Danielm
Member
Thanks Zeus - if I am running a sump, could I simply put a a diffuser in the return pump chamber - for various reasons I don’t want to T into/off the return pump.
-
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
Reactors - separate up or inline ?
- Thread starter tubamanandy
- Start date
Thanks Zeus - if I am running a sump, could I simply put a a diffuser in the return pump chamber - for various reasons I don’t want to T into/off the return pump.
Zeus.
Fertz Meister
Foxy beat me too it 
Yes you can, running a sump uses more CO2 for a given tank [CO2] , as the CO2 gases off via the surface of the sump, bigger the sump the bigger the loss. Having a lid on the sump reduces the losses and a seal sump is called a 'canister' which loses less OFC
Yes you can, running a sump uses more CO2 for a given tank [CO2] , as the CO2 gases off via the surface of the sump, bigger the sump the bigger the loss. Having a lid on the sump reduces the losses and a seal sump is called a 'canister' which loses less OFC
Danielm
Member
Thanks gents
wolfewill
Member
No. See this for an example of an inline diffuser:
https://www.co2supermarket.co.uk/up-inline-atomizer-co2-diffuser-12-16-p188.html
Onoma1
Member
I have just taken off my in-line reactor (pic below) as both seemed to reduce the flow (considerably) and was quite noisy. I understand that they do reduce the flow, however, wondered if anyone could suggest an alternative brand?
There is a shortfall of reactors on the market, many of use have been waiting years for a large manufacture to come up with something that works well at a reasonable price.
The model you have would of been fantastic if it was twice the size and did not have those stupid impellers!
You can dedicate an external filter, this is quite a popular method, not ideal but possibly a better bet than what you were using but as you don’t mention any details about you tank it is differcult to recommend much.
The model you have would of been fantastic if it was twice the size and did not have those stupid impellers!
You can dedicate an external filter, this is quite a popular method, not ideal but possibly a better bet than what you were using but as you don’t mention any details about you tank it is differcult to recommend much.
The best reactor out there is the aqua medic 1000, with the balls removed the flow isn't impeded too much and still works a treat.
Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
Zeus.
Fertz Meister
Well I just had a look at the specs for the aqua medic 1000 and with its 1/2inch inlet gives it about the same bottleneck as the APS EF2
APS has an elbow which doesnt help flow, but what the APS EF2 lacks in length it makes up for in width. But APS EF2 isnt translucent
APS EF2 £20
Zeus.
Fertz Meister
It's clear in the advert but they only do the white opaque canister base, well that's what APS informed me when I contacted them about getting a clear canister.
Zeus.
Fertz Meister
I have fitted an online atomiser to the return of the filter and the bubbles failed to dissolve so if bubbles with a large surface area to volume ratio fail to dissolve a large bubble with a low surface area to volume ratio has no chance of dissolving before being released to the atmosphere. If a CO2 reactor is fitted then that's another story OFC
I’m just thinking of ways to limit flow reduction, I guess I need to start experimenting
I might make a diy reactor copying the design of the aquamedic one, as that appears to be the most flow friendly reactor I’ve seen.
Mine is neither inline or separate, as I don’t run any canister filter. I use Tunze co2 reactor which operates independently with its own power head. I’m very pleased with it as it is trouble free, quiet, and delivers CO2 in 50/50 dissolved and misty phase.
https://www.google.com/search?q=tun...8&hl=en-us&client=safari#imgrc=AmvIdoXR8xC93M:
https://www.google.com/search?q=tun...8&hl=en-us&client=safari#imgrc=AmvIdoXR8xC93M:
I spent many a day experimenting with DIY reactors, some worked very well, some worked for me but not for others who tried the same designs!
There are so many variables that can effect performance, size on tank, amount of flow, amount of C02, power of pump etc....
However the basic principle is ..... to maintain a contact time between the gas bubbles and the tank water that is long enough to completely dissolve the C02.
In theory, a simple tube would do the job but it would need to be very long.
If you can spin the water inside the tube then the travel time increases, if you can form a vortex then the contact time will increase tenfold over and over again!
Another way, would be to restrict the C02 path by adding bio balls or similar, a further improvement would be to place the C02 against the flow of water.
This is the most popular method that commercial reactors use but, that method will obviously reduce flow.
The main problem with a DIY vortex revolves around finding a suitable vessel and finding a way to spin the water.
The inlet and outlet would ideally enter the vessel at an extream tangent and that is not easy t to DIY.
What we need is a large company to produce a suitablely sized, clear, vortex reactor that won’t reduce flow to much.
I posted this thread a few years back now https://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/high-flow-diy-reactor-now-with-video.23337/ the reactor still works extreamly well although it is opaque now.
However the vessel is not a common size and the new under sink water filters are quite a bit smaller.
There are so many variables that can effect performance, size on tank, amount of flow, amount of C02, power of pump etc....
However the basic principle is ..... to maintain a contact time between the gas bubbles and the tank water that is long enough to completely dissolve the C02.
In theory, a simple tube would do the job but it would need to be very long.
If you can spin the water inside the tube then the travel time increases, if you can form a vortex then the contact time will increase tenfold over and over again!
Another way, would be to restrict the C02 path by adding bio balls or similar, a further improvement would be to place the C02 against the flow of water.
This is the most popular method that commercial reactors use but, that method will obviously reduce flow.
The main problem with a DIY vortex revolves around finding a suitable vessel and finding a way to spin the water.
The inlet and outlet would ideally enter the vessel at an extream tangent and that is not easy t to DIY.
What we need is a large company to produce a suitablely sized, clear, vortex reactor that won’t reduce flow to much.
I posted this thread a few years back now https://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/high-flow-diy-reactor-now-with-video.23337/ the reactor still works extreamly well although it is opaque now.
However the vessel is not a common size and the new under sink water filters are quite a bit smaller.
I spent many a day experimenting with DIY reactors, some worked very well, some worked for me but not for others who tried the same designs!
There are so many variables that can effect performance, size on tank, amount of flow, amount of C02, power of pump etc....
However the basic principle is ..... to maintain a contact time between the gas bubbles and the tank water that is long enough to completely dissolve the C02.
In theory, a simple tube would do the job but it would need to be very long.
If you can spin the water inside the tube then the travel time increases, if you can form a vortex then the contact time will increase tenfold over and over again!
Another way, would be to restrict the C02 path by adding bio balls or similar, a further improvement would be to place the C02 against the flow of water.
This is the most popular method that commercial reactors use but, that method will obviously reduce flow.
The main problem with a DIY vortex revolves around finding a suitable vessel and finding a way to spin the water.
The inlet and outlet would ideally enter the vessel at an extream tangent and that is not east to DIY.
What we need is a large company to produce a suitablely sized, clear, vortex reactor that won’t reduce flow to much.
I posted this thread a few years back now https://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/high-flow-diy-reactor-now-with-video.23337/ the reactor still works extreamly well although it is opaque now.
However the vessel is not a common size and the new under sink water filters are quite a bit smaller.
Here is the video but I can’t seem to get a live embedded link?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=plcp&v=vgt3COKNIqg
There are so many variables that can effect performance, size on tank, amount of flow, amount of C02, power of pump etc....
However the basic principle is ..... to maintain a contact time between the gas bubbles and the tank water that is long enough to completely dissolve the C02.
In theory, a simple tube would do the job but it would need to be very long.
If you can spin the water inside the tube then the travel time increases, if you can form a vortex then the contact time will increase tenfold over and over again!
Another way, would be to restrict the C02 path by adding bio balls or similar, a further improvement would be to place the C02 against the flow of water.
This is the most popular method that commercial reactors use but, that method will obviously reduce flow.
The main problem with a DIY vortex revolves around finding a suitable vessel and finding a way to spin the water.
The inlet and outlet would ideally enter the vessel at an extream tangent and that is not east to DIY.
What we need is a large company to produce a suitablely sized, clear, vortex reactor that won’t reduce flow to much.
I posted this thread a few years back now https://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/high-flow-diy-reactor-now-with-video.23337/ the reactor still works extreamly well although it is opaque now.
However the vessel is not a common size and the new under sink water filters are quite a bit smaller.
Here is the video but I can’t seem to get a live embedded link?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=plcp&v=vgt3COKNIqg
Last edited:
zozo
Member
I'm not into CO² anymore at the moment.. And i actualy do not know if i ever will again.. I'm a lazy bum and got tired trimming plants and cleaning all the alage i grew with it. I seem to grow less algae with long term low tech aqauriums.
Anyway, the few years i played with it i did some reading on alternative ways to add it or to improve the dissolving.. And found quite some data on experiments where they found out that a venturi works the best even in low flow system a venturi significantly outperformed a regular diffuser.
Never got around to build me a DIY construction with a venturi behind the diffuser, so far it's still a theory about how it would performe in a tubed aqaurium filter system and a small tank. The experimental data i found on it was all about ponds and bigger setups than relatively low flow concept will exceed aqaurium flow quite a bit. And i know the Big Amano setup in portugal also uses a venturi system to add co². In swimming pool systems a simular venturi device is used to sufficiently add co² to lower the pH.
The working principle is rather straight foreward and it is the pressure difference in the system making co² dissolve beter.. The co² is added (partialy diffused) in front of the venturi / choke tube.. There will be a pressure build up in front of the venturi, the water is choked and speeds up to get through the narrow part. Behind the venturi there will be a pressure release again and a vortex.. Both the vortex scaters the co² bubbles into smaller particles and this sudden presure difference (expansion) behind this choke point, the co2 molecules get sucked into the water. It's actualy the very same priciple as the venturies used at powerheads outlet to create a mist of air bubbles.
I guess the venturi concept in the aqaurium hobby yet didn't got any foothold because of the rather low pressure pumps build in the standard filters. Most standard pumps used rarely exceed 2 metre head, than there will be signifcant unwanted flow loss working counter productive again regarding co2 distribution in the tank itself. And loss of filtering capacity which is rather important in high energy setups. But as said, never experimented with this concept personaly. If i ever go CO² again i definitively will explore it.. But i guess making it work requires some oversizing of pump and filter capacity.
Anyway, the few years i played with it i did some reading on alternative ways to add it or to improve the dissolving.. And found quite some data on experiments where they found out that a venturi works the best even in low flow system a venturi significantly outperformed a regular diffuser.
Never got around to build me a DIY construction with a venturi behind the diffuser, so far it's still a theory about how it would performe in a tubed aqaurium filter system and a small tank. The experimental data i found on it was all about ponds and bigger setups than relatively low flow concept will exceed aqaurium flow quite a bit. And i know the Big Amano setup in portugal also uses a venturi system to add co².
In swimming pool systems a simular venturi device is used to sufficiently add co² to lower the pH.The working principle is rather straight foreward and it is the pressure difference in the system making co² dissolve beter.. The co² is added (partialy diffused) in front of the venturi / choke tube.. There will be a pressure build up in front of the venturi, the water is choked and speeds up to get through the narrow part. Behind the venturi there will be a pressure release again and a vortex.. Both the vortex scaters the co² bubbles into smaller particles and this sudden presure difference (expansion) behind this choke point, the co2 molecules get sucked into the water. It's actualy the very same priciple as the venturies used at powerheads outlet to create a mist of air bubbles.
I guess the venturi concept in the aqaurium hobby yet didn't got any foothold because of the rather low pressure pumps build in the standard filters. Most standard pumps used rarely exceed 2 metre head, than there will be signifcant unwanted flow loss working counter productive again regarding co2 distribution in the tank itself. And loss of filtering capacity which is rather important in high energy setups. But as said, never experimented with this concept personaly. If i ever go CO² again i definitively will explore it..
But i guess making it work requires some oversizing of pump and filter capacity.
Last edited:
