D
Deleted member 143833
I apologize for the debate this question will likely cause but I'd like to know...
I am curious, more out of cost and benefit as I don't feel 1 method is generally any better than the other but I am open to discussion.
There are 2 (basic# methods of thought around maintaining tank CA/alk; reactors and dosing #2-part). I've run reactors forever but I am curious to hear, especially those who changed one to the other on why 1 method might be used over the other. For example, I've heard that in a heavy SPS tank that 2 part will not be able to keep up and if not watched could lower salinity. On the other hand CA reactors recirculate tank water but they also are not without issues.
My current setup includes a Deltec Fluidized CA reactor, managed with a LM3 and 100% top off through a PM Kalk reactor. The LM3 offers be the benefit to very accurately make changes to CA but then the same would be true using an LM3 and 2-part.
What, if any benefits/issues have people seen using 1 method over the other?
I am curious, more out of cost and benefit as I don't feel 1 method is generally any better than the other but I am open to discussion.
There are 2 (basic# methods of thought around maintaining tank CA/alk; reactors and dosing #2-part). I've run reactors forever but I am curious to hear, especially those who changed one to the other on why 1 method might be used over the other. For example, I've heard that in a heavy SPS tank that 2 part will not be able to keep up and if not watched could lower salinity. On the other hand CA reactors recirculate tank water but they also are not without issues.
My current setup includes a Deltec Fluidized CA reactor, managed with a LM3 and 100% top off through a PM Kalk reactor. The LM3 offers be the benefit to very accurately make changes to CA but then the same would be true using an LM3 and 2-part.
What, if any benefits/issues have people seen using 1 method over the other?
