LifeReef Calcium Reactor

[ridetheducati]

Yeah, and i guess that's something else I was kind of wondering... is there a sweet spot of efficiency. Some kind of ratio of BPM vs Effluent Rate that creates the most concentrated effluent with the least amount of CO2.

This is what happens when you are stuck home alone with an infant for two weeks. lol

Just wait 6 -12 months when you decide that you need a new toy and order the digital regulator. Then you will be banging your head trying to decide how often CO2 should be injected into the system.

I hate to say it Dennis, but if you would have left the effluent at 60-70 ml, you would have gotten the answer. If your feeling lucking 50 ml.

 

[d2mini]

Hypothetically speaking and assuming both setups are dialed in:

Setup #1
CO2 : 100 bpm
Effluent : 90 ml/min

Setup #2
CO2 : 80 bpm
Effluent : 60 ml/min

Less CO2 is being used in setup 2. Small benefit for smaller tank systems, but both setups will impact the overall tank pH the same.

oh right right right... i'm still thinking the numbers have to move opposite each other, not with each other to keep the same pH. :facepalm:

So using the examples above, would setup #1 be putting more alk into the tank?

I hate to say it Dennis, but if you would have left the effluent at 60-70 ml, you would have gotten the answer. If your feeling lucking 50 ml.

I'm not following.

 

[ridetheducati]

oh right right right... i'm still thinking the numbers have to move opposite each other, not with each other to keep the same pH. :facepalm:

So using the examples above, would setup #1 be putting more alk into the tank?

Alk would be the same for both setup 1 and 2.

 

[ken6217]

You guys have waaaaaaaaaaay too much time on your hands.

 

[ridetheducati]

I'm not following.

You inquired about the most concentrated effluent with the least amount of CO2. The best way to determine is to run the lowest effluent possible without clogging, which is why I suggest 60-70ml. Anything less than 50ml is flirting with system clogging.

 

[billwill]

LifeReef Calcium Reactor

Alk would be the same for both setup 1 and 2.

Alk level of effluent might be the same, but volume being different would change alk in tank right?

 

[ridetheducati]

You guys have waaaaaaaaaaay too much time on your hands.

In between meetings.

 

[d2mini]

You guys have waaaaaaaaaaay too much time on your hands.

I told you. lol

Alk would be the same for both setup 1 and 2.

And I'm assuming this is because the effluent has less dwell time in Setup #1.

So it's only 20%, but 20% is 20% so it would seem to make more sense to go with setup #2.

 

[ridetheducati]

Alk level of effluent might be the same, but volume being different would change alk in tank right?

That was a hypothetical scenario that I added a caveat that it was dialed in (tank demand is satisfied). Both setups would maintain tank alk. The different volume between the two setups have no bearing on the tank alk.

The point I was trying to make was there are various ways to get to the same answer. For example, 1+2=3, 4-1=3, and 3+0=3. Setup #2 uses less CO2.

 

[ken6217]

You inquired about the most concentrated effluent with the least amount of CO2. The best way to determine is to run the lowest effluent possible without clogging, which is why I suggest 60-70ml. Anything less than 50ml is flirting with system clogging.

Depends on your reactor. I could have one drop of effluent come out every second or slower and still won't clog.

I find that reactors where there effluent comes out the bottom can clog. Mine come out the top.
Ken

 

[ridetheducati]

Watching S02E04 of House of Cards.

 

[ridetheducati]

Depends on your reactor. I could have one drop of effluent come out every second or slower and still won't clog.

I find that reactors where there effluent comes out the bottom can clog. Mine come out the top.
Ken

Other than some DIY units, who makes a reactor with the effluent coming from the bottom?

 

[ken6217]

Other than some DIY units, who makes a reactor with the effluent coming from the bottom?

Actually I thought Lifereef did. Maybe not.

Anyway, I need to clarify my statement. Reactors that feed from the bottom and effluent exit through the top have more issues with clogging.

Regardless, I have two reactors from the same manufacturer and I can slow the effluent as slow as the CO2 in terms of bubbles or drip and they never clog.

Also I saw comments about the media turning into mush and clogging and channeling. Mine is mush and has always been mush and I never had any issues. How would anyone expect the media to not be mush after it was dissolved by CO2. That is the object.

Ken

 

[d2mini]

The effluent exits from the top.
The pump is located at the base. Water is sucked into the pump and sent up to the top where it enters the reactor.

 

[ken6217]

Oh. Enters and exist from the top?

 

[d2mini]

See the pics in my first post.
The big hose runs from the pump's output to the top cover plate.
Then the water circulates out of the bottom of the reactor and goes back to the pump. Full circulation.
CO2 enters before the pump impeller.

 

[ken6217]

No explanation needed. I just looked at the picture and saw the pinch valve.

 

[d2mini]

Yup. It's like a mini vice clamp.
Simple, effective and very easy to make very fine adjustments with a twist of the knob.
Nothing to clog or clean and if anything was clogging the line it would be easy to see.

 

[ridetheducati]

Also I saw comments about the media turning into mush and clogging and channeling. Mine is mush and has always been mush and I never had any issues. How would anyone expect the media to not be mush after it was dissolved by CO2. That is the object.

Ken

No comment.

 

[ken6217]

No comment = comment.

I can't speak for other people's reactors but can for mine.

I have two chambers (cylinders). When I open the main one to add additional media, it is mush when I put my hand into it. It doesn't look like it visually, but it is.

I never had any channeling or clogging ever.

However this is off topic and this is not what the thread is about. Sorry about this Dennis.
Ken