Why I distrust the commercial aquarium industry claims

[OasisKeeper]

I know there are plenty of examples around. But I was reading a thread on filters and started looking at canisters this morning, when I read this;

"The Fluval 405 Aquarium Canister filter provides 35-55% more volume than would be possible with round canisters of the same outer dimensions. Increased volume means a greater mass of filter material and a larger filtration area"

Most all of us have had junior high geometry and can calculate the area of circles and rectangles. Only the in the mind of some marketing tool could you reach this idea about 'outside dimensions'. Has this filter so little to offer that this is the best they can do? I'll leave you all to consider the math for yourselves.

 

[BillD]

Not sure I follow. Are you saying that a 4" circle has the same area as a 4" square?

 

[meegosh]

I think BillD nailed it. They are saying the Fluval 405 (square) that is, let's just say, 6"x6" would have more volume than a round canister that was 6" in diameter. They both have the same 6" outer dimension.

 

[OasisKeeper]

Are the 'outside dimensions' of a rectangle the distance between the flat sides or across the diagonals?

 

[meegosh]

Flat sides. A piece of paper is 8.5"x11", not 13 7/8" (diagonal) or whatever.

 

[OasisKeeper]

Then you should buy a fluval instead of a round canister. I'll buy a 11" diameter canister.

If you decide you want to use a square instead, that's fine too. Just be sure and read the claim.

 

[MrPillow]

Well lets see... A cylinder that is 12" tall with a 6" circumfrence has a volume of approximately 339 cubic inches. A recantgular prism that is 6" wide on both sides and 12" tall has a volume of roughly 432 cubic inches. Thats an increase in volume of approximately 22%. Not exactly what they are claiming, but I think the principle still stands

 

[mfdrookie516]

The fluval line of canister filters can arguably be considered some of the best in the industry. Not sure what you're getting at, but it seems like you might just be pointing out their under-impressive marketing? IMO, their reputation speaks for itself.

 

[HN1]

I think it comes down to someone in marketing making statements that would appeal to the masses.

I wonder what the added capacity and addition of 90 degree angles does to their pump performance.... hmmm... j/k

Fluvals are very good filters. Several other brands are in the same high quality arena too though.

 

[OasisKeeper]

I believe they are among the best as well. That why it bothers me that they resort to cheap marketing claims to encourage sales.

Is really so hard to be honest and sell a good product?

 

[mfdrookie516]

What is dishonest about it? Granted, it's not the best line in the world, but I don't see how it's being dishonest.

 

[HN1]

I virtually agree. It nearly makes sense.

 

[OasisKeeper]

What is dishonest about it? Granted, it's not the best line in the world, but I don't see how it's being dishonest.

Show me the math that meets the 55% claim, and I take it back.

 

[mfdrookie516]

You are certainly welcome to post the math to prove otherwise. It seems as if you're the one trying to convince everyone that it's false

 

[OasisKeeper]

assume equal height of 10" (could be anything)

6" square = 360 sq "
3" radius circle sitting completely inside = 282 " , 78% or 28% more for the square.

That is short of 35% but perhaps they can find some other magic to make it up.

55%. Sorry, they or you are going to have to show me. Its a lie.

 

[MrPillow]

It could amount to different heights used vs circular competitors in the same product market. Who knows. Either way, the concept is mathematically sound. Unless someone is going to take a Fluval from every line, and get an example of its direct competitors which are circular and produce roughly the same GPH rating, and directly measure the volumes for all examples involved, "proving" its not a lie isnt going to happen.

EDIT: I am referencing internal dimensions here, as external dimensions are clearly stated to be identical by Fluval. Perhaps the "trickery" is some sort of design which allows to maximize useable internal volume?

 

[OasisKeeper]

It could amount to different heights used vs circular competitors in the same product market. Who knows. Either way, the concept is mathematically sound. Unless someone is going to take a Fluval from every line, and get an example of its direct competitors which are circular and produce roughly the same GPH rating, and directly measure the volumes for all examples involved, "proving" its not a lie isnt going to happen.

Exactly, any more then proving it is a lie. Very difficult to prove negatives.
BTW they are not making the comparison to any real competitive product, only hypothetical ones that could exit if they were the same 'outside dimensions'.

If they actually had a media area advantage over competitive products, I would think they would just state that.

Anyway, its is really not about short comings or advantages of the product, only the slick marketing words used to try and sell it.

EDIT: I am referencing internal dimensions here, as external dimensions are clearly stated to be identical by Fluval. Perhaps the "trickery" is some sort of design which allows to maximize useable internal volume?

Yeah, if this mythical competitive product had 1/2 inch thick walls, perhaps it could get there. And my truck can go 180 mph too (with 120 mph wind behind it), wanna buy it?