LaCl Reactor

[terri_ann]

No need to apologize as math has never been my cup of tea! Excel, huh?! No wonder I get lost!!teehee Go ahead and have a Corona; my margarita is great! Darn router/wifi /whatever that black box is in the basement wouldn't let me access the Apex through my computer. Some day I'll have to tell you about my "luck" ! LOL!!!

It's working now so I will change the dose to 15 secs every 8 minutes :0) I promised Joe/JSimpson that I would try to go at least a week without changing it! I'm starting the countdown now! GO!!! lol

 

[terri_ann]

Done!! :0)

 

[slief]

I'll be very blunt here Slief. If reefers do not do their research before doing anything to their tanks, they are not "good" reefkeepers. I am fully aware of Gary's thread... I know why I have phosphate problems... I know the risks of LaCl, ozone, carbon dosing, GAC and GFO, et cetera... I even know the risk of my cancer returning! My tank only comes second to my family. So with all that said, I find it offensive that you are playing devil's advocate without fully reading this thread and knowing, excuse me, not knowing whether the participants here are educated enough in determining what they will or will not do with their tanks....Just sayin'

Fair enough. My comments however were not directed at you or the OP. I know from reading the OP's posts here as well as other places in this forum that he infact did plenty of homework. I actually checked his profile and checked his post history to learn a bit about him and what might have inspired him to take this course of action. While I did not read every post in this thread, I did read enough by skimming through every page of it and wanted to share my concerns, some of which are in fact valid.

My posts were really directed at the thousands of other people on this forum who are new to this hobby and old alike who happen upon this thread and decide that building an LaCl reactor to continually dose LaCl might be the greatest thing since sliced bread for managing phosphates. That is where my concerns arrise because LaCl should not be taken lightly (as you seem to be aware) and phospate management in my experience comes from eliminating the source as best as possible so that it doesn't get into the tank.

Many people are lazy and don't always do their due dillegence. Just look at how often redundant threads are posted here in this forum when a simple seach can yeild a wealth of information on a subject that has been rehashed daily. Does that make them poor reefkeepers?? Not necessarily.

I felt it important to stress to those that don't do their homework (or maybe missed something) that LaCl can be dangerous. I honestly feel that LaCl is useful in reducing PO4 as I've used it successfully myself but in my opinion it should not be a solution for managing it long term by continual daily dosing, especially if one is not trying to eliminate the source of the PO4.

While I read a lot of good information in this thread and even like the OP's reactor design and his effort to include the skimmer in the percipitate removal process, the one thing I didn't see was much discussion of the risks involved in continual LaCl dosing. That happens to be a gray area as there have been no long term studies regarding potential damages that can be caused by it's continual use. There are however plenty of cases where fish and coral casualties may be attributed to improper use of the stuff.

Given that many people in this hobby are easily influenced by something they see or read and have a tendancy to be lazy and not do proper research, I felt that pointing out the fact that there are risks in LaCl use was worthy of my comments. Especially when it comes to continual daily use of it. Given that this is a discussion forum and I have some experience on the subject, I felt it important to weigh in.

So having said all of that, I am truley sorry to offend you or anybody else that has contributed to this thread. That was never my intent. I will now bow out of this thread with what ever grace I have left. I certainly didn't want to insult anybody who is actively involved in this solution and I truly hope it works out well for you guys in the long term. As such, I will follow along but keep my mouth shut or fingers away for the keyboard.

 

[terri_ann]

Okay Gentlemen, what are we going to do for the next week?! Kidding aside, I'm not going to test until Sunday...maybe even Monday :0) How about a picture?...

http://i847.photobucket.com/albums/ab38/tal71/coralsJuly2013001_zps95920cc5.jpg

 

[terri_ann]

Fair enough. My comments however were not directed at you or the OP. I know from reading the OP's posts here as well as other places in this forum that he infact did plenty of homework. I actually checked his profile and checked his post history to learn a bit about him and what might have inspired him to take this course of action. While I did not read every post in this thread, I did read enough by skimming through every page of it and wanted to share my concerns, some of which are in fact valid.

My posts were really directed at the thousands of other people on this forum who are new to this hobby and old alike who happen upon this thread and decide that building an LaCl reactor to continually dose LaCl might be the greatest thing since sliced bread for managing phosphates. That is where my concerns arrise because LaCl should not be taken lightly (as you seem to be aware) and phospate management in my experience comes from eliminating the source as best as possible so that it doesn't get into the tank.

Many people are lazy and don't always do their due dillegence. Just look at how often redundant threads are posted here in this forum when a simple seach can yeild a wealth of information on a subject that has been rehashed daily. Does that make them poor reefkeepers?? Not necessarily.

I felt it important to stress to those that don't do their homework (or maybe missed something) that LaCl can be dangerous. I honestly feel that LaCl is useful in reducing PO4 as I've used it successfully myself but in my opinion it should not be a solution for managing it long term by continual daily dosing, especially if one is not trying to eliminate the source of the PO4.

While I read a lot of good information in this thread and even like the OP's reactor design and his effort to include the skimmer in the percipitate removal process, the one thing I didn't see was much discussion of the risks involved in continual LaCl dosing. That happens to be a gray area as there have been no long term studies regarding potential damages that can be caused by it's continual use. There are however plenty of cases where fish and coral casualties may be attributed to improper use of the stuff.

Given that many people in this hobby are easily influenced by something they see or read and have a tendancy to be lazy and not do proper research, I felt that pointing out the fact that there are risks in LaCl use was worthy of my comments. Especially when it comes to continual daily use of it. Given that this is a discussion forum and I have some experience on the subject, I felt it important to weigh in.

So having said all of that, I am truley sorry to offend you or anybody else that has contributed to this thread. That was never my intent. I will now bow out of this thread with what ever grace I have left. I certainly didn't want to insult anybody who is actively involved in this solution and I truly hope it works out well for you guys in the long term. As such, I will follow along but keep my mouth shut or fingers away for the keyboard.

Good enough Slief:thumbsup: Yes people are lazy, especially many of the younger generation...did I just say that!:debi::frog: Shame on me! Seriously, yes dosing LaCl is a pretty uncharted territory especially with home aquariums. It's unfortunate that we know some will jump feet first into something without doing their research and getting input from those whom are trusted and have first-hand experience. I guess just the nature of the beast! We too are hoping for the best with our endeavor at dosing LaCl using a reactor. FWIW, I have 5 micron socks and have one at the output which sits right in front of the skimmer Lastly, go ahead and use the keyboard if you are so inclined Slief :thumbsup:

 

[slief]

How often are you guys changing your filter floss? Also, do you or have you measured the water volume output from your reactor immediately after changing your floss and again before you change your floss? I ask this for a reason. Since my last post, I went and read every post in this thread and it provoked some questions in my head.

Given LaCl's propensity to create large amounts of precipitate that quickly clogs filter socks, I'm wondering what impact the LaCl in the reactor has on restricting flow coming out of the reactor. It would be interesting to know and an easy way to test that would be to use a measuring cup that has Ml markings and time how long it takes to fill it to 500Ml both before and after your filter floss change.

If the precipitate is restricting flow over time at an increasing rate, that could explain why you are experiencing variances in your test results over the course of days. If the flow through the reactor is changing, then so is the contact time. Additionally, if the flow through the reactor is slowing down due to the precipitate, the amount of effluent from the reactor into the tank would slow down as well which in turn would mean that less PO4 polished water is being filtered into the tank. That could cause PO4 levels to rise. When they rise, the immediate reaction would be to increase the dosing when maybe changing the filter floss would reduce the PO4 simply due to the fact that more water from the reactor is being sent into the tank.

So having said that, how often are you guys changing your floss and are you measuring the amount of effluent to see if there is a trend in the flow rates through the reactor?

 

[terri_ann]

I can't answer those question Slief. I didn't measure the flow rate when I started because I'm not trying to restrict the flow...just have it go slow :0) I'm using an MJ 1200. I have it a little less than 1/2 open so maybe my flow is about 4-500gph going into the Jumbo BRS reactor, the "reaction" chamber :0) I use a 5 micron sediment filter in the last chamber before it flows into the 5 micron filter sock which is placed directly in front of my skimmer inlet....

 

[slief]

I can't answer those question Slief. I didn't measure the flow rate when I started because I'm not trying to restrict the flow...just have it go slow :0) I'm using an MJ 1200. I have it a little less than 1/2 open so maybe my flow is about 4-500gph going into the Jumbo BRS reactor, the "reaction" chamber :0) I use a 5 micron sediment filter in the last chamber before it flows into the 5 micron filter sock which is placed directly in front of my skimmer inlet....

Your fluctuations in PO4 results were in part the reason I asked. My thinking was that flow rates could be changing as the percipitate builds up in the reactor which in turn could restrict flow through the reactor. The more percipitate in the reactor, the more impact it would in theory have on the head pressure on your MJ1200. As the flow slows, the rate at which you are putting treated water into your tank would slow which could result in slowly raising PO4 levels.

If you find a sweet spot for your dosing rate and the flow slows down after that, the existing sweet spot may need to be modified as a result of the flow change.

My thinking is along the lines of a calcium reactor and a common problem that can occur with them. You get it all setup and dialed in and down the line, the Ca effluent slowly clogs the effluent line changing the rate at which the effluent is distributed to the tank. Depending on the livestock and Ca consumption in the tank, the Ca levels in the tank could drop as a result of the reduced output from the reactor.

I would think that the results would be similar in that if you have a large amount of PO4 built up in your system and the output from your reactor slows down due to the percipitate restricting flow, you could see a slight daily rise in PO4 levels simply by virtue that the embedded PO4 in your rocks and sand is leaching out faster than your reactor is turning the tanks water over.

When you were seeing the slight rise and variences in your PO4 levels, the immediate tendency is to make an adjustment to the rate at which you administer the LaCl which makes perfect sense. I was wondering if some of the fluctiations you are seeing are more a result of the reactor slowing down which if true even to a minor degree it could very well have an impact on your PO4 test results. If that is the case, then maybe more frequent floss changes are needed to keep the results consistant.

You guys have delved into an area of this hobby that is pretty much unexplored and as such, there may still be more to learn when it comes to consistant results. I'm thinking that consistant flow rates through the reactor have to have an impact on the consistency of overall PO4 levels in the tank. Once dialed in, if the reactor slows down, PO4 levels should in theory go up even if it is a very slow increase.

I hope I am making sense as I am truley trying to help. I've got a bit of experience in building reactors myself and the flow rates out of the reactor would be the one other area that I would pay particular attention to with this endeavor. Given the nature of LaCl and it's ability to clog filter material in a hurry from the precipitate, I think it's something relevant to look at.

 

[terri_ann]

I believe I understand what you are saying Slief :0) Common sense would substantiate what you are saying I have checked the flow coming out and in to the filter sock and it 'appears' to be at the initial flow rate. The sediment filter is getting dirty/brown so it is catching the precipitate. As I'm positive that the sandbed and rock are holding PO, I feel that it will take a long time to leach out. I have considered removing the sandbed but I've done that over the past and just do not like the looks of it, unfortunately

I will continue to watch the flow coming out and will post if/when I notice a reduction :0) I will be testing later today and will report the result. I can't believe I made it without adjusting the dosage and testing since Friday!! lol Oh, Joe!! teehee :=0)

 

[terri_ann]

Tested about 5 o'clock tonight. YAY! I think! PO is at .0395720!! LOL Now what? Nitrates aren't too bad- 10ppm ... API- I know l LOL

 

[insomniac2k2]

If I were ever to get a reading that low, I would be cutting my dose down or stop dosing for 2 to 3 days. That's just too low for my blood.

 

[insomniac2k2]

At the moment, i am changing out my floss/carbon every 3 weeks or so. There is so much surface area in filter floss, compared to socks. And my opinion about flow differs to yours. I strongly believe that the more the floss clogs, the more efficient it becomes, in regards to capturing reacted precipitate. Granted flow becomes restricted, but as long as its not by huge numbers, I just can't see it. I have yet to do a scientific test on how much flow before and after, but I'd say that the eyeball test says that I'm losing about 20% or so of my flow. When I get some time after I get moved into my new house, I will do a volume test.

Something to note. I am not seeing large fluxuations in my levels like Terri is. My levels have been very consistent since my initial reduction and finding my dose sweet spot. I also just noticed that Terri's flow rate is really high. I believe she said she is near 400-500g an hour? That's really high if it were to compare to my flow rate of 5-20 gph (estimate). Can't say if her flow rate is good or bad, but my thoughts on this topic are that if rather go with very slow flow rates, and allow slower reaction period before it ultimately dumps into my skimmer. Granted there is lesser water volume, but this is why a scale my LaCl3 dose so low and frequent. Its basically like a controlled peristaltic drip.

In the future, I intend on doing many more experiments on flow rates, reaction times, etc. But for now, I am very content on how my setup is running.

Excuse my lack of detail. Typing on my phone is a bit painful.

Your fluctuations in PO4 results were in part the reason I asked. My thinking was that flow rates could be changing as the percipitate builds up in the reactor which in turn could restrict flow through the reactor. The more percipitate in the reactor, the more impact it would in theory have on the head pressure on your MJ1200. As the flow slows, the rate at which you are putting treated water into your tank would slow which could result in slowly raising PO4 levels.

If you find a sweet spot for your dosing rate and the flow slows down after that, the existing sweet spot may need to be modified as a result of the flow change.

My thinking is along the lines of a calcium reactor and a common problem that can occur with them. You get it all setup and dialed in and down the line, the Ca effluent slowly clogs the effluent line changing the rate at which the effluent is distributed to the tank. Depending on the livestock and Ca consumption in the tank, the Ca levels in the tank could drop as a result of the reduced output from the reactor.

I would think that the results would be similar in that if you have a large amount of PO4 built up in your system and the output from your reactor slows down due to the percipitate restricting flow, you could see a slight daily rise in PO4 levels simply by virtue that the embedded PO4 in your rocks and sand is leaching out faster than your reactor is turning the tanks water over.

When you were seeing the slight rise and variences in your PO4 levels, the immediate tendency is to make an adjustment to the rate at which you administer the LaCl which makes perfect sense. I was wondering if some of the fluctiations you are seeing are more a result of the reactor slowing down which if true even to a minor degree it could very well have an impact on your PO4 test results. If that is the case, then maybe more frequent floss changes are needed to keep the results consistant.

You guys have delved into an area of this hobby that is pretty much unexplored and as such, there may still be more to learn when it comes to consistant results. I'm thinking that consistant flow rates through the reactor have to have an impact on the consistency of overall PO4 levels in the tank. Once dialed in, if the reactor slows down, PO4 levels should in theory go up even if it is a very slow increase.

I hope I am making sense as I am truley trying to help. I've got a bit of experience in building reactors myself and the flow rates out of the reactor would be the one other area that I would pay particular attention to with this endeavor. Given the nature of LaCl and it's ability to clog filter material in a hurry from the precipitate, I think it's something relevant to look at.

 

[terri_ann]

If I were ever to get a reading that low, I would be cutting my dose down or stop dosing for 2 to 3 days. That's just too low for my blood.

Yep, me too. It's off! I'm going to slow my flow way down too! Almost to a dribble... Is that about what yours is Insomniac?

Done! Will see what changing the flow does. Made me so nervous that I fed early for my routine. Think I will test again late this afternoon/early evening to see where the PO4 has gone...should go up with the coral feeding. This has been a challenge to say the least!:crazy1:

 

[slief]

At the moment, i am changing out my floss/carbon every 3 weeks or so. There is so much surface area in filter floss, compared to socks. And my opinion about flow differs to yours. I strongly believe that the more the floss clogs, the more efficient it becomes, in regards to capturing reacted precipitate. Granted flow becomes restricted, but as long as its not by huge numbers, I just can't see it. I have yet to do a scientific test on how much flow before and after, but I'd say that the eyeball test says that I'm losing about 20% or so of my flow. When I get some time after I get moved into my new house, I will do a volume test.

Something to note. I am not seeing large fluxuations in my levels like Terri is. My levels have been very consistent since my initial reduction and finding my dose sweet spot. I also just noticed that Terri's flow rate is really high. I believe she said she is near 400-500g an hour? That's really high if it were to compare to my flow rate of 5-20 gph (estimate). Can't say if her flow rate is good or bad, but my thoughts on this topic are that if rather go with very slow flow rates, and allow slower reaction period before it ultimately dumps into my skimmer. Granted there is lesser water volume, but this is why a scale my LaCl3 dose so low and frequent. Its basically like a controlled peristaltic drip.

In the future, I intend on doing many more experiments on flow rates, reaction times, etc. But for now, I am very content on how my setup is running.

Excuse my lack of detail. Typing on my phone is a bit painful.

Not bad for having typed all that our on a phone! I was hoping you would chime in.

I actually think we are on the same page about flow rates. I think the lower flow rate is best. Especially given the diluted doses you are using, the lower flow rates allow for greater reaction time with the LaCl. That would also help to reduce precipitates from leaving the reactor.

I'm still a bit curious about flow reduction as the precipitate builds in the reactors over time. It would be interesting to add a pressure gauge like these ones to the reactor to see if it increases between floss changes. I've used them as an indicator on some of the reactors I have built. It's easy to measure flow with a dosing pump but a bit more difficult when you are getting into gallons per hour or minute as opposed to liters per hour or minute. I've found that a good pressure gauge can come in handy and serve as a good indicator for when it's time to change media.

It seems like this solution is working well for you guys.

 

[Philly guy]

I have been following along on this thread for a while and am in the process of collecting the parts to build my lacl reactor. I just want to make a comment on something that Terri ann said. She said that she is running a MJ 1200 at a little less than half way. That is no where near 4-500 gph. An MJ1200 puts out 1200 liters an hour at max. In gallons it is rated at 295 gph at 0 head loss. Her flow is probably less than 100 gph. That may still be a little on the high side but not alarmingly high.

 

[insomniac2k2]

That pressure gauge is a bit rich for my blood. If I were producing a consumer product that I needed to support, I would definitely be putting in the time and $$. For now, that's why i'm doing it by eyeball.

I can confirm that I am getting back pressure about 2 weeks in. The floss on the bottom starts to push up (not much, because it is compacted in well.). The precipitate seems to pick a weak area (less compacted)in the floss and starts seeping up in other areas. Then seeping outward from there. Path of least resistance.

I do have a design in mind for optimizing for maximizing surface area, but i'm a bit too busy to build it. I also don't want to poke the honey badger, since it is working flawlessly right now!

I also wanted to express again, that I feel that you had good intentions on your feedback towards this design. I think I might have read your post at an irritable state in my day or something. It didn't matter how it was written. I read it as, "Don't do this if you know what is good for you".

I definitely caution people to think about what they are doing. If people dont want to put a bit of forethought into this hobby, they should not be in it.

For me, I am replacing GFO and also getting rid of years of phosphate buildup in my rocks and sand. I am also creating a maintenance dose which will be highly controlled. Much like changing out GFO every 2 weeks. Obviously GFO would be considered the safer option because, in theory, it only removes what phosphates are in your system; and does not add anything back into your system. I use the term "in theory" because I feel that GFO reactors have their own set of complications that require constant maintenance (flow rate adjustment, pre-filtration, constant changing in high phosphate environment). GFO is also very expensive and not very viable for those on a budget. Or even those that choose to cut costs where they can.

If you have read any of my past posts, you can probably quickly pick up on my montra. Cheap, easy, efficient would probably sum it up.

I have a very busy life, and am cursed with a creative mind. I am constantly outside of the box, and usually have to pay the price because of it. The irony here is that If I chose the path of least resistance, and did things like everyone else, I would probably have more free time and would be able to better fulfill my montra. But what fun is that??

I've built my own car's. I've built my own guitar's (yet I don't enjoy playing guitar). I've built and coded my own DVR (pre-Tivo). I love cat in the hat. Long story short, I build everything. It keeps me alive.

If I had a dollar for every solution that I've created that could possibly make me rich, I'd have at least $10.

Not bad for having typed all that our on a phone! I was hoping you would chime in.

I actually think we are on the same page about flow rates. I think the lower flow rate is best. Especially given the diluted doses you are using, the lower flow rates allow for greater reaction time with the LaCl. That would also help to reduce precipitates from leaving the reactor.

I'm still a bit curious about flow reduction as the precipitate builds in the reactors over time. It would be interesting to add a pressure gauge like these ones to the reactor to see if it increases between floss changes. I've used them as an indicator on some of the reactors I have built. It's easy to measure flow with a dosing pump but a bit more difficult when you are getting into gallons per hour or minute as opposed to liters per hour or minute. I've found that a good pressure gauge can come in handy and serve as a good indicator for when it's time to change media.

It seems like this solution is working well for you guys.

 

[insomniac2k2]

Good point. Although, there is probably minimal head pressure, due to it all being in the sump compartment and low to the ground. At least until the floss starts getting saturated.

A volume (bucket fill) test is definitely warranted. I just hope that someone else with more time takes it on

I have been following along on this thread for a while and am in the process of collecting the parts to build my lacl reactor. I just want to make a comment on something that Terri ann said. She said that she is running a MJ 1200 at a little less than half way. That is no where near 4-500 gph. An MJ1200 puts out 1200 liters an hour at max. In gallons it is rated at 295 gph at 0 head loss. Her flow is probably less than 100 gph. That may still be a little on the high side but not alarmingly high.

 

[terri_ann]

Way to go Philly! You caught that and no one else did especially me My brain function doesn't work like it did 20 years ago, unfortunately! I'm relieved that I wasn't, hopefully, pushing the LC out into the DT. I've got the flow dialed WAY down now from what I see :0) I still have the reactor off as I haven't tested yet. Too many things to do and not enough enough time. LOL Anyone who gets bored in retirement is nuts!

 

[terri_ann]

Well, no change in test after 29 hours passed: PO4 .03957 Reactor is still off. Can't figure that one out?! Hope there isn't unreacted LaCl running through the tank but this sure is strange. Tangs look fine and not showing any unusual behaviors. Dosed some K-Z Coral Snow, Pohl's Coral Vitalizer and LPS Amino's so would have expected to see a rise in PO4....... Going to feed the fish 2 times today to see if it goes up?! Will test again tonight.............

 

[terri_ann]

Oh, just remembered... I was reading the links Slief posted and one of them had the formula for changing the Phosphorus ppb to Phosphorus ppm. I thought one multiplied the reading by 3.044 and Bean Animal had it as 3.066. Which is correct?