Korallin Calcium Reactor
- Thread starter smoke15
- Start date
- Status
jdieck
New member
I would second the withdrawing of flow from the return line into the Calcium reactor
Although not specific for your reactor following diagram may help give some ideas:
The diagram show the combination of valves recommended to properly run a pressurized reactor.
You can run it in a simpler way by neither installing the T line nor valve 1 and also removing valve 2 so feed to the reactor will be managed by valve 3. In this option the reactor will not be pressurized but you will still gain a better more stable flow control.
Although not specific for your reactor following diagram may help give some ideas:
The diagram show the combination of valves recommended to properly run a pressurized reactor.
You can run it in a simpler way by neither installing the T line nor valve 1 and also removing valve 2 so feed to the reactor will be managed by valve 3. In this option the reactor will not be pressurized but you will still gain a better more stable flow control.
minsmarine
New member
thank kc, boat and jdieck.... really appreciate.
However, after talking to my friend in Singapore. I decide to have dedicated pump to feed. Since my return is feeding Chiller and 5,400L/hr return is just nice for my tank.
I would really appreciate, if you could give me some name , mean so far good for usage in your experience. For me this would be the first one.
My friend advised to use dosing pump. Was told that's presurize water. I am not so sure even though I am not confuse.
However, after talking to my friend in Singapore. I decide to have dedicated pump to feed. Since my return is feeding Chiller and 5,400L/hr return is just nice for my tank.
I would really appreciate, if you could give me some name , mean so far good for usage in your experience. For me this would be the first one.
My friend advised to use dosing pump. Was told that's presurize water. I am not so sure even though I am not confuse.
jdieck
New member
Although I would not worry about the flow dropping because the reactor will use less than 3% of your return flow, You could use a powerhead. A maxijet 1200 will do the job.
As a positive displacement pump a dosing pump will be ideal to keep a super constant flow but IMO given the need for variable flow you need one of variable speed which makes it too expensive, in addition there might be issues with tubing maintenance long term, in addition if by any chance your effluent valve line gets blocked, some dosing pumps can build up enough pressure to burst open the reactor.
As a positive displacement pump a dosing pump will be ideal to keep a super constant flow but IMO given the need for variable flow you need one of variable speed which makes it too expensive, in addition there might be issues with tubing maintenance long term, in addition if by any chance your effluent valve line gets blocked, some dosing pumps can build up enough pressure to burst open the reactor.
slug
New member
I set up my last reactor the opposite way with a valve controlling water into the reactor and it has been a lot more steady. Why do you want to run a reactor pressurised? I've always seen them set up this way with the valve controlling effluent at the end of the line, but eventually this valve gets corroded and the rate slowly drops.
jdieck
New member
slug said:
It is very acceptable to set the controlling valve at the inlet rather than the outlet and that is what I describe as a simpler alternative.
On the other hand the amount of CO2 dissolved in the water is directly proportional to the partial pressure it is under. By increasing the reactor's operating pressure the dissolution of CO2 will be faster and will be less prone to accumulate as a gas inside the reactor.
Depends on the type and material of the valve I doubt it gets corroded, my preferred valves for this kind of job will be PVC needle valves which will allow for a more precise control of the flow which does not have enough speed so the particles that could get carried away will have no effect on the valve internal surfaces.
There are many reasons why the effluent rate flow changes here are some:
a) temperature changes create expansion and contraction of the valves which vary their set points
b) as the media dissolves, the grain size decreases increasing the pressure drop across the media thus lowering the flow.
c) Water level feeding the feeding pump changes thus changing the pump's suction pressure and as such the discharge flow.
d) Bubbles trapped inside the reactor and within the media expand and contract and get circulated by the recirculation pump creating variable pressure inside the reactor.
e) the small orifices of feeding valves continually build up gunk from the tank and get partially blocked overtime
f) Potential media mush accumulatin in the recirculation pump or calcium carbonate build up on the feeding pump changes it's performance over time.
I think you get the idea. I wish someone invented a compatible flow regulator to keep it constant. One way of doing it is to use a positive displacement pump (like a doser) to feed the reactor. The pump works on constant flow and it's dischage pressure will adjust to counteract any variation in back pressure comming from the reactor. Unfortunately they are usually expensive and may require more maintenance.
dragon_slayer
In Memoriam
slug said:
pressurized as opposed to non use about 40% less CO2 on average, depending on reactor design.
kc
jdieck
New member
The water at 6 psi can contain about 40% more CO2 at 10 psi can contain up to 69% more. Now if the amount of CO2 is being measured in bubbles per minute we need to note that each bubble at higher pressure will contain more CO2 which will also be disolved faster so the reastion to convert CO2 to Carbonic acid is accelerated increasing the efficiency and speed of carbonate disolution.
Note that the reactor shall be designed to work under pressure. I have gone trough a couple of reactors not specifically designed for pressure and noticed that they will leak trough the flange O rings at about 8 to 10 psi and depending on the construction they may burst with as low as 12 psi. Note that some dosing pumps (like hospital ones) may discharge at higher than 20 psi.
Note that the reactor shall be designed to work under pressure. I have gone trough a couple of reactors not specifically designed for pressure and noticed that they will leak trough the flange O rings at about 8 to 10 psi and depending on the construction they may burst with as low as 12 psi. Note that some dosing pumps (like hospital ones) may discharge at higher than 20 psi.
Boat
New member
In case anyone's interested the conversion from psi to ft of head is to divide psi by .433 So 12 psi is about 28 ft of head (to give a different perspective). 6 psi is about 14 ft of head, so I see you guys aren't talking about wimpy pumps here. I think my point is that other than jdieck and dragon slayer, who obviously know what they're doing, using a dosing pump with an over-the-counter reactor could be asking for trouble for most of us.
dragon_slayer
In Memoriam
sounds reasonable to me as long as your getting a good regulator. and IMO as long as you have the space in your stand/floor/room/etc... there could never be any overkill equipment.
kc
kc
dragon_slayer
In Memoriam
the only leaks i've ever seen from the reactor it's self were on the older style reactors that you had to fill from the bottom then flip over, they were prone to get media on the flange and not seat properly, not a design flaw just laziness on the reefers part. other common leaks are from the cheap gate valves included with the reactor, i always replace these with JG valves and solve that problem before it starts.
kc
kc
- Status
Similar threads
