# Is an inline reactor really better than an inline diffuser?



## Andrew Butler

As the title asks; is an inline reactor really better than an inline diffuser?

I'm sorting the plumbing out on my new tanks and want to cut down on the bubbles which I had using an inline diffuser; I know you can do things like Zeus and fit APS add on filters to work as add on reactors but the plumbing is a bit messy to fit in the space I have.

If I was to use a DIY reactor I could have the filter feed the top of it then the bottom could then feed the heater and up to my spraybar.

It would be a DIY one similar to the one Iain posted on the link below (no offence Foxfish your style just wouldn't fit)

https://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/co2-atomizer-vs-reactor.25226/


----------



## Edvet

Aye. i used one 150cm long when i did CO2 in the large tank, run on a separate pump.


----------



## Andrew Butler

Edvet said:


> Aye. i used one 150cm long when i did CO2 in the large tank, run on a separate pump.


I would be wanting to run it inline on my filter on the way to the spraybar.
Did you make yours yourself?


----------



## Zeus.

Inline reactor much better IMO. Just more plumbing. Nice thing about the APS is that it's pretty wide so slows the speed of the water down in the reactor so bubbles get trapped in there, well that's my take on it.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## tmiravent

Is an inline reactor really better than an inline diffuser?

Better is subjective...
Inline reactors, like sera flora 500/1000, will give the best Co2 dilution, you can reach 100% dilution. But they are big and can make some noise, little but the noise is there! (I use this one in my big tank)
DIY inline can be designed for your specific demands, the best! You need to have some skills...
JBL inline, Pro flora direct, are very small, much easier to isntall. The Co2 dilution is not so good as the big ones. (I have one and like it).
Co2 diffuser, like glass ADA type, have a fancy design! Not easy to clean, you must be aware of the glass material. But they are the simple to install and calibrate! (not my favourite).
All solutions will give nice Co2 to the tank, you can see top layout's with all kind of solution's.
_Chose the one you like the most!_
cheers


----------



## Edvet

Andrew Butler said:


> Did you make yours yourself?


Yeah, some good examples here in the forum articles, but also on the web.


----------



## Andrew Butler

Edvet said:


> Yeah


have you a picture? I'm just trying to piece one together and have a couple of concerns looking at other designs and remedies.

-Getting air trapped at the top of the diffuser, is this a problem you've had? I'm considering putting a bleed valve in place.
-Making a system I can take apart without getting water everywhere
-Do I put the CO2 through a diffuser before the reactor or just inject it straight into the reactor / before the reactor

I'm thinking from my filter I can go into the top of the reactor then the flow out of the bottom of the reactor can be directed upwards into my heater then onto the spraybar - 
I think if I put a tee between the bottom of the reactor and the heater I could put a valve on it and drain it before taking things apart.

How does this sound?


----------



## foxfish

With reactors it is all about contact time so the longer the tube the more effective.
The way around having a large, long tube, is to spin the water within the tube ... a vortex.
So if you can make an inlet & outlet into the tube at a tangent the water will spin & dramatically increase the contact time & hence a much smaller tube can be used.
If I could accesses my photo bucket I could post some pictures!
It amazes me that there are no commercial vortex reactors available?


----------



## Andrew Butler

foxfish said:


> With reactors it is all about contact time so the longer the tube the more effective


This is why I'm looking at building one as I have the height, the parts soon start adding up as I want to make sure I can take it apart without making a mess and also I think I need to be able to bleed off the air.



foxfish said:


> It amazes me that there are no commercial vortex reactors available?


I think the sera flora 500 mentioned above is and there are a few others but the fittings not being in a straight line means I just can't fit it in.

Having a look at the aqua medic 1000 which is what I will end up building but with a few twists to make it suit my cabinet a bit better, finally found the info and now I really just need to find the bleed valve type fittings and see if I can make it work.
http://www.drsfostersmith.com/Media/PDF/13995-Reactor1000Manual.pdf


----------



## foxfish

For a bleed valve you just need to pull a bit of silicone air line through a slightly undersized hole and fit a airline valve.
The problem with reactors  filled with biaballs is the massive restriction of flow.
Probably the biggest issue apart from restricting flow is the build up of gas in the top of the reactor but you can form a link with air line back into the pump flow... a Venturi.


----------



## Andrew Butler

foxfish said:


> For a bleed valve you just need to pull a bit of silicone air line through a slightly undersized hole and fit a airline valve.
> The problem with reactors  filled with biaballs is the massive restriction of flow.
> Probably the biggest issue apart from restricting flow is the build up of gas in the top of the reactor but you can form a link with air line back into the pump flow... a Venturi.


I want to try and find fittings that will stay in place and not rely on tubing siliconed through a hole; I'm a bit heavy handed!
I have a G6 filter so will be able to monitor if the flow is restricted at all. I'm thinking long 50mm tube with the bigger 'spikey' bio balls in.
I see you have the tapered design which I guess stops the build up of gas at the top but I don't think I have room for that.
There are so many slightly different methods of making a reactor it's hard to try and choose one that I think will work for me, not too many people are reporting the build up of gas at the top but I guess you don't when your design is the best!
How would you make a venturi work without putting big bubbles of CO2 into the flow?


----------



## foxfish

Hi Andy, I don't mean silicone in anything, you just cut a long taper to the end on the air line, push the end into the undersized hole, grab it with some pliers and pull it through. The silicone airline will self seal. I have used this method more times than you can shake a stick at, works extremely well, never had a fail or leak.
I will draw a pic for you but a tad busy at the mo...


----------



## Andrew Butler

foxfish said:


> Hi Andy, I don't mean silicone in anything, you just cut a long taper to the end on the air line, push the end into the undersized hole, grab it with some pliers and pull it through. The silicone airline will self seal. I have used this method more times than you can shake a stick at, works extremely well, never had a fail or leak.
> I will draw a pic for you but a tad busy at the mo...


understand what you mean.


----------



## Zeus.

foxfish said:


> With reactors it is all about contact time so the longer the tube the more effective.



True and false

Contact time true, longer not always better alone as with width affects the speed of the water in the reactor, increase the width of reactor and slow the water down, so wider is just as important. Here is the vid of my BPS rate


high and insane, my reactors are short and nothing gets passed them CO2 wise. I have the Fastest pH drop in town IMO. today it took 47mins for over a 1ph drop



 I do have low flow in the reactors too so less chance of CO2 getting pushed down. There is a large CO2 bubble in reactors when on but with lower flow cant hear it with cabinet door closed



foxfish said:


> Probably the biggest issue apart from restricting flow is the build up of gas in the top of the reactor



why is it an issue ? unless its noisy


----------



## foxfish

Well I don't wont to get to deeply involved with this discussion & I most certainly don't doubt the efficiency of your own reactor.
However in my mind the most efficient  reactors will not have any build up of gas.
That is not to say they wont work, there are many many ways to design a reactor, in fact most of the designs I see, do have a build up of gas in the top of the chamber.
 Personally, I would consider that to be a design issue & I would prefer to see all the bubbles completely dissolved.


----------



## Zeus.

increasing the pressure in the reactor would help improve CO2 uptake by the water, but at the expense of noise. Agree about the build up of gas not being ideal, but if it works and is quiet... .... as to the efficiency well ...................


----------



## Fred13

Please take a look at this video. He is using an inline diffuser (not reactor) and has 100% dissolution.  He just uses a longer hose with a slight curve . This curve gives the time to co2 to dissolve into water before it reaches the output. This is because co2 wants to rise but the water presses it down so there is more time into hoses before the exit.


----------



## Andrew Butler

foxfish said:


> I would prefer to see all the bubbles completely dissolved


That's exactly the reason I'm doing this in the first place!

Another thing I'm now considering is using a fluidused media reactor like you would use in marines but run it in reverse so simply swap the in for the out meaning the flow would go into the main body and exit through the pipe at the bottom then up through the middle and out. If I choose the correct one I can hard plumb it and make it easier for myself.

What do people think?

 The link below will just show you how one works but I would be swapping the in/out over.
http://www.glassreef.com/proj_biopellet_reactor.php


----------



## Zeus.

The media tumbles would all be pushed down in the current and increase the resistance to flow, which would increase the working pressure which would help CO2 uptake but reduce flow.
Well that's my initial thoughts anyway, would it fit?

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## Andrew Butler

Zeus. said:


> The media tumbles would all be pushed down in the current and increase the resistance to flow, which would increase the working pressure which would help CO2 uptake but reduce flow.
> Well that's my initial thoughts anyway, would it fit?
> 
> Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


I might just have to experiment with one before drilling it or putting any bio balls in then that way I've not ruined it.
The media wouldn't tumble more just get sucked to the bottom, using the bigger bio balls should help things as they're not blocking flow so much.
It really would depend on which one I chose but I think I could get one to fit if it had the correct fittings on it for me to hard plumb to.
Might be a case of trial and fingers crossed.


----------



## Zeus.

Fred13 said:


> Please take a look at this video. He is using an inline diffuser (not reactor) and has 100% dissolution.  He just uses a longer hose with a slight curve . This curve gives the time to co2 to dissolve into water before it reaches the output. This is because co2 wants to rise but the water presses it down so there is more time into hoses before the exit.




He also has a low BPS and DC is Green if he was aiming for a Yellow DC would it still be bubble free ?


----------



## foxfish

The reactor I designed in my link was done to help DIY folk with an easy option but, from my own trials I have found vortex designs to be by far the most effective!
As soon as the water is spun inside the vessel the contact time is increased dramatically, unfortunately  that type of reactor requires the far more DIY skills but it beats me why a commercial version has never been made! 
There was (or still is?) a vortex marine protein skimmer on the market, perhaps one of those could be converted?


----------



## Andrew Butler

foxfish said:


> There was (or still is?) a vortex marine protein skimmer on the market, perhaps one of those could be converted?


I'm unsure how you would do that, I just don't think a skimmer suits conversion - you might have other ideas?

Moving onto converting a Fludised media reactor - after totting up the cost of the pieces to build one myself by the time you take into account being able to take it apart to clean etc I'm still left with something that's not self supporting so I'm going to look into this a bit more. There are several designs but most have flow going down a tube in the middle and back up the cylinder to a hole in the top but I would be reversing this. I guess there's only one way to find out if it works!

I want to have something that is self supporting, slim in design and I can hard plumb

If I find the right one that works I can put all the flow through it and if not a simple bypass will solve that. I can add a valve to bleed the air off in the lid and also a fitting to inject the CO2. I just need to find the right one I think. A quick sketch of the 2 options I have using a fluidised media reactor.

Thoughts???


----------



## Edvet

I would add the CO2 a bit lower and connect the airbleed to the inlet: any undissolved gas rises and hangs at the top, making a connection and have that go to a venturi ( wich lowers presure and sucks) in the inlet. If there is gas it will suck the gas in the reactor again, if there's not it sucks a bit of fluid into the reactor. If i make myself clear


----------



## Andrew Butler

Edvet said:


> I would add the CO2 a bit lower and connect the airbleed to the inlet: any undissolved gas rises and hangs at the top, making a connection and have that go to a venturi ( wich lowers presure and sucks) in the inlet. If there is gas it will suck the gas in the reactor again, if there's not it sucks a bit of fluid into the reactor. If i make myself clear



I could just put a hosetail inside the reactor so the CO2 enters the water column a bit lower which would work.

Surely if the air bleed was at the top of the lid this would be the best place? Unless of course you mean the high point of the pipe feeding it?
*The drawing is not to scale or anything like that so the pipe would probably run straight into the reactor.

So can you explain how I would fit a venturi to this -I won't lie I don't understand it!

Just looking through a thread foxfish pointed me to and infact it looks very much like a media reactor with the central pipe running almost all the way to the bottom. (picture below)
https://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/co2-reactor-new-co2art-project.33630/


----------



## Edvet

A venturi would go in the "horizontal"inlet and connect a smal line from the top of the outlet ( where non dissolved gas would collect) to said venturi so it has a sucking effect and will suck up either  left gas, which is what we want, or water.
For the venturi: just a reduction in the diameter is good


 
just google DIY venturi


----------



## Andrew Butler

Edvet said:


> A venturi would go in the "horizontal"inlet and connect a smal line from the top of the outlet ( where non dissolved gas would collect) to said venturi so it has a sucking effect and will suck up either  left gas, which is what we want, or water.
> For the venturi: just a reduction in the diameter is good
> 
> 
> 
> just google DIY venturi


This would restrict flow though wouldn't it?


----------



## Edvet

https://barrreport.com/threads/dual-venturi-diy-external-co2-reactor.3413/


----------



## Edvet

Andrew Butler said:


> This would restrict flow though wouldn't it?


Well that's how a venturi works
It  doesn't have to be much, it just needs to give a little suction. Often such a system runs on a separate pump just to get the CO2 in the water.


----------



## Zeus.

Think the main advantage of the APS EF is its width, which slows the water down and gives move time for any CO2 bubbles to get back to the top. Like Foxfish says having the water swirl in a vortex must surly help too to improve efficiency esp in the narrower reactors with the central return. With Bioballs fitted or other media dont think the swirling Vortex would swirl to the same as it does in Foxfish design Trouble with the central return is it reduces the effective width of the reactor massively which if you use the *Poiseuille equation *do the maths you will see the results, which is what put me off the central return design type of CO2 reactor. Having a return exit on the bottom of the reactor is a win win WIN IMO.

Wish the APS came as a clear init like in the pic




But it has to fit in the cabinet also. Dont know if having an inline atomiser before the reactor or direct injection is the best, Just inline atomiser pre reactor just makes sense to me.


----------



## Andrew Butler

Edvet said:


> Well that's how a venturi works
> It  doesn't have to be much, it just needs to give a little suction. Often such a system runs on a separate pump just to get the CO2 in the water.


Is this almost like an ozone reactor then? Just with a few modifications.



Zeus. said:


> Like Foxfish says having the water swirl in a vortex must surly help too to improve efficiency


I can probably put an elbow or 45 inside the reactor which would start some kind of vortex probably not that powerful though.



Zeus. said:


> With Bioballs fitted or other media dont think the swirling Vortex would swirl to the same as it does in Foxfish design


Lots of people run their reactors with nothing in so I plan to try that first.



Zeus. said:


> Having a return exit on the bottom of the reactor is a win win WIN IMO.


There was a product that existed but has now been discontinued which was exactly that.

I think I need to first see if and how a fluidised media reactor works running in reverse then go from there.


----------



## foxfish

I would love to see a comersial reactor for sale, something that has been professionally designed, tested & manufactured. Clear vessel so you can see what is going on with a choice of inlets outlet sizes.
Something like this, I know this design works but it would have to have extensive testing to get the perfect size tube etc.
You would think that by now someone would of produced one... it is such a simple design after all!


----------



## Andrew Butler

foxfish said:


> View attachment 112521 I would love to see a comersial reactor for sale, something that has been professionally designed, tested & manufactured. Clear vessel so you can see what is going on with a choice of inlets outlet sizes.
> Something like this, I know this design works but it would have to have extensive testing to get the perfect size tube etc.
> You would think that by now someone would of produced one... it is such a simple design after all!


People wouldn't pay what it would cost I think is the simple answer.


----------



## foxfish

Andrew Butler said:


> People wouldn't pay what it would cost I think is the simple answer.


Maybe but this one looks great if it was just twice as big & did not have the stupid noisy impellers ... cost £12!


----------



## Andrew Butler

foxfish said:


> Maybe but this one looks great if it was just twice as big & did not have the stupid noisy impellers ... cost £12!


Yes, I looked at this one but the reviews aren't great and the in/out are not in good places to fit into my cabinet and hook upto everything else.


----------



## Fred13

Zeus. said:


> He also has a low BPS and DC is Green if he was aiming for a Yellow DC would it still be bubble free ?


Probably not , Zeus.  But why we suppose to aim for yellow dc?  If i am right 25-30 ppm is optimal and this is in general translated with a lime green color in co2 dropcheckers.


----------



## Zeus.

Fred13 said:


> Probably not , Zeus.  But why we suppose to aim for yellow dc?  If i am right 25-30 ppm is optimal and this is in general translated with a lime green color in co2 dropcheckers.



Yes you are right that is the general Target which is advised for plant growth and safe tank for fish etc. However even better/faster growth can be achieved with higher [CO2] along with more species of plants grown and less algea with high light setups, so many folk go for 'Yellow' but at your own risk of killing fish etc.


----------



## Andrew Butler

foxfish said:


> I would love to see a comersial reactor for sale, something that has been professionally designed, tested & manufactured.


It could be happening, I've had a chat with someone who manufacturers acrylic reactors (ozone, fluidised etc) for marines and he has seen the gap in the market now I've pointed it out to him and is going to make me a trial one and see how it performs and go from there.
Just deciding exactly what we want on it, sizes etc

Question is who else is interested?


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke

Andrew Butler said:


> It could be happening, I've had a chat with someone who manufacturers acrylic reactors (ozone, fluidised etc) for marines and he has seen the gap in the market now I've pointed it out to him and is going to make me a trial one and see how it performs and go from there.
> Just deciding exactly what we want on it, sizes etc



I'm certainly interested mate. Not a fan of fizzy tanks but can never find a reactor that meets all my needs. Like you I find the pipes just aren't in good positions for piping. Let me know how you get on. With the rise in popularity of scaping it makes you wonder why some firm hasn't made a canister filter with some kind of reaction  chamber incorporated.


----------



## Zeus.

Great idea, getting someone who is commercially interested with the right skill set is half the battle. Making a reactor that will be suitable for all tanks is another thing and a range will be needed with the bulk of the market is the smaller tanks also. So the range would have to be suitable for various size piping. May well be worth considering having it made with a bypass as standard, then the flow though the reactor could be adjusted. The big issue IMO is would it sell and how much would it be.

Will be giving it some thought..............


----------



## Andrew Butler

Zeus. said:


> Great idea, getting someone who is commercially interested with the right skill set is half the battle. Making a reactor that will be suitable for all tanks is another thing and a range will be needed with the bulk of the market is the smaller tanks also. So the range would have to be suitable for various size piping. May well be worth considering having it made with a bypass as standard, then the flow though the reactor could be adjusted. The big issue IMO is would it sell and how much would it be.
> 
> Will be giving it some thought..............


I guess if it's successful it's a case of then getting the word around. People seem hell bent on inline diffusers but they still leave bubbles so if the reactor was affordable and a success then it should be. That said the aqua medic 1000 doesn't really sell so why is this?


----------



## zozo

@Edvet He said the magic word..  Venturi! Presure difference.. Google Co2 Venturi systems and you'll find articles from scientific studies in horticulture, proven to be the best way to add CO² to the water.

It actuay is the build up presure in front of the ventury where CO² partialy diffused.. Behind the venturi there is a vortex and a pressure release, the sudden expansion of the water scatters the tiny bubble even more and drives the CO² molecules apart and get sucked into the water column.

So if you are using a reactor that only increases contact time and still releases bubles, because contact time obviously isn't enough relative to amount CO² added, then put a venturi behind the reactor. If necessary enrease pump capacity..

I once heard an interview with the German scaper Jurijs S. He was behind the scenes looking at the techniques used in Amanos Submersed Forest in Portugal and told about it. And he told they used a venturi system to add CO². It intruiged me and i looked it up and it is scientificly proven to be the best way to add CO² even at rather low pressures and flow speed it work beter than any other way.

There is a Topic about Florestas Submersas, where this also is discussed a bit and the links to the scientific papers are in this topic. Can't seem to find it back so quickly.


It works in the excact simple way as the Aeration Venturi on a power head, sucking in air and the vortex created scatters the air and the pressure release makes the bubble even smaller..

I realy wonder why this technique aint used in the smaller aquarium industry for co2. But in theory putting a venturi behind any kind of diffuser should have possitve effect and result in a better diffusing CO². It'll only cost you turn over if pump capacity isn't increased. I haven't realy played with it or tested it myself. I currently have no high tech setup. If i ever do again i certainly will. 

This is all i can find back about it it the moment.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22209441
But i know there is an article somewhere with more explaination and diagrams of the test setups in ponds..


----------



## Andrew Butler

zozo said:


> There is a Topic about Florestas Submersas


This one?
https://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads...kashi-amano-at-lisbon-oceanarium.36555/page-7

So you are trying to suggest fitting a venturi and injecting the CO2 before the reactor?
The big problem is slowing the flow down if you rely on using your external filter (as I do), would this work if you were to put a bypass on the reactor so not all the flow went through the reactor?


----------



## foxfish

Venturi work as you describe but the principle design is a restriction in the main flow line.
That restriction will cause huge loss of flow, especially when using low wattage pumps.
That would be ok it the reactor had a separate venturi pump.

Vortex designs work better than would ever be required & they do that without loosing too much flow.
I think the tube diameter, the length, the inlet & outlet positioning, & the  flow rate would all have an effect on performance.
Building a one off special that can be fine tuned is one thing but making a 'one fits all' will take a lot of experimenting & probably, big company recourses?
My priorities would be a clear vessel, as  little reduction in flow as possible, complete with high flow valves, take apart facility &  quiet running.
I would rather see one that works than another small unit cheap unit that doesn't! So cost & size would be less important to me.


----------



## zozo

Andrew Butler said:


> This one?
> https://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads...kashi-amano-at-lisbon-oceanarium.36555/page-7
> 
> So you are trying to suggest fitting a venturi and injecting the CO2 before the reactor?
> The big problem is slowing the flow down if you rely on using your external filter (as I do), would this work if you were to put a bypass on the reactor so not all the flow went through the reactor?



I think it was that one  nice find.. But it doesn't contain the paper i refering to.. I know i posted it somewhere, but i lost all my bookmarks due to a HDD crash sans backup.   If i rmember correctly it was via google books, but it's to long ago. The principle is actualy very simple.

Think of a Carburator and it's spray nozzle, this sprays gasoline mist into a venturi, when the trottle opens air flow is increases. Than there is a pressure build up in front of the venturi and the gasoline mist is sucked in by the acce;erated air flow into the venturi. Behind it this flow suddenly drops again, results in pressure drop and the air expands again rapidly and this scatters the gasoline droplets into even smaller size so it turns into a gas form before it hits the combustion chamber.

That's the excact same thing fluid dynamic principle. Air mixing gasoline, is fairly the same as water mixing with CO²..

The diffuser (air stone) is your spray nozzle that should be in front or in the venturi.



 

So the venturi should be behind the diffuser, than the already partialy diffused into small bubbles CO² hits the venturi, it gets more or less compacted together and accelerates in the ventiru, than the tube get bigger again all media leaving the venturi expands again and this kinda rippes apart the CO² molecules into even smaller fragments. Better disolved before it hits the (combustion) tank.

And yes loss of turn over without up grading the pump is inevitable.. A bypass could have possitive effects but i guess you still wil lose some. As the article i linked to states the lowest they tested it on was 4L/m = 240L/h still had a 100% beter result than a airstone only. Than we don't use a regular airstone but a very dense ceramic disk making far smaller bubbles than an airstone.

As said i never realy builded something to see how it works for real.. Currently no high tech tank to play with. Ran out of co2 and didn't feel like buying a new one. The next one i will surely go and experiment with this. For  it's a proven theory, need to come up with something to scale it down so it's applicable for smal aqauriums. It works like a charm for the big ones, florestas submersas uses it.


----------



## Andrew Butler

zozo said:


> I think it was that one  nice find.. But it doesn't contain the paper i refering to.. I know i posted it somewhere, but i lost all my bookmarks due to a HDD crash sans backup.   If i rmember correctly it was via google books, but it's to long ago. The principle is actualy very simple.
> 
> Think of a Carburator and it's spray nozzle, this sprays gasoline mist into a venturi, when the trottle opens air flow is increases. Than there is a pressure build up in front of the venturi and the gasoline mist is sucked in by the acce;erated air flow into the venturi. Behind it this flow suddenly drops again, results in pressure drop and the air expands again rapidly and this scatters the gasoline droplets into even smaller size so it turns into a gas form before it hits the combustion chamber.
> 
> That's the excact same thing fluid dynamic principle. Air mixing gasoline, is fairly the same as water mixing with CO²..
> 
> The diffuser (air stone) is your spray nozzle that should be in front or in the venturi.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the venturi should be behind the diffuser, than the already partialy diffused into small bubbles CO² hits the venturi, it gets more or less compacted together and accelerates in the ventiru, than the tube get bigger again all media leaving the venturi expands again and this kinda rippes apart the CO² molecules into even smaller fragments. Better disolved before it hits the (combustion) tank.
> 
> And yes loss of turn over without up grading the pump is inevitable.. A bypass could have possitive effects but i guess you still wil lose some. As the article i linked to states the lowest they tested it on was 4L/m = 240L/h still had a 100% beter result than a airstone only. Than we don't use a regular airstone but a very dense ceramic disk making far smaller bubbles than an airstone.
> 
> As said i never realy builded something to see how it works for real.. Currently no high tech tank to play with. Ran out of co2 and didn't feel like buying a new one. The next one i will surely go and experiment with this. For  it's a proven theory, need to come up with something to scale it down so it's applicable for smal aqauriums. It works like a charm for the big ones, florestas submersas uses it.



I'm understanding the principal of how it works but it's just going to restrict the flow too much which isn't what I'm trying to achieve - I just want to create an inline reactor that fully dissolves the CO2 and doesn't restrict flow; no extra pumps, preferably no bypass.
I can't be alone in wanting this can I?


----------



## Zeus.

If it was constructed with bypass to take the main flow then a pump then CO2 injection then Venturi, it should work with no loss of flow, just the cost of the extra pump and fitting it all in OFC
Needs some R&D, or some decent articles/papers of folk who have done it. 

Mine works well, but I think it's the low flow though the reactors with bypass in combo with the pretty wide APS EF so flow very slow in reactors so CO2 gets plenty of time to rise. Think I have a massive CO2 bubble in the reactors. 
Since using the reactors been using much more CO2 but also doing a much bigger pH drop. Any more and fish would be dead. If I feed them before CO2 goes of the Harlequins go belly up with the extra CO2 they produce in the excitement of food. They recover without an issue, rest of fish are fine, added another 60 fish on Friday and they all had on issues with a fast pH drop 40mins, yes gasping a bit faster than tanks resident fish, given a few days/weeks sure that will be reduced too. Non at surface except Marble Hackets and Killi Fish but that's where they hang out.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## LondonDragon

There used to be a great german company making and selling them on ebay, they did cost £80-100 a pop, maybe why they went bust and now all we have left is crappy reactors, I must have tried at least 20 different ones that I could find and they were all crap to be honest, should have purchased one of those german ones back in the day! Even the Aquamedic one I have is below par!

From all the tests this was for me the best one: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/UP-aqua-...ic-Diffuser-Reactor-check-valve-/401472727179

But you get the micro bubble cloud in your tank when the CO2 is on


----------



## Andrew Butler

LondonDragon said:


> There used to be a great german company making and selling them on ebay, they did cost £80-100 a pop, maybe why they went bust and now all we have left is crappy reactors, I must have tried at least 20 different ones that I could find and they were all crap to be honest, should have purchased one of those german ones back in the day! Even the Aquamedic one I have is below par!
> 
> From all the tests this was for me the best one: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/UP-aqua-...ic-Diffuser-Reactor-check-valve-/401472727179
> 
> But you get the micro bubble cloud in your tank when the CO2 is on


They're going to cost that kind of money though. If you look how much a big fluidused media reactor is its actually a lot more and the co2 reactor will have extra fittings.

What worked about the aqua medic?
Did you 'recycle the co2 with the bleed valve?


----------



## LondonDragon

Andrew Butler said:


> What worked about the aqua medic?


It didn't work!  I might give it another go when I eventually flood my tank!


----------



## Andrew Butler

LondonDragon said:


> It didn't work!


Haha, so what didn't work about it and what might make it work do you think.
What was the one sold on eBay like? I know you never tested it so I mean design and features.


----------



## LondonDragon

Andrew Butler said:


> so what didn't work about it and what might make it work do you think.


I doubt it will ever work, maybe for a small tank, but not anything over 60l.

This was the German one:


----------



## zozo

I used this one for a while the 12mm version. 
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Aquarium-C...hash=item3ae5cabaeb:m:mYcunOOrJX1oI0qeJ9XXknQ
After finding out about that venturi story i immedialtely thought of ordering the 16mm version.. And fiddle me a venturi in the outlet connection side of that thing. I'm not sure how much flow you loose when changing to 16mm tube entirely with using the same pump and have a venturi in such a diffuser. That's my plan of testing one day with my next co2 project. 

I've yet not seen any inline diffuser modle beter suited to DIY a venturi inside. How i'm going to fix that i yet do not know, but there are options and ideas.. Worst case scenario if i find nothing to make it from, i have to visite the local locksmith, he has the machinery to make me one.


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke

That was the one I'm getting next zozo and going to feed it into the inlet of the canister. The beauty of it is you can get replacement generic 20mm ceramic discs in packs of 8 for a couple of quid so you always have plenty of spares to swap out while the others are cleaning. Maybe the best route would be having the reactor smaller and inlet and outlet pipes better positioned combined with one of these so the bubbles are small fed in and the reactor has less work to do. Key is making the reactor not reduce flow and get best of both worlds? Problem is if the pump needs to push through anything you're going to get reduction. My guess would be something on inlet that fully diffuses before hitting the canister preventing build up or burping. Its going to get dirty more often and full of mulm so some taps so it can be effortlessly removed quite often for a rinse so it doesn't become a nuisance would be my ideal.

Other than that this is way over my head but you guys would be the best to come up with something if anyone going off your previous DIY stuff I've seen. Sorry I can't be much more help, just putting it out there the type of thing that would open my wallet. Could it be crowd funded if Andy has the man to put some effort into professionally building it to make it worth their while?


----------



## Zeus.

Andrew Butler said:


> People seem hell bent on inline diffusers but they still leave bubbles so if the reactor was affordable and a success then it should be



The JBL inline atomiser and APS EF is Bubble free and affordable , just just doesnt fit for you


----------



## zozo

Could be this is what is used in florestas submersas.

http://www.purevtech.com/phure-feed/

This manufacturer calls it a friendly non toxic chemical Ph control unit with the use of Co2.. It only needs a minimum of 40 gallons p/m.. 

But intersting is to see the installation type diagrams.


----------



## Andrew Butler

LondonDragon said:


> I doubt it will ever work, maybe for a small tank, but not anything over 60l.
> 
> This was the German one:


Haha, strange they say somewhere about minimum flow 1000lph.
Is the German one intended to be used horizontally? I see it has a bypass on though.


----------



## Andrew Butler

AverageWhiteBloke said:


> feed it into the inlet of the canister


My filter traps air easy as anything so I'd only want it on the return side.


AverageWhiteBloke said:


> just putting it out there the type of thing that would open my wallet.


How many people would join us though?


AverageWhiteBloke said:


> Andy has the man to put some effort into professionally building it


I just need a design to give him, I know many have tried DIY but it costs a lot by the time you add in fittings that you can take apart to clean etc so you may as well buy a quality built one. It's in the preliminary stages and if it works he will make them.


Zeus. said:


> The JBL inline atomiser and APS EF is Bubble free and affordable , just just doesnt fit for you


The fittings on the APS are at an angle which makes things tricky in the space I have, if I can have a unit that enters through the top at 90 degrees that works well for my filter then exits the bottom at 90 degrees i can loop it back up for the inline heater. I also plan to use some rigid pipe.

Maybe if something could be made to diffuse the co2 in an easily replaceable fitting on the way in (in the way an inline atomizer does) this would be better than injecting direct into the cylinder of the reactor?


----------



## Zeus.

If the fittings on the APS EF are at bad angles, I would of thought other suitable fittings could be found that fit on the web that suit your plumbing/space

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## Andrew Butler

Zeus. said:


> If the fittings on the APS EF are at bad angles, I would of thought other suitable fittings could be found that fit on the web that suit your plumbing/space
> 
> Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


I think I said to you before I looked at making the holes bigger and putting different fittings on but by the time I've messed around and spent out on something that might work I could either DIY a reactor or see about getting one made which does everything (i hope) and I could hard plumb if I wanted.


----------



## Andrew Butler

foxfish said:


> I would love to see a comersial reactor for sale, something that has been professionally designed, tested & manufactured.





AverageWhiteBloke said:


> 'm certainly interested mate. Not a fan of fizzy tanks but can never find a reactor that meets all my needs.





Zeus. said:


> Great idea, getting someone who is commercially interested with the right skill set is half the battle.



So I had got someone lined up to make one who seemed very excited but when people start not getting back to you I lose trust so I have knocked him on the head.
I've had a chat with a company I have had products from before and they are happy to make them for me. Does anyone else want one while they're at it?
It will be untested but I have a design in mind I think will work.

I decided a freestanding unit with an overall height of around 55cm is a good height.
that would be a 45cm cylinder sat on a 10cm plinth or thereabouts
The cylinder would be 8-10cm diameter
1/2" BSP inlet at the top and bottom so you can screw what you want on but they will glue the size hose barb you want *could be bigger if you need it.
2x 6mm pushfit connectors threaded into the top; one for the CO2 in, the other to release trapped gas
Hopefully on the inside of the CO2 inlet we can fit a piece of clear acrylic tube to inject the CO2 lower down in the cylinder.
Also have a 6mm pushfit at the bottom to drain the canister when it comes to cleaning time
Thinking a removable grill inside the bottom of the cylinder so if you feel the need to add bio balls you can without worrying they will block the outlet

What are everyone's thoughts?
I'm sure there's more but can't think right now!

They won't make one offs but will make the 3 I want so if anyone else wants one adding on looks like they will be around £70-80; the same kind of money as the aqua medic 1000.
I'm just waiting to find out exactly what fittings will be included and postage etc but I'm thinking it needs extra valves for the gas and water at the bottom, maybe a non return for the CO2.
I have a source for these parts in the UK though at a very good price.

On a separate note this is something I'm considering trying inside my canister; it's called and eductor mixing nozzle which sucks water in using the venturi principal so might help things but won't know until I try



 
A few renderings of roughly what I'm thinking..........


----------



## ian_m

Andrew Butler said:


> On a separate note this is something I'm considering trying inside my canister; it's called and eductor mixing nozzle which sucks water in using the venturi principal so might help things but won't know until I try


Might work, but I suspect not, as these generally require quite high pressure inlets, normally in the couple of bar range. A typical aquarium pump eg JBL1000 is only 0.15bar (1.5m head output of 10m).

A quick Google reveals working pressures typically 10-50bar...whoops.

You are right about isolation and drain valves to reduce and ease maintance.

Rubber feet somewere to stop any pump vibrations passing into your cabinet ?


----------



## Andrew Butler

ian_m said:


> Might work, but I suspect not, as these generally require quite high pressure inlets


I know that's why I'm not so sure but I have a sample to try. I've also got a pigs tail spiral inlet to try and create a bit of a vortex but think the opening looks a little small.



ian_m said:


> Rubber feet somewere to stop any pump vibrations passing into your cabinet ?


This is something I also had on my list but forgot to write.


----------



## foxfish

What about a fluidised bed filter.... https://www.ebay.ie/itm/Marine-Sour...hash=item5d71dd2d50:m:mUzKrJLIDpcy7kXZHvbW-Sg


----------



## Andrew Butler

foxfish said:


> What about a fluidised bed filter.... https://www.ebay.ie/itm/Marine-Sour...hash=item5d71dd2d50:m:mUzKrJLIDpcy7kXZHvbW-Sg


They're what I told you about before.
Not many have a hole big enough to use it inline.
The people who are going to make it now can do much more so it will be better than the one pictured.


----------



## GHNelson

LondonDragon said:


> There used to be a great german company making and selling them on ebay, they did cost £80-100 a pop, maybe why they went bust and now all we have left is crappy reactors, I must have tried at least 20 different ones that I could find and they were all crap to be honest, should have purchased one of those german ones back in the day! Even the Aquamedic one I have is below par!
> 
> From all the tests this was for me the best one: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/UP-aqua-...ic-Diffuser-Reactor-check-valve-/401472727179
> 
> But you get the micro bubble cloud in your tank when the CO2 is on



Micro bubbles are a indicator where the Co2 is being dispersed around the aquarium.....so is a good thing in my experience!
You can observe if you have a flow distribution problem easily when it comes to Co2 implementation!
Plants love those little tiny micro bubbles clinging to their leaves!
Better carbon absorption....less waste Co2! 
I've grown plants outwith the substrate, nice and healthily using decent Co2 using the *older version UP atomiser*!
The UP Atomiser may have faults but its got its advantages.....
Cheers
hoggie


----------



## a1Matt

hogan53 said:


> Micro bubbles are a indicator where the Co2 is being dispersed around the aquarium.....so is a good thing in my experience!



Definitely. Even without co2, a couple of large back to back water changes gets my water column bubbling enough for me to check my distribution, very handy.


----------



## becks

How about placing a venturi within a pvc pipe with a hose tail on each end and then attaching the Co2 to the airline feed. Do you think that alone, will be enough to dissolve the co2?

http://www.discountleisureproducts....amitsu-inline-fish-pond-magnetic-venturi-p553


----------



## foxfish

Possibly but if you want to fully dissolve the gas, you would need a long pipe run after the venturi ... or a reactor!
There are other issues though, most venturis work by restricting the flow and would require a powerful pump.
Still, these ideas are often best tried out for oneself as the many variations could give different results for different people.


----------

