Hamberger Mattenfilter

[Anonapersona]

I wanted to post this info on the Mattenfilter, I think it is very interesting and has many points that are worth dicussing.

http://www.tomgriffin.com/aquasource/mattenfilter.shtml

I am most interested in the calculations regarding filter flow, in hopes of better understanding how much filtration is appropriate for various fish loads.

The only real difference that I see between the Mattenfilter and the big sponges so many of the discus keepers use is that the airdriven sponge filter is run with no knowledge of the flow rate through the filter media, and we just guess at how much sponge is appropriate for a given tank of fish load. Other than that, the sponge is just big and square and over to one side and so, not being round with a radial flow direction, but flat with a linear flow, it would be much, much, much, slower to ever clog up.

Now, does anyone know what foam is appropriate for these filters, available here in the US?

[Rob]

I get foam from fabric/craft stores, I usually get remnants. Be very careful to make sure the foam does not contain any fungucides or flame retardant chemicals - these will kill your fish (if in doubt don't use). I find the cheapest ones usually do not have these additives.
Get an open cell foam, should hold water like a dish sponge. Most foams I find are small cells (under 1mm). I use it for my homemade sponge filters. I test the foam for 1 month with feeder guppies and then 1 month with discus culls to make sure the batch of foam I bought is safe.

I've been thinking of using the Mattenfilter on a brine shrimp growout tank, I'll post info and pics in the DIY section when I do it.

[Cosmo]

Ann,

Very interesting reading! Is this what generated the question you posed to me regarding "different" bacteria?

Off the top of your head, would you know an equation that would convert gals/hr flow rate into cm/min flow for given vessel parameters? Wondering how this compares to the flow thru my cannister and w/d ?

Jim

[Cosmo]

Thought came to mind just as I was getting in bed, so, had to come down and ask what may be a real dumb question ;D

Doesn't the mattenfilter and the UG have a lot in common? A UG with sufficient air lift and, a sufficient depth of gravel on top of it would function in much the same way wouldn't it.

I believe the article states the mattenfilter would over time develop build up between the mat and the glass, would this be a radically different buildup than would occur below the UG plate and the bottom of the tank?

Would the UG require such a large amount of media on top it to provide bacterial living space that it wouldn't be practical?

Used to have UG's many years ago, stopped using them because of the sludge that built up under them, but this article says the buildup behind the mattenfilter is beneficial?

Where am I going wrong with this line of reasoning?

[Anonapersona]

I think the mattenfilter and the basic sponge filter have more in common. The sponge is just cut open and flattened and has parallel flow through it instead of radial flow.

The undergravel filter suffers from acting as a mechanical filter at the same time it is doing a slow flow biofiltration, full of feces and dropped food it gets more debris that it can process at slow flow.

The standard sponge filter flows so slow that it will not be a mechanical filter at all and the dirction of flow insures that not much solid waste is trapped, food is pretty quickly picked off by fish.

I also noted that this article talked about how benificial that mulm was -- I think that what is not highlighted in this article is that the author is using this with a planted tank. I was wondering how mulm is good, the best I can come up with is that plant debris and dead bacteria, not feces, is what is mulm. That makes sense, for in land-gardening, plant debris is humus, so mulm is fish tank humus. That would be lignin and hard to digest bits of plants and the bacteria still working on it trying to turn it back into dirt (remineralization).

That bacteria is still valuable in waste processing and yet in the discus tank we prefer to clean it away as soon as posible. I suppose this is becasue of the way we feed the discus, by feeding as much as they can eat, we are likely feeding more than they can actually digest and so the feces are still pretty full of nutrients I'd guess. And, that may become an area for things like flukes to reside and breed, I think I've read that they breed in the bioslime on tank walls and such. So, I suppose for discus we'd still vac out that area to keep it rather clean.

Really, IMO this is just a more clearly engineered sponge filter, with a controlled flow rate and known dwell time. The Hydro sponges are the same thing, but you have no measure of the flow through them. Near the center of the sponge the flow rate must be very large and so not good for biofiltration as the bacteria are simply blown off. At the surface the biofiltration would be excellent at very low flow rates, but is the rate enough to treat the whole tank??

From the kio and aquaengineering sites I see that for 99% volume coverage you need 5xtank volume flow/hour, for 99.99% you need 10x/hr. (this is because you are mixing water, not simply dumping the tank once through the filter). And at the same time for biofiltration you need slow flow and specific dwell times. And this is not even addressing the mechanical filtration to remove solid waste, since we do that with siphons mostly.

So, I'm having a grand time, working on the grand theory here. It seems that the hydrosponges may give a fish-day ratio of 0.3 because of the lack of adaquate tank turnover, so more water changes are required. So, the mattenfilter might do a great job of replacing the sponge filter, since you can size the thing so much better. If you had a tank that was wide enough front to back to not miss the several inches, it could make a rather attractive tank back, planted with java ferns and anubias and hiding all the tank equipment.

Yeah, if I ever get a 140 gallon, I'd have the room to try that. Or, maybe it is possible to get a huge half circle of foam cut so that it is 2" thick and 8 or 10" diameter to hide the equipment, with a thin frame inside, then cover with plants. All you'd have to do was to size the inside surface so that it was correct, and hope that it looked OK. (Oh, a new toy to play with!)

[Anonapersona]

OK, yeah, this is fun.... but I note that there is a huge difference in the tank turnover the mattenfilter article states (2x) and the aquaengineering data (5-10x), I'll compromise at 5x turnover. And the mattenfilter flow through the matting is 5cm/min = 2 in/min


For a 100 gallon tank volume, 5x turnover is 500 gph or 1925 cu.in./min
(1925 cu.in/m)/(2 in/min) = 965 sq.in. area required.

If a 27" tall tank, that is 35.6 inches width. Pretty close to the back of the tank at 48". As a cylinder that is a diameter of 16" - oh that is big. Guess the 2x flow is necessary!

2xturnover is 762 cu.in/min so 381 sq.in. in a 27" tall tank that is 14" or a 6.5" internal radius of a half cylinder, 17" OD -- that'd take up a big corner. Could be done with a rectangle 14"x4" leaving a 2"x10" inner surface. If you can get a powerhead in there to run at 200 gph. It'd sure be quieter than a wet/dry!

This could work. I'd still siphon the floor daily and probably behind the filter weekly. A lightweight frame to hold it secure is the biggest thing.