two little fishes phosban reactor 150

[ReefMeister2]

Ah, I stand corrected
I'm glad you guys checked

I was soon going to shut down one of my nanos to conserve electricity (which I REALLY didn't want to do because it is literally the best coepepod and amphipod farm I've ever seen!)

After checking with my Kill-A-Watt Meter, my Eheim Ecco 2235 evidentily uses only 11 watts of power. Man, that is nothing!

Nonetheless, for the carbon reactor, I plan to feed off of my main return (which I have a little excess flow anyway) with a "T" and ballvalve regulating the flow.

 

[WarDaddy]

hey... there is an idea, off the main...

Question... that would totally unfiltered return water. How likely are you to clog the reactor with crap? I was thinking that either flow from the return or skimmer would work. I have an IDEA for a CHEAP DIY. Let me draw something up for you all to look at.

 

[ReefMeister2]

sheesh
I don't know what I'm thinking

I made my own calcium reactor and secondary chamber from water filter housings. (simply added a down-feed-tube to make it reverse flow)

There's no reason I couldn't make the same exact thing for running carbon....hooking it up inline, and reverse flow so it's fluidized.


My return water is rounted through a filter sock, so no crud concerns here

 

[JN Reef]

LOL, I didn't think my post would get such a large reponse.
keep the information coming!!!

 

[WarDaddy]

How is this for a cheap DIY Reactor idea?

Simple enough... Water in the top goes throughthe middle pipe, out holes in the middle pipe. then filters up through the carbon untill it spills out the holes in the top sides of the 4" pipe.

Window screen, or some other similar material coould be siliconed to the inside of the pipes to keep carbon inside the reactor.

To clean pop the top off and dump in trash, refill, rinse, repeat.

no pump needed to run it. you could have your skimmer output dump into it, or the overflow (flow might be too fast).

Simple, cheap ($10 parts ar lowes).

what you think?

 

[ReefMeister2]

LOL,
you just described exactly what I did for the calcium reactor

yea, that should work for carbon too

Just be sure to use a filter housing with 1/2" inlet/outlet, not 1/4"

edit:
whoops, never mind
I see that your suggesting using pipe instead of a filter housing.
the dissadvantage there is that you can't see the media to observe fluidization in action. And clear acrylic tubing or clear PVC is too darn expensive. I do like your thinking though, and it is cheaper that the filter housing idea. that is actually a good design for a "gravity fed/in-sump" model

 

[WarDaddy]

Ok, i will try and make this over the weekend. Should take an hour or 2.

 

[SWfan]

I believe the efficiency of a gravity fed chamber will be less than that of a pump fed chamber. Water will take the path of least resistance and flow around the inlet pipe (unless I'm not understanding you correctly) rather than into the pipe.

 

[WarDaddy]

here is my thinking...

Water is comming out my skimmer at 400 GPH, pump driven.

Pipe that outlet into the reactor.

Go from a 1" pipe to a 1.5" pipe.

Water goes down, back up and out.

The idea of going from 1" to1.5" to 4" is to lower the flow rate in the but also keep back pressure down so I do not restrict the skimmer.

Still think it will not work?

 

[ReefMeister2]

so what you are doing essentially is using the carbon reactor as the outlet for your skimmer. I would think the "back pressure" is what a gate valve does in the first place, so shouldn't be too big an issue unless it causes too much back pressure. Then your skimmer would overflow uncontrollably.
But if you find the right balance of back pressure and flow, then it just might work. The reactor would have to be above the water line too

I think SWfan is also correct, I don't think it would be as efficient as a pump fed system since the skimmer method would be passive pass-through instead of force-fed. but I am only speculating. It may work wonderfully. Then again, how could you possible test if its doing the job or not? All we can observe is the water flow, not chemical obsorption....so....
hell...I just realized...I have no clue what I'm talking about, LOL


not my area of knowledge unfortunately

 

[SWfan]

WarDaddy, that plan clarifies things for me. It's definitely more aggressive than I originally thought, a plus. However, like you eluded to, stepping up the pvc diameter from 1" > 1.5" > 4" so as not to create undue backpressure on the skimmer could present 'control' problems. This setup could make it very difficult to 'dial in' your skimmer.

Keep more ideas flowing. I like the outside the box thinking.

 

[WarDaddy]

OK, over to the DIY forums...

 

[WarDaddy]

Proto type built... Need to silicone in screen.

I will try and take pics tonight.

Total Cost $0.97

I had just about everything in the garage already

 

[WarDaddy]

So here is what I built last night.
It is designed to sit in the sump, my skimmer return will flow through this. It will have around 400 gph going throught it, I hope that is not too much. If so I can T and use valves.

It stands 14", is 4" PVC tube with a 1" PVC running down the middle.

Tonight I will secure window screen over the slits with silicone and let it dry, tomorrow it goes in the tank!

 

[SWfan]

I think it looks interesting to say the least. I hope it works. Keep us posted. As opposed to using screening, I think you'll have better success using a sponge material. I believe carbon particles could make it through the screening. Sponge might be more conducive to keeping it contained.

 

[WarDaddy]

The only thing about the sponge is that it may need cleaning more than once a month... I hope to only have to touch the carbon once a month Reduced flow would be bad.

 

[SWfan]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7697004#post7697004 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by WarDaddy
The only thing about the sponge is that it may need cleaning more than once a month... I hope to only have to touch the carbon once a month Reduced flow would be bad.

Very true. Reduced flow could result in big time skimmer fluctuation. My bad