John
----------
From: oxygen[SMTP:oxygen at no1.com.au]
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 1997 8:30 AM
To: rainbowfish at pcug.org.au
Subject: Re: [RML] Fluidized bed vs. Wet/dry
please take oxygen at no1.com.au of your list as we are a computer shop not a
fish shop ..... thanks
----------
From: John C. Whitson <menneke at ilinks.net>
To: 'rainbowfish at pcug.org.au'
Subject: RE: [RML] Fluidized bed vs. Wet/dry
Date: Tuesday, 27 May 1997 8:29
>I've never used fluid bed filters but have been told that they clog and
are
>a problem to clean. Also are very tricky to get them to function properly.
>My tickle filters have never clogged - the secret is providing a
pre-filter
>that is cleaned regularly. They also offer a skimming effect on the water
>surface if set-up properly. They also offer a wide choice of filtering
>materials...plastic, sintered glass, crushed coral, limestone gravel for
pH
>balance etc., etc. If I could afford it, I would put trickle filters on
all
>my tanks except the smallest ones.
>
>Adrian.
>
> ........................................
> Adrian R. Tappin
> Home of the Rainbowfish
> http://www.ecn.net.au/~atappin/home.htm
> ........................................
I have used fluidized filters for a couple of years now so I thought I
would throw my 2 cents in. I have never had a problem with the fluidized
beds clogging, but all my fluidized beds have been of my own construction,
and all have used a mechanical prefilter. They are really rather easy and
inexpensive to build, and have done a great job of biological filtration
for me. The only problem I have noticed with them (and this problem leads
me to believe that they are very efficient at biological filtration), is
that the water exiting the bed can be oxygen deprived and needs to be
reoxygenized (is this a word?). If space or noise is a concern, I would
highly recommend a fluidized bed, otherwise, a wet dry will do a great job
and will not need any extra reoxygenation.
----------
Attachment Converted: c:\neudora\attach\[RML] RE oxygen