# Bypass for AM 1000



## jsiegmund (18 Jan 2015)

I have an AquaMedic 1000 CO2 reactor and am preparing to set up my new filter; a Fluval FX5. The ribbed Fluval hosing isn't that compatible with the AM 1000 I'm afraid, so need some alternative.

I found that I should be able to use standard 19/25mm hosing to fit to the FX5 connectors. My AquaMedic supports up to 16/22 hoses, so I'd need to reduce the hose size in order to pass the flow through the AM. So I thought of doing a bypass, just want to run this by you guys for verification.

I'd take a 19/25 hose and connect that to a Y-piece. On one side, 19/25mm hose with a valve in the middle in order to reduce flow when required. On the other side, convert 19/25 to 16/22, running that through the reactor. Then going back to 19/25 to connect both to a Y piece again, having one hose running to the spray bar.

I've seen a lot of PVC being used for bypasses as well, is there any advantage? I'd need some guidance one which exact pieces to buy as I'm kinda new to that stuff.

So your opinions please:
a) is a bypass a good idea / necessary?
b) is this a good approach, or should i better look into PVC instead?
c) any other ideas or suggestions are also welcome of course


----------



## Edvet (19 Jan 2015)

If possible at all i would run the reactor on a separate Eheim circulation pump. Bypasses have a habbit of being troublesome. Running a separate pump to push the CO2 through a spraybar is easy.


----------



## jsiegmund (19 Jan 2015)

Could you clarify on that a bit more? How would I hook up both to the same spraybar (if that is what you mean)? If there's someone with a similar setup I'd be interested in some pics


----------



## Edvet (19 Jan 2015)

Not the same spraybar. I would make a spraybar for the CO2 side, the Fluval would be independent. The bypasses and hose diameter changes will drop the output of the Fluval to too little volume for the high tech setup i am afraid.


----------



## jsiegmund (19 Jan 2015)

So two spraybars? Sorry for the confusion here, just trying to get where you're going. I've read about people hooking up an inline reactor to the fluval so it should be doable at least. My tank is 240L (netto 200?) so I have some headroom on the filter capacity (3500 / 2300 circulation) when I don't go too heavy on filter media.

Basically what I have available at this time are: 
- JBL e901 greenline with default intake and a plastic lily pipe as outlet (currently in use)
- Fluval FX5 with streamer intake and the default two-nozzle outlet 
- Additional Tetratec spraybar which can hook up to the FX5
- CO2 reactor AM1000 

I'd like to go for an end result which includes enough flow, the lowest amount of tech inside of the tank and not too much additional costs for parts. I'm afraid my cabinet won't fit the JBL and the FX5, so running the JBL only for CO2 is not really an option.


----------



## Edvet (19 Jan 2015)

Wel you can try if it works at least, just be ready to adjust if needed.


----------



## jsiegmund (19 Jan 2015)

Right, just trying to outthink my future mistakes here 

Another option I came up with... I've got two spare nozzles for the AM1000 lying around. I could attempt to glue some 25mm connectors on there, making the AM basically 25mm compatible. Then I could place it inline as usual, not bothering with a bypass at all. The AM has some bioballs in it, that's it. Wondering how that would affect performance. Maybe I  should give Aqua Medic a call.


----------



## Edvet (19 Jan 2015)

Easy to try with or without, i think it might depend on the flow, larger flow can keep bubbles in the flow longer, so less need for bioballs


----------



## jsiegmund (20 Jan 2015)

Ok, that's what I'll try then. Having it inline but with 19/25mm connectors should provide little drop in flow I hope. I'll share a good solution when I find one


----------



## jsiegmund (7 Feb 2015)

Ok so I promised I would share a solution, here it is.

I had to spare nozzles lying around and bought two new hose connectors (the glue type). And then some DIY magic happened:





+





=






The original nozzles have two plastic rings in the bottom part. The biggest has an inner diameter of 25mm, which was exactly the outer diameter of the connectors I used. So I ended up with a tight fit which was easily glued together. I used the vulcanizing type glue so the two have really merged to become one. Of course I cannot be sure until tested, but I have good faith that this will be water tight and pretty durable as well.

The ribbed hosing should fit snuggly over these connectors, making my AM1000 compatible with the FX5. Now waiting on delivery of a new hose because I have no room to spare with my current setup. I'll update with a picture when completely finished.

Is there any easy way to measure the reduction in flow? Curious to see how much this will actually matter. The connectors are a few millimeters tighter than the kind Fluval uses, so water will have to squeeze through those a bit. Still beats reverting to 16/22 hose though.


----------



## tim (7 Feb 2015)

Fill a bucket or jug from the filter and time for one minute x 60 you have flow in liters per hour.


----------



## jsiegmund (7 Feb 2015)

Hmmm, it should do approx. 2300l/hour, which is almost 40 liters per minute. I don't have such a bucket  Could do 30 seconds instead though, I do have a 20 liter jerrycan.


----------



## tim (7 Feb 2015)

jsiegmund said:


> Hmmm, it should do approx. 2300l/hour, which is almost 40 liters per minute. I don't have such a bucket  Could do 30 seconds instead though, I do have a 20 liter jerrycan.


 wet floor  15 seconds may be better with that beast of a filter, then just do the maths


----------



## jsiegmund (15 Feb 2015)

Okay! So here's a small update. I finally got to setting the AM1000 inline, it went flawlessly. Used some new fluval hosing to hook it up, which is much better than the old style hosing I was using.

I removed all the bioballs to get as much flow as possible. Although obviously I lost some flow, I haven't got the feeling that there's that much difference (didn't measure it, sorry). The only thing I'm doubting is the fact that small co2 bubbles are exiting the spray bay continously. They're tiny, but still; this means smaller bubbles are caught in the flow before they dissolve completely. So apart from reinserting the bioballs in the reactor, are there any other ways to solve this? I have already tried removing the inner tube and using half the length, the latter is a bit better but still not ideal.


----------



## jsiegmund (16 Feb 2015)

Ok. That sucked.

When I got home yesterday, there was about 20 liters of water on the floor. I had disconnected the reactor in the morning to insert a little piece of hose to the CO2 connector. Got it inline again and checked several time for leaks, nothing. The bottom nozzle must have unscrewed itself a tiny bit by pressure on the hose, apparently I did a lousy job tightening it. Everything was still intact until I rushed in to fasten it and broke of the thread on the nozzle completely, leaving me with a broken one. Luckily the reactor is still ok.

Some wet towels and swears later, it was all good again. I'm back to where I was: running the AM1000 off my JBL Now have to redo another nozzle, since the glued one is unsalvageable. At least I know the glued part isn't the weak link, but I am...


----------



## jsiegmund (11 Mar 2015)

Setup is up and running again for a few weeks now, without further issues. I reinserted the bioballs in the reactor to counter the bubbles escaping. It's better now, only really tiny bubbles escape from time to time. So the tiny bubbles are apparently not buoyant enough to counter the flow and thus get sucked in. Unfortunately this does mean a sacrifice in flow so I'd like to get the bioballs out again somehow. Any brilliant ideas left to make it even better?? I considered to hook up an airstone to the co2 line inside of the reactor. But I think that would only give me tiny bubbles a bit faster, they'd be caught in the flow anyway. So I need a way to get rid of the bioballs without too much gas escaping in the flow.


----------



## Edvet (11 Mar 2015)

Can you get some thin piece of foam, not enough to hinder flow but just enough to catch microbubbles a bit longer?


----------



## jsiegmund (11 Mar 2015)

That might work, good idea. The only thing I have lying around is a Fluval fine filter pad, might hinder flow when is starts to get polluted. I'll get something different as soon as I visit my lfs.


----------



## jsiegmund (11 Mar 2015)

Btw, old pictures these. I replaced the regulator with one from Co2Art which is dual stage so should provide far more stable co2. The one on the pictures gave me an end-of-tank dump when I got home after a business trip last week


----------



## jsiegmund (9 May 2015)

Okay, so obviously it took me quite some time to get this done, had to wait weeks for a shipment of stuff to come in. But now it's done and here's some phone pics of the new situation:





I did a couple of things;
- Removed the bioballs from the reactor
- Put in two pieces of foam at the bottom to trap any bubbles on their way out. Maybe one is sufficient but it's very coarse foam so it shouldn't hinder flow much more than the bioballs did.
- Hooked up an airstone to the co2 line inside of the reactor to get smaller bubbles to begin with. The tie-wraps by the way are to prevent the stone from sanding the reactor from the inside.
- Replaced some hosing





And as always when I touch things, something broke. I bumped the CO2 bottle standing in the living room, which fell over. The SMC valve took the hit so ended up in a 45 degree bend  Running single stage until a new one arrives. And yes: this bottle is almost empty


----------



## Mr.Manjushri (9 May 2015)

Not a bad solution...  I'm also using the AM1000 and have the same trouble with small bubbles continuously escaping. Have tried a piece of coarse foam with no noticeable improvement, but maybe two layers does the trick. Does this setup completely stop all bubbles, even tiny ones, from escaping?


----------



## jsiegmund (14 May 2015)

Not all, but the ones that make it through are really tiny. Their visible, but only barely. I'm considering replacing the bottom layer of foam with a medium one, I don't expect any bubbles to go through then but it might hinder flow a bit too much when it gets clogged up after a while. The bubbles I have now pretty much resemble what you would have with a diffuser inside your tank I guess. Because of their size most of them get caught in the flow anyway and circulate throughout the tank.


----------



## jsiegmund (17 May 2015)

Ok so today I tried replacing the bottom layer of foam by a fine filter pad from Fluval. Worked for keeping the bubbles in, but also reduced flow quite dramatically. So that's gone already, I'll try a medium one in the future sometime. Also made the airline a bit shorter so the airstone is a bit more to the top. But when reattaching I didn't pay attention and ended up attaching it to the air bleed instead of the CO2 input. So it's in idle at this time which actually seems to make very little difference (might as well take it out again next maintenance time).


----------



## Iain Sutherland (17 May 2015)

I have always found the am1000 to work best with no media, you should only get small bubbles which isnt an issue.  If you want them to dissolve more then just turn the flow down a little so there isnt enough force to blow them out of the reactor.  Turning down just a little makes a big difference.  Also cleaning media and sponges etc in the reactor is a ball ache.
If small bubbles really bother you then shower poof balls work well but you need to figure out how to stop it getting sucked into the reactor outlet.
FYI they also make great media for inside filters.


----------



## jsiegmund (17 May 2015)

Iain Sutherland said:


> I have always found the am1000 to work best with no media, you should only get small bubbles which isnt an issue.  If you want them to dissolve more then just turn the flow down a little so there isnt enough force to blow them out of the reactor.  Turning down just a little makes a big difference.  Also cleaning media and sponges etc in the reactor is a ball ache.
> If small bubbles really bother you then shower poof balls work well but you need to figure out how to stop it getting sucked into the reactor outlet.
> FYI they also make great media for inside filters.



Well the less bubbles, the less gas you're wasting. And I need to add quite some gas to get to good levels, so I'd like to have it as optimal as possible. And I have no real good way to turn down the flow, FX5 is just blasting through. The only thing I could do is close the hose connector off a little bit, but I'm not sure whether the motor/impellor will appreciate that. And I will end up with less flow in my tank which the plants will probably not appreciate. 

Could you tell me more about those 'poof balls'? I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean there.


----------



## Iain Sutherland (17 May 2015)

Your filter wont mind in the slightest about being turned down.  Pretty much all my filters run at 50%.

these things
http://www.eachbuyer.com/hot-bath-s...&utm_medium=CSE&utm_campaign=[PLA]England(EN)


----------



## jsiegmund (17 May 2015)

At full power somewhat larger bubbles managed to escape. It's ok now with the coarse filter foam, I think probably the same as it would be with the poof balls now that I understand what those are  I'll leave it alone for now, maybe try something on the next clean.


----------



## PLANTASTIC (2 Jul 2015)

I had the same problem with the am1000. And I tried many ways to stop the small bubbles getting pushed out the spraybar. The only way I resolved it was build a reactor. It's the same principle as the am1000 apart from I built it about 10cm longer. That has rectified the problem with small bubbles escaping without reducing the flow.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk


----------



## jsiegmund (3 Jul 2015)

Cool, good job! Got any pics?


----------

