OK, back to the thread of fun
I'll start off with a few "side-lines" before moving onto the main event, similarly to Bitteraspect's style of posting
Only difference is, that I will be using quotes, not because they are annoying, but because it will make a few things easier to follow
Hello again Rabbut - What are these FX5 mods you've heard of? You have me interested.
Although, I have no idea why, my FX5 is doing a truely wonderful job.
Modifications have ranged from simple inlet/outlet modifications, through to filter basket modifications, through to one guy stupidly tryed to mod the motor (needless to say the latter diden't end well
) If you browse through the Computing sub-forum lower down, there was someone asking for recomended imporvements on their website about 6 months ago, and the site (if it's still up) was crammed with modification ideas for the FX5
Browsing any large forum will also highlight further ideas
Personally, with that moster flow, the only mod I'd do is installing a spray bar just of the substrates surface to keep all the dirt is suspencion (spelling) long ehough for the filter to grab it. The FX5 can do great things with dirt, I am told, so all you have to do is get said dirt to it
Thank you very much for all advice , i will look in to the filters you have suggested .. The filter was only 6 months old, however i have to confess i had no idea about having to lubricate the sealent ring im sure it was not in the instructions but didnt look in the trouble shooting section. . it would appear that this was the problem , as its were the water was coming from, . Im sure tetra tec would be helpfull, but parents will never agree to an identical filter going back in my room , lol . . i brought it from living seas so it was only £60 so i think ill just scrap it .. im airing towards the fx5, seems to be a good price, would like to hear if any one has had any bad experiences with it , cos if i get another leak its bye bye fish lol ! thanks
Right, you need to understand that the filter broke because you didn't maintain it. Not because the filter wasn't very good.
If you buy an FX5, and make the same mistakes, this will also break and you are back to square 1
Explain to your parents that you understand the mistake, and you know how to rectify it - spending another £100 won't change anything.
I agree with Peter here. The seal failed because the Tetratec,
like any canister, needs lubrication applying to the seals on a regular basis to avoid then degrading through constant contact with water
IME, a poorly maintained Fluval or Rena seal will last about 6 months, so it's a comparable lifetime to any poorly maintained filter IMO.
As a thought, Tetratec's aren't available in the US, so how's Bitteraspects got hold of one to access the build quality??
as far as lubricating the o-ring, that should not have been, nor do i believe it was the issue. as a hobbyist, you buy equipment hoping for it to work straight out of the box. you should not have to do any additional lubricating of parts or anything like that, imo. the problem is poor craftsmanship. many people have the same problem with tetratech filters, as well as marineland. this is not an isolated incident. best bet is to consider it a lesson learned, and move on. however, if youre not totally convinced, go ahead and get it repaired. who knows, it may fix the problem for good. i however do not reccomend their products.
Lubrication the seal is an essential part of the maintanance of any filter that is of a canister type. If you don't lubricate it, the canister won't last that long due to a seal failure...
Let me explain;
Rubber (synthetic or otherwise) hardens with constant contact with water. Applying loob stops the seal being in contact with water and hence stops it hardening. This in turn stops it "chapping" or worse still in the case of Fluvals usualy when their seals go, snapping.
first off, im not sure how you imagined the word external had a different meaning, considering it is an (american) english word. im pretty sure external means the same thing everywhere, considering it refers to the placement of the filter being outside of the tank.
internal - inside
external - outside
seems simple enough.
Well, us brits use the term exturnal as slang for a canister, and HOB for well, a HOB
We don't tend to refur to HOB's as exturnals. It would appear you guys in the States refur to both HOB's and Canisters as Exturnals, in the true sence of the word, not as slang for equipment
my point was that if your lfs has access to hagen products (fluval, ect), they will be able to bring in an aquaclear filter for you, and replacement parts/media accordingly, should you be interested in giving one a try. sorry for the misunderstanding here, but regardless of the nomenclature error, my points were still valid.
Work buys direct from Hagen UK. They cannot get aquaclear HOB's. They appear as though they are not part of the UK product line for Hagen. If you cannot get the filters themselves, I'm fairly shure you won't get the parts through them either (though I haven't checked that), so all spares/repairs would have to be done via the states or one of the few LFS's here that have imported the parts already
next point i wanted to cover was your mention of me bashing rena. i did no such thing. all i said is that i tried their products along with many others and eventually went with what worked the best comparatively. the rexa xp3(?) is a decent canister, and worked well from my experience, however, once you try a fx5 or eheim pro, i doubt even the competitive price tag on the rena will be enough to entice you to go back to it.
While you don't say they are out and out rubbish, you imply that they are un-reliable (stating they won't out-live your fish) and that they aren't performing as well as a comparable filter. Not so in my experience. If you maintain the seal well on a Rena, it should give good reliable service (though I was rather lax about that point on my first Rena...)
on to your comment about fluval externals being... whatever your bleeped out cuss word was supposed to represent. that is laughable at best. while the bigger pro models of eheims canisters do provide better biological filtration, and often have a higher percentage flow rate, when you compare the job to the price tag, it doesnt match up. the fluval is about half the price of a comperable pro model eheim canister (2080 pro3), but is not outshined in performance by that much of a margin. theyre both outstanding filters, however, the fx5 does pretty much the same job for half the cost.
I would prefur some reliability from my equipment. I note the adverage life span of a Fluval canister from the 04 series is about 4-5 years (a few of the origionals are still going though...), and now the 05's are getting old by Fluvals standords (about 3-4 years), we are again seeing failures cropping up... Obviously the FX5 hasn't been on the market long enough to judge reliability, but if past performance from Fluval filters is anything to go by, it may be a bit of a dissapointment. Mind, at £90, for the size of filter, it's essentially a "Disposable" when compaired to competing products at just over twice that...
Eheim classics are my usual example. Many people that bought the first lot of them 30 years ago still either run them, have upgraded them with their tank or died/lost interest in the hobby before they failed... Similarly with the Pro lines, there are some running 15 year old ones...
next. modification.
you are a bit misinformed about this part. while you seem to be under the impression that it needs to be modified to work, that is absolutely false. out of the box, it provides much better mech filtration then *any other canister. comaritive reviews have been done many times, and while the eheim counterparts will provide better biofiltration across the board, they are no match for the mech filtration of the fx5. and diy modifications only further widen the margin. (however, by doing similar modifications on an eheim, or any other canister/hob, you will achieve better results)
I am under no doubt that the FX5 offers good performance out of the box. Personally though, I would perfur a good bio filter over a good mech one. Bio filters keep our fish alive, mech is just for asthetics. I put keeping the fish alive before making the tank look good...
conclusion: the ac110 holds just as much media as a comparable canister rated for the same sized tank. looks like bio filtration is a tie.
how about mechanical filtration?
lets check the flowrate.
the eheim canister is rated at 227gph, while the ac110 is rated at 500gph. ultimately. higher flowrate = better mech filtration. but that could have been expected, as fluval is known for having great mech filtration.
conclusion: the ac110 has more then double the flowrate of the canister. mechanical filtration is a win for the HOB.
so. not only does the hob hold the same volume of media as a canister rated for the same sized tank, it provides better mechanical filtration. sorry buddy, your myth has been busted.
heres a little added bonus.
and now, one of the main deciding factors for most hobbyists. the price. while shopping around, you will probably find better deals on both, but for our comparison i went to theaquariumguys. common shop for online sales, and one that carries both.
eheim canister 312.99
aquaclear hob 89.99
now keep in mind, the canister has other goodies on it that will justify some of the price difference. it is afterall a much more involved piece of equipment, however, for our purposes, even with the advancements in the canister system, the price does not even come close to reflecting the price difference. while the eheim is on the far end of the spectrum, a comparable canister rated for a similar sized tank will still run you between $150 and $200, and will not provide any of the added benefits of the eheim canister, further proving my point.
Hum, faulty Physics... Lets get into the gritty details;
Mechanical filteration. It isn't as cut and dry as more flow = better mech filtration. Flow patterns and other factors play a part also
It is my experience with HOB skimmers in marine tanks that HOB's move water mainly in their local vecinity due to the "waterfall" outlet. They do not realy stir the water near the substrate or create a massive current in the tank. Apply to these flow patters some dirt and change a skimmer to a propper filter. Now, what goes on? Well, the localised flow pattern will prevent the pic-up of dirt from within the whole tank, but localised dirt removal will be outstanding. In areas not local to the HOB though the dirt would prefur to settle in the substrate to staying in suspention and being removed. This leads to not as much being pulled by the filter and more settling in the substrate
Granted, the greater flow throughput in the HOB will go some what to making up for it, but will it surpass an Exturnal? I can't see how it can, as it's just cleaning in it's direct vecinity, not the whole tank
Biological Filtration Again, isn't as cut and dry as more flow = better filtration. Granted, there is the same ammount of media in each filter, so that's one variable left out, along with the ability ot use the same media in each making surface area for bacterial colonies the same.
Now lets look at those that remain. Tank turn-over, surface area of the media area and contact time and how they affect efficiency.
Greater tank turn-over means the ammonia and other items for removal get to the media quicker, so if this was the only thing alone being taken into account, yes bio-filtration would be helped, but in this case it's counter productve. Why? See below;
Visually, the media looks to have the same surface area in the containers. This means it will clogg (in therory, your mileage may vary) just as quickly as the canister. Stale mate here for mech again, but this makes no difference to performance across the two assuming the below point shows the same for each;
The fact that flow through the media has increased without increasing surface area, means that you have reduced contact time, which is arguably the most important aspect of Bio-filtration, and is at least as important as actual media surface area (not volume or media container surface area). Reduced contact time means implicitly that you have less time with the water being filtered through the media on each pass, so less time for the bacteria to "grab" that poison and remove it. This is a reduction in efficiency. Canister wins here, it's increased contact time for the media volume means greater efficincy, so more muck is removed per pass. The HOB has to make more passes through the media to remove the same ammount of toxin from the water, due to it's increased flow rate
So, to summarise
Mech = still open for debate
Bio = Can wins
Price = HOB wins
So there we have it, level pagged for the time being between the HOB and Can for scores. It realy will boil down to how you value filter performance to price. I would prefur to pay more for better performance, but many in this recession that can, will prefur the HOB purely down to it being cheaper
All the best
Rabbut
EDIT to add, there have been a few replys in the time I was typing. Please excuse any duplications of responces if they were added while I was posting.
/www.google.com/products?q=eheim+221...=1&ct=title 
