N/P reducing pellets (solid vodka dosing)
- Thread starter tntneon
- Start date
- Status
j.p. harrington
New member
been looking into these pellets so i can switch over from my GFO to them but after i seen the videos of the reef octo reactor i think im going to wait until it be comes available in the US before i make the switch
pecan2phat
Active member
Wow,
After watching that Reef Octo video, makes you wonder about "slow boil" or even "tumbling" :lol:
After watching that Reef Octo video, makes you wonder about "slow boil" or even "tumbling" :lol:
j.p. harrington
New member
u can see them at there website TNTNEON its coralvue.com they make all the octopus stuff. im pretty sure i just read on there to where they can be driven by ur drain line or a small pump. but dont hold me to that
j.p. harrington
New member
http://coralvue.com/super-reef-octopus-biopellet-reactors/ thats the page they are on and at the bottom it says "Reactors can be fed with a small aquarium pump or via manifold off of your return pump." so yes they have to be pump driven
Rwpdunne
spsaholic
some one probably posted this already but its a good read if your using pellets
http://www.theaquariumsolution.com/d-d-nutri-fix-np-bio-media
D+D pellets
http://www.theaquariumsolution.com/d-d-nutri-fix-np-bio-media
D+D pellets
takayan
Premium Member
It looks like Reef Octopus release another type.
http://e-lss.jugem.jp/?eid=281
http://e-lss.jugem.jp/?eid=281
takayan
Premium Member
It looks like Reef Octopus release another type.
http://e-lss.jugem.jp/?eid=281
http://e-lss.jugem.jp/?eid=281
SimonSKL
New member
I think new pellet reactors are coming and more well designed to keep the pellets tumbling:
The bottom part propels the pellets up every time:
I wish manufacturers of the more common reactors create inserts so you can change the bottom plate to something like the above.
How many of you who have good pellet tumbling don't use the bottom plate nor mesh in your reactor! It looks like these new reactors don't use any. I really don't think the bottom plate or mesh is necessary and they impede the flow significantly.
SaltyNovice
New member
OK, I finally finished this entire thread. I can't even remember how long I've been reading it - it's been several days - weeks? Anyway, I just ordered the Eco-Bak from WM - if I got that right? My Phos is at 2.0 and my Trates are at 80+ according to API test kits (I know not the best, but that's what I've got). I've been fighting high nitrates for about 3 years and the tank is only coming up on 5 years old. I've got about 150 gallons of water from my 120DT + a 65 sump/refuge. I've ordered 1L of the pellets and plan on running them in two TLF 150's with Maxi-jet 1200's. I hope to have my weapons sometime this week - so I'll let everyone know how it goes. Thanks to everyone for your contributions to this thread and I hope I finally can get rid of the bad trates and phos sometime in the next 6 to 12 months --- :celeb1: Primarily the trates :bounce3:
A good point. I'm wondering if I can rig a TLF 150 to behave like these Reef Octopus reactors.
daveonbass
New member
the only problem I have with the reefoctopus design is that IF the pellets ever DO clump uo I see no way of stirring them up without that botom plate. Otherwise I like them. I don't know about the TLF150, but the 550 has a bottom similar to that minus the "orange juicer" that the intake sits on. And even with the flow being directed up and around the sides I still get clumping that eventually turns into channeling with no movement. I just lift them all up and give the pellets a spin as they drop...and then all is right again. The RO design seems to not allow manual stirring at all.
staggeringwade
New member
I'm using the newer Next Reef SMR1 biopellet reactor which is feed with a maxi jet 1200. I had kinda thought the pellets are moving a little too fast, they have never clumped. When I added the last dose of ecobak pellets to get to the recommended amount the churning of the pellets seemed about right. I had not tried a MJ 600 or 900 but that may work better.
Like everybody agrees here, the pellets are new and there is a lot to be learned yet.
I have had the initial bacterial bloom, which was mild & lasted a week.
My tank now has zero no3 and po4.
I had a low ph issue non related to bio pellets and fixed that.
Just an FYI about too much co2 in the tank causing low PH. I now drip the effluent from my calcium reactor into my skimmer and my skimmer sucks air from my homes HRV (heat recovery ventilator) via a small hole drilled in the ducting and sticking the tubing into the duct hole.
This has risen my ph from 7.8 -8.0 swings to a steady 8.15-8.20 everyday for the past week.
That beats the heck out of dosing expensive crap and adding a co2 scrubber.
My fish are happy, my corals a growing well too. Even the ones the corals were dying off when I initially added the biopellets have made a near 100% recovery.
My GHA is still hanging on but has died off substantially.
I added one of those par 38 high output cree led light bulbs over my refugium
and my macro has really started to grow well.
So far all is good.
Like everybody agrees here, the pellets are new and there is a lot to be learned yet.
I have had the initial bacterial bloom, which was mild & lasted a week.
My tank now has zero no3 and po4.
I had a low ph issue non related to bio pellets and fixed that.
Just an FYI about too much co2 in the tank causing low PH. I now drip the effluent from my calcium reactor into my skimmer and my skimmer sucks air from my homes HRV (heat recovery ventilator) via a small hole drilled in the ducting and sticking the tubing into the duct hole.
This has risen my ph from 7.8 -8.0 swings to a steady 8.15-8.20 everyday for the past week.
That beats the heck out of dosing expensive crap and adding a co2 scrubber.
My fish are happy, my corals a growing well too. Even the ones the corals were dying off when I initially added the biopellets have made a near 100% recovery.
My GHA is still hanging on but has died off substantially.
I added one of those par 38 high output cree led light bulbs over my refugium
and my macro has really started to grow well.
So far all is good.
Food for thought (and comment)...
Food for thought (and comment)...
GREAT video! It has inspired me to assemble a few wandering thoughts that came to mind throughout my reading and own experimentation over the last couple of months:
I recall seeing, more than a few chapters ago, that it may be possible to have too much flow traveling through a reactor. I also posted my own revelation (also a chapter or two back) when trying to determine whether the pellets were working for me in my setup... without rehashing the details I found that my aquarium bulk water seemed not to budge over 1.5mos. or so of steady operation (though coming from high levels); however when the pellets were removed from my system and isolated in a pail with a power head, N & P levels reached absolute 0 in less than 12hrs. The conclusion that DJ helped me to draw, and was accepted was that the process takes time and is not an exercise of instant gratification, as probably many of us new-rollers might have expected (this 'takes time' premise was also confirmed by Daveandboss' and now staggeringwade's independent experiences).
Added to my described experiments, I also tested the effluent coming right off of the reactor when operating within the greater system, and there was no noticeable difference in N/P going into/exiting the reactor - once again this was chalked up to a function of scale and time. Now about four months into the entire process (although there were a couple of adjustment interruptions, the last of which was for about 2 weeks, while I adjusted my reactor and tripled the carbon regiment instead); there is still no major strides in the fall of targeted nutrients....
I should also add that I am absolutely positive my pellets are in fact 'ignited' with copious amounts of bacteria, in part because of my initial verification (pail) experiment; but also when I had the pellets removed from the system, and soaking in a pail with aquarium water, without a circulation pump, their life-stock quickly reduced to a strong concoction of hydrogen sulfide every couple of days (if anyone was wondering, this is what would happen if you stored your pellets without rinsing them in RO water and drying them off - everything on them dies off in a manner that absolutely tickles your olfactory senses:wildone: and might earn you an eviction notice:blown
.
I would further reckon that although we know this here pellet strategy relies on aerobic conditions for outer-colonizing bacteria, while creating its own anaerobic micro-environments for inner bacterial colonies, I cannot help but reflect on the notes that other denitrators (or any other nutrient reactors for that matter) can be assessed for functionality by assessing the difference in levels between entry/exit... i.e. sulfur denitrators, operate on such a slow flow-through, that 0 levels should be measured off of the effluent. That being said, I would not expect to see absolute zero coming off of a system that has a moderate to fast flow through, however I would anticipate seeing some difference between the in/out levels... no?
Soooo - after all of that background, here will be my next experiment. I'm going to adjust my pellet reactor to recirculate a large or even percentage of the water flowing through it with the goal in mind to maintain adequate O2 for the process while allowing aquarium water more time to interact with the bacteria laden pellets.. I'm not sure what the dynamic will ultimately be, but I know that when the same water remained in a pail with these pellets for a few hours, both levels reduced to absolute [measurable] 0. In the end, what I'm hoping to investigate is whether flow-rate/contact time assigned to this process is just as determinant a factor as it is... say, in a calcium carbonate reactor. In theory, I should still be able to achieve good pellet tumbling while allowing for greater contact time with each pass.. I'm aware that perhaps the micro and macro (water) contact time might involve compensations that ultimately cancel out the overall net effect, but perhaps the changing factor is the level of O2 within the reactor... i.e. maybe I can get the anaerobic component to do a little more work if [by hypothesis] that is where the bulk of the reduction work takes place.... Again hypothesizing, perhaps the tumbling's greatest contribution is in sloughing off of bacteria, and perhaps when there is too much tumbling going on; the outer aerobic layer is dislodged at such a rate that it doesn't allow the anaerobic colonies to establish fully... what if slightly lowing the oxygen level within the reactor would allow the same tumbling/slough-off effects; while reducing the risk of stagnant, hydrogen sulfide favouring conditions to take hold; yet still improving on the efficacy of the anaerobic component... ??? !!! :idea:
Just a theory at this point, but please feel free to let me know your thoughts & comments... or even if you think I'm fishing with holes in my grey-matter... I mean net:sad2:
as always,
Sheldon
Food for thought (and comment)...
GREAT video! It has inspired me to assemble a few wandering thoughts that came to mind throughout my reading and own experimentation over the last couple of months:
I recall seeing, more than a few chapters ago, that it may be possible to have too much flow traveling through a reactor. I also posted my own revelation (also a chapter or two back) when trying to determine whether the pellets were working for me in my setup... without rehashing the details I found that my aquarium bulk water seemed not to budge over 1.5mos. or so of steady operation (though coming from high levels); however when the pellets were removed from my system and isolated in a pail with a power head, N & P levels reached absolute 0 in less than 12hrs. The conclusion that DJ helped me to draw, and was accepted was that the process takes time and is not an exercise of instant gratification, as probably many of us new-rollers might have expected (this 'takes time' premise was also confirmed by Daveandboss' and now staggeringwade's independent experiences).
Added to my described experiments, I also tested the effluent coming right off of the reactor when operating within the greater system, and there was no noticeable difference in N/P going into/exiting the reactor - once again this was chalked up to a function of scale and time. Now about four months into the entire process (although there were a couple of adjustment interruptions, the last of which was for about 2 weeks, while I adjusted my reactor and tripled the carbon regiment instead); there is still no major strides in the fall of targeted nutrients....
I should also add that I am absolutely positive my pellets are in fact 'ignited' with copious amounts of bacteria, in part because of my initial verification (pail) experiment; but also when I had the pellets removed from the system, and soaking in a pail with aquarium water, without a circulation pump, their life-stock quickly reduced to a strong concoction of hydrogen sulfide every couple of days (if anyone was wondering, this is what would happen if you stored your pellets without rinsing them in RO water and drying them off - everything on them dies off in a manner that absolutely tickles your olfactory senses:wildone: and might earn you an eviction notice:blown
.I would further reckon that although we know this here pellet strategy relies on aerobic conditions for outer-colonizing bacteria, while creating its own anaerobic micro-environments for inner bacterial colonies, I cannot help but reflect on the notes that other denitrators (or any other nutrient reactors for that matter) can be assessed for functionality by assessing the difference in levels between entry/exit... i.e. sulfur denitrators, operate on such a slow flow-through, that 0 levels should be measured off of the effluent. That being said, I would not expect to see absolute zero coming off of a system that has a moderate to fast flow through, however I would anticipate seeing some difference between the in/out levels... no?
Soooo - after all of that background, here will be my next experiment. I'm going to adjust my pellet reactor to recirculate a large or even percentage of the water flowing through it with the goal in mind to maintain adequate O2 for the process while allowing aquarium water more time to interact with the bacteria laden pellets.. I'm not sure what the dynamic will ultimately be, but I know that when the same water remained in a pail with these pellets for a few hours, both levels reduced to absolute [measurable] 0. In the end, what I'm hoping to investigate is whether flow-rate/contact time assigned to this process is just as determinant a factor as it is... say, in a calcium carbonate reactor. In theory, I should still be able to achieve good pellet tumbling while allowing for greater contact time with each pass.. I'm aware that perhaps the micro and macro (water) contact time might involve compensations that ultimately cancel out the overall net effect, but perhaps the changing factor is the level of O2 within the reactor... i.e. maybe I can get the anaerobic component to do a little more work if [by hypothesis] that is where the bulk of the reduction work takes place.... Again hypothesizing, perhaps the tumbling's greatest contribution is in sloughing off of bacteria, and perhaps when there is too much tumbling going on; the outer aerobic layer is dislodged at such a rate that it doesn't allow the anaerobic colonies to establish fully... what if slightly lowing the oxygen level within the reactor would allow the same tumbling/slough-off effects; while reducing the risk of stagnant, hydrogen sulfide favouring conditions to take hold; yet still improving on the efficacy of the anaerobic component... ??? !!! :idea:
Just a theory at this point, but please feel free to let me know your thoughts & comments... or even if you think I'm fishing with holes in my grey-matter... I mean net:sad2:
as always,
Sheldon
pecan2phat
Active member
Sheldon,
Did you notice pellet clumping when flow is reduced?
Did you notice pellet clumping when flow is reduced?
Yes Pecan - but only when I first set up my reactor 4 mos ago. I've since adjusted the outlets so that I get a more even flow and therefore less or no dead-spots at the base of the pellets. That more or less solved all of my clumping issues. I think it happens when the pellets are allowed to sit still without tumbling at any point (usually the base) of the reactor. If you can ensure that all of the pellets are moving somewhat you will likely solve your clumping problems.
SJ
SJ
Also just to be clear - I haven't made any adjustments as yet with regard to my new experimental idea. Will likely get around to this installation by next week. And again, the idea is not to minimize flow within the reactor. I wish to still maintain good movement within, while recirculating some of the water inside a couple of times as opposed to just a single pass before exiting. My intention is to use the recirculation factor to modify the oxygen saturation level within the reactor itself, but still want good tumbling to avoid the bacterial snot...!
SJ
SJ
SimonSKL
New member
After hearing some of you were having success with open-top BP reactor in the sump, I thought I would give it a try. Also the idea of running one less pump enticed me.
My open-top reactor is a 3.5" diameter 10" tall glass jar and I teed off the drain to the bottom of the jar which was then filled with 500ml of BP. 2 plastic canvas meshes were used to keep the BP from washing out. Here is a video of my set up.
One problem with this set up is the difficulty in adjusting the right flow to the reactor. I don't want to impede the drain to the sump in anyway but since the reactor drain is at the bottom of the sump, I had a hard time getting the pellets to tumble in a desirable fashion. They either not moving or churning vigorously.
Finally I was able to get the pellets in a gentle boil as you see in the video. After a couple day, I noticed the pellets were not moving at all and decided to take the reactor out. I was glad I did as I barely averted a major disaster if I let the reactor in for another day or two.
The pellets in the bottom part of the reactor became a semi-solid block with the pellets sticking to each other. There was a very strong smell of hydrogen sulfide coming from the bottom of the jar. I also noticed fragments of hair algae mixed in among the pellets. I was pulling some of the hair algae out earlier in my DT and the hair algae fragments actually were binding the pellets together and completely blocked the water flow!
Needless to say I gave up the experiment and went back to using a dedicated pump to drive the pellets in my NextReef MR1 reactor. I was just surprised to see how quickly the submerged reactor became anaerobic.
My open-top reactor is a 3.5" diameter 10" tall glass jar and I teed off the drain to the bottom of the jar which was then filled with 500ml of BP. 2 plastic canvas meshes were used to keep the BP from washing out. Here is a video of my set up.
One problem with this set up is the difficulty in adjusting the right flow to the reactor. I don't want to impede the drain to the sump in anyway but since the reactor drain is at the bottom of the sump, I had a hard time getting the pellets to tumble in a desirable fashion. They either not moving or churning vigorously.
Finally I was able to get the pellets in a gentle boil as you see in the video. After a couple day, I noticed the pellets were not moving at all and decided to take the reactor out. I was glad I did as I barely averted a major disaster if I let the reactor in for another day or two.
The pellets in the bottom part of the reactor became a semi-solid block with the pellets sticking to each other. There was a very strong smell of hydrogen sulfide coming from the bottom of the jar. I also noticed fragments of hair algae mixed in among the pellets. I was pulling some of the hair algae out earlier in my DT and the hair algae fragments actually were binding the pellets together and completely blocked the water flow!
Needless to say I gave up the experiment and went back to using a dedicated pump to drive the pellets in my NextReef MR1 reactor. I was just surprised to see how quickly the submerged reactor became anaerobic.
Not to tell you guys how things do or don't work, but how do we know bacteria are growing inside the pellets? They seem pretty solid to me, of course I'm not looking at a cross section of them through a microscope. Is anyone? If bacteria were indeed growing within the pellets, why would the pellet size matter for surface area? Why not have a big giant block of PHA with a few holes in it?
Not saying that anyone is wrong, but I read a lot of posts that say "my pellets are doing ______," therefore x, y, and z.
Not saying that anyone is wrong, but I read a lot of posts that say "my pellets are doing ______," therefore x, y, and z.
- Status
Similar threads
