Calcium Reactor vs. Two-part System

[robitreef]

I have been using two part and it works fine for me. That being said my tanks are 30 and 16 gal so I don't need to spend a lot of $$$ on additives (64oz B ionic lasts me for almost a year). The larger tank is 95% sps, and I have been able to keep stable levels of ca/alk.

 

[rleechb]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10277719#post10277719 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by morty
Also, if such micronutrients are being 'over-introduced' by Ca reactors, then even frequent water changes could not keep them from becoming more and more concentrated in our tanks to unhealthy levels. This obviously isn't the case due to the relatively long history that Ca reactors have.

Yep, but then the long history of 2-part solutions producing just as nice tanks as calcium reactors should suggest that the micronutrients produced by reactors doesn't play a role in coral health

 

[morty]

It would be interesting to poll the people who have switched from one system to the other (either direction) and get their feedback. I guess those are the people who would be best suited to make the final evaluation. (If this thing could ever be 'final'. ) Or if someone had the time, resources, and inclination, to set up two identical systems with the exception of the different Ca/Alk replenishment methods and compare results. (But to be scientifically 'proper' it would need replicates, so it's obvious that will never happen.)

My initial point was not to say that 2-part can't play a role in a successful tank. I was saying that intuitively it seems like the Ca reactor method may be chemically more robust.

Bottom line is that it comes down to which system a person is most comfortable with, or suits their tank/lifestyle the best, or even which better suits their love of gadgetry etc., both methods appear to work.

 

[sirreal63]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10278187#post10278187 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by rleechb
Yep, but then the long history of 2-part solutions producing just as nice tanks as calcium reactors should suggest that the micronutrients produced by reactors doesn't play a role in coral health

I don't see it suggesting that at all and reaching conclusions based on an assumption is kind of irresponsible. The truth is we don't know how all of these pcs. of the puzzle fit together.

Neither of these methods has a long term history mainly because this hobby doesn't have a long term history. Do what works for you but don't speculate.

 

[andyjd]

I dont add either i use Fiji Gold Coral and Live Rock Supplement

works for me

Andy

 

[davidryder]

I have enjoyed this thread... but I still can't tell which is better and/or why... it seems everyone already has their opinions.

Congrats on ThOTM

 

[sirreal63]

The answer seems to be neither is better or worse and both work. It depends on which is better for each person.

 

[joljaz]

Doesn't a Calcium Reactor also dose just the right proportion of magnesium, strontium, iodine and other elements? I thoought I read that somewhere. Are these element pert of the 2 part solution?

 

[chileguy]

I agree that the hobby is still new, and "dicoveries" are being made regularly.
As far as I'm concerned, that's all the more reason to use dissolved coral media over bottled chemicals.
I've used both, and I truly believe it's more holistic to use a reactor, as long as the CO2 is managed properly

 

[espenlg]

I know this thread is about 2-part vs ca reactor, but have anyone tried the german balling-method? Or read about it? How would that compare to the 2-part method?

 

[jdieck]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10286809#post10286809 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by espenlg
I know this thread is about 2-part vs ca reactor, but have anyone tried the german balling-method? Or read about it? How would that compare to the 2-part method?

It compares better with Kalk addition just faster than just slowlly dripping.

 

[crispyreef]

Are there any DIYers out there. I built a Ca reactor that holds 18lbs of media for a fraction of the cost. The most I spent was on the pump. For me it was a pain to keep pouring in the 2-parts.IMHO

 

[majesticangelfish]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10286809#post10286809 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by espenlg
I know this thread is about 2-part vs ca reactor, but have anyone tried the german balling-method? Or read about it? How would that compare to the 2-part method?

Gday mate,

I've recently started running the Balling Method, with a Grotech TEC III. I dose from three 4ltr containers. I'm still tweaking the doses as the system has only been operational for around 10days im currently at around 450ml/day of each.

So far I'm loving it, the Grotech allows 1ml adjustments to find the optimum doses. In theory this system has it's advantages, as I can customize trace element dosing, and expand the system with additional slave pumps to add further solutions.

My three channels have:

1st Calcium at 0.5mol/L and trace Strontium
2nd Sodium Bicarbonate at 1mol/L and ZEO Kaliumjodid-Fluor
3rd Magnesium at 0.5mol/L and trace Potassium (hopefully soon some NaCl free salt)

I’m using a modified version of Ralph’s recipe.
(TOTM winner):
http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-08/totm/index.php
His thread:
http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=859730&highlight=balling
:thumbsup:

More information:
-(in German) http://www.aquaterrashop.de/balling.php

trythechi on ZEOvit.com

I would'nt say Balling was cheaper than an CA Rx on my size tank - the hardware is roughly the same cost, as are the comsumables.

The theoretical advantage is that you can dial in the preice values of KH , CA, Mg, as these are dosed independantly. Th edisadvantage is that its much easier to mess with the Ionic ballance unless, you keep a diligent regime.

After 2 months into Balling, my weekly readings arent much more stable than the old CA Rx provided TBH. My wife says the tank doesnt look as good as it did before the change over, and I think she's right, so I'v more fine tuning to do.

Based on my experience so far - I wouldnt rate it as an upgrade compared with a CaRx.

Cheers

Simon

PS This is the recepie I'm using - text from Ralph a German reefer and TOTM winner over on RC:

"NaHCO3 84 g/l
CaCl2*2H2O 73.5 g/l
CaCl2(whithout chrystalwater, as a replacement of the above) 55.5 g/l
MgCl2*6H2O 101.5 g/l
NaCl free salt 25 g/l

------

Why I use such strange concentrations?
Thinking about chemical reactions of this kind, the number of molecules/ions is, whats interesting, not the gram of powder. To be able to calculate with those, you need the molecular weight of the chemicals.
It is given in gram/mol (a Mol is 6.023 * 10^23 particles (molecules).

NaHCO3
Having to start somewhere, NaHCO3 seems to be where to do it. NaHCO3 has a somewhat poor solutability in water, which is only 95.5 g/l at 20 degree centigrade).
To be able to solute it relatively easy, one has to reduce the amount of it a little to not hit the extremes.
Well, when thinking about moleculeweights etc., the idea of using 84 g/l, which is exactly 1 mol of NaHCO3 in one liter is quite obvious.
So concentration of NaHCO3 is 84 g/liter which is also 1 mol/liter.

CaCl2*2H2O or CaCl2 waterfree
To get a concentration here is relatively easy.
Wouldn't it be great to use the same volume of all the different solutions, when dosing?
Well, here you are: If reacting, one molecule of Ca uses two of HCO3.
Following this the concentration will have to be 0.5 mol/l, because that of NaHCO3 is 1 mol/l.
Half a mol of CaCl2*2H2O would be 73.5 g.
If useing CaCl2(waterfree), half a mol of that would be 55.5 g.

MgCl2*6H2O
hoping, that Mg also reacts with HCO3 like Ca does, the concentration may also be 0.5 mol/l.
Half a mol of MgCl2*6H2O would be 101.5 g.

NaCl free salt
to be able do dose simply the same amount, than that of the others, I'll calculate the concentration analog to that of the NaHCO3 solution.
The fact you have to know to do so is, that 70% of the salts in our oceans is NaCl.
NaCl's molweight is 58.44 g/mol.
If 70% is the NaCl, so the rest (30 %) is the NaCl-free salt.
58.44/70*30=25 gram (in one liter).

----

The above solutions mean, that based on say your Ca addition, you can easily determine how much to dose.
dosing 10ml of the CaCl2*2H2O solution, means you'll have to dose also 10ml of the NaHCO3 and also 10ml of the NaCl-free salt.
Theoretically, MgCl2*6H2O is to be treated like CaCl2*2H2O, but reality shows, that Mg is not totally used as HCO3, so the NaHCO3 is a little different (volume).

Of course the solutions can be set up differently or dosed independently to hold/correct the different figures.
A good start to dose automatically is to know how much Ca and Mg - solution is to be dosed, add the volumes and use the resulting volume as NaHCO3 volume.
The NaCl free salt solution volume is the same as NaHCO3.

If doing larger corrections (initially) pls. dose in several days and dose Mg first, because Mg ions help to keep Ca ions in solution (not falling out).
Dosage of CaCl2 without NaHCO3 will raise Ca and reduce your KH (hardness) and dosage of NaHCO3 without CaCl2 will raise your KH."


source: http://www.zeovit.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9529

Cheers, Josh:rollface:

 

[espenlg]

Thanks majesticangelfish, that was enlightening! I've just ordered the Grotech III myself, with a startup Balling "Deluxe" kit from a german website, so I'm looking forward to test it on a new tank I'm setting up.

 

[dogmatix]

JMHO,

2 part, Cheaper to set up, less equipment and more convieniant, and more reliable (less adjustment needed).

Ca Reactor, no need to top up the system, can be used to maintain Mg (without an xtra pump)

Both systems work very well. I run a Ca reactor (Deltec PF509) I had big problems for the first year, Pump broke, chewed the impellors etc. Got a replacement pump FREE, and switched to CarribSea A.R.M media, This media only needs an eff pH of 7.4 to dissolve plus the fluidization helps even more so the ph is very stable (i dont run a PH meter or controller) BTW. And run it 24/7.

This unit runs perfectally now and has been a great investment, I find that ppl constantly CRY about adjusting CA Reactors. I find this a lame excuse, i check all my pumps, skimmer reactor etc daily and it only takes two seconds to adjust it.

Ben

 

[dogmatix]

Just checked the ARM and it only needs 7.5
There are alot of Ca reactor options out there, you need to research not only your reactor but also the media to find the best option to meet your needs

 

[tmz]

Ben,
Thanks for the tip on Carrib sea media.7.4ph for effluent sounds alot better than 6.7.
Tom

 

[majesticangelfish]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10292042#post10292042 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by espenlg
Thanks majesticangelfish, that was enlightening! I've just ordered the Grotech III myself, with a startup Balling "Deluxe" kit from a german website, so I'm looking forward to test it on a new tank I'm setting up.

Glad to hear, let me know how you go :rollface:

Cheers
Josh

 

[kolokefalo]

It's a point I've considered as well. An analogy can be taken from gardening, where applying a basic fertilizer having appropriate macronutrient ratios of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium would be the equivalent of dosing 2-part. But with plants there are other important nutrients (Fe, Cu, Bo, Mg, Co, Ca, etc.) that are also necessary, and I've wondered if there are reefkeeping equivalents of those that are dissolved and dosed by Ca reactor media but are not present in 2-part dosing. The answer here has been "those micronutrients are replenished by water changes", which may be true, but then in that case it takes away from the idea of a 'stable tank', and the micronutrients are doing a boom and bust thing instead of being kept constant. I would think a Ca reactor may help keep micronutrients at a more constant level...

With all due respect I disagree with this. The media broken down by a CA reactor is not laden with Micronutrients. It is essentially calcium with trace amounts of strontium.

The plant analogy holds true in a sense the other micronutrients you referred to (Fe, Cu, Bo, Mg, Co, etc) are necessary for plant GROWTH however these micronutrients are used up as the plant grows. Many of them are used as a coral grows as well...however the main difference is they are not laid down in the formation of their skeleton which is what CA reactor media is. If they are not laid down in the formation of their skeleton there is no reason to think they would be available again when broken down in a CA reactor. Therefore I think maybe both the 2 way and CA reactor are insufficient at replacing micronutrients. Which leads us back to water changes for essential trace element replacement.

I dug around to find a real old article about the ratio of Strontium in coral skeletons is linked to the amount of zooxanthellae in the original organism. Anyway, its a dry read:

Effects of Algal Symboints vs. Coral Skeleton Chemistry

Peace,
George

 

[jdieck]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10295104#post10295104 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by kolokefalo
With all due respect I disagree with this. The media broken down by a CA reactor is not laden with Micronutrients. It is essentially calcium with trace amounts of strontium.

George

DO not forget the Carbonates which provide the Alkalinity

In any case I agree that there are no micro nutrients from the dissolution, even if the media contain some many will not dissolve as the calcium carbonate part and will remain as sediment left over from the media.