discotu
Discotu
Thanks for the interest! Sorry I never got around to posting a recap...better late than never! 
Well, in a nutshell it worked very well based on the fact that I was constantly having to trim back the chaeto. If I was more scientific about it I would have measured two equal masses of chaeto and logged the change over time btw a free floating ball in a fuge VS the reactor. Alas, I am way too lazy and opted just to "eyeball" it.
The "experiment" consisted of a 20gal fuge with about a volleyball size ball of chaeto tumbling around under a 18W dual actinic/10k PC. At the same time, I ran the reactor with enough chaeto to loosely fill the chamber and lit with a 14w 10k T5. Both bulbs were at least a year old(if not more) and ran on a 12hr reverse photo period. I would guess that at the start, the mass of chaeto in the reactor was about half that of the ball in the fuge. Both systems were fed off different pumps from the sump.
Findings:
Surprisingly surface algae was a non issue. While there as some growth, it appeared that it could not complete with the fast growing chaeto. I was also rotating the reactor 180deg every day or two to minimize exposure to one side. Also, during trimmings, the chaeto would act like a pipe cleaner when i pulled it out and pushed it back in.
Growth rate was amazing. I could see the chaeto squeezing up against the insides of the reactor and filling up voids as it grew...and this was happening over a period of a few days. I would have to trim it back every week or so otherwise the flow rate would slow down. I would say that the chaeto produced by the reactor double the size of the ball in the fuge in a little over a month.
I didn't see much in the way of detritus build up probably becuase the feed pump was down stream from my filter sock and skimmer. I actually saw more pods swimming around the bottom than anything else.
Maintenance was "minimal". (any maintenance is a chore for someone as lazy as me). But after some trial and error I was able to get the trimming process down to only a few minutes. Unplug pump, disconnect input tube from top of reactor, carry reactor over to sink, twist open the top, pull out cylinder of chaeto leaving water in the tube, trim about 1/3 of the chaeto and stretch out the remaining chaeto over the length of the reactor, connect everything back up...
I didn't play around with flow rates...it was whatever the MJ600 could handle. Never did get around to measuring the flow rate My guess is that a slightly higher flow rate would have increased the growth rate. Again, too lazy to hook up a MJ1200 to test it out.
So why does the reactor work more efficiently? My theory is that with proper maintance, the flow through the chaeto mass is much more even so you have greater surface contact. With the ball, not only do you have limited light penetration, but the density of the ball gets tighter over time as it tumbles and subsequently reduces flow in the center of the mass. Course, you could break up the ball into smaller pieces but they'd eventually form a mat, clump up or turn into another large ball creating dead spots again.
Finally, I did not see any noticeable decline in nitrates, but logic would suggest that if the chaeto is growing, it's pulling some nutrients out. I suspect that the size of the reactor and/or flow was not sufficient to make an impact on my 225g overfed tank. the only benefit I saw was that I could grow chaeto faster than I could give it away. Now...run this same setup on a smaller tank and the results would probably be different.
I eventually took the reactor offline and just run my 20g fuge (almost fully stuffed with chaeto) and a CPR large hang on fuge with chaeto. works just fine and requires less maintenance
Well, in a nutshell it worked very well based on the fact that I was constantly having to trim back the chaeto. If I was more scientific about it I would have measured two equal masses of chaeto and logged the change over time btw a free floating ball in a fuge VS the reactor. Alas, I am way too lazy and opted just to "eyeball" it.
The "experiment" consisted of a 20gal fuge with about a volleyball size ball of chaeto tumbling around under a 18W dual actinic/10k PC. At the same time, I ran the reactor with enough chaeto to loosely fill the chamber and lit with a 14w 10k T5. Both bulbs were at least a year old(if not more) and ran on a 12hr reverse photo period. I would guess that at the start, the mass of chaeto in the reactor was about half that of the ball in the fuge. Both systems were fed off different pumps from the sump.
Findings:
Surprisingly surface algae was a non issue. While there as some growth, it appeared that it could not complete with the fast growing chaeto. I was also rotating the reactor 180deg every day or two to minimize exposure to one side. Also, during trimmings, the chaeto would act like a pipe cleaner when i pulled it out and pushed it back in.
Growth rate was amazing. I could see the chaeto squeezing up against the insides of the reactor and filling up voids as it grew...and this was happening over a period of a few days. I would have to trim it back every week or so otherwise the flow rate would slow down. I would say that the chaeto produced by the reactor double the size of the ball in the fuge in a little over a month.
I didn't see much in the way of detritus build up probably becuase the feed pump was down stream from my filter sock and skimmer. I actually saw more pods swimming around the bottom than anything else.
Maintenance was "minimal". (any maintenance is a chore for someone as lazy as me). But after some trial and error I was able to get the trimming process down to only a few minutes. Unplug pump, disconnect input tube from top of reactor, carry reactor over to sink, twist open the top, pull out cylinder of chaeto leaving water in the tube, trim about 1/3 of the chaeto and stretch out the remaining chaeto over the length of the reactor, connect everything back up...
I didn't play around with flow rates...it was whatever the MJ600 could handle. Never did get around to measuring the flow rate
My guess is that a slightly higher flow rate would have increased the growth rate. Again, too lazy to hook up a MJ1200 to test it out.So why does the reactor work more efficiently? My theory is that with proper maintance, the flow through the chaeto mass is much more even so you have greater surface contact. With the ball, not only do you have limited light penetration, but the density of the ball gets tighter over time as it tumbles and subsequently reduces flow in the center of the mass. Course, you could break up the ball into smaller pieces but they'd eventually form a mat, clump up or turn into another large ball creating dead spots again.
Finally, I did not see any noticeable decline in nitrates, but logic would suggest that if the chaeto is growing, it's pulling some nutrients out. I suspect that the size of the reactor and/or flow was not sufficient to make an impact on my 225g overfed tank. the only benefit I saw was that I could grow chaeto faster than I could give it away. Now...run this same setup on a smaller tank and the results would probably be different.
I eventually took the reactor offline and just run my 20g fuge (almost fully stuffed with chaeto) and a CPR large hang on fuge with chaeto. works just fine and requires less maintenance
