My Highly Modified Juwel Internal Filter

[chrisf]

I have to say that I have come across a lot of bad press concerning the effectiveness of the Juwel internal filter. So I have started a small experiment...

I took away both of the "trays" used to hold the sponges, I felt the gap they created to be excessive and a waste of good media space.

I took away the carbon and nitrate sponge (I have a planted Discus tank).

I bought a large Sera media bag and put in a very large amount of bio filter media (ceramic/lava stuff) This gave me a large bio media mass the size of a large coke bottle. This bag sits at the bottom of the filter chamber.

Above this is one Juwel sponge then the fine filter floss pad and lastly another sponge on top. Sandwiching the floss keeps it away from large debris, giving a longer lifespan in the tank. It has always struck me as a little odd that Juwel put the floss pad at the top as the first line of filter defence.

Now here comes the wild bit.

Juwel internal filters draw water using a powerhead. This draws up the water through a tube which runs the full height of the filter chamber. There is a large hole in the tube halfway down and a smaller one at the base.

The middle hole was blocked by placing a piece of plastic against it, kept there by the wieght of the filter media. This meant all the water drawn out of the filter by the powerhead must travel down the full length of the filter chamber, top to bottom.

So what did all this work result in?

> A very much larger amount of biological filter mass = nver a bad thing for many reasons
> better mechanical filtration = cleaner water
> longer life of the floss filter pad = saving money
> a slight reduction in flow rate = plants loved it
> surprisingle, a quieter filter pump = wife loved it

I was amazed at the capacity of the filter chamber, it easily held all of the filter media from an old external filter (SECAM Marathon 400). The slightly reduced flow rate does the tank no harm as the powerhead is rated at 1000l/h anyway.

If I get a chance I will post some images.

I would very much like to hear from anyone else what they think of this appraoch and thier own attempts at improving this type of filter.

Chris

 

[InaneCathode]

Not trying to be harsh or cut you down mate, but do you have any proof that it's anybetter? I dunno, ppm of ammonia processed in a set time, turbidity tests, any of that sort? Might be cool to test it out.

 

[SNAIL]

InaneCathode,

Good idea! Removing the carbon from the filter is something that most aquarists should do for planted tanks as it takes the nutrients that plants need. I have never used activated carbon in my tank and its 90% planted. All thats in my filter are floss pads. Most planted tanks are actually using a natural approach to filtering (bacteria and plants) without knowing it or knowing it as I do. Creating space for more bacteria to grow is a great idea. The savings is one of the best points and making the wife happy too. Can't forget, healthier tank and all the inhabitants of it.

Amonia, Nitrates, Nitrites are all part of the bilogical cycle as are the plants and bacteria.
The bacteria grows in the filter, the substrate and around the tank. The more bacteria there is, the more effecient the nitrification process becomes. Plants will take in the nutrients they need from this process.
Other chemicals or nutrients left behind are removed or reduced via water change which is basically mimicking mother natures way of replenishing the water supply in any natural aquatic environment via rain or melting snow, etc.
It's an enclosed eco system thus the need for human intervention to some degree.

 

[DarkEntity]

Ive always got carbon in my tanks. Plants still grow like complete maniacs.