# Turn Over Rate?



## hawkkerw (Jan 31, 2012)

What turn over rate to tank size do most of you think is the minimum reccomended is it somewhere around 7X? Just wanted to make sure my figuring was about right?


----------



## 13razorbackfan (Sep 28, 2011)

Personally....I like at least 10 times turnover through filtration. I have roughly that with my fx5 and aquatop cf500uv on my 75g. The fx5 with media is around 550gph and the aquatop with media is around 250gph. So it is roughly 800gph turnover through filtration. In reality either of these filters would sufficiently filter the tank by itself. just using the aquatop I would need a power head to help with circulation. The FX5 could do it a lone.

I know you have been looking for the last month or so at canister filters. Have you narrowed it down to anything?


----------



## hawkkerw (Jan 31, 2012)

Well as you know I have the Marineland 530 though I'm thinking I'm going to keep this on the 55 gallon. With the 125 I've purchased the FX5 and a 406 but I still can't make up my mind on the last filter, I want to buy one more and have flip floped on which to buy. Another FX5 or 406? Probably would be the best for contsistency. Most would say that 1 fx5 and the 406 could handle it but, I'm shooting for somewhere between 10x and 12X it just seems to me africans like the flow. Mine start to breed like crazy when I give them a good strong water movement and to me I'd rather have it all filtration than just circulation. So as I rattle on as usual I have one more I think canister to buy.


----------



## 13razorbackfan (Sep 28, 2011)

hawkkerw said:


> Well as you know I have the Marineland 530 though I'm thinking I'm going to keep this on the 55 gallon. With the 125 I've purchased the FX5 and a 406 but I still can't make up my mind on the last filter, I want to buy one more and have flip floped on which to buy. Another FX5 or 406? Probably would be the best for contsistency. Most would say that 1 fx5 and the 406 could handle it but, I'm shooting for somewhere between 10x and 12X it just seems to me africans like the flow. Mine start to breed like crazy when I give them a good strong water movement and to me I'd rather have it all filtration than just circulation. So as I rattle on as usual I have one more I think canister to buy.


FX5 is what I would do personally. When I do find me a 125g I am adding another FX5.


----------



## BillD (May 17, 2005)

Turn over rate gets a lot of discussion on here. It seems everyone here knows more about filtration than the manufacturers. Turnover rate is less important than whether or not the filter works. The arbitrary number of "10X" for example, is much higher than what the manufacturers use to rate their filters. Hamburg mattenfilters have a target of 1.5X and work, sponge filters, have a low turnover and work, and yet many want cannisters to have huge turnover rates, and then turn around and use them as storage containers for detritus, rather than as a means of removing material from their tanks. I find it all rather amusing.


----------



## Narwhal72 (Sep 26, 2006)

I agree with what BillD says. What's more funny to me is that most people don't even calculate turnover rate correctly. Everyone forgets that we are mixing filtered and unfiltered water in the same container. Some of that water is going to pass through the filter multiple times before other segments of water pass through even once.

The correct method for calculating turnover rate for an aquarium is t=9.2(g/f) where t= the time it takes to pass 99.99% of the aquarium volume through the filter one time, 9.2 is the purity coefficient, g= the volume of the aquarium in gallons, and f= the flow rate of the filter in gallons per hour.

A 55 gallon tank with a 400 gph filter has a turnover rate of one pass every 1.265 hrs or 18.97x a day. Generally if you can get your filter to turn your tank over at least twice a day you are in good shape.

Keep in mind that biological filters don't need to have a rapid turnover rate to be efficient (think sponge filters and mattenfilters) but mechanical filters and chemical filters (HOB filters) work better at higher turnover rates.

A single FX 5 on a 125 should work fine. I used a single one on a 300 gallon cube tank without any problems.

Andy


----------



## 13razorbackfan (Sep 28, 2011)

BillD said:


> Turn over rate gets a lot of discussion on here. It seems everyone here knows more about filtration than the manufacturers. Turnover rate is less important than whether or not the filter works. The arbitrary number of "10X" for example, is much higher than what the manufacturers use to rate their filters. Hamburg mattenfilters have a target of 1.5X and work, sponge filters, have a low turnover and work, and yet many want cannisters to have huge turnover rates, and then turn around and use them as storage containers for detritus, rather than as a means of removing material from their tanks. I find it all rather amusing.


While true when I look at turnover I think not only filtering but flow rates and current in the tank. I don't like fish waste and other debris sitting on the bottom especially the front of the tank. Therefore I like to have strong flow, not overly strong, to keep the waste floating long enough to be picked up by my filters. I would rather have the flow I want through filtration than flow created by a power head. So I kill two birds with one stone. In my case especially it is a must to keep the sand clean because I have black sand and the fish poop especially stands out like a sore thumb.

I would say it all depends on a persons specific needs and wants. While it may not be true that a person MUST have a set amount of GPH turnover per hour it is equally as true that it would work well in certain applications depending on the tank and tank owners specific needs. What I mean by that is 10 times turnover works for me because I have the right combination of filtration and flow rate for my specific needs and wants. Again...it all comes down to each individual situation.


----------



## hawkkerw (Jan 31, 2012)

I agree, I do not like waste sitting on the bottom of the tank. Now I know some fish require a strong flow do they not. I know up here in Montana that Trout love to sit right where the streams emty into the lakes now one could argue that it all about food but these fish like the high oyxgen from the flow and some breeds require it. Not true for all fish I'm sure but many. As Razor said its all personal opinion.

Do any of you ever remove all your rocks etc. stir up the gravel and let the filters clear it out I was just wondering if this was a no no? Then again can I not emty part of the tank with the FX5 and a hose?

So, Narwhal72 and BillD as you can tell from my post my background is not in science so forgive me. So brake this down for me if you don't mind. If,, I have say a 125 Gallon tank with the same bio load I have a single FX5 and I add a second FX5 I am not doubling my filtration volume for this tank? I worked for many years everyday with hundreds of engineers in the same building some of which are to this day still my best friends but I found out early on my mind works different I have to try and explain to myself why some things are the way they are even though in many cases in the scheme of things it's mostly pointless in other words the engineers have to take things and brake them down to equations and from that work on how to improve that. Engineers drive me crazy :? :? .

I am the type that would love to put a post out there titled " Who makes the best Canister Filter on the Market" When in the end it wouldn't matter because its all opinion there may not be a answer to that question. It's in the resulting debate from this question I would learn just from the members responces.


----------



## Narwhal72 (Sep 26, 2006)

I will try and answer your question but I am afraid it may only open up more questions and cause confusion.

Q: If I add a second FX5 to my 125 gallon aquarium am I doubling the filtration?

A: No it would not double the filtration. There is no doubt that you would be improving some aspects of your filtration but it would not affect others. I can break that down into more easily understood knowledge nuggets.

1. Since the filters are not in series and do not have an incremental increase in flowrate, the turnover rate does not increase from 924 gph to 1848 gph. The turnover rate for each filter remains the same but you now have two independent systems. Not counting water displacement by gravel, decorations etc., each filter turns the tank over every 1.24 hours. Unfortunately, calculating the turnover rate for two independent systems on the same shared volume is beyond my level of mathematics. But it would not cut the time in half as undoubtedly some water is going to exit one filter and immediately go into the other filter while other segments of water wait to be sucked into either filter. The water that just exited the first filter is not going to get any cleaner passing through the second filter than it is after leaving the first filter.

2. If there was no ammonia or nitrite in the water (it was adequately biofiltered), by a single FX5 adding a second one will not change anything. You can't improve on 100% removal. So adding a second filter will not improve biological filtration if it was already adequate to begin with.

3. Adding a second filter will increase the volume of chemical filtration media able to be used. This will not make the media any more efficient but it will extend the life of the media until it is exhausted. Adding the second filter does not increase the amount of waste material produced in the aquarium that the chemical filtration media can remove nor does it remove it any more thoroughly. But it does provide more media to absorb these waste products so the media as a whole unit lasts longer.

4. Mechanical filtration will be improved by adding the second filter since the amount of turbulence within the aquarium is increased and the turnover rate (although still not double) is increased.

To summarize, Adding a second filter improves mechanical filtration primarily, chemical filtration secondarily and has little effect on biological filtration if it was already adequate.

Andy


----------



## hawkkerw (Jan 31, 2012)

Andy thanks for your reply. Sorry for the long way around with my question I just feel if I explain myself a little bit It helps define the question more when I feel it may be to broad such as in this case.

So I'm going to be brave and take this another step I know allot of the gimmicks with many of these filters are marketing ploys to help promote sales of a product. So without using names what do you all feel makes for the best design for a good filter overall?


----------



## hawkkerw (Jan 31, 2012)

Oh by the way it does make perfect sence to me that if you have one FX5 with one tray of Biomax and your readings are all at zero adding six more trays of Biomax isn't going to do a thing.


----------

