Aps
- Thread starter coldcazzie
- Start date
The April FOTM Contest Poll is open!
🏆 Click to vote! 🏆
OP
OP
coldcazzie
Ice Queen
hmmmmm... is exactly what I was thinking!
Shame, I really like the 2000... I would have thought the 1000 would be fairly comparable, if just that little bit smaller...
ps. also being slightly put off, I trust ianho's judgement...
You realise we've just recommended the 100lph for that person with the goldies in a 125l
No mate, don't be put off; I got the 1400lph one a couple of years ago and I've got three of the 2000lph ones as well now, and I'm very happy with them.
The last one I bought quite recently, and they've redesigned the pump bit somewhat; it now has a handle, which is helpful, even though I wouldn't want to lift the whole weight off a full filter with it, it does helps with manoeuvering.
The primer is smaller, but works fine and I think the media baskets feel stronger too, the other ones are a bit flimsy; you have to be gentle with them and not force them though, that's all.
I bought the 1000 and it started off quite well, after 2 weeks the flow had halved. I bet it was putting out 2-300 lph. It was really poor, and then gave up the ghost. I then bought a Hydor Prime for an extra £20, and haven't looked back.
never heard of the Hydor....was looking at the Superfish 600 as a possibility though.
again, they are good filters. I have seen these used in planted tanks with great success. I had to get a filter quick though and my LFS had the Hydor externals in stock. Brilliant little filters. The canisters are only 5ltrs, but it managed to fit all the media from the APS in. It's much better made as well. Hydor's flow rates are done with media in place as well. The flow on them is nothing short of brilliant. They are silent, and really easy to prime and clean. The one down side is that they don't have baskets, they are an all in one filter. But, for £60, you cannot argue with that.
The Hydor ones look good value but the lack of baskets puts me off them as well...
I'm look at the APS ones again now
Scrap that, they're too big for my cabinet after all that!
I'm look at the APS ones again now
Scrap that, they're too big for my cabinet after all that!
thats what also put me off, the 1400 was to big for my living room cabinet. So, opted for the 1000. I find having one big basket easier that the separate baskets. That way it can be all crammed in. The baskets on the APS are also very badly made, the handles WILL drop off.
That said about the APS 1000, it would make a good filter for a non planted tank.
That said about the APS 1000, it would make a good filter for a non planted tank.
OP
OP
coldcazzie
Ice Queen
I'm going to test the actual flow rate of my filter tomorrow now...
BigbruiserAl
I ain't gettin on no plane fool
Stop watch and known volume of water.
OP
OP
coldcazzie
Ice Queen
Indeed 
Tested with all my media in place, which is (bottom up):
Tray 1: 2 filter foams and ceramic rings
Tray 2: ceramic rings and some bioballs
Tray 3: bioballs
Tray 4: 4 filter foams
2.5 litres in 10 seconds = 900L per hour.
Which means for my Rio 240 (which, once you've allowed for substrate and wood is about 195L) has 4.6x turnover.
If I were to transfer this filter to my new Rio 180 (which I imagine would lose a similar volume with substrate/hardscape, so I'm guestimating at about 140L) it would have 6.4x turnover.
Obviously this is hardly reliable as I only did it the once (due to an unfortunate incident with the hose coming off and spraying water all over the wall/floor, plus suddenly acquiring 4 extra children in my house), but it would be interesting for other members with the same filter or with the smaller filters to do similar tests on each so we can get actual turnover rates... if we were to do that I reckon it would require a dedicated thread in the Hardware Section... what do people think?
Personally, even if the turnover is not what it claims to be, I really like the size of it and the amount of media I can fit in there (even if the bioballs are infuriating!). I think in terms of biological filtration it's great, even if the turnover is not what's required for a heavily planted tank. But then I can add powerheads if I really want to increase the flow. If I had little to no plant mass in there then there's no reason why it wouldn't be sufficient IMO.
Tested with all my media in place, which is (bottom up):
Tray 1: 2 filter foams and ceramic rings
Tray 2: ceramic rings and some bioballs
Tray 3: bioballs
Tray 4: 4 filter foams
2.5 litres in 10 seconds = 900L per hour.
Which means for my Rio 240 (which, once you've allowed for substrate and wood is about 195L) has 4.6x turnover.
If I were to transfer this filter to my new Rio 180 (which I imagine would lose a similar volume with substrate/hardscape, so I'm guestimating at about 140L) it would have 6.4x turnover.
Obviously this is hardly reliable as I only did it the once (due to an unfortunate incident with the hose coming off and spraying water all over the wall/floor, plus suddenly acquiring 4 extra children in my house), but it would be interesting for other members with the same filter or with the smaller filters to do similar tests on each so we can get actual turnover rates... if we were to do that I reckon it would require a dedicated thread in the Hardware Section... what do people think?
Personally, even if the turnover is not what it claims to be, I really like the size of it and the amount of media I can fit in there (even if the bioballs are infuriating!). I think in terms of biological filtration it's great, even if the turnover is not what's required for a heavily planted tank. But then I can add powerheads if I really want to increase the flow. If I had little to no plant mass in there then there's no reason why it wouldn't be sufficient IMO.
interesting. I'll have to have a go and measure mine as well. I agree with you, cazzie; the amount of media is, IMO, more important that turn over.
When I first started foshkeeping, a turnover of two or three times the tank volume every hour was considered to be plenty; I know planted tanks should have more, but I'm happy with five or six.
When I first started foshkeeping, a turnover of two or three times the tank volume every hour was considered to be plenty; I know planted tanks should have more, but I'm happy with five or six.
OP
OP
coldcazzie
Ice Queen
Yes, my face is not for the result in general, but that it is much less than I was hoping for a planted tank in which I should be aiming for 10x turnover as a minimum! 
PS I'll go start a thread in Hardware so we can have all the results in an appropriate and findable place!
face is not for the result in general, but that it is much less than I was hoping for a planted tank in which I should be aiming for 10x turnover as a minimum! PS I'll go start a thread in Hardware so we can have all the results in an appropriate and findable place!
Most reactions
-
254 -
244 -
148 -
147 -
133 -
133 -
110 -
98 -
96 -
94 -
86 -
80 -
69 -
64 -
62
