# Multiple canister set-up?



## The Plantman (May 5, 2010)

Question regarding connecting Eheim canisters.

Right now I’m running 3 Eheim canisters on my 46 Bowfront. They are set up three into one. Each canister filters water and then it is sent back out to the tank.

Like this,




















I am considering setting them up in series like this, with each canister filtering the water of the previous canister.











I believe the filtering performance would go way up, but would I lose flow?

My question is do you think I would lose a lot of flow?

Right know all three filters pull they’re own water and then pump it into 1 line. If I set it up the other way then the filters are all pulling/pushing the same line of water? Yes, no?

I understand that right now each filter fights slightly against the others pressure but flow still increases with each filter that gets turned on. If I set them up in series each filter that is turned on will lessen the pressure on each filter in the line. However, in a series situation is total flow not going to be limited somewhat by the power of the weakest filter?

This is going to be a fare amount of work and I just want some opinions on how much flow I stand to loose/gain with the different set up. 

Thanks for any help.


----------



## thrak76 (Aug 3, 2009)

I can't offer any advice, but I am looking forward to the discussion. I had never thought to hook up multiple filters in either fashion.


----------



## reybie (Jun 7, 2007)

Holy filtering batman! 
I'd stick to what you have going right now... seems more things can go wrong with filters in series. With your current setup, it's like a hard drive raid, hot swap!


----------



## xmas_one (Feb 5, 2010)

Just run them separately, like they were intended....

What are you trying to prove?


----------



## The Plantman (May 5, 2010)

thrak76 said:


> I can't offer any advice, but I am looking forward to the discussion. I had never thought to hook up multiple filters in either fashion.


The reason I did it in the first place was simply because I had the filters already. I was starting what I was hoping was going to be a very heavily planted tank. So I wanted the extra flow and filtering capacity.

The Tank,


This is by the way my 6th week of Estimative Index and I have to say it is working out quite well!


----------



## The Plantman (May 5, 2010)

reybie said:


> Holy filtering batman!
> I'd stick to what you have going right now... seems more things can go wrong with filters in series. With your current setup, it's like a hard drive raid, hot swap!


It is really easy right now to clean/change a filter. The system continues to run while I change one out. If I did change it up I would have to shut it down every time I needed to clean a filter.


----------



## MlDukes (Nov 24, 2009)

Sell them all and buy 1 massive canister. This would free up ALOT of cabinet space and eliminate ALOT of potential leaks.

That aside: Are each of your canisters rated at the same GPH - If not i wouldnt run them in series - I would think it would potentially ruin the lower GPH canister. 

Just a theory, but - do you think the negative pressure with in the canisters would be amplified by running them in series? If so that would lead to failed seals.


----------



## The Plantman (May 5, 2010)

xmas_one said:


> Just run them separately, like they were intended....
> 
> What are you trying to prove?


I don't want six lines going in and out of my tank. LOL

I don't quite understand your second comment. I'm not trying to prove anything, I'm asking for help understanding what the difference with the two different ways you can hook up canisters. Big Al's actually are the ones that suggested I run them like this. Also Eheim suggested to me that there filters can be run in multiples if run in series. The first one with just course filter media in it and then finer media in each filter after. You would clean the first one the most frequently.


----------



## The Plantman (May 5, 2010)

MlDukes said:


> Sell them all and buy 1 massive canister. This would free up some cabinet space and eliminate ALOT of potential leaks.
> 
> That aside: Are each of your canisters rated at the same GPH - If not i wouldnt run them in series - I would think it would potentially ruin the lower GPH canister.
> 
> Just a theory, but - do you think the negative pressure with in the canisters would be amplified by running them in series? If so that could lead to failed seals.


When in series total pressure is lower then how I have it set up now. Each of the filters lowers the work needed to push the water when in series (they help one another). The way i have it set up now they fight against onanother (just slightly) but the total output of the three is greater I thought then when set up in series, but now I'm not so sure. That is why I'm asking.


----------



## xmas_one (Feb 5, 2010)

The Plantman said:


> I don't want six lines going in and out of my tank. LOL
> 
> I don't quite understand your second comment. I'm not trying to prove anything, I'm asking for help understanding what the difference with the two different ways you can hook up canister. Big Al's actually are the ones that suggested I run them like this. Also Eheim suggested to me that there filters can be run in multiples. The first one with just course filter media in it and then finer media in each filter after. You would clean the first one the most frequently.


Do you really need three large canister filters on that little tank? It just reminds me of people who go all nuts and put sumps and uv filters and all kinds of unnecessary do-dads on their planted tanks...Sorry if I came off like a jerk in my first post...


----------



## The Plantman (May 5, 2010)

xmas_one said:


> Do you really need three large canister filters on that little tank? It just reminds me of people who go all nuts and put sumps and uv filters and all kinds of unnecessary do-dads on their planted tanks...Sorry if I came off like a jerk in my first post...


This has nothing to do with my question, so I will not be responding to it.


----------



## MlDukes (Nov 24, 2009)

The Plantman said:


> When in series total pressure is lower then how I have it set up now. Each of the filters lowers the work needed to push the water when in series (they help one another). The way i have it set up now they fight against onanother (just slightly) but the total output of the three is greater I thought then when set up in series, but now I'm not so sure. That is why I'm asking.


That makes sense. 

If i were you i would take out 1 of the canisters and run the other 2 like they are intended to be used. Sure you would have 4 tubes goin into the tank but you could place it so you have 1 outflow and 1 return on each side. I think this would achive much better flow, filtration and circulation than either set up.

???


----------



## reybie (Jun 7, 2007)

One thing I forgot to mention earlier, if you were using all three to pull and push water from one input and output tubes, shouldn't you be using a bigger diameter tube? With this kind of setup I'm thinking the three pumps are working harder to suck water in.


----------



## WillyJ (Jun 22, 2010)

That's some nice plumbing going on! To answer your question bluntly, yes your flow will probably decrease when running your pumps in series rather than in parallel. Pumps in series will overcome greater headloss but I believe they won't increase flow, where pumps in parallel do (increase flow). The only plus I see to the pumps in series is the increased filtration. And I agree with the above poster, you should have larger diamenter intake and outlet pipes.


----------



## WillyJ (Jun 22, 2010)

See this: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/pumps-parallel-serial-d_636.html


----------



## reybie (Jun 7, 2007)

By the way, you just gave me an idea of how I can incorporate a pump for my inline heater and co2 reactor without adding another in/out tube to my 4 already


----------



## DaveK (Jul 10, 2010)

The Plantman said:


> Question regarding connecting Eheim canisters.
> 
> Right now I’m running 3 Eheim canisters on my 46 Bowfront. They are set up three into one. Each canister filters water and then it is sent back out to the tank.
> 
> ...


In my opinion you have some problems with both ways of setting up the filters.

In your original configuration you have all the pumps getting water from a common intake and going to a common return. By itself, this is not necessarily bad, but in looking at your photo, it looks like you are not increasing the diameter of the pipe (or tubing) as the connections merge together. This constricts flow both going in and coming out. 

This causes some big problems. By restricting the flow on the input side your make the pump motors work much harder. Now Eheim's have about the best pumps in them, so your getting away with it, but in a lessor filter, you'd likely be replacing it by now.

By restricting the output side, you reduce flow. I suspect that the total flow your getting is only about what you'd get out of the largest filter by itself, maybe a little more.

The solution would be to use large diameter pipe so that your intake and return is not restricted. You need not go as large as you think. Remember the old formula for the area of a circle? Area = Pi * R ** 2 If the original pipes are 1/2, you'd only need to go to 1 inch pipe to get the needed volume through it.

The other issue is that you have a whole mess of Ts, valves, changes in pipe size and so on. Every one of these restricts flow. Each individual ones isn't too much, but add it all up, and it's quite a bit.

If you want to maintain this sort of arrangement, I'd recommend replacing most of that with rigid PVC pipe, and fittings, constructing the intake and return in the tank from them. Use hose barbs and additional fittings and short lengths of tubing to connect from that to the filters. You could also include the existing valves for isolation. 

The nice thing about this is that all that stuff can be had for comparatively little money from Home Depot or similar store. BTW, if you don't like the standard white PVC pipe, it is available in clear, gray and black, but you'll have to shop around for that. 

In the proposed configuration, you have the pumps in series. This will restrict your flow to what the smallest pump can produce. In addition, since you have 3 different filters, running at different rates, two of them will be fighting the the flow, rather that aiding it. Even if the pumps were identical all you would do is increase pressure. The amount of water through the system would be about the same as a single pump.

Of course, you could run all intakes and returns to and from the main tank, but I agree, that would be a lot of junk in the tank. 

If you really want to get into this subject, see if you can obtain a copy of_ Aquatic Systems Engineering_ by P. R. Escobal. It's out of print, but you may be able to find a used copy or get it from your library.


----------



## fishsandwitch (Apr 20, 2008)

Either way its not much better than having one filter.

The only type of thing like this that makes sense is to have one large intake and 3 out puts


----------



## nokturnalkid (Apr 3, 2007)

fishsandwitch said:


> The only type of thing like this that makes sense is to have one large intake and 3 out puts


I like this idea. I would make one intake maybe 1-1 1/2" and a combo of a spraybar in the middle and 2 of those loc-line type flared outputs on either end. You would also be able to take out the koralia making the tank even less cluttered.


----------



## The Plantman (May 5, 2010)

WillyJ said:


> See this: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/pumps-parallel-serial-d_636.html


Great link thanks, so flow is increased just in a different way.


----------



## non_compliance (Dec 1, 2009)

MlDukes said:


> That makes since.
> 
> If i were you i would take out 1 of the canisters and run the other 2 like they are intended to be used. Sure you would have 4 tubes goin into the tank but you could place it so you have 1 outflow and 1 return on each side. I think this would achive much better flow, filtration and circulation than either set up.


This.....




reybie said:


> One thing I forgot to mention earlier, if you were using all three to pull and push water from one input and output tubes, shouldn't you be using a bigger diameter tube? With this kind of setup I'm thinking the three pumps are working harder to suck water in.


 
...and this.....


----------



## The Plantman (May 5, 2010)

DaveK said:


> In my opinion you have some problems with both ways of setting up the filters.
> 
> In your original configuration you have all the pumps getting water from a common intake and going to a common return. By itself, this is not necessarily bad, but in looking at your photo, it looks like you are not increasing the diameter of the pipe (or tubing) as the connections merge together. This constricts flow both going in and coming out.
> 
> This causes some big problems. By restricting the flow on the input side your make the pump motors work much harder. Now Eheim's have about the best pumps in them, so your getting away with it, but in a lessor filter, you'd likely be replacing it by now.







I agree that if the flow from Eheims were as stated on the box I "might" have had an issue with not going with larger in/out hoses. However, as anyone who has owned and Eheim knows these filters are not known for there flow rates being accurate to what is stated on the box, they are great filters non-the-less. 

I measured the flow from all three filters separately which added up to about 415gph. After I connected them all up to my Franken filter system, I only lost about 80gph from the sum of the three. Together as they are right now the system moves 335gph, plenty for my 46. If I close any one filter valve the loss is dramatic. I can run just one filter at a time and see what the flow rate looks like visually.

Separately,

2215 =95
2217 = 135
2226 = 185

= 415

Total flow after Franken filter connection,

335gph, an 80gph loss from running them all separately . I’m definitely getting much better then what the largest one can do on its own, even if it could do what is stated on the box (250gph). Not bad. I am considering trying running them in series to see for myself what the difference in flow will be.


----------



## mott (Nov 23, 2006)

Try it out! Seems like a cool idea. 
As you said running in series starting mainly bio and sponges in the first then finer material in the other two would give you some clean water that's for sure!


----------



## DaveK (Jul 10, 2010)

The Plantman said:


> I agree that if the flow from Eheims were as stated on the box I "might" have had an issue with not going with larger in/out hoses. However, as anyone who has owned and Eheim knows these filters are not known for there flow rates being accurate to what is stated on the box, they are great filters non-the-less.
> 
> I measured the flow from all three filters separately which added up to about 415gph. After I connected them all up to my Franken filter system, I only lost about 80gph from the sum of the three. Together as they are right now the system moves 335gph, plenty for my 46. If I close any one filter valve the loss is dramatic. I can run just one filter at a time and see what the flow rate looks like visually.
> 
> ...




Keep in mind that if each filter were plumbed on it's own intake and return, you get more out of the individual filters. This is because you would get rid of all the flow restrictions from all the fittings, valves and such.

This looks like it might be ideal to set up the two larger filters, each on their own intake and return, and use the other in that "soon to be purchased" new tank.


----------



## The Plantman (May 5, 2010)

DaveK said:


> Keep in mind that if each filter were plumbed on it's own intake and return, you get more out of the individual filters. This is because you would get rid of all the flow restrictions from all the fittings, valves and such.
> 
> This looks like it might be ideal to set up the two larger filters, each on their own intake and return, and use the other in that "soon to be purchased" new tank.


 
No new tanks here, I'm stuck with just the one. I think for me it's enough of a handful just trying to perfect this one. 

I think I’ll keep it the way it is but replace all the 2215/2217 lines/valves with the 2226 valves and 16/22 hoses. This will help minimize several bottle necks in the system.

Right now I have this on the intake side,











I'd like to move it to the exhaust. The reason being is that when changing one of the 3 bottles on the DIY Co2 I get bubbles for the first day or so after a bottle change. These bubbles also bring with them some debris from the filters that dirty up the tank a bit for about a day or so.

Anyone got any idea how I could build this? I can’t bend hose sharp enough because it doesn’t stay round and I’ll lose flow.


----------



## The Plantman (May 5, 2010)

Can PVC be purchased in curves?


----------



## Kipley (Apr 24, 2010)

The Plantman said:


> This has nothing to do with my question, so I will not be responding to it.


 
I was going to ask the same thing.

WHY????


----------



## reybie (Jun 7, 2007)

The Plantman said:


> Can PVC be purchased in curves?


Maybe you have can fishman-something bend you some acrylics


----------



## The Plantman (May 5, 2010)

reybie said:


> Maybe you have can fishman-something bend you some acrylics


It's funny you should mention acryics. I was just thinking about how I saw this acrylic pipe at Big Al's. I'll look into it.

Thanks


----------



## deleted_user_7 (Jul 7, 2003)

I don't know if this has been said already, but why not get one big external pump (500 gph 600, 700, whatever you want) and use that to pull water through the series of three canisters? You'd have one inflow and you could split the outflow of the external pump into two outflows if you'd like ( I'd personally do this, to have one outflow on each end of the aquarium as to avoid dead zones behind the lily pipes.)

You wouldn't even plug in your canisters, just the one external pump (like an iwaki or mag drive) and id use two canisters for mech (the first with coarse sponges and ceramic tubes, the second with fine sponges and filter floss) Filtration and one for bio. Or you could use one for bio, one for mech and one for chem if you use chemical filtration. 

I don't really see why you'd need a co2 reactor. Just feed it directly into your series of canisters. By the time it enters the first canister and exits your third canister, I'd imagine it would be a pretty efficient way to dissolve your co2. Bubbles would be trapped in the media to dissolve even more and any build up would be chopped up into tiny bubbles by the external pump. EDIT: I didn't realize you had diy co2. Nevermind, I don't know how that would work.


----------



## The Plantman (May 5, 2010)

justlikeapill said:


> I don't know if this has been said already, but why not get one big external pump (500 gph 600, 700, whatever you want) and use that to pull water through the series of three canisters? You'd have one inflow and you could split the outflow of the external pump into two outflows if you'd like ( I'd personally do this, to have one outflow on each end of the aquarium as to avoid dead zones behind the lily pipes.)
> 
> You wouldn't even plug in your canisters, just the one external pump (like an iwaki or mag drive) and id use two canisters for mech (the first with coarse sponges and ceramic tubes, the second with fine sponges and filter floss) Filtration and one for bio. Or you could use one for bio, one for mech and one for chem if you use chemical filtration.
> 
> I don't really see why you'd need a co2 reactor. Just feed it directly into your series of canisters. By the time it enters the first canister and exits your third canister, I'd imagine it would be a pretty efficient way to dissolve your co2. Bubbles would be trapped in the media to dissolve even more and any build up would be chopped up into tiny bubbles by the external pump. EDIT: I didn't realize you had diy co2. Nevermind, I don't know how that would work.


 
I like the pump idea. I'll give it some thought. However, I have learned that bubbles going into filtering canisters dislodge debris that gets shot back out into the tank.


----------



## deleted_user_7 (Jul 7, 2003)

Yeah, I was just brainstorming but in retrospect it seems like a bad idea to put any gas in a series of canisters.

And in retrospect, I'm not sure if leaving them unplugged would be best. It wouldn't hurt things, but plugging them in might move the water along better so the external pump wouldn't work as hard. Or maybe not, I don't know how that sort of stuff works.

As far as why bother doing it... It's just COOL lol.


----------



## Dangermouse (Jan 21, 2005)

For what it's worth, I've been doing something like this for years using a Fluval 103 as a prefilter into an Eheim 2224. Works like a charm; no problems whatsoever.










My reason for setting it up like this was to minimise time taken for maintenance. The Fluval is 100% mechanical filtration and filled with wool and foam pads, the Eheim is 100% biological. I can quickly and easily change all the mechanical media in the Fluval in <10 minutes without compromising any of the bacterial colonisation in the Eheim which might get cleaned once a year. And the water sparkles


----------



## The Plantman (May 5, 2010)

Dangermouse said:


> For what it's worth, I've been doing something like this for years using a Fluval 103 as a prefilter into an Eheim 2224. Works like a charm; no problems whatsoever.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Very cool, so yours are set up in series? The water that enters the Fluva is prefiltered by the Eheim?

Very cool.


----------



## lauraleellbp (Feb 3, 2008)

I personally don't see any advantages to running canisters in a series, and only possible disadvantages due to increased equipment-failure-related risks.

To me the main advantages from running multiple filters on a tank come from having a failsafe should one fail (and in this scenario, if one fails the extra pressure put on the 2nd would likely overwhelm it also), and also the increased filtration and flow advantages of having multiple intakes and outputs inside the main tank- which you're apparently trying to avoid...

So I just don't see any advantages at all.


----------



## The Plantman (May 5, 2010)

lauraleellbp said:


> I personally don't see any advantages to running canisters in a series, and only possible disadvantages due to increased equipment-failure-related risks.
> 
> To me the main advantages from running multiple filters on a tank come from having a failsafe should one fail (and in this scenario, if one fails the extra pressure put on the 2nd would likely overwhelm it also), and also the increased filtration and flow advantages of having multiple intakes and outputs inside the main tank- which you're apparently trying to avoid...
> 
> So I just don't see any advantages at all.


Well I guess you just don't really know what you’re talking about. As Eheim and Big Al’s both have informed me that running canister filters in series will improve filtration efficiency DRAMATIALLY! And lessen load/work per filter by half!

I have also learned that pump head is doubled! When canisters are run in series they help each other. When connected together in series they each only have to do half the work they otherwise would have to do and there filter efficiency is doubled!


----------



## lauraleellbp (Feb 3, 2008)

The Plantman said:


> I have also learned that pump head is doubled! When canisters are run in series they help each other. When connected together in series they each only have to do half the work they otherwise would have to do and there filter efficiency is doubled!


My question remains- what practical benefit are you gaining from this?

You claim your "filter efficiency is doubled" - how?

Is more debris being trapped?

Is flow improved over running the canisters individually?


----------



## deeda (Jun 28, 2005)

The Plantman said:


> Well I guess you just don't really know what you’re talking about.
> I found this comment to be rude & uncalled for as Lauraleellbp is well respected on this site.
> 
> As Eheim and Big Al’s both have informed me that running canister filters in series will improve filtration efficiency DRAMATIALLY! And lessen load/work per filter by half!
> ...


If you have 3 Eheim 2217 filters connected in series & all the filters mains are plugged into the wall, the 1st filter will get the majority of the 'dirt' from the aquarium. Once the 1st filter begins to clog up, the 2nd & 3rd filters will have less water available to them as the flow will be reduced. I don't see how this would be an advantage in any aquarium.

I think it would be very easy to incorporate the 3 intakes & outputs in your tank without them being noticeable. At least they would be less noticeable then the Hydor P.H. you have in the back corner. Painting the intakes/outputs to match your background would help them blend much better. You could even use driftwood or rock piles to hide them or cutting a sponge to slide over the intake tube & planting it with live plants.

On a side note, when I worked in the industrial workplace, I never saw any filtration that would run in series except for drinking water applications, & they never had a pump in that circuit.


----------



## deleted_user_7 (Jul 7, 2003)

But of you had an external pump pulling water through all three pumps, even of the first is clogged some it shouldn't matter. It's not going to get so clogged that an external pump cant pull water through.

But I do agree that keeping the pumps separate is best, because id rather have three outflow pipes directing jets of water than one big jet from a single outflow. Lily pipes are clear and attractive, IMO. 

I'm basically looking at this situation sort of as if these were modular filters made by lifeguard. 

But no need to be rude at anyone.


----------



## lauraleellbp (Feb 3, 2008)

I agree that running an external filter would definitely increase the reliability/decrease the equipment failure risks- but at that point I'd just set up a sump instead of using canister filters (or go with a modular filter like you mentioned).

And overall I think people tend to underestimate the improved mechanical filtration efficiency of dual versus single filter intakes. 2x 150gph filter intakes are going to be more efficient at removing debris than one 300 gph intake.


----------



## The Plantman (May 5, 2010)

lauraleellbp said:


> My question remains- what practical benefit are you gaining from this?
> 
> You claim your "filter efficiency is doubled" - how?
> 
> ...


 

Read and learn,

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/pu...ial-d_636.html

In series flow would only be slightly improved, as running two pumps in series it would overcome any head that was in your system (drag from connections/valves/bottlenecks). 

The real benefit is from the long path of massive filter media that the water would have to pass through.

The first canister does not have fine filter floss in it; just bio media and a course filter sponge on top, it would trap just the big stuff. The second would be similar but would have a medium sponge in it and the third would be a pure polisher. It would be filled with filter floss with a 100micron floss top. 

My filters are currently not set up in series. This is the question and purpose for this thread. My filters are set up In parallel for extra flow and simply because I have them and only one tank. So I thought why not? I bought the filters on sale each one about a year apart from Big Al's yearly sale. I got them each at 40% off. This is why I have them. I actully have 4 Eheims, I have 2 2215s. a 2217 and the Proffessional II.

I've desided to keep them the way they are for the extra flow.


----------



## lauraleellbp (Feb 3, 2008)

Your link doesn't work.

And you still haven't answered what running filters in a series would accomplish better than running filters in independent loops.

Are you saying that running 2 filters in a series would be advantageous over running just one of the filters? B/c that I can agree with. I just think it makes *more* sense if you have 2 filters to run them on independent loops.

Set them up however you like, of course it's your tank. roud:


----------



## The Plantman (May 5, 2010)

lauraleellbp said:


> Your link doesn't work.
> 
> And you still haven't answered what running filters in a series would accomplish better than running filters in independent loops.
> 
> ...


Oh, I thought you were saying you saw no advantages either way. Sorry for my abrupt comment earlier. Yes, I am saying that running them in series can basically create a longer lasting (not needing to clean as often) and more efficient filter system (cleans better), because the water is forced through twice as much filter media. The big stuff doesn't clog up the fine media because it gets caught in the first canister, which can be changed more frequently if you’d like. 

Esthetically it’s nicer because you only run one in and one out.

I understand what I am doing is like....crazy! But I had the filters and wanted to experiment. I am a DIYer at heart after all. I saw it done on one of Big Al's 200 gallon Cichlid tanks and started talking one of the managers about it. They had all sorts of material on how you can hook up canisters sent to them from Eheim. You are supposed to use Identical Canisters though, which I am not.


See if this one works,

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/pumps-parallel-serial-d_636.html


----------



## DaveK (Jul 10, 2010)

The Plantman said:


> ... Yes, I am saying that running them in series can basically create a longer lasting (not needing to clean as often) and more efficient filter system (cleans better), because the water is forced through twice as much filter media. The big stuff doesn't clog up the fine media because it gets caught in the first canister, which can be changed more frequently if you’d like.
> ...


Yes, I would agree that filters in series would run longer because it would take longer to clog up.

However, I would question if this is desirable. 

With mechanical filtration, about all the filter is doing is collecting all the dirt in one place. In other words, the dirt is still in the aquarium system, until you clean the filter. 

Cleaning the filter more often would get the dirt out of the system sooner. With the newer canister filters, it's really not that difficult to do, and either way you need to open up one of the canisters.


----------



## The Plantman (May 5, 2010)

DaveK said:


> Yes, I would agree that filters in series would run longer because it would take longer to clog up.
> 
> However, I would question if this is desirable.
> 
> ...


 

Yes I agree, but I'm running mostly classics which are disgusting to clean when they have fine media in them. In series one would be changing the first filter the most, which would be very easy as it would have no fine media in it. You could really clean it good because you still have a filter with lots of nitrifying bacteria in it, which would remain untouched for much, much longer. No need to be careful either about protecting anything in it, just clean the crap out of it with tap water. Pour the bio balls and ceramic rings into a strainer and rinse under tap water and then rinse the blue course pad under the sink as well. Making cleaning the first one extremely easy! No? The second canister you probably wouldn’t need to touch for well over a year! The first would capture all the big stuff so the second would only ever have to deal with fine particles. You could even clean the first one more often if you wanted, like every 3 months or something, as it would be so easy to do. One would be able to very easily keep very little dirt in there filter system this way.

I see many benefits to running 2 filters in series, many. Your able to keep them cleaner much more easily and because the second one has much more fine media in it there more efficient as a whole.


----------



## doubleott05 (Mar 16, 2010)

ok i have done this before perhaps i can be of assistance.

it helps if all the the canisters are the same size and rated for the same flow. but that makes a minor difference. like i said it helps but is not necessary. 

i chained 4 ehiem 2222 together and it was awsome. the input back to the tank did not change much. 

filter 1 was prefilter of blue coarse stuff 
filter 2 was bio media (rocks, bioballs, whatever your choice of biological media is) on occation i would add carbon or purigen to this filter. 
filter 3 was fine polymesh
filter 4 was fine polymesh

filter 1,2, got cleaned on a monthy basis
filter 3 1-2 months
filter 4 was as needed because it was usually pretty clean since it was the last in the series. 

Results: was that i had %100 cleaner water. now a caveat to that is that if the filter didnt pick up whatever dibris then i had to suck it out in the water changes. 

pros: clearer water, not near as much filter cleaning, more flexible in ways to put media in your filter setup. 

cons: more expenses in filters and media, higher electricity bill, possible lack of room for that many filters, flow slows considerably when filter 3,4 were full with detritus. more time cleaning filters 1 and 2

would i do it again? possibly if i had more filters laying around but i would now days just buy a really big filter so i only had one to deal with.

-------------------

now at one time i had 3 of them working individually and it was no comparison

the water was clean but i was cleaning filters all the time and replacing polymesh all the time and it was better setupas a series

i hope that helps some.

Thanks
Elliot


----------



## deleted_user_7 (Jul 7, 2003)

Why did you put the fine polyfiber before the biomedia? Wouldn't you want cleaner water to go through the biomedia to keep it from getting clogged with small particles? I had a recent thread about this trying to understand why so many people put biomedia before filter floss.


----------



## The Plantman (May 5, 2010)

justlikeapill said:


> Why did you put the fine polyfiber before the biomedia? Wouldn't you want cleaner water to go through the biomedia to keep it from getting clogged with small particles? I had a recent thread about this trying to understand why so many people put biomedia before filter floss.


Because the bio media filters debris out with the least efficiency, it goes first (filter one). Then the blue course sponge (second filter), then filter floss topped with some very fine floss third filter. Each filter takes out smaller debris then the one before.


----------



## TheCryptKeeper (Mar 9, 2008)

If you have to have it set up this way, leave it the way it is. If you set em up in series and the first filter gets clogged up then you will starve the other filters. So if 1 goes down they all do.

Now if 1 goes down you still have 2 running.


----------



## The Plantman (May 5, 2010)

TheCryptKeeper said:


> If you have to have it set up this way, leave it the way it is. If you set em up in series and the first filter gets clogged up then you will starve the other filters. So if 1 goes down they all do.
> 
> Now if 1 goes down you still have 2 running.


 
Thanks Crypt, I have decided to leave them as they are. Although I do see the great benefits in running them in series I also see how much flow I will lose.


----------

