• You are viewing the forum as a Guest, please login (you can use your Facebook, Twitter, Google or Microsoft account to login) or register using this link: Log in or Sign Up

Is an inline reactor really better than an inline diffuser?

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 ?
 
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?
 
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???

20180110_092848.jpg
 
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:confused:
 
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:confused:

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/



r1.jpg
 
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
IMG_3038.jpg

just google DIY venturi
 
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
IMG_3038.jpg

just google DIY venturi
This would restrict flow though wouldn't it?
 
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.
 
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
upload_2018-1-10_12-52-46.png


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.
 
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.

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.

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.

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.
 
0DB574F7-1B2E-439F-AAD2-111F8405E705.jpeg
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!
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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..............;)
 
Back
Top