Biopellet Reactor: Tuning

[DamonG]

DamonG, 007, the , thanks for the response. I raised the skimmer in the sump. I had water level at 11" now at 7" as SRO recommends. Also took the opportunity to thoroughly clean the SRO6000sss. Which is no easy feat. Just wanted to eliminate sources of error. Nothing dramatic yet.

The RD Skimmers sound nice I like the true recirculation but don't like the price and multiple pumps to give recirc. Maybe Santa will be good

Meanwhile I have been speaking with Jeff at RD for his thoughts. Saying it should be stripping po4 and no3 by now and his flow rate of 250 gpd as suggested and high turbulence is due largely to the fact that I went oversized. He also suggested bacteria dosing should not be necessary (but I may try it if no luck in a couple more weeks). Along the lines you mention Damon although my system is elevated nutrient, local to the reactor itself could be a different story.

Oh mine isn't a recirc(skimmer). Lol, neither enough room or just as your saying, the price dude.. But I had a buddy that had one and it was a nice skimmer to say the least..

And yes,I agree with Jeff that it really "should" be pulling by now, but every system is different tbh. So I'm sure they are well on their way. I forgot to mention, I have had good results with zeobak also as a bacterial suppliment.. That stuff, on a side note is utterly amazing!

Question and it could just be my misunderstanding, but raising it, won't that make your skim even drier, as opposed to wet? Maybe I'm thinking about the dynamics skimmers and how they work. But I hope that works for you definitely!

The two pictures are of course of skim. The lighter is what it should be. The darker is way too dry. The lighter is of 1 day of skim, that darker,2 days.. I was just playing around with the skimmer when I took them..

 

[gdemos]

Bare in mind that both my BPR and skimmer are 'oversized'. The collection cup on the skimmer is enormous. The sumo water level has an impact on how the skimmer pump works- think head pressure

 

[DamonG]

Bare in mind that both my BPR and skimmer are 'oversized'. The collection cup on the skimmer is enormous. The sumo water level has an impact on how the skimmer pump works- think head pressure

Ah... Got ya.. sounds good though. Mine is oversized also, so got ya.. How is it looking so far since you changed it?

 

[gdemos]

I also run a SRO3000 in my frag tank, so I am used to their build although the 3000 is not a "sump saver" unit. I have not noticed a tremendous difference in the 6000 having raised it from 11" to 7" in the sump.

Here's another 5min video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYwA4PrdgXk

 

[DamonG]

Hmm.. I see what your thinking.. But, when you"seed" with bacteria, your doing a different thing than your nitrate and phosphate level.

Let me kind of explain. The bacteria(naturally occurring in the system) colonies grow on the pellets, consume the pellets as food, and as a result of their processes, they also consume nitrate and phosphate. But the "bacteria", unless it's in significant quantity(they have to grow), they can only do so much. This "bacterial" colony build up, is what takes the time to grow and begin to work efficiently. Then, and only "when" they are in significant quantity, do they begin consuming the food(the pellets, nitrate and phosphate). It's very similar to the nitrogen cycle in our tanks. But this is basically a sub or localized cycle. The addition of bacteria to the pellets, it's to help build up or speed up that population growth.

And the one thing I would not do, is tumble that hard. That's going to cause a ton of shearing of film on the pellets. So,I would slow(the tumble) back down. You had an awesome tumble rate on your previous video. The difference with our reactor is that "we don't have to" tumble hard to get the job done.. And as a result, you don't shear as much, throwing excess nutrient into the system. You want them to move good and smooth. I think I have only adjusted it slower or faster with the red valve once in two months.. That rate is really set it and forget it. The only one you adjust is the blue' Most of the time that is..

Then, only every now and then you turn it up to where you have it now to get rid of some of the bio film. I do mine one a month during water changes.. And yes, the stuff you have at the top is good. It's all biological..

And your skimmer,I get what your saying now with the large collection cup. But, suck some of it out and look at it in a bottle to judge it's consistency. That little trick makes it easier with large skimmers like yours. And this is gonna sounds goofy, but how fast is your turnover through the filtration? I first truly discovered the difference that it makes when I hit a D.C.pump and slowed it down. It was amazing how much more skim it produces. In this system, I just have a valve to slow it down. But I do slow it down for contact time, especially with those pellets in there..

Just thoughts of things that I discovered that may help.

 

[gdemos]

Makes sense Damon. I will give zeoback a shot to seed locally. So far as the turbulence rate of the pellets ... It was after seeing the 1st video in this thread that Jeff (RD) suggested I kick it up 'as aggressively as possible just as much as I can yet not so much that pellets are clogging more than 50% of the recirc strainer at the top". So the most recent video is upon that recommendation. This morning I tuned it down a bit so now the recirc is q but more than vid1 but not as much as video2. RD made the high turbulence recommendation based on the premise that my oversized setup calls for it. I am aware that my turbulence is higher than is spoken of by many.

So I will let current turbulence ride for a bit so I am shearing biomass but not completely stripping biomass from the pellets such that there is no contact time.

The top effluent line control dictates flow through the reactor. Slower means more contact means further reduction of nutrient. Right now I'm at 250 gpd per RD recommendations. If you measure 250gpd you will see it's very slow just a trickle.

On the skimmer now that it has seasoned since my cleaning and raising it to 7" I notice that the adjustment to the gate valve is far more s sensitive and now i believe I will be able to get that wetter skimmate we are after.

I'm going to keep all current settings for a week and will introduce zeoback this week as well.

I'm hopeful that the wetter skim alone and slightly reduced tumble will help.

 

[DamonG]

Really and interesting.. I haven't spoken to Jeff in a while, but it's so weird for him to say that. But actually, when I called them, they told me to turn mine up also.. hmmmm.. Lol.. Something new every day..

I'm subscribed to your thread, so I check and keep updated..

 

[gdemos]

Feeling confident the wetter skimmate will make for vast improvements. I feel the skimmer was previously stalling or as they say going idle.

Now considering zeobacter.
True or False: dosing bacteria local to the reactor (feeding directly to BP reactor) will be more "effective" at seeding pellets than dosing tank.

True or False: dosing bacteria with UV In line is self defeating? My guess is a worthwhile percentage of dosed bacteria will seed pellets even with uv on although a majority of bacteria will be zapped by uv.

 

[DamonG]

I would say, yes it is more effective at seeing when feed directly into the reactor. Especially if you do it with our reactor. I would just shut the feed off, then sit the reactor off, drop the drops in, turn the reactor back on with just the recirc going, let it run for a while that way, and "then" open the feed back up slowly.

My thinking and hypothesis is, it will get the bacteria into the tube and pellets "locally" at strength. Then your allowing it on the pellets and tube to disperse fir a little bit, thus eliminating the worry about the UV being inline..

 

[Aqualund]

gdemos, I am curious about the particulars of your build all together. Like, the flow of the water in the tank...what's your rate of turnover? Also, Liverock...do you have at least 1-2 lbs of live rock per gallon?

My first glance is that you have the effluent set too low...on my heavily stocked 120 I have my 3/8" tubing wide open to maintain about 3ppm..I'm thinking you need more effluent...so you can get more carbon source to the bacteria in your tank.

Also, what brand of pellets are you using? Oh, and do you does any bacteria like zeobak or fauna marine bakto blend?

Oh and just to be sure...do you have any bioballs anywhere in your system?

 

[DamonG]

gdemos, I am curious about the particulars of your build all together. Like, the flow of the water in the tank...what's your rate of turnover? Also, Liverock...do you have at least 1-2 lbs of live rock per gallon?

My first glance is that you have the effluent set too low...on my heavily stocked 120 I have my 3/8" tubing wide open to maintain about 3ppm..I'm thinking you need more effluent...so you can get more carbon source to the bacteria in your tank.

Also, what brand of pellets are you using? Oh, and do you does any bacteria like zeobak or fauna marine bakto blend?

Oh and just to be sure...do you have any bioballs anywhere in your system?

Wow, wide open on how many oz of pellets? On my 110 that I had, I never ran my rd open more than half with my reactor.. Is yours a recirculation, and what brand of pellets and how much are you using as far as oz? That seems very extreme and for it reactors, just asking for a wipe out in a few days...

 

[Chrisjbarry]

On my pellet reactor I run about 500gph through it wide open. It took about a month and a half for the pellets to start working. My phosphates are always less then .05 nitrates less then 5. I add mb7 about a capful every week. I don't do water changes for the last 6 plus months.

 

[Chrisjbarry]

Also my tank is mostly sps. Here is a pic of the tank.
View attachment 298701

 

[gdemos]

Aqualung. Tull fan. Its high flow plenty of LR and heck no on bioballs. My return pump is a water blaster 16000. In the sump I have a magnum 8 koralia for flow, the in sump skimmer has a bubble blaster 5000. In the 120g tank I have 2 mp 40s that I run at 65-90% intensity. Approx 80 lbs LR in tank 200 in sump.

RD recommends 250 gpd as their standard flow through reactor. If I had effluent wide open it would be approx 700 gpd. When I first started I had it wide open then Jeff recommended 250gpd

 

[DamonG]

On my pellet reactor I run about 500gph through it wide open. It took about a month and a half for the pellets to start working. My phosphates are always less then .05 nitrates less then 5. I add mb7 about a capful every week. I don't do water changes for the last 6 plus months.

Are you the same person as aqualund? Lol..

Anyhow, I think the systems are a bit different add far as the reactors unless yours is a recirculation. When I had this one running on my last system, and its looking like even on this one, there was no way I could possibly have this thing open all the way and have any nitrate(I'm actually running inks fir the past couple weeks with it only open 1/4 of the way). Phosphates with these pellets really have never been an issue(nice thing about them) either. I do preform regular water changes though(I'm trying to not really dose this tank), but that's just to keep my levels up.

I am doing some of the zeovit products fir elevated growth since it worked for me before.

But I barely have water running through this thing, and the thing is just getting some bacteria in the unit and on the pellets. It will take it's course after that.. I always cheated by the initial overnight soak, putting some mb7 in the saltwater with them.

But my key to them and recirculation reactors I'd ask about extended contract time. As long as I got that, the rest was easy for me. Then,I just tested the system. I think Jeff and his interview with L.A. Fishguy answered most of my questions initially. After that, it was simply waiting...

And I just inherently, because of the nutrient the pellets give off, closed the reactor to a slow flow, so I wouldn't have to deal with the issues of a single pass reactor.

 

[Aqualund]

I make and test reactors and run them on my own systems, the (15+) systems I maintain, and a 2,000 gallon sps coral farm. And they are all recirculation models. Im not going to peddle my product with this thread...just try to confirm my credibility on the matter...because i know how important it is to you to protect your investment with sound advice.

My first opinion based on the info you answered is that you need more live rock for the bacteria to colonize outside of the reactor...and for the reactor effluent, yes you need it wide open.

Just for me I run about 10 liters of pellets on my 2k system wide open (it has 1" input and output) to maintain 2ppm...and about 1.5 liters wide open on my heavily stocked 150 at much more flow than you are at with about 2 ppm. if it ever dropped below 2ppm I would dial it back...but it hasn't.

based on your stockage list I would consider you more heavily stocked than me.

The pellets aren't only a colonization area for bacteria in the reactor...but they are a nutrient source for bacteria in the water column and your liverock...they aren't going to get it at the population you need if you're just drip feeding them...you know?

 

[gdemos]

Aqualund thanks for the note. I think for my purposes and discovery it would be best to seek insight from those running RD recirc reactors specifically. I don't know if your reactors are true recirc

With respect to flow. There is flow in the entire system, flow through the reactor, and flow or turbulence inside the reactor. I am confident in my system flow. While more the merrier in system turnover there is also a consideration to keeping the sand on the Sandbed and not suspended etc.

Flow through the reactor I would ask for more clarity why you would advocate more or less flow through and your definition of what happens as flow through the reactor is increased or decreased

For flow or turbulence internal to the reactor, that is the rate at which the pellets are tumbling that seems pretty straight forward. Not too turbulence to clog recirc or entirely 'strip' pellets of biomass, and not too slow that pellets clump with biomass.

Finally on liverock. I would say weight of rock is one thing, and quality/surface area of rock is another. 250ish pounds I have is all premiere quality

Its a mixture of:

Tonga kaelini
Fiji
Tonga branch
Tonga shelf

Thanks, -Greg

 

[Aqualund]

Aqualund thanks for the note. I think for my purposes and discovery it would be best to seek insight from those running RD recirc reactors specifically. I don't know if your reactors are true recirc

There's not much difference in the function of recirculating reactors between brands. I am sure you can google my name and see for yourself

With respect to flow. There is flow in the entire system, flow through the reactor, and flow or turbulence inside the reactor. I am confident in my system flow. While more the merrier in system turnover there is also a consideration to keeping the sand on the Sandbed and not suspended etc.

I have not seen sand not stay on the sandbed with my 10+ times/hour turnover rate in my tank...I was simply trying to ensure you had at least that in your system.

Flow through the reactor I would ask for more clarity why you would advocate more or less flow through and your definition of what happens as flow through the reactor is increased or decreased

I already clarified this:

The pellets aren't only a colonization area for bacteria in the reactor...but they are a nutrient source for bacteria in the water column and your liverock...they aren't going to get it at the population you need if you're just drip feeding them...you know?

In simpler terms, you need more food delivery from the sloughing carbon source of the pellets to enter your system and provide elevated resources to the bacteria in your water column and live rock to increase their population.

For flow or turbulence internal to the reactor, that is the rate at which the pellets are tumbling that seems pretty straight forward. Not too turbulence to clog recirc or entirely 'strip' pellets of biomass, and not too slow that pellets clump with biomass.

The tumbling in your reactor is perfect.

Finally on liverock. I would say weight of rock is one thing, and quality/surface area of rock is another. 250ish pounds I have is all premiere quality

I re-read your post from before...I thought I read it as only 80lbs in a 200 gallon sump. I see how I read that wrong now. This is good! Means you have plenty of rock like you should.

So now, those things are addressed, I would open your effluent more.

 

[gdemos]

For clarification on my turnover: 16000 gph return pump . Although not pressure rated and I've got some turns and 10' of head from basement sump to tank on a system total water volume of 275g. Fits the bill

Per your suggestion I bumped up the flow through reactor and will let it ride a bit at these settings

 

[DamonG]

Lol, sitting back observing for results..