Correct, and on that note there are scores of different brands of ceramic bio media on the market, including many forms of rings, and some have far more surface area than others.I also believe no one media is any better than another, its all just the oxygenated surface area that matters.
Not necessarily - see comment above. Yours appear to be quite solid, what brand are they? My ceramic rings are quite porous compared to yours. Most of mine are Hagen Bio-Max, and were purchased dirt cheap from a LFS sell out auction 20+ years ago, and at that time this product was marketed as having 7.2 square meters of surface area per ring. But even this brand Hagen/Fluval has changed a lot over the years. Mine look the ones shown in the pic below, which as I said appear to be a lot more porous, with a lot more surface area than the ones that you are using.so does that mean ,all the massive internal surface area a ceramic ring is supposed to have is useless?
Is ceramic ring any better that pebble,if all the internal surface area is not used ?
what are pot scrubbies and what are they made from?? lol im australian and havent heard the term?
Interesting and informative thread, thanks to all.
That chart looked like a very worthwhile source of useful info, but in examining it more closely I am left with some doubts. It shows "surface area per cubic foot", but what is the unit of the surface area? Square feet? It would be interesting to know, but without that info the numbers are still useful just to compare one media to another.
Except...some of these numbers seem a bit difficult to believe. Sand (grain size unspecified, despite it being an important factor) is shown as having a surface area of 150 square meters per gram! I have a hard time believing that.
Activated carbon is supposedly rated at 30000 square yards per ounce. Aside from the shifting of units of measurement, which makes comparison difficult, this one sounds like a prime example of a surface area which would quickly...very quickly, I would suspect...become clogged, reducing the available surface by a couple orders of magnitude.
Or am I just too much of a cynic?
mine are some generic rings i bought from ebay, so like you said,maybe the branded stuff are better . ( we can know for sure if everyone could take a ceramic ring out of their sump/filter break it and post hereCorrect, and on that note there are scores of different brands of ceramic bio media on the market, including many forms of rings, and some have far more surface area than others.
Not necessarily - see comment above. Yours appear to be quite solid, what brand are they? My ceramic rings are quite porous compared to yours. Most of mine are Hagen Bio-Max, and were purchased dirt cheap from a LFS sell out auction 20+ years ago, and at that time this product was marketed as having 7.2 square meters of surface area per ring. But even this brand Hagen/Fluval has changed a lot over the years. Mine look the ones shown in the pic below, which as I said appear to be a lot more porous, with a lot more surface area than the ones that you are using.
View attachment 1398597
If I remember, next time I am cleaning media I will do that. My main point is that there are a LOT of different brand/styles of ceramic/sintered glass rings on the market, and their surface area is going to vary a LOT. Due to that reason and others I find it difficult to place much merit in supposed data gleaned from a supposed study.mine are some generic rings i bought from ebay, so like you said,maybe the branded stuff are better . ( we can know for sure if everyone could take a ceramic ring out of their sump/filter break it and post here
In case you haven't already,check the dishwasing section in the supermarkets....as someone pointed out already, they are plastic scouring pads and "pot scrubbies" are pretty much a slang term.cheers!! interesting to note i cant find anything like it for sale in australia!