Eheim Classic media container: 2213 only, or others also?

[ron521]

"Is it your mission to attempt to prove me wrong and to discredit my work?"

Life lesson: When you are in the wrong, expect to be corrected by those who know better.

"Sorry,but the testing on the 2213 has been concluded."

If that is so, then your testing of the 2213 was incomplete and therefore inadequate. Since your testing did not quantify bypass, you make yourself sound massively ignorant when you state that bypass around the media container is "significant".

To state that "any bypass is significant" is meaningless, because you can only approach "zero" bypass, you can never truly achieve it.

The very best you can even hope for is for MOST of the water to pass through the media, whether the media is inside the media container, or just dumped into the outer housing in layers.

At no time will ALL the water pass through the media. At least some small part of the water will flow right up the inner wall, taking the path of least resistance and moving around the media instead of through it. You would know this if you had taken a class in, say, hydrogeology.

In the context of THIS discussion, bypass would ONLY be significant if it made a measurable difference in the quality of the water in your tank.

And, to paraphrase your own terminology, anyone with any sense at all would realize that the water entering the canister housing creates turbulence in the space between the media container and the outer housing, in fact, it is not possible for the water entering the canister to NOT create turbulence.
This could easily account for the "particles" which you claim you saw moving.
There are several other potential causes as well, none of which are related to bypass.

Bottom line: you are STILL wrong. If you don't have actual hands-on empirical information to contribute to the topic under consideration (specifically, bypass around the media container), then go home. Don't go home mad, just go home.

[Left C]

Originally Posted by ColeMan

Hey LeftC - do you have anything to add about your own personal experiences with this particular filter (as far as the media basket/bypass are concerned)?

I've tried to email Eheim and whenever I submit my message I'm redirected to an error page...when I call I'm on hold for a while, then transferred to an anonymous voice mailbox...am I missing something? Do you have a direct e-mail address for Eheim customer support?

Hi Coleman

I only asked Eheim if I needed one or two lattices and if any specific media was available for it. This was on May 28. I didn't ask them anything else.

I just bought a new 2213 with installation kits 1 and 2, but I haven't used it yet.

I tried to contact them yesterday about the Euro/Asian 240v 2236 ECCO that I bought. I got the error message too.

This is the contact info that I have:
Customer Inquiry: http://eheim.com/base/eheim/inhalte/form_customer.html

Ernesto Cedeno
Technical Support
support@eheim.com
http://www.eheim.com/
EHEIM North America Reg.

North American Headquarters
4226 St. Jean Blvd. Suite 209
Dollard Des Ormeaux, Quebec H9G 1X5
Canada
Phone: 888-EHEIMNA - 888-343-4662
Fax: 514-624-2227


EDIT: I just tried the contact Eheim link and I got an error page again.

I believe that this other link works though: support@eheim.com

Here's some more links: http://www.eheim.de/eheim/inhalte/in...akt_18244_ehen

[fshfanatic]

Ok, Since I own a 2213 with the media basket and had nothing better to do today, I did the following:
1: Took a large plastic bag and placed it over the bottom of the media tray and secured it with a few rubber bands.
2: Set the filter back up and turned the sucker on.

It took a long while to fill as the MAIN path of the water (through) the media would have to be bypassed to fill the canister. Which it most certainly was. Turned it on and from what I could tell, it lost close to 70% or so of it power.

I am no expert on this matter but that would lead me to believe that when the media is blocked it has a 30%ish bypass capability. Now, if you block the media with the same filter, the 2213 using the lattice screens, the canister would not fill and you would not get water pumped back into the tank. It would be physically impossible.

[ColeMan]

Nice work fsh...that's the result I would have expected.

[ron521]

I'm curious fsh, how exactly did you arrive at the 70% figure? Did you collect water in a container of known volume over a measured interval of time? Or, was this a visual estimate based on the size of the output stream? Perhaps some other method?

I do appreciate you taking the time to perform this experiment, as some people apparantly can't be bothered.

[PDX-PLT]

These are the innards of the 2217:

[fshfanatic]

Originally Posted by ron521

I'm curious fsh, how exactly did you arrive at the 70% figure? Did you collect water in a container of known volume over a measured interval of time? Or, was this a visual estimate based on the size of the output stream? Perhaps some other method?

I do appreciate you taking the time to perform this experiment, as some people apparantly can't be bothered.

It was a questimate based on the flow. Already knowing what the flow should have been, I mentally compared the two.

[lescarpentier]

Originally Posted by ron521

Bottom line: you are STILL wrong. If you don't have actual hands-on empirical information to contribute to the topic under consideration (specifically, bypass around the media container), then go home. Don't go home mad, just go home.

Originally Posted by ron521

I'm curious fsh, how exactly did you arrive at the 70% figure? Did you collect water in a container of known volume over a measured interval of time? Or, was this a visual estimate based on the size of the output stream? Perhaps some other method?
I do appreciate you taking the time to perform this experiment, as some people apparantly can't be bothered.

Originally Posted by ron521

Sorry Les, but you are simply WRONG in this matter. Your opinion is based on nothing but conjecture, and is not backed up by any actual measurement or test, so is therefore worthless. Deal with it.

Originally Posted by ron521

Thanks for the link ColeMan,
However, I extend to you the same invitation which I extended to Les, namely, conduct the test as I did, and post YOUR results here.

Originally Posted by ron521

I actually performed the test as I described, so I can authoritatively state that there is not enough water available flowing around that lip to even prime the filter. This should qualify in any reasonable persons mind as "negligible" or "insignificant" bypass.
However, I am hardly surprised the Les would gainsay my statements, even though he has NOT performed the test as I did, but is merely offering his armchair speculation

Originally Posted by ron521

"
Life lesson: When you are in the wrong, expect to be corrected by those who know better.

Selective manners?
Flip flop?
"Life lesson"?

[ron521]

Still no first hand data regarding bypass? Then your opinion regarding bypass is still worthless.

fsh actually DID the experiment, and although he obtained a different result than I did, I can at least respect his results and chalk up the difference to a looser fit on his media container. Who knows why? Different molding tolerance? Change in the design of the conatainer from when mine was made 8 years ago and whenever his was made? Some other reason?

You, on the other hand, refused to attempt the test, and lost serious credibility by so doing.

I stand by all my statements which you have quoted, and offer you one more:
On this topic, you are speaking out of ignorance, not out of experience. While you may have made some other contributions to this forum, on THIS topic, you simply don't know what you are talking about, and until you perform some hands-on experiments of your own to quantify bypass around the media container, as fsh did, I don't respect your opinion on the subject in the least.

That is my final word to you on this topic. Clearly, someone is going to have to be the bigger man and let the discussion drop, and it clearly isn't going to be you. I'll discuss it with anyone else who cares to, but you aren't worth any further time. Reply or don't, go home or don't, you simply aren't relevant any more.

[lescarpentier]

Originally Posted by ron521

Still no first hand data regarding bypass? Then your opinion regarding bypass is still worthless.

It's not worthless to me.

Originally Posted by ron521

fsh actually DID the experiment, and although he obtained a different result than I did, I can at least respect his results and chalk up the difference to a looser fit on his media container. Who knows why? Different molding tolerance? Change in the design of the conatainer from when mine was made 8 years ago and whenever his was made? Some other reason?

This is a thinly veiled attack on fsh's findings too,however you use a little more tact when dealing with him.
Selective manners again?

Originally Posted by ron521

You, on the other hand, refused to attempt the test, and lost serious credibility by so doing.

I am not refusing,however I no longer have a basket with which to conduct this test.Actually the thought never occurred to me while conducting the other tests,and the fact that bypass was evident was good enough for me,but I now regret the omission.As for the serious "loss of credibility",well,your opinion means absolutely nothing to me.I spent a lot of time and money doing various tests on the Classics,and I shared my results here on the forum,never asking anything in return,or expecting these kind of juvenile attacks.

Originally Posted by ron521

I stand by all my statements which you have quoted, and offer you one more:
On this topic, you are speaking out of ignorance, not out of experience. While you may have made some other contributions to this forum, on THIS topic, you simply don't know what you are talking about, and until you perform some hands-on experiments of your own to quantify bypass around the media container, as fsh did, I don't respect your opinion on the subject in the least.

Whatever...I don't care if you do respect my opinion,and I certainly do not respect yours.It is you who is ignorant,and refuse to believe anything that is not in line with your own imaginings.All that you have offered here is words,your words,and you expect everybody to believe you? Without a doubt there is significant bypass.I ask you again,why are these baskets not used on the other Classics?

Originally Posted by ron521

Reply or don't, go home or don't, you simply aren't relevant any more.

This is debatable,and you are entitled to your opinion regardless of it's worth.

[Left C]

Damn ... ROFLMAF!

[mott]

You guy's hehe ...I love a good read bravo

I'm curious Les, Do you think that the ecco line has significant bypass?
I have a ton of snails on the sides of the baskets.
However the impeller cover meets with the top of the basket and it looks to me like it would be tough to get bypass here.
I haven't found any "snail party's" going on by the impeller.

Any idea? I ask because you claim that only the classic line has no bypass.

[lescarpentier]

Originally Posted by mott

You guy's hehe ...I love a good read bravo

I'm curious Les, Do you think that the ecco line has significant bypass?
I have a ton of snails on the sides of the baskets.
However the impeller cover meets with the top of the basket and it looks to me like it would be tough to get bypass here.
I haven't found any "snail party's" going on by the impeller.

Any idea? I ask because you claim that only the classic line has no bypass.

Well,I think that any bypass is significant,however,if your filter is big enough everything will be OK.

If there is no rubber seal where the basket contacts the lid you can be assured of some bypass.I would like to get my hands on an ECCO to study them more carefully,and someday I will.Until I see otherwise,I am convinced beyond a doubt that all filters with baskets allow bypass.

[DaveS]

How about this: if you like using the basket in your filter, then use it. When all is said and done, if the filter is doing what you want then it is good enough despite any loss in efficiency. I have to admit, one of the main reasons I went with the Eheim 2026 (Pro II line) is because it has baskets. Having used a Fluval 404 for years, that is just the way I learned to fill and maintain a cannister filter. I am sure that my 2026 has more bypass than a 2217 for example, but honestly it doesn't bother me, and it actually works unlike my previous filter .

Dave

[mott]

It's been a while since I opened it up but I do not beleive there is no rubber seal.
If you ever get an ecco I would love to see the results.
I would do a study/test for it but I'm way too lazy lol.