thanks for that pdf PJPJ. Well done! 
External Filter Tests
- Thread starter coldcazzie
- Start date
BigbruiserAl
I ain't gettin on no plane fool
Is that Fx5 on the list a typo FX5 doing 750LPH cant be right?
It's on page 1.
bae1994 was going to post a flow rate after cleaning the impeller but never did. Did get 1800 with no media though.
If lots of people post with their flow-rates then the obscure ones will simply be shown as faulty units or errors.
BigbruiserAl
I ain't gettin on no plane fool
Apologies I was late night reading and missed that, massive benefit having them on spread sheet well done
stu40
PRC
Update
3 months on, averaged #6 samples,10secs duration, to give
with media, no spraybar, no inline = 414 LPH
with media, no spraybar,with inline heater = 340LPH
Not too much of a drop off, now its been up and running.(inline makes quite a difference though)
Good little filter for a small tank
Nice job with the spreadsheet Paul,and also neatly hijacking Caz's thread
stu40, Is that a Hydor 12mm external heater you are using? I only lost 40lph with mine at a similar flow rate. 74lph seems a bit steep.
Hijacking! No, simply adding value to an already valuable thread.
Thanks everyone on the spreadsheet comments.
Hijacking! No, simply adding value to an already valuable thread.
Thanks everyone on the spreadsheet comments.
I am struggling a bit here guys. What is the point to all of this? A filter does whatever it does and nobody should ever care what real world flow rate is involved. If my filter rated at 500 gph is only delivering 250 gph, why in the world would I care? If a filter has enough media capacity to serve my fish's biological loads, it will take care of my stock. End of discussion. Flow rates mean about as much as horsepower on cars or megabits per second on a DSL connection. If you have enough for your needs it is enough. More at that point is simply not meaningful, in fact it can be considered wasteful since it will take more resources to achieve it. (Surely he didn't mean that did he?) Yes I did mean exactly that.
At the bottom of the spreadsheet, it says pretty much the same and more.
But why have more equipment in your tank drawing significantly more power to provide the little bit extra flow you may need when finding a filter that can provide this for you at the same or slightly more power? I don't want 240V Koralia power heads scattered all over the tank and as is quite clearly shown there are significant lph performance differences between models of supposed equal pump flow rate even though they all do the same job of biological filtration. Mechanical? maybe not.
It isn't scientific, it isn't precise and there will be differences between installations due to media type, age, head and other factors but that is real life. If it assists in the decision making process for some people then all is well.
Additionally, this could help as reference and comparison if someone thinks they are not receiving the flow they should.
At the end of the day, it does matter to some people what the true flow rate is, just as it is as important to others how quiet, economical, physical size etc. I have found this thread very useful and interesting. Thank you Coldcazzie.
Personally, I believe the true real life flow rate with supplied media and head height to the extent of the supplied hoses should be printed on the outside of the packaging and probably even the db noise level. So many of us already know not to pay any attention to the recommended tank size so why continue with the charade. If I can ever be bothered, I intend to contact suppliers to discuss this. I realise it's all about marketing but if they aren't challenged then nothing will ever change.
Thank you for reading.
But why have more equipment in your tank drawing significantly more power to provide the little bit extra flow you may need when finding a filter that can provide this for you at the same or slightly more power? I don't want 240V Koralia power heads scattered all over the tank and as is quite clearly shown there are significant lph performance differences between models of supposed equal pump flow rate even though they all do the same job of biological filtration. Mechanical? maybe not.
It isn't scientific, it isn't precise and there will be differences between installations due to media type, age, head and other factors but that is real life. If it assists in the decision making process for some people then all is well.
Additionally, this could help as reference and comparison if someone thinks they are not receiving the flow they should.
At the end of the day, it does matter to some people what the true flow rate is, just as it is as important to others how quiet, economical, physical size etc. I have found this thread very useful and interesting. Thank you Coldcazzie.
Personally, I believe the true real life flow rate with supplied media and head height to the extent of the supplied hoses should be printed on the outside of the packaging and probably even the db noise level. So many of us already know not to pay any attention to the recommended tank size so why continue with the charade. If I can ever be bothered, I intend to contact suppliers to discuss this. I realise it's all about marketing but if they aren't challenged then nothing will ever change.
Thank you for reading.
stu40
PRC
In a planted tank, i keep reading that it's all about the flow, especially if injecting CO2.You want an even distribution with no dead spots.
x10 LPH seems to be the target for many people.
If possible i'd rather have more flow just by overfiltering, than an underpowered filter plus a circulation pump.A scenerio i have in first tank, but have now avoided in tank 2
x10 LPH seems to be the target for many people.
If possible i'd rather have more flow just by overfiltering, than an underpowered filter plus a circulation pump.A scenerio i have in first tank, but have now avoided in tank 2
I have found this thread extremely useful and think it deserves to be revived. I have one test of my own to contribute and would like to beg the members of this forum for the true output rate of the following filters:
Fluval 206, Fluval 306, Eheim Ecco Pro 200 (2234), Eheim Ecco Pro 300 (2236), Eheim Classic 350 (2215)
As I am considering them for my new 200L (45Gal) tank that will be filled up to between 120L (27Gal) and 180L (40Gal), most likely around 150L (34Gal)
From my own testing:
Hydor Prime 10
Quoted Pump Output: 580LPH
Quoted Circulation Rate: 350LPH
Tested Flow Rate: 150LPH
Age: 2 months.
Media: Course foam, polishing pad, ceramic rings, polishing pad.
Pipe Length: 120cm
Head Height: 90cm
Notes:
Pipes are too long and so do not go in a straight path to the tank
Tested while experiencing an algae bloom within the pipework
This is dismal but as noted above, this was a test of the output under the worst possible conditions.
I would love to contribute accurate tests of the Hydor Prime 10, and the filter that I end up with, when I have the time to do so.
Fluval 206, Fluval 306, Eheim Ecco Pro 200 (2234), Eheim Ecco Pro 300 (2236), Eheim Classic 350 (2215)
As I am considering them for my new 200L (45Gal) tank that will be filled up to between 120L (27Gal) and 180L (40Gal), most likely around 150L (34Gal)
From my own testing:
Hydor Prime 10
Quoted Pump Output: 580LPH
Quoted Circulation Rate: 350LPH
Tested Flow Rate: 150LPH
Age: 2 months.
Media: Course foam, polishing pad, ceramic rings, polishing pad.
Pipe Length: 120cm
Head Height: 90cm
Notes:
Pipes are too long and so do not go in a straight path to the tank
Tested while experiencing an algae bloom within the pipework
This is dismal but as noted above, this was a test of the output under the worst possible conditions.
I would love to contribute accurate tests of the Hydor Prime 10, and the filter that I end up with, when I have the time to do so.
Hydor Prime 10 (accurate test this time)
Quoted Pump Output: 580LPH
Quoted Circiulation Rate: 350LPH
Test Flow Rate: 315LPH
Age 2 months
Media: Course Foam, Ceramic RIngs, Polishing Pad
Pipe Length: 100cm
Head Height: 90cm
Notes: 2 Days after rinsing the foam pads
Along with the test of the Hydor Prime 30 by another user, this validates Hydor's claim that their quoted circulation is with media and pipework. From this I'd highly recommend a Hydor filter. My only issue with it is the use of a single basket (as with the Eheim Classic 2213) as apposed to a modulated arrangement as seen in the fluval. They are definitely above average filters, but they are not as silent or energy efficient as eheim filters are claimed to be.
Again, please could someone test the Fluval 206 and 306, and the Eheim Ecco Pro 200 (2234) and 300 (2236).
Quoted Pump Output: 580LPH
Quoted Circiulation Rate: 350LPH
Test Flow Rate: 315LPH
Age 2 months
Media: Course Foam, Ceramic RIngs, Polishing Pad
Pipe Length: 100cm
Head Height: 90cm
Notes: 2 Days after rinsing the foam pads
Along with the test of the Hydor Prime 30 by another user, this validates Hydor's claim that their quoted circulation is with media and pipework. From this I'd highly recommend a Hydor filter. My only issue with it is the use of a single basket (as with the Eheim Classic 2213) as apposed to a modulated arrangement as seen in the fluval. They are definitely above average filters, but they are not as silent or energy efficient as eheim filters are claimed to be.
Again, please could someone test the Fluval 206 and 306, and the Eheim Ecco Pro 200 (2234) and 300 (2236).
KirkyArcher
Fish Addict
Just copied this from a post I made in another thread Re. Fluval 206
I was about to start my water change and media clean in the 33 gal that is filtered by a Fluval 206, had a 2 litre jug to hand and timed how long it took to fill, which was a pitiful 18.04 seconds = 399 lph
I then cleaned the sponges and replaced the floss in the filter it then took just 15.86 seconds which boosted flow to 453 lph, I then removed half the volume of the biofoam by cutting it half and filled the rest of the tray with floss and now get a flow rate of 502 lph all of wich still fall way short of the 780 lph (206 US GPH)* when empty (the other two baskets where full of ceramic media at the time Fluval BioMax)
*fluval data
I was about to start my water change and media clean in the 33 gal that is filtered by a Fluval 206, had a 2 litre jug to hand and timed how long it took to fill, which was a pitiful 18.04 seconds = 399 lph
I then cleaned the sponges and replaced the floss in the filter it then took just 15.86 seconds which boosted flow to 453 lph, I then removed half the volume of the biofoam by cutting it half and filled the rest of the tray with floss and now get a flow rate of 502 lph all of wich still fall way short of the 780 lph (206 US GPH)* when empty (the other two baskets where full of ceramic media at the time Fluval BioMax)*fluval data
Thank you very much @KirkyArcher!
That result validates Fluval's claimed circulation rate of 460LPH for the Fluval 206, with a 780LPH pump output. Good to know that this circulation rate is fairly accurate, even if it is relatively inefficient vs the pump output. I'm guessing that they measure the circulation rate with full brand new media and pipework. From this it'd be safe to assume that the actual flow rate of the Fluval 306 is around 700LPH, as they state the circulation rate is 780LPH.
Can anyone test the Eheim Ecco Pro 200 (2234) and Eheim Ecco Pro 300 (2236)
Oh, since you are running a similar tank size to the capacity of my new tank, how does the 206 stack up to the task? And how loud do you find it?
That result validates Fluval's claimed circulation rate of 460LPH for the Fluval 206, with a 780LPH pump output. Good to know that this circulation rate is fairly accurate, even if it is relatively inefficient vs the pump output. I'm guessing that they measure the circulation rate with full brand new media and pipework. From this it'd be safe to assume that the actual flow rate of the Fluval 306 is around 700LPH, as they state the circulation rate is 780LPH.
Can anyone test the Eheim Ecco Pro 200 (2234) and Eheim Ecco Pro 300 (2236)
KirkyArcher said:Just copied this from a post I made in another thread Re. Fluval 206
I was about to start my water change and media clean in the 33 gal that is filtered by a Fluval 206, had a 2 litre jug to hand and timed how long it took to fill, which was a pitiful 18.04 seconds = 399 lphI then cleaned the sponges and replaced the floss in the filter it then took just 15.86 seconds which boosted flow to 453 lph, I then removed half the volume of the biofoam by cutting it half and filled the rest of the tray with floss and now get a flow rate of 502 lph all of wich still fall way short of the 780 lph (206 US GPH)* when empty (the other two baskets where full of ceramic media at the time Fluval BioMax)
*fluval data
Oh, since you are running a similar tank size to the capacity of my new tank, how does the 206 stack up to the task? And how loud do you find it?
KirkyArcher
Fish Addict
It's now virtually silent, did take a few weeks to "bed in" to get to this silent level but even prior to that it wasn't too bad, this 125l tank is in the bedroom I'm a very light sleeper it doesn't keep me awake, This filter performs flawlessly in a very heavily stocked community planted tank.
TetraTec EX700
About 1.5 Years Old
Pipes&filter not dirty, but not shining clean
Rated@700l/h
Pipe Height from floor to top of U bend = 85/6CM
Pipe height from floor to water surface = 83CM
Flow over 10sec = 775ish ML (0.775L)
0.775L/s*6=4.65L/m
4.65L/m*60=279L/h
Media:
Top tray: Biomax and a foam pad, then the filter plate
2nd Tray: 2 foam pads&Floss pad (changed today - became impossible to clean properly and had started to disintegrate)
3rd Tray: Two foam pads
Bottom tray: Bioballs
Rated@700L/h
Actual@279L/h
Flow Loss=421L/h
Reduction of 60% or thereabouts
Not particularly concerned, I have other filters running for the turnover, the TT is the crud collector, hence the amount of foam, cleaned recularly and outlet water is crystal clear apart from bogwood tanins and the occasional bit of dirt (10-15 particles/L).
Will be setting up a new filter soon, 740L/H powerhead and a APS EF Booster (1.2L) for a 60 Litre tank on order, not a standard canister, but will post as it still counts as an external
About 1.5 Years Old
Pipes&filter not dirty, but not shining clean
Rated@700l/h
Pipe Height from floor to top of U bend = 85/6CM
Pipe height from floor to water surface = 83CM
Flow over 10sec = 775ish ML (0.775L)
0.775L/s*6=4.65L/m
4.65L/m*60=279L/h
Media:
Top tray: Biomax and a foam pad, then the filter plate
2nd Tray: 2 foam pads&Floss pad (changed today - became impossible to clean properly and had started to disintegrate)
3rd Tray: Two foam pads
Bottom tray: Bioballs
Rated@700L/h
Actual@279L/h
Flow Loss=421L/h
Reduction of 60% or thereabouts
Not particularly concerned, I have other filters running for the turnover, the TT is the crud collector, hence the amount of foam, cleaned recularly and outlet water is crystal clear apart from bogwood tanins and the occasional bit of dirt (10-15 particles/L).
Will be setting up a new filter soon, 740L/H powerhead and a APS EF Booster (1.2L) for a 60 Litre tank on order, not a standard canister, but will post as it still counts as an external
Most reactions
-
253 -
245 -
148 -
146 -
133 -
127 -
108 -
96 -
93 -
85 -
85 -
80 -
73 -
64 -
62
