters.

The first release of the 304/404 had a leaking problem which was
corrected before my time. The silly buggers should have renumbered the
series then, but it also looks bad if your model numbers go up for no
'apparent' reason ;~), and I see everyone else making small design
changes without model number changes as well. This makes my job a bit
harder, " was that the one with the pink impeller or the white impeller?"
Being a bit of a sceptic, it took many months of water-tight running
Fluvals of every model before I was confident enough to recommend them,
but now I'm satisfied. In a year of sales, I've had 2 returned, both for
broken handles, which happens when the motor-head is installed backwards
(you need to line up the power cord with the indent for the power cord).
The case is now stamped so you just line up the big letters on the front
of the case, with the letters on the front of the motor head.

The biggest danger with any canister filter is IMO a hose coming loose.
I recently had this occur with an Eheim, but I was right there to fix it
before I lost too much water. This really was my own fault as I had not
re-checked the connections in over a year. Both Eheim & Fluval use
compressive lock nuts which work very well, but it's still a good idea to
check & re-tighten them periodically.

NetMax

[NetMax]

"John" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:24:42 -0500, "NetMax"
> -snip-
> >> , however, I also came across this review of what I'm guessing
is
> >the
> >> latest edition of the Fluvals, since they call it the MSF model:
> >>
> >> http://www.fishinthe.net/html/reviews-11.html
> >>
>
> You know, if you actually read the entire review you will find that
> this guy is using the wrong type of media with the fluval's. He is
> using "Floss" which will clog everytime! Instead of using the filter
> material that is recomended by Fluval...

What a silly bugger, thanks for spotting that.

> >
> >Thanks for the link. The first reviewer detailed his findings more,
but
> >had issues with maintenance. The next 7 reviewers thought is was easy
to
> >clean but offered little details. It's always interesting the
extremes
> >you can get from anecdotal reporting, though it's hard to imagine a
> >scenario which would require cleaning a canister filter every 2 weeks.
> - snip-
> see above
>
> >I can tell you that all my work Fluvals are on planted tanks, and some
of
> >them *blush* I have not cleaned in over a year. I _do_ open them
> >periodically, but if everything looks good, I just give the bio-max a
> >rinse and back in it goes. Depending on your fish-load, you might
find
> >that no accumulation occurs, (which one of my customers finds very
> >confusing, but his tank is overfiltered).
>
> Simple question for you then netmax would be what media are you using
> in your filters? Only biomax and the foam prefilters or are you also
> using additional media of some other type?

Basically the vertical foam pre-filters (which can last you 20-30 years
with even the most rudimentary cleaning schedule), and Bio-max in the top
compartment (rinsing periodically so the pores do not get too clogged).
Then I start experimenting :o).... peat (granules) works nicely, peat
fibre (not as effective as the granules), carbon (for new tanks only or
removing medication), crushed coral (though if it's too fine, it clogs
the grill), dolomite (sitting on a thin layer of sheet fibre) and more
Bio-max (I usually have a compartment empty so in goes more Bio-max).
I'm now experimenting with the pond version of Bio-max, which is much
larger rings. Pond versions are often a better value. Bio-max are
always in the last 1 or 2 compartments. Carbon in the first (shortest
life expectancy anyways). Peat/coral/dolomite go in the middle. The
finer they are, the higher up towards the Bio-max they go. Large sizes
can go right after the pre-filters.

All my experimenting with different media is mostly optional &
application specific. When the water parameters are fine as they are,
then it's just the vertical pre-filters and lots of Bio-max. I'm looking
around for a polishing grade of floss to put into the last compartment.
I heard of some available in Germany, but haven't seen anything in North
America yet. I wish someone would invent the aquatic version of a Hepa
filter for polishing. With over 100 tanks, I'm always fighting a bloom
of some type in one of them.

NetMax

[Darrel Stonebraker]

In reply to this - I use hose clamps - the metal ones tightened by a screw
driver. I have a 125 gal tank - and im away alot - and i relaly dont want
to come home to an empty tank and ruined carpet so I chose to do this. Dont
put the metal clamps in the tank - or in contact with the water. This works
very very well for me ;)


Dustin
comments at mbbookstore.com

(QUOTE)
> The biggest danger with any canister filter is IMO a hose coming loose.
> I recently had this occur with an Eheim, but I was right there to fix it
> before I lost too much water. This really was my own fault as I had not
> re-checked the connections in over a year. Both Eheim & Fluval use
> compressive lock nuts which work very well, but it's still a good idea to
> check & re-tighten them periodically.
>
> NetMax
>
>

[Bruce Abrams]

"NetMax" > wrote in message
.. .
*snip*
> America yet. I wish someone would invent the aquatic version of a Hepa
> filter for polishing.

Wouldn't you consider the Vortex Diatom to be exactly such a product?

[NetMax]

"Bruce Abrams" > wrote in message
.net...
>
> "NetMax" > wrote in message
> .. .
> *snip*
> > America yet. I wish someone would invent the aquatic version of a
Hepa
> > filter for polishing.
>
> Wouldn't you consider the Vortex Diatom to be exactly such a product?

Yes, but I should have been more clear. I'm looking for a filter media
capable of polishing, rather than a filter system. Something I could
slip into a standard powerfilter or canister for a few hours.

NetMax

[John]

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:14:31 -0500, "NetMax"
> wrote:

>
>"Bruce Abrams" > wrote in message
.net...
>>
>> "NetMax" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>> *snip*
>> > America yet. I wish someone would invent the aquatic version of a
>Hepa
>> > filter for polishing.
>>
>> Wouldn't you consider the Vortex Diatom to be exactly such a product?
>
>Yes, but I should have been more clear. I'm looking for a filter media
>capable of polishing, rather than a filter system. Something I could
>slip into a standard powerfilter or canister for a few hours.
>
>NetMax
>

So I assume you are looking for something finer than 25 microns? or
maybe I should say closer to <5 microns?

If 25 microns is small enough, there are several companies that offer
that sort of "floss" material in sheets that you can cut to fit.

When I need something really finely cleaned I use my System 1
Diatom... it is really the best diatomaceous filter that I have found
since it is easily portable between tanks and can clean a 55 gal in
about an hour... then jus turn it off, lift it off the tank and move
it to the next one... each change of filter powder is good for at
least 3 tanks unless they are really REALLY dirty. You can tell by
how dark the material gets and how much it clogs...

The system 1 is NOT designed to be continuosly run... it is a temp
filter... I keep mine in a plastic bucket when not in use, hidden in
the closet... then just run it for a few hours and am simply amazed at
how clear the water really gets...

I have had mine for almost 18 years... motor still works fine, but I
busted the impeller when I attempted to change the input tubing (which
is glued to the system instead of removable...) Just waiting on a new
impeller now. Also note, that I have "upgraded" the filter by
purchasing the larger size jar and diatom filter.

[Darrel Stonebraker]

I agree - I bought a System 1 just last month and it is GREAT! I thought my
water was almost perfect - crystal clear - boy did that white diatom earth
turn almost black quick! Amazing what other filters miss.


Dustin


"John" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:14:31 -0500, "NetMax"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Bruce Abrams" > wrote in message
> .net...
> >>
> >> "NetMax" > wrote in message
> >> .. .
> >> *snip*
> >> > America yet. I wish someone would invent the aquatic version of a
> >Hepa
> >> > filter for polishing.
> >>
> >> Wouldn't you consider the Vortex Diatom to be exactly such a product?
> >
> >Yes, but I should have been more clear. I'm looking for a filter media
> >capable of polishing, rather than a filter system. Something I could
> >slip into a standard powerfilter or canister for a few hours.
> >
> >NetMax
> >
>
> So I assume you are looking for something finer than 25 microns? or
> maybe I should say closer to <5 microns?
>
> If 25 microns is small enough, there are several companies that offer
> that sort of "floss" material in sheets that you can cut to fit.
>
> When I need something really finely cleaned I use my System 1
> Diatom... it is really the best diatomaceous filter that I have found
> since it is easily portable between tanks and can clean a 55 gal in
> about an hour... then jus turn it off, lift it off the tank and move
> it to the next one... each change of filter powder is good for at
> least 3 tanks unless they are really REALLY dirty. You can tell by
> how dark the material gets and how much it clogs...
>
> The system 1 is NOT designed to be continuosly run... it is a temp
> filter... I keep mine in a plastic bucket when not in use, hidden in
> the closet... then just run it for a few hours and am simply amazed at
> how clear the water really gets...
>
> I have had mine for almost 18 years... motor still works fine, but I
> busted the impeller when I attempted to change the input tubing (which
> is glued to the system instead of removable...) Just waiting on a new
> impeller now. Also note, that I have "upgraded" the filter by
> purchasing the larger size jar and diatom filter.