# Fluval Fx5 Modification



## Jgray152

So as we all know the Fx5's design is not the very best for media capacity. I have been thinking of ways to improve this and some ways have been modifying the baskets but this would be way to much work and would still yield little increase in media capacity.

So I though, why use the baskets? They are only there to seporate the media and for ease of cleaning for the standard consumer. 

The modification that I have done should increase the bio capacity well beyond the Ehiems 12 liters. It could be around 15 liters. I have more testing and figuring to do but here is a picture of what I have done so far. I have only cut 2" thick open cell foam to fit snug for zero bypass so far. 

I removed the intake tube that is inserted on the cover so the water just falls right onto the foam.



















Im going to use egg crate at the bottom to have a safe gap between the impeller intake and the bio media. 

Im going to be using Bio Bale is my bio media instead of the Fluval Bio Max which I have had great success with. The bio max would be way to expensive for the amount I need compaired to the bio bale which has TONS of surface area.

This modification is good for a few things.

1. ) Increase bio media capacity. Possibly around 12-15L
2. ) Decrease velocity of water flow for more contact time with bio media
3. ) Large area for flow which decreases the flow restriction.
4. ) Should help increase flow output since the water only has to change direction ONCE instead of THREE times.
5. ) Cleaning should be even easier and you will not need to remove bio media to clean the spunges like you had to before.
6. ) Eliminate about 5 possible warn o-ring issues
7. ) Original Foam blocks don't seal as nice as I would have liked to the basket above.
8. ) Increase the time between change intervals. In original form if you had fine filter foam in the center baskets, they could clog up real quick causing a drastic decrease in flow and lots of cavitation of the impeller and you would get LOTS of air bubbles everywhere. Should be able to use fine filter pads for longer periods of time.
9. ) Due to the decrease in flow resistance, hopfully this will help with the cavitation problem in the Fx5.

I may think of more reasons but so far this seems REALLY good.

What ya think?


----------



## jones57742

Jgray152:

*One*

I have very limited with a cannister and with HOB's.


*Two*

What you are proposing will just not work, IMHO, as you believe that it will if your cannister is sitting on the floor and the tank water surface is several feet higher than the bottom of the cannister.

My experience with cannisters is based upon an Eheim 2234. Please ref:
http://www.aquariumguys.com/eheimecco1.html

Based on my experiments the pump in this cannister is a low head high capacity pump.

The water surface of my sump is approximately four feet below the water surface in my tank.

I placed the cannister on the floor, the intake tube in the sump and the discharge tube in the tank.

Only a very small trickle came out of the discharge tube.


*Three*

You are attempting to emulate a wet/dry filtration system with a cannister filter.

This will not work.

IMHO (and per nature), cannisters work because the water surface of the intake and discharge are identical.

The problem is you disconnecting the intake line from the "pressure system" and generating a water surface several feet below the water surface in your tank.

TR


----------



## Jgray152

I am not trying to convert this to a wet/dry filter setup. 

the pump will work exactly the way it did before except without the baskets. The pump is designed for high head pressure and the head pressure will not change doing this. The head pressure is dependent on height, length and diamter of hose which will be exactly the same.

The cover will be placed on the way it usually does and the water will fil the canister the way it usually does and the water will also get pumped up into the tank the way it usually does. The only thing that has been changed is how the water flows through the filter.


----------



## jones57742

Jgray152 said:


> I removed the intake tube that is inserted on the cover so the water just falls right onto the foam.


Grey:

I must be missing something here based on you first and second posts.

TR


----------



## Jgray152

Sorry I will reword it..

Instead of the tube directing the water to the bottom of the filter basin so it can pass through the spunges on the sides of the baskets than move back up and over the top to the center of the baskets to go back down through the bio media to get pumped back up, im simply letting the water start filtering from the top of the basin and work its way down to the pump which will push it back up into the tank.

The filter will be sealed like it was before and the pump that came with the Fx5 will still be in use. Instead of the water flowing to the bottom first it will start from the top.


----------



## Jgray152

> The problem is you disconnecting the intake line from the "pressure system" and generating a water surface several feet below the water surface in your tank.


This is not true. Even if it was it would still work as long as the amount of water going into the canistor was the same as the amount its pumping out.


----------



## jones57742

Jg:

I am not trying to be argumentative but only informative based on my experimenting with the Eheim.



Jgray152 said:


> This is not true. Even if it was it would still work as long as the amount of water going into the canistor was the same as the amount its pumping out.


If you have any doubts then

[1] Observe the rate of flow under your typical operating conditions ie. with the intake and discharge tubes in your tank.

[2] Place water in a bucket, place the bucket on the floor, place the intake tube in the bucket and hold the discharge tube slightly above the water surface in your tank.

[3] If the difference in the water surfaces are several feet (like 4) then you will observe a significant decrease in the discharge from 1 above to 2 above.
The inflow and outflow rates will be identical but significantly reduced.

The pumps for cannister filters, or at least the Eheim with which I experimented, are low head_high discharge pumps and hence comments in the following portion of my post.


You are proposing what I would term "an all in one sand filter but without the sand" and you have done very, very good thinking with respect to most assertions in your enumeration.
BUT 
the Eheim with which I experimented employed the areas between the baskets as well as contiguous to the baskets in order to maintain reasonable discharges as the pump is low head_high flow.

Yes the rate of flow will be reduced but possibly to an extent which will be unacceptable to you.

I very much appreciate your experimenting as your publication of the results of your experiments will save me time and grief (I have had enough adventures in fish keeping to last at least one life time).

TR

BTW Jg: please consider the following as very rough estimations based on my experimentation as no comments relevant to these estimations have been posted on several forums. (These comments are based on a wet/dry system but may be applicable to any filtration system).

*Contact Period*

Contact period is obviously a function of the volume available in the sump for biological filtration media.

This concept is not well documented in the literature (ie. I have not located a web page which discusses this concept in even a general form).

Based on my wastewater treatment experience I believe that a contact period of not less than 1.5 minutes is appropriate. This value is way better than a WAG but I could not support this value very well. Obviously this value is a function of the type of biological media employed.

In order to implement this contact period I have significantly more biological filtration media in my sump than would be considered typical.


*Rate of Flow*

The rate of flow is obviously a function of the area through which the flow is accomplished and hence the shape of the sump is critical.

Based on research several years ago I believe that the velocity through the biological filtration media should not exceed .02 Feet/Second.


----------



## Jgray152

> If you have any doubts then
> [1] Observe the rate of flow under your typical operating conditions ie. with the intake and discharge tubes in your tank.
> [2] Place water in a bucket, place the bucket on the floor, place the intake tube in the bucket and hold the discharge tube slightly above the water surface in your tank.
> [3] If the difference in the water surfaces are several feet (like 4) then you will observe a significant decrease in the discharge from 1 above to 2 above.
> The inflow and outflow rates will be identical but significantly reduced.
> 
> The pumps for cannister filters, or at least the Eheim with which I experimented, are low head_high discharge pumps and hence comments in the following portion of my post.


I know all this. I don't see what the issue is. I know the lesser difference in height can increase the pump output due to the head pressure. I don't understand why you brought this up though because the head pressure has nothing to do with what I am doing. 

Maybe your getting confused as to where the output is on the Fx5. The tube that you see sticking up is the output tube. 

You talk a lot about Ehiems but it seems you have no experience with the Fx5 which I have been studying for a while now. I know some about fluid dynamics and know what you are talking about.

The length of tubing is not going to be changed nor is the distance between the filter and the tank.



> You are proposing what I would term "an all in one sand filter but without the sand" and you have done very, very good thinking with respect to most assertions in your enumeration.
> BUT
> the Eheim with which I experimented employed the areas between the baskets as well as contiguous to the baskets in order to maintain reasonable discharges as the pump is low head_high flow.


Same with the Fx5 except the Fx5 has a more powerful pump. Almost all the Ehiems I see have very weak pumps.

Making the water change direction more than once will increase the resistance of the input and therfor decrease the output.



> BTW Jg: please consider the following as very rough estimations based on my experimentation as no comments relevant to these estimations have been posted on several forums. (These comments are based on a wet/dry system but may be applicable to any filtration system).


Wet/dry system run differently since they rely on gravity and the size of piping to deliver the right amount of water to the pump. Canister filters create a vacuum in the intake pipe thats higher than a wet/dry intake which is why we can run smaller plumbing. 

You ever read in manuals for canister filters where it says make the hose as straight as possible? That is for two reasons, one is to keep length as short as possible and two because turns can slow the water down if they are steep enough.



> Contact Period
> 
> Contact period is obviously a function of the volume available in the sump for biological filtration media.
> 
> This concept is not well documented in the literature (ie. I have not located a web page which discusses this concept in even a general form).
> 
> Based on my wastewater treatment experience I believe that a contact period of not less than 1.5 minutes is appropriate. This value is way better than a WAG but I could not support this value very well. Obviously this value is a function of the type of biological media employed.
> 
> In order to implement this contact period I have significantly more biological filtration media in my sump than would be considered typical.


This is another reason why having a large volume and low velocity of flow is good. To increase the contact time.



> The rate of flow is obviously a function of the area through which the flow is accomplished and hence the shape of the sump is critical.


Yes and rate of flow is also dependent on restriction which is caused by the media, direction of flow change and area. 


> Based on research several years ago I believe that the velocity through the biological filtration media should not exceed .02 Feet/Second.


This is why I did what I did.


Personally, I don't see what all this talk is accomplishing? You bring up head pressure when the head pressure when the head pressure is not changing.


----------



## Jgray152

> IMHO (and per nature), cannisters work because the water surface of the intake and discharge are identical.


The water surface for the intake and discharge will still be the same. It will still be a sealed system. 

This is what im replacing;









This is how its still going to look when its together;











> The problem is you disconnecting the intake line from the "pressure system" and generating a water surface several feet below the water surface in your tank.


Im not disconnecting the intake line at all. Its the Intake tube form the bottom of the top cover that I removed which originally allow water to flow to the bottom of the filter basin and flow through the spunges you can see in the pic above. Now the water will start flowing form the top of the filter basin and not from the bottom. The Intake hose is still connected to the cover.


----------



## Jgray152

BTW Jones im not trying to start arguments it just seems you were confused as to how it was going to be setup and run.

I just did some compairing between the Fluval 405 and the Fx5. 

405 Media Capacity: 4.2 Liters
Fx5 Media Capacity: 5.9 Liters


Difference............... 1.7 Liters  
For a Filter so LARGE they only managed to put in another 1.7L of media.  

The Little amount of media with such a high flow rate, no wonder it doesn't cycle very quickly. The Flow velocity is to great for such little media capacity.

Mechanical Area;
405 Mech Capacity: 49 sq In
Fx5 Mech capacity : 325 sq In

276 sq In increase in Mechanical Filtration from the 405 to Fx5. YIKES! They must have been looking at time between cleaning intervals

Rough estimates for new Mechanical and Media Capacity. Need to take more measurments before I find the right figures.

Modded Fx5 Media Capacity: 10-12 liters. (updated 6/29/09)
Modded Fx5 Mech Capacity: 314 sq In


----------



## jones57742

Jgray152 said:


> Personally, I don't see what all this talk is accomplishing? You bring up head pressure when the head pressure when the head pressure is not changing.


Jg: I appreciate your second post and am therefore responding but please no more hammering as I am just trying to help per one of your previous posts.

I am specifically trying to help in that the basics are simple and can possibly save you a bunch of grief.

In the engineering world static head loss is termed in the physics world the change in potential energy.

In the engineering world dynamic head loss is termed in the physics world the decrease in system energy due to the production of heat.

I have provided several links which may help with these concepts:

Potential Energy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_energy

Kinetic Energy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy

Static Head
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_(hydraulic)

Dynamic Head
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/D/AE_dynamic_head.html

TR



Jgray152 said:


> Wet/dry system run differently since they rely on gravity and the size of piping to deliver the right amount of water to the pump. Canister filters create a vacuum in the intake pipe thats higher than a wet/dry intake which is why we can run smaller plumbing.


Jg:

Believe me please: I am not talking down to you but am in my teaching mode with respect to the basics.

Biological filtration does not care about the system but only about the volume of bacteriological digestion bacteria as well as the rate of flow through this media.

Please advise me if you wish to continue this discussion but once again no hammering please as I am just trying to help.

TR


----------



## jones57742

Jg: You posted before I completed my post and it seems that we are "pulling the same direction!



Jgray152 said:


> BTW Jones im not trying to start arguments it just seems you were confused as to how it was going to be setup and run.


Jg: when you get to be an old dinosaur like me you will understand that confusion is the uniform steady state condition. Any other condition is anomalous.

Jg: You are really doing a bunch of research here.

I believe that the critical items are volume of bacteriological filtration media and the velocity through such media (ie you got to have enough for digestion but the contact time must be sufficient for the digestion to occur).

If you have time to research these concepts I would appreciate it as I have done so with no joy.

TR


----------



## Jgray152

*Rough estimates for new Mechanical and Media Capacity. Need to take more measurments before I find the right figures.*
Modded Fx5 Media Capacity: 10-12 liters. (updated 6/29/09)
Modded Fx5 Mech Capacity: 314 sq In
Measured Unmodded Fx5 Flow: 525 GPH
Max Head Height: 3.3m (10.8ft)

_Will the flow increase even more? We'll have to see. With a pump output of 925 GPH, there is some room to grow. The said filter output by Hagen says 607 GPH. Its actuall output is 86% of the said output which is pretty darn good but in comparison with the pump output thats only 56%. Where is the restriction? Thats what we need to know and I want to find out. If I could get the flow even 70% of the pump output that would be a drastic improvment at just about 650 GPH. Knowing that head pressures will never let me get near 80-85% if the rated pump output which would be 740-790 GPH.

As of now with almost 50% restriction that can easily put the impeller in the braking point of cavitation even with clean media. Could this be the reason Hagen designed the circuit to shut the pump off after 24hrs for 2 minutes to release trapped air even when the intake is not anywhere near air stones? Hmmmmm....

I have a feeling the baskets are a small part of the restriction and its more of the fact that the intake of the impeller is smaller than the output. Flow meters will be needed to measure flow increase._

Eheim 2080 Media Capacity: 12 liters
Eheim 2080 Estimated Mech Capacty: 144 sq In. Est. 2.3 liters
Measured Unmodded 2080 Flow: 318 GPH
Max Head Height: 2.2m (6.6ft)
318 is 70% of the 450 GPH pump output which is really good.



> Biological filtration does not care about the system but only about the volume of bacteriological digestion bacteria as well as the rate of flow through this media.
> 
> Please advise me if you wish to continue this discussion but once again no hammering please as I am just trying to help.


Sorry if my post seem hammering. I guess I get caught up in the post.

Please let me know if you understand that I did this to increase the volume of bio media therfor increase the amount of bacteria available and also decreasing the velocity through the media which would increase the contact time.

Before I go further into saying that the flow should increase I guess I will leave that up to the flow meters when I get them and after I finish this little project. Im sure there are forms of physics and fluid dynamics that I may be missing since I have never taken a class in either of them. 



> Jg: when you get to be an old dinosaur like me you will understand that confusion is the uniform steady state condition. Any other condition is anomalous.


:console:



> Jg: You are really doing a bunch of research here.
> 
> I believe that the critical items are volume of bacteriological filtration media and the velocity through such media (ie you got to have enough for digestion but the contact time must be sufficient for the digestion to occur).
> 
> If you have time to research these concepts I would appreciate it as I have done so with no joy.


There is more research to be done which im going to keep doing so I guess stay tuned? I do appriciate all your input and I am keeping it all in mind through this project.


----------



## jones57742

Jgray152 said:


> The said filter output by Hagen says 607 GPH. Its actuall output is 86% of the said output which is pretty darn good but in comparison with the pump output thats only 56%. Where is the restriction?


The restriction is not physical but marketing.

You are getting deep into pumping theory.

If serious cavitation was indeed occurring over an extended period the motor would burn up due to low amps and the bearings would burn up due to the high rotational velocity.

This is knee jerk reaction but the restriction is coming from placing media in the baskets or perhaps even placing the baskets in the cannister.

If not the above then my knee jerk reaction is that the published flow was based on a higher suction elevation than the discharge elevation.

TR

What I am in general saying is that you are observing marketing hype. A manufacturer never figured that an end user would check them out as you are doing.


----------



## Jgray152

That is very true. I know the official pump output is higher obveously but by how much is unknown and can only be thought that the said pump output is true.

Hagen states in the manual that the 607 GPH was measured with equal hose lengths. I don't know how long nor do I know if they had media.

The Intake to the impeller is only about 5/8 instead of 1" like the output. The front of the impeller is about 1" or just over. 

Here are a few pics of the impeller.

















Don't you think if the intake to the impeller was of the size of the front of the impeller that it would work more efficiantly?



> If serious cavitation was indeed occurring over an extended period the motor would burn up due to low amps and the bearings would burn up due to the high rotational velocity.


Now if the impeller is spinning at say 3000rpm (throwing a number out there) and the flow was restricted say 80-100%, wouldn't this cause cavitation? Does the impeller speed up because of this or does it slow down or stay the same?

the Bearings are part of the impeller shaft which is cooled by the water entering the impeller bore. Atleast thats how I remember seeing it I would have to look at it again. 



> higher suction elevation than the discharge elevation.


I could only think that if it say pump _output_ that its discharge and not suction. Reason I think there is physycal restriction is due to the intake to the impeller being so small compaired to the impeller physical intake. I'll see if I can dig up some pics of this for a better understanding.


----------



## Jgray152

Here is a picture of the intake to the impeller. The wording get crapy after I saved it.

The Arrow on the left says "Indentation for impeller intake" and the arrow on the right say "Impeller housed inside here"


----------



## Jgray152

I checked the impeller again and the input side of the impeller is about 1 3/16" in diameter and the intake hole to the impeller is only about 9/16-5/8" in diameter. That has to be causing some good restriction. I would not be able to open it up to much though but I would be able to open it up some.


----------



## jones57742

jgr: Before we go any further


[1] My principal experience with pumps comes from the engineering world based on large pumps associated with potable water production plants, domestic waste water treatment plants and golf course irrigation systems with some experience related to small external aquarium pumps, minimal experience with a cannister (ie. my experiments with the Eheim) and very little experience with a rudimentary HOB.

[2] My understanding of pumping theory comes from the physics world as the basic pumping theory presented in the engineering literature is not all that dissimilar to mumbo jumbo (at least for me).
I hope that you have read and understood the information in the links which I provided as this understanding will, IMHO, save you a bunch of time as well as significantly enhance your understanding of the various engineering designs which you are encountering.

[3] I cannot really express how much I appreciate the time and diligence you are putting into to your research as I am learning a ton here from your work.




Jgray152 said:


> That is very true. I know the official pump output is higher obveously but by how much is unknown and can only be thought that the said pump output is true.


jgr: I am not talking down here but only attempting to convey my experience.

I do not know how old you are but as I indicated I am old wore out dinosaur and as such have had a ton of interfaces with equipment peddlers (a peddler of one type or the other shows up at the office at least monthly and at least one will call weekly).

Based on experience the BS set forth in their presentations and literature is not to be trusted until proved in real world operating conditions. Only once have I observed a product function in accordance with the peddler's literature and spiel.



Jgray152 said:


> Hagen states in the manual that the 607 GPH was measured with equal hose lengths. I don't know how long nor do I know if they had media.


Who knows and not published

[1] the hoses may be only a couple of inches in length with low energy loss adapters which are not furnished with their commercial products due to fabrication costs.

[2] or maybe the baskets were not even in the cannister.

*Please keep in mind that I have never seen a pump design similar to the one depicted in your photographs.*



Jgray152 said:


> The Intake to the impeller is only about 5/8 instead of 1" like the output. The front of the impeller is about 1" or just over.


This intake condition is to produce a higher velocity on the intake than the outflow and this condition probably relates to a specific element of the design of the impeller or the impeller housing.



Jgray152 said:


> Don't you think if the intake to the impeller was of the size of the front of the impeller that it would work more efficiantly?


In the physics world (ie. theory) yes but in the engineering world probably not.
Please refer to the above comment.

Your photographs are very good but even with my glasses on I have trouble observing most of the details.

The inflow intakes do not appear to be beveled which would significantly reduce the head loss (energy dissipation).




Jgray152 said:


> Now if the impeller is spinning at say 3000rpm (throwing a number out there) and the flow was restricted say 80-100%, wouldn't this cause cavitation? Does the impeller speed up because of this or does it slow down or stay the same?


No. Cavitation is typically caused by the impeller spinning like crazy when pumping against a very low discharge head.
If the outflow is restricted to 100% or somewhere near thereto the motor will burn up as all energy will be converted to heat.



Jgray152 said:


> the Bearings are part of the impeller shaft which is cooled by the water entering the impeller bore. Atleast thats how I remember seeing it I would have to look at it again.


What I am about to say is a ton of speculation but is based on physics and engineering.
The condition which you describe is a significant difference between cannister and external pumps (at least large ones).
The bearings are stainless steel and are housed in very low viscosity lubricant with the housing being cooled by the water.




Jgray152 said:


> I could only think that if it say pump _output_ that its discharge and not suction. Reason I think there is physycal restriction is due to the intake to the impeller being so small compaired to the impeller physical intake. I'll see if I can dig up some pics of this for a better understanding.


jgr: you are really getting into theory here and your theory is correct but these folks know the theory and hence there is some reason for the apparent anomalies.


*jgr: before going further I will attempt to explain high head/low flow pumps compared to low head/high flow pumps as I am able to understand the concepts.

Envision a fan with large blades in an impeller housing with the fan being turned by a 3HP motor. The large blades will discharge a bunch of water but if the discharge head is increased the rotational velocity of the blades will go to zero and the pump will burn up.

Now envision a fan with small blades in an impeller housing turned by a 3HP motor. Obviously less water can be pumped but a much greater discharge head is required in order to cause the rotational velocity of the blades to go to zero.*




Jgray152 said:


> That has to be causing some good restriction. I would not be able to open it up to much though but I would be able to open it up some.


jgr: please refer to my previous comments concerning physics (theory) and engineering (reality).

Some one or many folks have put a ton of thought and research into the design of the cannister. If it were mine I would not play with the various elements (unless I did mind discarding the cannister filter) as the probability of decreasing it's effectiveness or burning up the motor is, IMHO, very high.

From your research I believe that many portions of cannister designs are predicated on fabrication cost (or fabrication mistakes which the designers are attempting to rectify as, for example, they have a warehouse full of impellers and housings which will not function with their theoretical cannister design) and not necessarily on filtration efficiency.

TR

BTW: If you really want to play go get three 10" clear plastic pipes which can be made pressure contained or better yet a 20" clear plastic pipe (will save on bulkheads). We can discuss appropriate filtration and determine an appropriate external pump.


----------



## Jgray152

It appears we lost a few good discussion posts unfortunatly. 

I just want to add these pictures so you can better understand how the impeller and housing was designed.




















> BTW: If you really want to play go get three 10" clear plastic pipes which can be made pressure contained or better yet a 20" clear plastic pipe (will save on bulkheads). We can discuss appropriate filtration and determine an appropriate external pump.


You got my interest. What are you planning 



> This intake condition is to produce a higher velocity on the intake than the outflow and this condition probably relates to a specific element of the design of the impeller or the impeller housing.


I was thinking of opening up the intake more but I can see the efficiency going down since the only area I can open it up is at the top area. I think this would cause issues as you can see the opening is centered on the intake on the impeller which would help the flow. If I opened it at the top I think the direction of flow to the impeller could be comprimised and could decrease the output since the flow right now through the impeller seem like its more uniform.

The only thing I could do so to drill it out slightly larger maybe by another 1/8" in diamter and hope I don't brake through the bottom. If I do I would have to patch it some how which seems like that would have longevity issues.



> jgr: you are really getting into theory here and your theory is correct but these folks know the theory and hence there is some reason for the apparent anomalies.


I completly agree. This is another reason why I posted this and im glade you are one of the few that have posted to this thread that I have posted in 4 different forums.

I feel the baskets are for the standard consumer and for sediment seporation and actually, could make it more efficient. Hmm... If you look at the bottom of the basin you can see that its slopped in a spiral direction. I think this helps the water flow through the center of the baskets. The design of the housing certainly has some thought into it.


----------



## jones57742

Jgray152 said:


> It appears we lost a few good discussion posts unfortunatly.


My memory is fading but I do not think so.



Jgray152 said:


> im glade you are one of the few that have posted to this thread that I have posted in 4 different forums.


Jg: I really appreciate this comment as I am just trying to bring a substantial understanding of the laws of nature as well as 35 years of engineering experience to the table here. At first it appeared that you believed that I was talking down: I was not!: I was attempting to convey what is in my head into your thinking.

If you believe that posting in this thread posts from the other forums which seem very plausible please do so as I my pick up something from them which I have not thought about.



Jgray152 said:


> I just want to add these pictures so you can better understand how the impeller and housing was designed.


Yes they have helped. Note the angle on the orifices.


Before I get into the following I need to say that I do not believe that I have gotten across one item which I believe to be critical to your research.

You just cannot believe how the big corps (and I am not referring only to pump manufacturers) really do business.

The well engineered and machined prototype equipment (pumps, cars, engines, motors, etc.) work like a charm.

The corp spends $100K's or $1M's on production equipment.

The production models do not function as intended, retrofitting the production equipment will be $100K's but installing a kludge for each of the current model will only be on $10Ks.

Now you get the drift? Also you now know why product generations are sometimes slow and sometimes fast with the current generation equipment being much more expensive than the previous generation equipment (the corp is retooling in order to fabricate a product which should have functioned in the first place and are using marketing hype to recoup their costs!)

Once again (and not talking down) but exactly why are you asking very appropriate questions concerning your observations of the equipment which obviously do not make sense?




Jgray152 said:


> You got my interest. What are you planning


You have not told me your age but the answer to your question is :grin::grin::grin::wink: and is intuitively obvious.

You appear to full of "pi..s and vinegar" and banging your head against a problem is minor to you but I am old and have had all of this that I want. (ie. I anticipate using your experience which I will attempt to make as little hard earned as possible)

What your are proposing, IMHO, will not work anywhere close to what you intend.

Most of my thinking has been based on wet/dry but with your research I believe that you may really be onto something here with respect to a high end filter for 50G to 150G tanks or final very high end polishing for wet/dry systems for 100G and above.


Getting back to the general concepts for a general filter (ie. not a high end polishing filter for a wet/dry):
The suction line would come from the tank as the water surface in the tank would generate substantial potential energy.
The pump and filter would be in some type of open containment enclosure on the floor.
The pump would be 3" higher that the bottom of the filter (priming these external pumps is a real pain and these vertical differences would substantially do away with this pain).
The pump discharge line would enter the filter via a bulkhead placed as low a possible.
(let's assume that the 24" diameter filter is 24" tall)
The first 3" of filter (which receives the discharge from the bulkhead) would be very, very large aggregate (which would mostly distribute the flow vertically).

The specific layering of biological and mechanical media from the very large aggregate to the top bulkhead we will need to "think out".

TR


----------



## Jgray152

> Yes they have helped. Note the angle on the orifices.


Which Orifices? On the impeller? If so that is way I think this impeller is a more thought out design than just a straight bladed design that you see in almost all canister filters.



> Before I get into the following I need to say that I do not believe that I have gotten across one item which I believe to be critical to your research.
> 
> You just cannot believe how the big corps (and I am not referring only to pump manufacturers) really do business.
> 
> The well engineered and machined prototype equipment (pumps, cars, engines, motors, etc.) work like a charm.
> 
> The corp spends $100K's or $1M's on production equipment.
> 
> The production models do not function as intended, retrofitting the production equipment will be $100K's but installing a kludge for each of the current model will only be on $10Ks.
> 
> Now you get the drift? Also you now know why product generations are sometimes slow and sometimes fast with the current generation equipment being much more expensive than the previous generation equipment (the corp is retooling in order to fabricate a product which should have functioned in the first place and are using marketing hype to recoup their costs!)
> 
> Once again (and not talking down) but exactly why are you asking very appropriate questions concerning your observations of the equipment which obviously do not make sense?


I understand where you are coming from.



> You have not told me your age but the answer to your question is and is intuitively obvious.


I am 24. I always look at things in such a way where I wonder if the said design can be improved or how it could have worked if it was designed differently. This is how I have learned since im more of an on hands and experiece learner instead of a book learner.



> What your are proposing, IMHO, will not work anywhere close to what you intend.


It may not, im just wondering if it will improve at all, and if there would be improvment, is it really worth it.. 



> Most of my thinking has been based on wet/dry but with your research I believe that you may really be onto something here with respect to a high end filter for 50G to 150G tanks or final very high end polishing for wet/dry systems for 100G and above.


Supposedly the Fx5 can handle 400 gal aquariums but I say thats a load of BS. I think it could handle a 100-120 gal safely as it stands right now but after changing the media and flow around in the basin it should be able to handle my 180 gal and possible my friends 240 gal with ease but we'll see. 



> Getting back to the general concepts for a general filter (ie. not a high end polishing filter for a wet/dry):
> The suction line would come from the tank as the water surface in the tank would generate substantial potential energy.
> The pump and filter would be in some type of open containment enclosure on the floor.
> The pump would be 3" higher that the bottom of the filter (priming these external pumps is a real pain and these vertical differences would substantially do away with this pain).
> The pump discharge line would enter the filter via a bulkhead placed as low a possible.
> (let's assume that the 24" diameter filter is 24" tall)
> The first 3" of filter (which receives the discharge from the bulkhead) would be very, very large aggregate (which would mostly distribute the flow vertically).
> 
> The specific layering of biological and mechanical media from the very large aggregate to the top bulkhead we will need to "think out".


I would like to first say that I do understand all the potential energy and pressure differences from water above and below the water line. 

I wish I could go out a buy some clear pipe but I just don't have the $$ right now. Im on a strict budget as I have a few high bills to pay off.

I think I may try to find a Fx5 basin for a "beta" testing machine so I don't have to ruin mine or the spare I have.


----------



## Jgray152

So far I have ordered the finishing media touches. Fine foam and bio bale and we'll see what happends. I have to order a couple flow meters and I want to measure the flow before and after the new media setup and also would like to measure the flow with the media in the baskets.

I think im going to split the flow from one 1" tube to two 3/4" tubes. and use the Hagen Magnum output head. 









This way I can use two 500 GPH flow valves and I can add some flow to the other end of the tank or atleast to the middle of the tank. Hose length will decide this.


----------



## duke33

Very interesting.


----------



## Jgray152

So I took some measurments and did some math.

I have an area of 11.50" in Diameter and 8" High for bio media. So 11.5 / 2 = 5.75 x 5.75 x 3.14 = 103.81 x 8 = 830.5 cubic inches = 13.60 Liters of bio media. I could raise that to 14 liters very easy by just raising the spunges another half inch. 

5.3 Liters of Foam which is about 325 cubic inches.

So what do you think? My first estimations were before I took some real measurments.

Here are some pictures of the modified Fx5. All I need now is the media that is on route

Picture of some of the egg crate cutt with my band saw and siliconed to the side of the basin to aid in support for the top rack.









Same as above except with the bottom rack in place.









Now a picture of the top rack in along with the bottom rack









Just a close up


----------



## Jgray152

Here are some updated figures;

*Unmodified Fluval Fx5 Stats*
Media Capacity: 5.9 Liters (im going to measure this since I think its wrong too..)
Mech capacity: 294 sq in; 369 cu in; 6 Liters
Measured Flow Rate: 525 GPH
Max Head Height: 3.3m (10.8ft)
Filtration Volume: 11.2 (Hagen says 20L. I call BS)

*Modified Fluval Fx5 Stats.*
Media Capacity: 12 - 14 liters. (Depends on depth of mechanical filtration)
Mech Capacity: Est 108 sq in surface area. 325 cubic inches; 5.3 L (2" prefilter foam and 1" fine filter foam.)
Filtration Volume: 19.3L
Measured Flow Rate: ??

*Ehiem Statistics*
Eheim 2080 Media Capacity: 12 liters
Eheim 2080 Estimated Mech Capacty: 1.5L; 92 cu in
Measured Unmodded 2080 Flow: 318 GPH
Max Head Height: 2.2m (6.6ft)
Unmodded Filtration Volume: 13.5 L


----------



## jones57742

jgr:

My not responding immediately only means that I have been "out of pocket" for several days as I am intensely interested in your experimentation.

You are "way, way deep into empiricism" and no way!! would I tell you what I think simply because I do not have a clue (not exactly).

I believe that what you are into will not function as you have intended but
please keep good notes (which I am sure you will do based upon your posts) as these note should help a ton of folks with respect to published conditions versus real conditions concerning functioning of cannister filters.

TR


----------



## Jgray152

Jones, you really have a vast list of words in your dictionary. I think in almost all your posts I was learning a new word. haha.

Right now im looking into make the "purging" work the way it should. right now if the pump shuts off, which it does for 2 minutes every 24 hours, than all the air will escape through the intake tube which is NOT what I want to happen. So I have a small trick up my sleeve and im installing the original tube except have it shorter and im going to try something that should make it function better.

I'll keep you posted. My "notes" are on the forums. Most are on fishforums.net and I have let others know not to attempt this unless they plan on redesigning or rethinking what I have done since its all based on theory right now and no factual testing as of yet. 

I think doing stuff like this is fun and I like it. I learn a lot doing it even if it doesn't come out the way I would like. I then try to rethink to make it work better.


----------



## jones57742

Jgray152 said:


> Jones, you really have a vast list of words in your dictionary. I think in almost all your posts I was learning a new word.


With my perception of your attacking what you perceive as a problem your vocabulary will be much greater than this 55 year old dinosaur's is.

I appreciate your comment a bunch. I have been unmercifully hammered on this Forum with respect to my writing style.




Jgray152 said:


> ... all the air will escape through the intake tube which is NOT what I want to happen. So I have a small trick up my sleeve and im installing the original tube except have it shorter and im going to try something that should make it function better.


Not talking down at all here but  Please refer to the first sentence in the last paragraph of my previous post.

IMHO and as expressed in engineering words your system is "air locking".

I believe that I know what your "small trick is" but it will not function without a bulkhead at the top of the cannister and a small tube which returns flow, whether the flow be air or water, to the tank.



Jgray152 said:


> I'll keep you posted. My "notes" are on the forums. Most are on fishforums.net and I have let others know not to attempt this unless they plan on redesigning or rethinking what I have done since its all based on theory right now and no factual testing as of yet.


Thanks for the site reference.



Jgray152 said:


> I think doing stuff like this is fun ...


This is very, very good on my end. You are young and full of "p...s" and vinegar and I can gain experience without it being hard earned.

TR


----------



## Jgray152

> Not talking down at all here but Please refer to the first sentence in the last paragraph of my previous post.
> 
> IMHO and as expressed in engineering words your system is "air locking".
> 
> I believe that I know what your "small trick is" but it will not function without a bulkhead at the top of the cannister and a small tube which returns flow, whether the flow be air or water, to the tank.


This is a bad picture for what im trying to reference but on the inside of the top cover there is a very small tube which connects directly to the output so air only escapes through that point. This is how it functions normally. I have ot say it works extremly well too.

One thing about how this is setup is that when the filter basin has low pressure (vacuum) and the output having high pressure, while the filter is running there is a jet of water that flows out of the tube. So instead of it shooting to the other side of the canister and possibly disturbing the flow, they have a little tab that is curved to direct the flow downward.

The down side of this, if you look at it for the first time you think that unfiltered water will flow through the output but this is not true for how it was originally designed. The water had already passed through the spunges on the outside of the baskets.

The downside of how im doing it is there is a much greater chance of unfiltered water flowing back through the output after it shuts off for 2 minutes. Im not worried about th at all since when did a few loose particles ever harm a fish? I think the one major thing I have to take into consideration is, will that tube ever become clogged? I may need to posibly install a course spunge over the tube to keep depris out.

You can't see it in the picture but you can see some of the small plastic tube and the output which has the white plastic ring around it. In that ring there is an o-ring that seals the output tube from the basin to the cover.

I'll try to get a better picture.










Here is a picture so you know what the outside looks like. It will still look like this after im done. Fx5 on the top left.











> "p...s"


I have seen this more than once..... should I ask what word your trying to hide. haha. :lol:



> Thanks for the site reference.


Your welcome.


----------



## jones57742

Jgray152 said:


> This is a bad picture for what im trying to reference but on the inside of the top cover there is a very small tube which connects directly to the output so air only escapes through that point. This is how it functions normally. I have ot say it works extremly well too.


Someone is obviously way ahead of me here as this beats the "h...l" out of drilling into the top of the cannister and installing a bulkhead
BUT 
be prepared to drill out a larger diameter and take a larger tube to the surface of the tank water. (This is just gut reaction.)



Jgray152 said:


> I have seen this more than once..... should I ask what word your trying to hide. haha. :lol:


urinate.

Just a West Texas colloquialism;: "p....s" and vinegar.

TR


----------



## Jgray152

> Someone is obviously way ahead of me here as this beats the "h...l" out of drilling into the top of the cannister and installing a bulkhead
> BUT
> be prepared to drill out a larger diameter and take a larger tube to the surface of the tank water. (This is just gut reaction.)


Drill out the outlet and intake to a larger diameter? 



> urinate.
> 
> Just a West Texas colloquialism;: "p....s" and vinegar.
> 
> TR


Ah see. 

BTW Jones my name is Justin. We seem to have been fairly casual toward each other and I feel a proper introduction is in order. May I ask your name?


----------



## Jgray152

So. This is my idea. basically, im wanting to keep the intake submerged in water when the filter shuts off. I think I should have made the pocket a little deaper than it is. 










I had to lower the top tray to keep an inch of gap at the top surface so water can flow. Otherwise the top cover will seal against the spunge. Now the filter holds about 11.9 liters of bio media. I could cut the 2" spunge in half and get back up to 13.7 liters but I think it will work just fine.

As large as the Fx5 looks, the inside doesn't have much space to work with.


----------



## jones57742

Jgray152 said:


> I think I should have made the pocket a little deaper than it is.


Jg:

You are going where only the designers, machiners and retrofitters of the Fx5 have gone before.

Have you powered up with your current configuration? (This comment is coming from experimental research 35 years ago.)




Jgray152 said:


> As large as the Fx5 looks, the inside doesn't have much space to work with.


Jg: The following is only intended to be humor:
Ah ha! Ah ha!
Do you remember the old dinosaur's reference to a large cylinder and an external pump?
I am sending you a PM concerning this issue.

TR


----------



## Jgray152

I have not powered it up yet. I may get it powered this weekend without the bio media since thats not in yet.

I am still very interested in getting a cylinder and such as well in the near future. I PMed you.



> You are going where only the designers, machiners and retrofitters of the Fx5 have gone before.


Knowing Hagen;s designers have gone over many ideas. Im hoping that this was not one of them and they found it to fail. I  If they did go over something similar, then I'm hoping it did work but the cost was greater to manufacture and decided on a more simple design that may have not met there original plans for the output flow and operation.


----------



## jones57742

Jgray152 said:


> So for a sealable canister. How do you like this one.
> http://www.usplastic.com/catalog/va...y_name=20329&product_id=20307&variant_id=3733
> 
> I could put one bulk head on top for the intake and prop the cansiter up on a small wood frame that would be permanently fixed to the bottom that way I can install a bulk head at the bottom as well and have the bottom for the output to an external pump.?


Jg:

I would power up.

My gut reaction (bulk heads, wood frames, etc.) is that you are turning a $300 cannister filter into at best secondary filtration and at worst carpet flooding or fishies gasping for air as very little water may be present in your tank.


Please note the following:

$175
http://www.marinedepot.com/ps_ViewItem~idProduct~IK1235.html
for a specific product and
http://www.marinedepot.com/ps_Aquar...s_iwaki_japanese_american_wmd3040_information 
for the head/discharge curve.

I have checked into clear PVC and my estimation of the price was incorrect.
I can get 8" or 12" AWWA C900 pipe in short pieces for virtually "el zippo" but this pipe is not clear and I do not now know how much the welded caps cost.
Please ref.
http://www.awwa.org/Publications/MainStreamArticle.cfm?ItemNumber=2796

TR


----------



## Jgray152

jones57742 said:


> Jg:
> 
> I would power up.
> 
> My gut reaction (bulk heads, wood frames, etc.) is that you are turning a $300 cannister filter into at best secondary filtration and at worst carpet flooding or fishies gasping for air as very little water may be present in your tank.


My PM about the wood frame and bulk heads were only directed toward building a canister filter from scratch and not directed toward the modification I have done on the Fx5. So there is no bulkheads or wood framing that will be going on the Fx5.




> Please note the following:
> 
> $175
> http://www.marinedepot.com/ps_ViewItem~idProduct~IK1235.html
> for a specific product and
> http://www.marinedepot.com/ps_Aquar...s_iwaki_japanese_american_wmd3040_information
> for the head/discharge curve.


I was looking into those pumps as well.



> I have checked into clear PVC and my estimation of the price was incorrect.
> I can get 8" or 12" AWWA C900 pipe in short pieces for virtually "el zippo" but this pipe is not clear and I do not now know how much the welded caps cost.
> Please ref.
> http://www.awwa.org/Publications/MainStreamArticle.cfm?ItemNumber=2796
> 
> TR


It would be great if I would be able to get my hands on a clear canister that is about 12" in diameter. I can get clear PVC piping but I don't think anything that large.

HEre is a picture of the underside of the cover.


----------



## Jgray152

*TEST RUN #1*

I hooked the filter up and did a test run.

It seemed to have worked pretty good. The system had purged a lot of the air out through the output on its own. Flow seems to be the same as before.

One thing I have to look into. The canister will not purge 100%. Air is still trapped inside all the time for some reason. Even if I shake the filter and tilt it about 50 degrees to the side no air comes out. 

I removed the lid and started looking at the filter foam. I noticed there was a bunch of small air bubbles forced into the coarse foam right where the jet of water comes from the small air purge tube.

So I thought that maybe the air was getting trapped in the media. I started lifting up the coarse foam and noticed no air trapped under it. I than lifted up the fine filter pad and noticed a few small bubbles surfaced. I also then lifted the very fine pad and one good sized air bubble surfaced.

I removed the fine filter pads and kept the coarse pad in and im still having a problem with air.

Im going to try without any foam to see what happends. 

I havn't checked but possibly the tube is getting clogged......

Im really going to look into this as far as my knowledge will let me.


----------



## Jgray152

*CONTINUED OBSERVATIONS for TEST RUN #1*

Within an hour all the air has been expelled. Most likely worked out by the impeller. There is no longer air in the canister. This is only with the coarse spunge and I would imagine that with the fine spunges the air would not be able to get worked out as easily.

Flow is right up there. I think its a bit more than before but this could heavily be due to the dirty filter fiber reducing the flow in the Fx5 I was running before.

Its been running overnight without any issues so far and is as quiet as it was before.

Overall im very please with how this turned out. There is just a small bug I have to squish in the new design.

I think it might be really neat to cut the center portion of the cover out and silicone or hot glue or PVC glue some clear plexy glass/lexan over the top so I can see what is happening 

My Bio Bale has come in so im going to be putting that in later on today since im at work right now.

While switching out filters and allowing the modded filter purge it loosend up a lot of junk in the hose which was thrown everywhere in the tank. The filter picked it all up and held it in either in or on the coarse spunge. Before I removed the fine spunges they too seemed to pick up a lot as well.

So far the general function of the filter seem to be exactly what I wanted.

I may try to increase the inner diameter of the air purge tube but I would rather not have to do this since that would decrease the output further. It may not be anything I would be able ot measure though so I may be alright. Increasing the ID of the tube I would think may help with purging the rest of the air. Thats as long as the air is reaching the tube.

I know installing a bulkhead at the top of the canister will solve this issue but that seems like a quick hack instead of a fixing a design flaw with the moded filter. So with that said, the tube should do its job.


----------



## jones57742

Jg:

I really appreciate the notes and am very proud for you that the system is functioning as you intended (this one has never happened to me the first time).

I am not trying to be a pain here but you mentioned that fine mechanical media would probably not function due to air entrapment and hence my theory (and I mean this in the very literal definition of the word) concerning an external pump and a large cylinder with the appropriate lamination of filtration media.

TR


----------



## Jgray152

The kicker here is that you can run fine filtration media in the center of the baskets and the air travels up through that just fine. 

I have never delt with pond filter systems but the fine filter poly strand foam I got is for pond equipment and they may function different and are not normally used for systems that need to evacuate air?

I am still up for an external pump and large cylinder. I just want to see if I can get the Fx5 to work good first.


----------



## Jgray152

Well I got home from work and the filter was as quiet as can be. Flow was great and tank was clear. 

I decided to empty out the canister and put the bio bale in for the bio media along with the 2 fine filtration media to see how it works..

Well, it purged really good but still had air inside the canister at the vey top. Not much though only a little bit. The filter is not loud at all with the air but you can hear it getting tossed around but still fairly quiet. Im going to see how long it will take for the air to evacuate if at all.

I once remember that I ran the Fx5 without the baskets and it seemed to have purged all the air out. Im going to try this again and see what the outcome is.


----------



## Jgray152

Well I tested my other Fx5's purging with no baskets or media in it. It seemed to have purged 100%. 

This leads me to believe its a pressure differential issue possibly. The only difference is that the tube in the this Fx5 was long and extended to the bottom.

This seems to be the only difference compaired to my modded Fx5.

Any words of wisdom Jones? Could the longer tube cause more pressure during purging to force the air out the top? For some reason I can't think about the pressure differential clearly.


----------



## jones57742

Jgray152 said:


> Well I tested my other Fx5's purging with no baskets or media in it. It seemed to have purged 100%.
> 
> This leads me to believe its a pressure differential issue possibly. The only difference is that the tube in the this Fx5 was long and extended to the bottom.
> 
> This seems to be the only difference compaired to my modded Fx5.
> 
> Any words of wisdom Jones? Could the longer tube cause more pressure during purging to force the air out the top? For some reason I can't think about the pressure differential clearly.


Jg: Please excuse me here but
ROFLMAO :lol: ROFLMAO :lol:ROFLMAO :lol:ROFLMAO :lol:ROFLMAO :lol:
and I am not talking down.

Please refer to one of my earliest posts concerning cannister pumps being high flow and low head.

No words of wisdom (wrt to the problem which you are observing) and you probably do not have any thoughts either.

The slightest energy loss, whether it be dynamic (ie. heat generation) or static, will significantly affect the output of a low head/high flow pump.

Neither you nor I will probably ever be able to ascertain where the energy loss is occurring as once again high flow but low head pumps are very sensitive to energy losses and therefore your observations.

Hence, when possible, high head pumps with sufficient flow are my choice.

My only words of wisdom are to please do not attempt to re-retrofit to the cannister's factory condition as, IMHO, the problems will only get worse.

Is it time to try out an external pump with a filtration cylinder?

TR


----------



## Jgray152

Jones, thanks for the reply but it was mostly toward the output of the filter which I am not putting into question since it seems to be flowing more than before with the original setup.

If I wanted to revert back to the original setup it would only take me 2 minutes to do so. Silicone is removable 

Your post about high flow low head pump has not much relavance to the issue at hand since the pump is working perfectly and the same as before and seems to be pushing the water in my tank more than before. 

The issue at hand is the purging after the pump shuts off. No flow at all. Its only at this point in time when the air is allowed to escape through the tube at the top of the canister since there is no high pressure coming from that small tube anymore.

I am going to try and lengthen the tube to see if that helps.

Again. I am up for an external pump and cylinder. I would really like a clear canister only so I can see how it all works  I have found a clear one but its $116 US :-x Thats without one end welded. Even if it was welded you would have to look for a cap for the clear PVC which is in the triple digits times 3.

Its at USPlastics.com I believe.


----------



## jones57742

Jgray152 said:


> If I wanted to revert back to the original setup it would only take me 2 minutes to do so. Silicone is removable


Beyond excellent thinking!!!!

I somehow believed that you were into machining the existing fabrications (dumb! dumb! dumb! Ron).




Jgray152 said:


> Again. I am up for an external pump and cylinder. I would really like a clear canister only so I can see how it all works  I have found a clear one but its $116 US :-x Thats without one end welded. Even if it was welded you would have to look for a cap for the clear PVC which is in the triple digits times 3.


Harvel has opened a Texas warehouse and I have two projects coming up both of which will require several K LF each of PVC water and sewer pipe.

Let me see what I can do.


[1] How long do you want the 12" pipe(s)?

[2] Do you want the caps to be threaded or glued?

[3] Have you checked to ensure that you can install a bulkhead into a circular PVC pipe (obviously this is possible with flat acrylic)?

[4] Which Iwaki pump are you contemplating?

TR


----------



## Jgray152

> Beyond excellent thinking!!!!
> 
> I somehow believed that you were into machining the existing fabrications (dumb! dumb! dumb! Ron).


Nah no machining here. The only thing I have machined is the foam and the 3" PVC cap on my band saw to make fit snug 

I wanted to have the opportunity of going back to the original design if this idea did not work at all.



> Harvel has opened a Texas warehouse and I have two projects coming up both of which will require several K LF each of PVC water and sewer pipe.
> 
> Let me see what I can do.


That would be fantasic,



> [1] How long do you want the 12" pipe(s)?


About 16-18" long



> [2] Do you want the caps to be threaded or glued?


The bottom cap can be glued but the top cap I would like threaded for removal.


> [3] Have you checked to ensure that you can install a bulkhead into a circular PVC pipe (obviously this is possible with flat acrylic)?


Yes im going to use some flat acrylic and possibly make some sort of boxed extension. I would also do the same for the output to the pump at the bottom of the cylinder toward one side so that there is more of a swirling action going on through the cylinder. Hoping this would help with the flow.

I may just use a small 1.5" - 2.5" pipe cut to fit the radius of the cylinder with a flat cap on the end for the use of a bulk head fitting. This would be easier to make work instead of piecing together some flat acrylic.

I can use my dremal tool to cut out the cylinder for the "extensions".


> [4] Which Iwaki pump are you contemplating?


Im torn between these two;

*Updated links....*
960 GPH. High Flow, Low Head
http://www.marinedepot.com/ps_ViewItem~idProduct~IK1235~tab~1.html 

750 GPH. Lower Flow Higher Head.
http://www.marinedepot.com/ps_ViewItem~idProduct~IK1243~tab~1.html

The 960 should put out more flow for the head difference from the surface to the ground so that may be a better route.

Although the 750 GPH unit will flow more at a higher head but I think the higher head is to high for my application. Its only going to be less than 5' for a head and the 960 may be better in that situation.


----------



## jones57742

Jg:

Give me several weeks to check out and hopefully they will have the clear cylinder (the civil construction world goes at a snail's pace)

TR


----------



## Jgray152

No rush Ron. Take your time. I have plenty of thinking to do on my project at ahnd to keep me busy for a while :lol:


----------



## Jgray152

There seems to be some confusion as to how the water flows in the Fx5 after its modified so for those of you who are not so sure I did a quick sketch and here it is.

I recently today opened up the filter to see how it was working and it appears to be working great! No bypass, everything is being filtered as planned. YAH! 

The canister purges about 98% but there is always and forever will be some air trapped inside at the top which does not effect the filtration it seems. The air does not get tossed around either so through the multiple starts and stops and multiple purging times the filter always ends up quiet within 30 minutes to an hour.

The great thing about this setup is that I will never need to remove the bio bale for any reason. All the mechanical filtration is right on top. 










*Filter break down process I use;*

1) keep filter running
2) close intake and pull intake off slowly to allow the filter to start sucking in air.
3) allow filter to pump out some of the water into the tank with the intake valve removed. (Watch your aquarium water level!!)
4) close output valve and unplug the pump
5) remove output valve and remove filter. 

Not a drop of water should be spilt while removing the valves using this procedure. Hagen obveously didn't think of using this procedure since they say to use a rag to catch the little spill of water that you will get when removing the valves.


----------



## Jgray152

*Theory Testing Continued.....*

So I have done some more testing and thinking and I may have figured out why its not purging 100%.

I do not believe it to be the intake tube length at all. I could not make this jive with the issue at hand and I tested the empty Fx5 once more and came up with the same results as I am having with the modded Fx5. Its not purging 100%. No matter how many purging attempts you give it, not all of the air will escape. Some may, but not all. I just happen to get lucky the very first time I tested the empty basin. I had to give it about 5 or 6 purging attemps to get the air out the first time. This time I couldn't get all the air out.

So after looking at the baskets for a while and looking at the cover I believe the succesfull purging is due to the reduced area in the center of the baskets causing a large air bubble to form in a more condensed area to allow more of the air to be expelled at one time. 

There are many areas under the cover that can trap air easily. The area has not be enlarged to a much greater area than what is available with the center of the baskets..

My idea is to reduce the total area and allow only a 3" - 4" diameter area for all the air to drop into. The area on the outside of this 3-4" circle will be angled upward to force the air into the center. This is how the top cover is designed naturally but with all the areas for air to get trapped in now its not working to its original design. 

More will come


----------



## Jgray152

Im 90% done modifing the cover. Some 3" pvc, acrylic, heat, molding and silicone, I think its going to work this time. If not, then I give up on this.  and will use it as is. This really looks promising though.


----------



## jones57742

Jgray152 said:


> If not, then I give up on this.


Been there done that and got the tee shirt.

TR


----------



## Jgray152

You only got a Tee shirt? Im going for the trophy!


----------



## Jgray152

IT WORKS!!!

The filter now purges 100%!!

YES! My cover modification worked!!!

Here is a pic of it.










What you see is plexi glass that was heat molded so that is concaved, high on the outside and low on the inside where the 3" PVC fitting is. Then silicone all over the place which I may have to redo since I forgot to take off the protective plastic covering on one piece of the plexi and its on the underside of the plexi so the silicone may seporate. If so I will just fix it. 

FILTER WORKS GREAT!


----------



## Jgray152

*
Though it took a lot of thinking, theory and testing to make it work, overall this project was very easy and anyone with some light mechanical skill can do it with ease. Its completly reversable to its original state as well.

Nothing at all was hard, you just need the right tools as you do with any project. I have a small Ryobi Band Saw that worked out well for me but you can use anything that would work to cut the egg crate or meterial you choose.

The Plexi was very easy to mold to shape. I put one piece in the oven at a time on a baking sheet at 260*F for about 1-2 minutes under continuous observation untill it was able to be bent without drooping all over the place. 

My first attempt at heating up plexi did not come out so good .

If people are interested I can do a little write up but most of the information you need is within this thread or the thread linked below.
http://www.fishforums.net/content-page/236177/pagination/page/0/*


----------



## Jgray152

I am going to re-glue the acrylic with something that works a bit better than silicone since silicone does not bond to well to acrylic. Thinking of using Weld On 40 which should work I hope.

http://ozreef.org/diy_plans/techniques/gluing_acrylic.html

http://www.rplastics.com/weldon1802.html


----------



## jones57742

Jgray152 said:


> You only got a Tee shirt? Im going for the trophy!


You are doing good!

Just wish some other folks with experience would chime in here.

TR


----------



## Jgray152

I know. I was hoping for loads of experience from others as well. I posted this on 5 different forums and so far you are the only one that has given any experience on the subject. I appriciate that a lot. 

I got atleast one comment in each forum that says "interesting" but thats it.


----------



## Obsidian

Well I want you both to know that I have "followed" this thread to the best of my very limited ability. I have enjoyed watching the progress as you worked on this and I have enjoyed the banter back and forth between you and jones. 

Jones, you and the word "dumb" are a Grand Canyon apart. 

Of course all of this is just a really long winded way of saying "interesting" LOL. 

I know if I ever want to modify a filter I will consult this thread. However it would probably be more efficient and effective if I just sent it to Jg 

And congratulations on getting this to work for you right out of the gate. Very well done.


----------



## Jgray152

Thanks for the reply Obsidian! Thats one of the very few best replies so far 

Modifying the FX5 I have found was not as "easy" to think about as I thought. As I got deeper and deeper into the theory of pumps I kept learning and had to rethink and rework my design. 

The cover I have to work on a bit more to make it more "reliable". I'll get it to work


----------



## jones57742

Obs: Thanks for the response!

At least someone other than me is gaining a ton of experience from the time and effort which Jg has expended as well as his posting his experience on this Forum.

BTW Obs I really do appreciate the compliment (especially with respect to previous unmerciful hammering) but you are obviously nowhere the old wore dinosaur state as this state predicates that one has "hauled off" and come to enjoy (this is facetious) the results of one's actions several times. (I am not talking down here but only trying to provide some of my experience).


Folks:

Once again if anyone has any experience here singing out would be way more than appropriate!


Jg: Due to the Engineering Practices Act in Texas I cannot obtain clear 12", 18" or 24" Schedule 40 PVC at any kind of reasonable cost. (wish I was a Contractor).

I agree that, at least for the prototype, we need clear PVC except that this is also very high $ and the Contractor and his Supplier had never heard of the supplier which you found and which I checked out who had opened a warehouse in Texas.

If you agree with the following I will go back to these folks:

[1] How about 3 AWWA C900 8" tubes (blue in color) in the length which you can use.

[2] The caps and pipes would be machined for threads but you would need to figure out how to install the bulkheads.

[3] These three tubes would be in serial.

[4) The first tube would contain course mechanical filtration media on the bottom (the typical blue and white) and finer mechanical filtration media on the top (filter floss).

[5] The second tube would contain coarse biological filtration media on the bottom (bioballs but probably pot scrubbers) and fine mechanical filtration media on the top (maybe start out with quilt batting)

[6] The third tube would contain very fine biological filtration media on the top (sintered glass) and very fine mechanical media on the bottom (100MU fabric*).

Obviously several options exist for the prototype but these are only my first thoughts.

In this scenario the 100Mu fabric would obviously generate the greatest head loss and the TDH through the filter system I very roughly estimate to be 4 feet.

Obviously no static head loss will occur as "we are operating on the cannister filter concept".

The Iwaki Iwaki WMD30RLXT will pump 16GPM = 960 GPH => approximately 10X turnover for a 100G tank.

Are we kinda on the "same sheet of music for proceeding"?

TR


*For you folks who believe that since your water is crystal clear by observation please place some 100Mu or 50Mu into your filtration process for 6 hours (no longer please).


----------



## Jgray152

8" wide tubes may not work very efficient since there would be very litter top surface area and the media could clog quicker.

Let me do some thinking and I'll get back to the rest of your post...


----------



## Jgray152

HEre is some more info on Harvel Plastics in Texas I just happend to stumble upon.
http://news.thomasnet.com/companystory/528296


----------



## Obsidian

jones, it is true I am no where near the dinosaur you pledge to be, repeatedly. It is heartening to know that as one grows to be a full fledged dino they are able to appreciate their accomplishments more than their failures. It is also tremendous to consider that one is so willing to pass on their failures to help others in prevention. 

In regards to your unmerciful hammering: Unfortunately I believe that your vernacular and style tend to turn people around when reading your posts. What I have discovered is that you have a great sense of humor. 

Perhaps I am a "Dino-ling." I know my body disagrees with my mind in regards to how old I am. 

jg- would it have to be clear pvc? perhaps there is some kind of other clear material that would work well and be more accessible? I have no idea what "electronic glass" actually IS, but I do know that my Grandfather was a guru of this (founder of Larson Electronic Glass http://www.larsonelectronicglass.com/index2.ivnu). Although I doubt that this is something that will work, or be reasonably priced, it makes me think that there may be some material along those lines which may meet your needs.


----------



## Jgray152

Obs, It doesn't have to be clear but it would be nice so that I can see how exactly its working so in my mind I can more clearly understand how I should change it or what I could do to make the flow beter. When I say better I mean more laminar and less turbulant since it takes more pressure to move turbulant flow than laminar flow. The flow in a canistor will never be laminar since some of the flow is slaming into media and getting changed direction many many times. 

I suppose using some different media such as bio balls would give a more laminar flow than my bio bale which could cause the flow to be a bit more turbulant.

Having a clear canister would allow me to see this and I think it would be really neat.

I can get 12" white PVC easily and fairly cheap. I will go that route if I need to.


----------



## Jgray152

> [1] How about 3 AWWA C900 8" tubes (blue in color) in the length which you can use.


Would you be able to get 6 8" tubes? Have the intake flow split and each split run into 3 cylinders in series. _Thinking how to increase cubic space._ This would put the available top surface area near what I have with the Fx5. What is the widest you can obtain? Would you be able to obtain 10" tubes? 

I'm thinking 18-20" high would be really good. Maybe only 12" high for all the mechanical filtration since its the top surface area that will cause it to clog. 12" deep mechanical filtration would be more than enough. and then 20" high for the bio filtration.



> [2] The caps and pipes would be machined for threads but you would need to figure out how to install the bulkheads.


Bulks head would be no big deal to put in. I know I can do that. 



> [3] These three tubes would be in serial.


That would be best.



> [4) The first tube would contain course mechanical filtration media on the bottom (the typical blue and white) and finer mechanical filtration media on the top (filter floss).


Intake starts from the bottom of the canister? Thats how I was thinking as well.


> [5] The second tube would contain coarse biological filtration media on the bottom (bioballs but probably pot scrubbers) and fine mechanical filtration media on the top (maybe start out with quilt batting)


I wouldn't want to go with any real fine bio media. Manily due to the media clogging. Pot scrubbers and quilt batting woud clog eventually and I would need to clean it regularly and then there goes my bacteria. Also, as much surface area the pot scrubbers have, the flow would have to go through them to to have access to all the surface area. This won't happen very efficiently since the flow will take the path of the least resistance which is around them.


> [6] The third tube would contain very fine biological filtration media on the top (sintered glass) and very fine mechanical media on the bottom (100MU fabric*).


100Mu (guessing 100 Mircon?) will clog up real quick when only having 50 sq inches of top surface area. The FX5 in the center baskets has 28 sq inches of top surface area and that clogges up REAL quick with 100 micron pads ( I used them a few times). 

Using one 8" x 20" cylinder would have almost 16.5 liters space for possibly that amount of bio media. Finer media would probubly work much better to take full advantage of the available space. Such as sintered glass or Eheims bio media which is a bit pricey.


----------



## jones57742

Obs: I very much appreciate your contribution to this thread as the synergism is 1st class!



Obsidian said:


> jg- would it have to be clear pvc?


Obs: as I am certain that you know what we are trying to avoid is "breaking down the filter every couple of days" in order to ascertain it's condition.

Jg is apparently full of "p..s" and vinegar and hence breaking down the filter every couple of days is not a problem for him in order to ultimately fabricate a functioning, highly efficient prototype.

What is the problem is that when Jg breaks down the filter he is disturbing the state of media and hence he is into speculation as to the state of the in situ media.

The above consideration is in addition to his inability to observe flow states.
BTW: Jg I am proud of you here. Please research and become comfortable with the concept of optimization of energy. You will "run into Froude's number" but this expression of flow states is just a kludge. Please keep researching until you are comfortable with the classical energy definition of subcritical and supercritical flow.

Ok folks based on Obs' post what I have roughly in my brain now is a glass or plexiglass square column which is like 12"x12"x24". I know that yall think that I have lost it here with respect to pressure applications but I have not (please trust me as the only parts which I do not have figured out (in conceptual form) are the top and bottom plates which will probably required step mitering, seals and "lock down straps".

TR


Obs: these comments are relevant to the portion of your post which do not necessarily relate to the thread.



Obsidian said:


> perhaps there is some kind of other clear material that would work well and be more accessible? I have no idea what "electronic glass" actually IS, but I do know that my Grandfather was a guru of this (founder of Larson Electronic Glass http://www.larsonelectronicglass.com/index2.ivnu). Although I doubt that this is something that will work, or be reasonably priced, it makes me think that there may be some material along those lines which may meet your needs.


Excellent input Obs:

I checked out the link and I believe that your Granddaddy is into fixtures which would be used in high end physics or applied science research
BUT
your "other clear material" comment is what has set me off here.




Obsidian said:


> ... repeatedly.


Obs: just making sure that the one to whom I am responding is aware that not only do I forget incidences which have occurred but I am at the state where I am remembering incidences which did not occur.




Obsidian said:


> It is also tremendous to consider that one is so willing to pass on their failures to help others in prevention.


Obs that is what us dinosaurs are for.



Obsidian said:


> In regards to your unmerciful hammering: Unfortunately I believe that your vernacular and style tend to turn people around when reading your posts.


Yes I have had this input but I have returned to something close to my white paper preparation style. This return is based on a couple of PM's where folks have indicated that if the pundits would rather chastise than google it is their problem and not mine.


----------



## jones57742

Jg:

You posted prior to the completion of my post.




Jgray152 said:


> I wouldn't want to go with any real fine bio media. Manily due to the media clogging. Pot scrubbers and quilt batting woud clog eventually and I would need to clean it regularly and then there goes my bacteria. Also, as much surface area the pot scrubbers have, the flow would have to go through them to to have access to all the surface area. This won't happen very efficiently since the flow will take the path of the least resistance which is around them.


Please excuse me here Jg but you are really barking up the wrong trees.

What we are after is only maintaining the media every couple of weeks or monthly
BUT
we gotta have fine mechanical and biological media in order to produce pristine water.

I believe that where you are coming from is that when you induced 100Mu or 50Mu media into your filtration process six hours later it was completely clogged.

I have been there done, that, and got the tee shirt as well as per your words the trophies which were several crispy criter pumps.

If we are going to try to do this then, IMHO, doing it half "a....s" is inappropriate.

As you aware I have a wet/dry system and the sump is a kludge which was furnished by the manufacturer.

I have gotten the clogging of 4 laminates of fine filtration media up to three days by placing (and then only remove one layer) via the induction of filter floss into the overflow sump which is not visible as it is behind the back wall of the tank.

I am now weekly adding more filter floss to the sump and the clogging rate of the fine filtration media is decreasing.

At some point in time probably a month from now I will induce the blue/while media above the filter floss.

If the induction of the blue/white media does not cause a disaster then I will induce quilt batting below the filter floss ....

I know that you think I have lost it with respect to the use of a square glass or plexiglass column for pressure flow but please note that this creature does not (the prototype) have to be pretty.

TR


Jg and Obs:

I would very much your reviewing my post at the top of page three concerning flow area and contact times at:
http://forums.loaches.com/viewtopic...0&postorder=asc&highlight=vol+volume&start=30

I have still not been able to confirm the values set forth in this post.


----------



## Jgray152

jones57742 said:


> What we are after is only maintaining the media every couple of weeks or monthly BUT
> we gotta have fine mechanical and biological media in order to produce pristine water.
> 
> I believe that where you are coming from is that when you induced 100Mu or 50Mu media into your filtration process six hours later it was completely clogged.
> 
> I have been there done, that, and got the tee shirt as well as per your words the trophies which were several crispy criter pumps.
> 
> If we are going to try to do this then, IMHO, doing it half "a....s" is inappropriate.


Im not looking to change/clean the media weekly or monthly. Atleast not the main filter. Maybe a 2nd filter. Im going for 4-5 month intervals. I use the filter floss my self and I highly reccomend it as it does a fantastic job at filtering out fine particles prior to micron filtration. I had a 4 stage mechanical filtration setup in my Fx5 Previous to my mod. Coarse,semi-fine,floss,micron. 

The Micron with the 28 sq in surface area, I would only get a couple weeks to MAYBE 3 weeks out of it which is great for micron pads but to fight with the Fx5 every 3 weeks....its a pita. The more total surface area I have available, the more time I have till the pad cloggs. This is also very dependant on what type of fish you have in your tank. I have African Mbuna Cichids which can be very dirty at times, plus having to overstock the tank, there is twice as much junk the filter has to remove from the water.

I will get some more 100 micron and will put it in my modded Fx5 to see how long I can get out of it. I will put some filter floss in as well so I will have a 5 step mech filtration process.

I would not mind at all doing a second filter branched off after the main for micron polishing. I don't want the micron in the main filtration since I need as much flow through the media as possible. A reduced filter flow with 40-50 fish in a 180 gallon could spell disaster.

I don't like doing anything half a-ssed at all. Which is why im thinking ahead about the surface area.



> As you aware I have a wet/dry system and the sump is a kludge which was furnished by the manufacturer.
> 
> I have gotten the clogging of 4 laminates of fine filtration media up to three days by placing (and then only remove one layer) via the induction of filter floss into the overflow sump which is not visible as it is behind the back wall of the tank.
> 
> I am now weekly adding more filter floss to the sump and the clogging rate of the fine filtration media is decreasing.
> 
> At some point in time probably a month from now I will induce the blue/while media above the filter floss.
> 
> If the induction of the blue/white media does not cause a disaster then I will induce quilt batting below the filter floss ....
> 
> I know that you think I have lost it with respect to the use of a square glass or plexiglass column for pressure flow but please note that this creature does not (the prototype) have to be pretty.
> 
> TR


I would also not mind setting up a 5-7 step mechanical filtration process with different medias. Like I said I have used a 4 step. Right now I only have a 3 but I will add more media as I come across it.

Sqaure tank would not be a bad idea as long as we have the top concaved toward the center for equal flow intake. Would help increase pressure as well. Hard turns and corners are not good for flow. The more easily we can redirect the flow the better.

I don't think you lost it at all 



> Jg and Obs:
> 
> I would very much your reviewing my post at the top of page three concerning flow area and contact times at:
> http://forums.loaches.com/viewtopic...0&postorder=asc&highlight=vol+volume&start=30
> 
> I have still not been able to confirm the values set forth in this post.


I will review but I feel I have a good idea already.


----------



## Obsidian

jones57742 said:


> What is the problem is that when Jg breaks down the filter he is disturbing the state of media and hence he is into speculation as to the state of the in situ media.
> 
> The above consideration is in addition to his inability to observe flow states.


I know that my Rena XP3 has a somewhat clear casing. I suppose one could theoretically observe flow rates, however the actual pump mechanism is encased in black, making it difficult to see anything "really worth it." Would it be possible to put in some kind of flow meter without screwing up the entire thing?



jones57742 said:


> your "other clear material" comment is what has set me off here.


That was the point 



jones57742 said:


> Obs: just making sure that the one to whom I am responding is aware that not only do I forget incidences which have occurred but I am at the state where I am remembering incidences which did not occur.


You mean I could theoretically remind you of all that money you promised me, and I actually have a chance of obtaining it? Woo Hoo!



jones57742 said:


> Obs that is what us dinosaurs are for.


It's great to be useful. 



jones57742 said:


> Yes I have had this input but I have returned to something close to my white paper preparation style. This return is based on a couple of PM's where folks have indicated that if the pundits would rather chastise than google it is their problem and not mine.


Google (or Dogpile, which is my chosen venue for such things) is your friend!


----------



## Jgray152

> I know that my Rena XP3 has a somewhat clear casing. I suppose one could theoretically observe flow rates, however the actual pump mechanism is encased in black, making it difficult to see anything "really worth it." Would it be possible to put in some kind of flow meter without screwing up the entire thing?


Yes, a flow meter would be the only way to determin flow rates. Basically its not the flow rate im interested in seeing, although its important as well, its the flow path and flow turbulance I want to try and see. Possibly with some food coloring and running the filter in the tub or outside for the test. Eventually moving on to the aquarium.


----------



## jones57742

Obsidian said:


> It's great to be useful.


Yes!!! But your obvious humor really dampers the good feeling Obs.

TR




Jgray152 said:


> Yes, a flow meter would be the only way to determin flow rates. Basically its not the flow rate im interested in seeing, although its important as well, its the flow path and flow turbulance I want to try and see. Possibly with some food coloring running the filter in th tube or outside.


Jg: you are really doing your homework here!!!

Obs: Jg is really going where no one (note that I did not employ the introduction from the original series) has gone before.

Would it be possible to install a grid with a potential difference with respect to the bottom of the cylinder? Absolutely!!!

Would even the finest grid screw up the outcome of the experiment. Absolutely!

If a very coarse grid was installed the effects of the experimentation would be minimized but the data would be useless due to the lack of adequate distribution of data acquisition across the flow path.

Jg: I hope that you can ascertain from my previous comment what I believe the "big boys" get into with their designs. I could easily be wrong here but I believe that they "try out" their prototype under conditions which are not real world as they are engineers and not fish keepers, they then implement modifications which they deem to be appropriate and then proceed into production and hence your observations with respect to their modifications (retrofits) begin occurring when real world problems arise.

Obs: I really do not mean my comments to be adverse so please hang in with us.

Folks: If anyone can help here it would really be appreciated!

TR

BTW: (and Obs please do not get onto me here) but I am not BS'ing with my comments concerning manufacturers, their engineers and what Jg is running into.
If anyone wants to know the particulars please advise me and I will post.


----------



## Obsidian

jg: with regards to your food coloring possibility:
I am wondering if there would be a way to use white filter material, run the test for a brief time, and then be able to observe how uniform the coloration is on the white material. This would give you an idea of how the water is actually moving through the filter: ie. is it always staying in the center or is it attempting to slip past on the sides. You may be able to get the filter up and running, then add the food coloring to the "intake" water, let it run through, and see what you have. The only problem I foresee right out of the gate with this is you would need to ensure that the food coloring is uniform in the water before it gets sucked up, because otherwise any coloration differences could be a factor of dispersal of color as opposed to actual flow. 

jones: I believe a truly special engineer is one who is able to put theory into reality without complicating matters too much for others to deal with. It is a stretch in most cases. They get it up and running and are so happy that "it works" that they fail to "carry it through" to it working in real life conditions. That's why so many hang out in white towers  Pristine!


----------



## Jgray152

> jg: with regards to your food coloring possibility:
> I am wondering if there would be a way to use white filter material, run the test for a brief time, and then be able to observe how uniform the coloration is on the white material. This would give you an idea of how the water is actually moving through the filter: ie. is it always staying in the center or is it attempting to slip past on the sides. You may be able to get the filter up and running, then add the food coloring to the "intake" water, let it run through, and see what you have. The only problem I foresee right out of the gate with this is you would need to ensure that the food coloring is uniform in the water before it gets sucked up, because otherwise any coloration differences could be a factor of dispersal of color as opposed to actual flow.


Good thinking. The flow dispersion is one thing that im taking into account with my modded Fx5 as well. With the unmodded cover, I notice a lot of "junk" around the outer edges and some in the middle. This could be easily where the flow is coming from (the white pocket) and it all flows (by momentum) to the side. Thats fine to me.



> Yes!!! But your obvious humor really dampers the good feeling Obs.


This made me laugh only because it reminds me of starwars  *OB-Wan Kenobi*



> you are really doing your homework here!!!


What I learned from exhaust flow and intake flow on my Mazda Rx7 I can use on the filter. I had lots of help and lots of knowledge thrown at me while I was interested in the fluid dynamics of things.


----------



## jones57742

Jg:



Jgray152 said:


> What I learned from exhaust flow and intake flow on my Mazda Rx7 I can use on the filter. I had lots of help and lots of knowledge thrown at me while I was interested in the fluid dynamics of things.


Jg: I am sure that you are aware of this but empiricism really kicks in here due to mass and velocities.


Obs:



Obsidian said:


> They get it up and running and are so happy that "it works" that they fail to "carry it through" to it working in real life conditions. That's why so many hang out in white towers  Pristine!


Obs: you folks are really behind the eight ball here! Many examples of this assertion but only one which I will publish.

A tire test track was constructed in Brazil and the VDA (Vehicle Dynamics Area) as well as the other wet surfaces with the protocol which I established and implemented!!!! in 1984! If you doubt the veracity of these words I can provide particulars (which are not proprietary to Greystone Engineering, Inc. or the client).

I am trying to induce into to yalls' (the young folks who will give me the time of day) brains (with what I believe to be little success) that the basics are critical as pretty much everything else can be derived therefrom.

The tire test track is a classic example as the protocol was derived basically from least squares and statistical analysis, both of which are very, very simple concepts unless someone believes them to be "hard".

BTW: before I set forth my educational and professional credentials as well as portfolio of accomplished projects I would expect the pundits to do the same and obviously with photographs.


----------



## Jgray152

> Jg: I am sure that you are aware of this but empiricism really kicks in here due to mass and velocities.


Yes. The general Fluid dynamics laws stil apply with velocitys and mass as air flows like water with less mass.


----------



## jones57742

Jgray152 said:


> Yes. The general Fluid dynamics laws stil apply with velocitys and mass as air flows like water with less mass.


Jg: the laws are really only Bernoulli's equation (or expansions thereof) with the heat dissipation portion having varying parameters.

I will try this one more time just in case you do not have a grasp but the various constants vary significantly with respect to mass, velocity and conductive medium.

TR


----------



## Jgray152

> but the various constants vary significantly with respect to mass, velocity and conductive medium.


Yes I know.


----------



## Obsidian

jones: case in point- fish related: "Self starting" siphon wherein you are supposed to pump it back and forth in the water to get it running. This may work in some larger tanks with no decorations, but try it in a 20-30 gallon with decorations and watch those decorations fly, and still no siphoning. This reduces one to starting the siphon the "old fashioned" way, either by filling it up and tipping it back until the hose is filled with no air pockets: Or suck and go. All of that renders the concept of "self starting" useless. 

Looks great on paper: reality is a completely different thing. (Sorry no picture, but I can take one if you would like  )

One should never skip anything basic, regardless of the origins of the operation, from engineering to psychology. I could hardly build rapport if I never said "hi" to my client. 

And I am by no means saying that all engineers cannot create real life working things. In fact that does happen every day or we as a society would not be living as we are. I am saying that when many 'miss the mark' rather than taking the time to back up andbuild it right they "fix" it (retrofit etc) making it difficult for others to then fix their fix. This happens constantly with computers and computer programs. And I honestly can understand the allure of not going back. Usually by that point there is so much time, energy, and finances involved that everyone just wants the product "out there" where they can reap some type of reward. Then they can fix it and send out a solid model in the next year. 

However, I never should have made that statement sound as blanket as it did, thus my apologies are in order


----------



## jones57742

Obsidian said:


> jones: case in point- fish related: "Self starting" siphon wherein you are supposed to pump it back and forth in the water to get it running. This may work in some larger tanks with no decorations, but try it in a 20-30 gallon with decorations and watch those decorations fly, and still no siphoning. This reduces one to starting the siphon the "old fashioned" way, either by filling it up and tipping it back until the hose is filled with no air pockets: Or suck and go. All of that renders the concept of "self starting" useless.


Obs: you really need to reread my previous posts as they are in concert with the assertions in your previous post as well as the quote set forth above.

IMHO, a substantial portion of what I have been trying to get across is that:
the design engineers develop a model and turn it over to the high end fabrication folks who fabricate the prototype;
probably significant testing is done but not in a real world environment;
modifications are designed for the prototype and the project is turned over to engineers who develop a very efficient manufacturing process;
when the product hits the street problems with the functioning in real world conditions are reported;
as the manufacturer is not about to go through the design, prototype fabrication and manufacturing process retooling kludges are introduced into the product.

IMHO, these kludges are what Jg is encountering and reporting.




Obsidian said:


> Looks great on paper: reality is a completely different thing. (Sorry no picture, but I can take one if you would like  )


Obs: please give me a break here and I do not need any photographs.

The Eheim (which I believe to be a high end cannister filter) was purported to be primeable via motions of the handle (as best I remember) but several wet shirts and a bunch of water on the carpet later I got it to go!




Obsidian said:


> One should never skip anything basic, regardless of the origins of the operation, from engineering to psychology. I could hardly build rapport if I never said "hi" to my client.


TY for this response! (BTW: have you ever contemplated the concept that human behavior can be quantified just as behavior of nature can be?)




Obsidian said:


> thus my apologies are in order


Tears as Ron's feelings are hurt. IMHO you are a decent gal and as such assertions such as this one are unnecessary and counterproductive.

TR


----------



## Jgray152

*Getting back to topic.....*

Did some quick testing with the output of the Fx5. I cut up the output nozzel so its about a 90 degree sweep of flow and all I have to say is WOW. There is so much more flow now.

I than removed the nozzel completly and bent the output tubing horizontal in the tank the flow was 5 times more than before. Im going to get an large radius 90 degree 1" bend with some flow meters and see what I come up with.

I wonder how restrictive just the ouput nozzel really is.......

I havn't found any part of the intake that is restrictive yet...


----------



## jones57742

Jg:

I have not found a commercial diagram of the flow path.

I really do not have a clue as to what you are talking about.

Your previous diagram was very useful (hint, hint, hint).

TR


----------



## Obsidian

jones: I must have gotten something backwards, but such is life. Glad to hear it was an error  (I am betting I will make another at some point). Regardless, thank you both as this is the thread I look most forward to reading 

jg: What would cause an output nozzel to be more restrictive than an input nozzel? I would think that in general it is a function of diameter and that as long as both are of the same diameter they should have similar restrictions. 

That brings into question the 90 degrees you mentioned. Is the intake "straight" and the output "90 degrees"? If that is the case then that might be what is causing some restriction, though even so I would not imagine it being much, but that would depend on how long the elbow is. I would think a shorter elbow would cause less restriction than a longer one (the same as when you drive a curvy hill (switchback) you can ease the ride by going into the other lane and then back into yours, you still have to curve, but not as much making it smoother. This does NOT mean I recommend this action  )

I would think using a smooth 90 would be the best option. However I lack the terminology to describe what I mean by a smooth 90. It may well be the sweeping one you speak of.


----------



## Jgray152

I will take some pictures of the nozzel as I do not have any as of yet. 

The output nozzel splits the flow into 2 paths but does it very harsh. Especially if you "redirect" the flow by adjusting the nozzels, the inner diameter of the nozzel will actually shrink down by about 25%.


----------



## Obsidian

What is the purpose of it going to 2 paths? I would think it would only need one path back to the tank?


----------



## Jgray152

Ah sorry for the confusion.

From the filter, there is one 1" OD tube to the tank but the nozzel is where the flow gets redirected into to paths.

I think a long 90* bend will be less "turbulant" than a instant hard 90* bend.

The harder the bend, the higher the pressure drop from what I understand which means its taking more pressure to move the turbulant flow.


----------



## Obsidian

Yes, that is the "smooth" bend I was thinking of (I am waiting for jones to laugh at my terminology, out of good nature of course). 

It's like a U without the U turn LOL. 

In terms of the 2 paths I believe I woulld have to see it to understand what is happening. I just cannot visualize it (which is pure horror for someone who is visually centered).


----------



## Jgray152

Here are some pictures of the nozzels. I kept them large for easier viewing. Just click on the links.

The first picture is the complete nozzel.
http://midnightgray.net/images/filters/fluval-fx5/outputnozzel.jpg

http://midnightgray.net/images/filters/fluval-fx5/outputnozzel2.jpg

http://midnightgray.net/images/filters/fluval-fx5/outputnozzel3.jpg

The nozzel "flare" at the terminus (word I learned from jones) really does nothing positive. At the outer edges of the "flare" there is actually a low pressure zone and water gets sucked into this zone (sucked into the nozzel) and than gets pushed out.

So I decided to remove all of that and do something different. LARGE increase in flow. Atleast it shows in the tank. No documented testing as of yet.
http://midnightgray.net/images/filters/fluval-fx5/moddednozzel.jpg

Flares are usless unless you are forcing the water to take advantage of it.


----------



## Obsidian

Okay now I get it, you were making a "powerhead" essentially and this is where the water goes out into the tank. For whatever reason I had this split happening at the filter and was wondering why in the heck anyone would do that. (See I said I would get it backwards again!) I like the last picture though I doubt putting a long 90 here would make much of a difference. I bet you could use a 180 for the part where it "hooks" over the tank, which may help things out some. Of course you may already have that done, I can't see that part. My Rena has a series of 90s to get where it is going and I think the 180 would work better. Again just because it would almost have to create a more smooth water flow.


----------



## Jgray152

Well the reduction from the ID size of the hose to the ID size of the nozzel is another area of restriction. The ID of the nozzel is about 3/16" smaller than the ID of the hose.

I already had Jerry Rig up a 90* bend out of some extra fx5 hosing with some zip ties..... I just did it a few minutes ago. I turned down the flow after that 

I do agree a smooth 180 with a long 90 would work better.



> For whatever reason I had this split happening at the filter


This is something im going to be doing. I will be splitting the flow when I put the Fx5 on my 180 gal but using smaller outputs for increased velocity output. I will have to modify the smaller ID 90* bends so that there is a small velocity stack for the flow to compress into to speed up velocity.


----------



## Jgray152

Well I got a 90* plastic bend. Its not PVC its another type of plastic I forget what it is. 

Really makes a difference for sure compaired to a ribbed 90. Usually I can direct the flow at the glass to disturb the water surface but if I do it with this 90* bend, water almost comes spilling out of the tank. To much flow, I had to turn it down. I can usually find a direction for the flow so I can run it full blast but not this time.....


----------



## jones57742

Obs: you got any more synergism here?

Jg: Is the ball in my court?

TR


----------



## Obsidian

What happens if you aim it backwards at the corner? I figure one of two things would happen: 1. It would soften the flow so that it spreads out from either side of the corner. Or (more likely IMO) 2. It will spray up into the room and make a marvelous mess. If it were me I would try this slowly turning up the flow, just in case it would actually work. (To me seeing is believing, and you could always just prep for a shower  ).


----------



## Jgray152

So I am looking into plastic welding. I hate to think that there is so much more flow potential from the size of the enclosed type impeller due to the very small impeller intake molded into the canister.

Not any time soon, but I may end up enlarging the impeller intake in the canister about 2/16 - 3/16" in diameter. I believe there is more flow to be obtained. 

In order to do this I will either have to drill the intake large or grind it larger. Doing this will either (a) weaken the structure to a dangerous point or will break through the thin wall of the canister all together. Either way I will need to insert a plastic pipe of the right diameter and of the same plastic type of the canister and use the proper welding rod to secure it.

Its bugs me every time I look at this picture I took.


----------



## jones57742

Jgray152 said:


> So I am looking into plastic welding. I hate to think that there is so much more flow potential from the size of the enclosed type impeller due to the very small impeller intake molded into the canister.


I presume that you aware that if you "slobber up" with fittings that you will really have a mess as the glue drys fast and I am not aware of a real good PVC glue solvent.




Jgray152 said:


> Not any time soon, but I may end up enlarging the impeller intake in the canister about 2/16 - 3/16" in diameter. I believe there is more flow to be obtained.


Jg: you are getting way ahead of me with your experience and research but I need to note this.

The higher end pumps are designed such the intake orifice, discharge orifice, impeller material and size, rotor material and size, impeller housing material and size, etc. are all "matched".

What you are proposing will probably adversely affect the performance of the pump.

I know that you believe that you are only decreasing the suction head (which you are) but these pumps are designed to have X amount of suction head and if you decrease X then ...

Also the pump life will probably be shortened due to adverse effects with respect to the impeller and impeller housing.

TR


----------



## Jgray152

> I presume that you aware that if you "slobber up" with fittings that you will really have a mess as the glue drys fast and I am not aware of a real good PVC glue solvent.


Im not talking about performing chemical welds. I will be getting into welding with plastic rods.



> Jg: you are getting way ahead of me with your experience and research but I need to note this.
> 
> The higher end pumps are designed such the intake orifice, discharge orifice, impeller material and size, rotor material and size, impeller housing material and size, etc. are all "matched".


I understand this. The impeller won't be touched in the process. I do understand what your are talking about.

While I have been thinking of doing this, I have been thinking, WHY is the intake so small? There has to be a reason right? If the pump can pump 900 GPH (lets say they are not lieing.) and the filter output is 600gph, is there a reason why they are not using the full potential of the pump?

What reasons could there be? One of the reasons I think is the water velocity through the baskets would be much faster than now and their "media pads" would clog up REAL quick. They already clog up quick at 600 GPH.

Would they have trouble keeping their output nozzle on the hose with that rubber fitting they use at 900 GPH?

Bascially, is this just a "quick fix" to a issue that I may not have with my modded Fx5? 

Or is there a larger issue such as;

Could the rubber seal, that keeps the water from the impeller, in the impeller well, fail under intense pressure? Leading water everywhere outside the tank?

Could their be a mass velocity theory they are putting into effect before the impeller?



> What you are proposing will probably adversely affect the performance of the pump.


It could and it may not. I think I have about a 60/40 chance. 60% it will work, 40% it will ruin the performance completly. 

The way I think of it, I will be performing this on a spare basin which I will order from Hagen.



> I know that you believe that you are only decreasing the suction head (which you are) but these pumps are designed to have X amount of suction head and if you decrease X then ...


I was reading up on enclosed impellers yesterday and I was reading about the balancing between the suction head on the front of the impeller to the suction at the rear of the impeller (motor side). Which would give bearings a longer life. They way they were doing this was to drill holes on the back side of the impeller to give the rear suction as well. 

I don't see any holes on this impeller. 

I have been thinking of this though. Is there a reason to have all this suction head? One of the many questions.



> Also the pump life will probably be shortened due to adverse effects with respect to the impeller and impeller housing.


Its very possible. Maybe instead of ordering just the canister basin, I will order the basin and another pump.


----------



## jones57742

Jgray152 said:


> While I have been thinking of doing this, I have been thinking, WHY is the intake so small? *There has to be a reason right?* If the pump can pump 900 GPH (lets say they are not lieing.) and the filter output is 600gph, is there a reason why they are not using the full potential of the pump?
> 
> What reasons could there be? One of the reasons I think is the water velocity through the baskets would be much faster than now and their "media pads" would clog up REAL quick. They already clog up quick at 600 GPH.
> Would they have trouble keeping their output nozzle on the hose with that rubber fitting they use at 900 GPH?[/COLOR]
> 
> I have been thinking of this though. Is there a reason to have all this suction head? One of the many questions.


Jg:

I said that the components, geometries, materials, etc. were matched but perhaps I should have said appropriately designed. 

*Two examples:*

This argument does not hold water (no pun intended).

Why not increase the suction orifice diameter and decrease the size of the pump?

It would be much cheaper to manufacture.

The suction head is the first, and I believe it to be probably one of the most critical elements, in establishing a uniform steady state flow through the system.

You give up a little in operating costs for a ton in manufacturing costs.

The slightest vortex or other anomaly will tear up a typical impeller.

Could an impeller and impeller housing be designed of a material (or laminated materials) with sufficient thickness, carbonization, etc to deal with these anomalies well of course but would they cost a ton more well of course*.

TR

*You get into this with high end trash/sludge pumps. They can deal with virtually anything out there.


----------



## Jgray152

> The suction head is the first, and I believe it to be probably one of the most critical elements, in establishing a uniform steady state flow through the system.
> 
> You give up a little in operating costs for a ton in manufacturing costs.
> 
> The slightest vortex or other anomaly will tear up a typical impeller.
> 
> Could an impeller and impeller housing be designed of a material (or laminated materials) with sufficient thickness, carbonization, etc to deal with these anomalies well of course but would they cost a ton more well of course*.


Thats interesting facts Jones. I didn't think of that. I will take that into consideration.


----------

