• 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

Horizontal CO2 reactor - Estimations for a big tank, or small tank

  • Thread starter Thread starter 22802
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thank you for the update @Unexpected . At some point in the future I will collect all user data, and update / fine-tune the design rules so that new users can hit the right dimensions first time.

With the reactor now purging at 1.5 pH drop we achieve the same inherent safety feature (impossible to inject too much CO2 and gas fish) that I found on the CO2 Spray Bar and that applies to this reactor as well. Now going forward you could consider using the "overflow mode" that I described for CO2 Spray Bar and use the slow self purging to stabilise the CO2 ppm at your desired level. If that works well (it did for me), you do not longer need a precision CO2 regulator, nor a CO2 controller, as the reactor will control your CO2 injection rate.
From a layman's perspective, I think the length dictates the built-in safety measure. Apparently, with your advice of course, I won the pH drop lottery when building this thing. That said, given the correct diameter, length of the tank seems to be the what others should shoot for, regardless of a single run or in over under configuration.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
From a layman's perspective, I think the length dictates the built-in safety measure. Apparently, with your advice of course, I won the pH drop lottery when building this thing. That said, given the correct diameter, length of the tank seems to be the what others should shoot for, regardless of a single run or in over under configuration.
Agree, your tank was a bit more challenging as you could not use the full tank length for the reactor, combined with a high outgassing in the overflow. So happy that it still worked 🙂 Any other user would have an easier job, using the full tank length and a pipe diameter calculated from the design rules

This reactor works for really big tanks (yours and bigger), but also for small nano tanks. For a really small tank it would still be beneficial as it gives 100% CO2 absorption efficiency, no bubbles escaping to the surface, and no maintenance as we would need for a diffuser. For a small tank we would just need a Tupperware box, a short pipe, or similar. Ideally we would have some 'standard solutions and dimensions' so that anyone can build this thing and have success first time - for any tank size. It would be great to have a DIY-guide, tested and validated from real life experiments as yours.
 
I would keep it outgassing a bit. I worry that long term you would have some dilution of your CO2 atmosphere with gases escaping the water into the reactor. When you constantly outgas this atmosphere, you keep it at a steady condition of lower dilution of the gas. The original setup with the open reactor inside the tank would renew the atmosphere with every water change.
 
I guess the only pain as with any other reactor would be to take it all apart to clean it on a regular basis as with all your filter pipes, and the size of these no easy task (sticking a diffuser in bleach for a few hours is so much easier, or have two and alternate), I do like the basic concept, I am not great at putting this kind of stuff together (as most will not be either) and would be afraid of leaks, but then again I am running a cheap Chinese made one under my tank, (which works just fine, and I do have a leak alarm that triggers an alert on the phone, might not help depends on where I am lol).

Would be good if any UK based member had the skills to make some of these and some could test them, off course pay for materials and labour costs to make it worthwhile. The trick would always be to get them level, some tube clamps at the back of the cabinet should work.

On a video @Unexpected posted earlier it does seem a little noisy, as I have my tank about 2 meters away from where I seat to watch TV this would be a no no, can it be made silent? I have to tweak mine a few times to make it pretty much silent, at least by the time I seat down in the evening to watch some TV.

Will you need a dedicated pump for this or could be place in the filter output? As you mention high flow could be an issue, for example my filter is rated at 1850lph.
 
I keep going back and forth on putting one of these together for my tank as I really dislike the current effect of my inline diffuser. But had similar concern that 1200 lph filter may be too fast for it. Also, does it matter which end of the reactor the CO2 is injected in? For practical reasons it would make most sense for me to inject CO2 the opposite end to the water coming in but that's a very solveable problem.
I would imagine if it were opaque PVC it wouldn't need cleaning very often whatsoever.
 
On a video @Unexpected posted earlier it does seem a little noisy
The first attempt was a bit noisy. I did have a massive leak with my regulator and no bypass employed. I'm sure that contributed some amount of additional noise.

This second attempt, smaller diameter, longer pipe and a bypass has made it significantly quieter. The tank has inherit trickling noise do to the design as well. You will see how it overflows to the back chamber in this video. There's an additional entry point on the opposite end of the tank also.

I do run it on a dedicated pump so tank turnover is unaffected.

 
Thank you for your questions and observations @LMuhlen @LondonDragon @LightingBamboozled , let me try and clarify.

The reactor is just a pipe with a water flow, with a CO2 pocket above. It is a plumbing PVC pipe, with glued or screwed end pieces.

1683240619179.png


it does seem a little noisy
With a large enough pipe diameter, and a gentle flow there is no way there would be any noise. It is just a gentle stream of water. A bigger flow will create splashing and CO2 bubbles making noise, while it will not benefit the aborption and working of the reactor.
a bypass has made it significantly quieter
@Unexpected initially started with a powerful pump, later corrected this to a smaller pump and a bypass. I would generally recommend a bypass, as the reactor works best with gentle flow and the bypass will still make full use of the pump capacity for circulation in the tank.
Will you need a dedicated pump for this or could be place in the filter output?
Just on the existing pump, and if that is too strong use a bypass.
I guess the only pain as with any other reactor would be to take it all apart to clean it on a regular basis as with all your filter pipes
I clean filter pipes to improve flow from my pump, but see no reason why I would clean the reactor. In fact the opposite, fill it with bioballs to create a biological filtration Even if you still like cleaning the reactor, it can't be that difficult to clean the inside of a 1 m tube?
The trick would always be to get them level, some tube clamps at the back of the cabinet should work.
There is really no reason, see picture above, why this should be very precisely levelled. If the pipe diameter is big enough there is no problem if you tilt it from its horizontal as long as the CO2 does not escape from the exit.
Would be good if any UK based member had the skills to make some of these and some could test them, off course pay for materials and labour costs to make it worthwhile.
The principle is so simplistic that I really can't see what could go wrong. There are probably hundreds of threads on fora how to make bubble reactors work (vortex, single or double venturi, needle wheels, impellers, diffusers, noise, double stage), but we can consider that a problem of the past IMHO. Visit the plumbing shop, buy a pipe, end pieces and glue, follow the design rules from this thread and job done.
I am not great at putting this kind of stuff together (as most will not be either)
A plumbing pipe with two end pieces? Where do you see the challenges putting that together? You got your advanced CO2 controller and 3D printer to work, now politely suggest to roll your sleeves up, cut some tube and glue the pieces together as we used to do in the good old days :lol:
would be afraid of leaks, but then again I am running a cheap Chinese made one under my tank, (which works just fine, and I do have a leak alarm that triggers an alert on the phone, might not help depends on where I am lol).
A 'cheap Chinese made" with a leak alarm safer than a PVC pipe with 2 end pieces glued, or screwed?

I would keep it outgassing a bit. I worry that long term you would have some dilution of your CO2 atmosphere with gases escaping the water into the reactor. When you constantly outgas this atmosphere, you keep it at a steady condition of lower dilution of the gas. The original setup with the open reactor inside the tank would renew the atmosphere with every water change.
It is what I originally thought as well, but from experience I learned it is not really necessary to have a purging valve. I described the self purging in the thread CO2 Spray Bar and same applies to horizontal reactor. When the gas bubble still contains a mix of air and CO2 the absorption efficiency will be lowered, the gas pocket will grow and the reactor will start to self purge bubbles through the exit. This will clean out the air in the gas pocket, and soon I found that only CO2 remains and the reactor has purged itself. @Unexpected (against my advice, but he got it right) did not design in a purge valve, and he is successful with it.

But had similar concern that 1200 lph filter may be too fast for it.
Depends on the tube diameter, but easiest would be to use a bypass if the pump is too strong for a gentle flow inside the reactor.
Also, does it matter which end of the reactor the CO2 is injected in?
I would prefer as far as possible from the water outflow, just to be sure the bubbles end up in the gas pocket and are not blown straight out of the reactor. This again is less critical if the flow is gentle.

(sticking a diffuser in bleach for a few hours is so much easier, or have two and alternate)
From physics perspective diffusers are suboptimal. Money can be earned with it so probably the tradition will be kept alive for a while, but I expect that small horizontal reactors will be adopted for smaller tanks and replace diffusers.
So what is the problem with diffusers? First, they create mist in the tank. Then bubbles escape to the surface, so no matter how precise your regulator is you will never know how much CO2 actually absorbed into the water and thus have a challenge achieving CO2 stability. Diffusers age, and in between maintenance the bubble patterns gets less fine, so their performance and CO2 stability is not constant. Diffusors also have limited capacity, so can not be used on larger tanks. The horizontal reactor has none of these issues, in fact I have yet to discover any disadvantages.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If someone can make me two 45cm long reactors, I will give it a shot 😉
If you want me to double check the minimum reactor dimensions, apply the design rules, feel free to send me a PM with your tank dimensions.
 
What's the formula for calculating tank surface and the formula for matching the pipe surface area?
 
What's the formula for calculating tank surface and the formula for matching the pipe surface area?
Using the calculations (spreadsheet) as outlined in the first posting in this thread.

I guess it will be helpfull if I calculate a few configurations, ranging from small tanks upto large tanks, as a reference. Will take that up later, when I have further confirmation that my initial estimations (‘design rules’) were correct.
 
I have yet to discover any disadvantages.
I'm trying my best to find some! 😉

What about the system inertia when you turn the lights off? There is a large CO2 reservoir in there to be depleted. If the flow is not from a dedicated pump, you will have it "wasting" CO2 at night until the pocket ends, and then in the morning you have to build the reservoir again.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm trying my best to find some! 😉

What about the system inertia when you turn the lights off? There is a large CO2 reservoir in there to be depleted. If the flow is not from a dedicated pump, you will have it "wasting" CO2 at night until the pocket ends, and then in the morning you have to build the reservoir again.
Isn’t that about getting the timing for CO2 on and off correct?
 
Isn’t that about getting the timing for CO2 on and off correct?
OK, but then you have some added complexity for setting it up and a ramp-up ramp-down behavior for the reactor added to the already present ramp-up ramp-down effect we get from the tank as a whole, all working against the quick response into stability which would usually be desired.

I suppose the ramp-down part is mostly not a problem except for the CO2 waste, but the ramp-up could affect those who want CO2 at 100% at lights on.
 
OK, but then you have some added complexity for setting it up and a ramp-up ramp-down behavior for the reactor added to the already present ramp-up ramp-down effect we get from the tank as a whole, all working against the quick response into stability which would usually be desired.

I suppose the ramp-down part is mostly not a problem except for the CO2 waste, but the ramp-up could affect those who want CO2 at 100% at lights on.
This is no different from any type of reactor or diffuser. There's a time lag to reach 2 to 5ppm CO2 to 30ppm CO2.
 
It is different because a diffuser is working at 100% the moment you turn it on. The ramping time is all due to the time it takes to add CO2 to the whole body of water in the tank. With a reactor that starts at 0% and ramps up to 100% over a longer time, you have the superposition of two ramps. This could make it take a longer time to reach stability and it adds complexity to the setup, while also wasting some CO2.

It's hard to defend a diffuser with these arguments, since it wastes a lot of CO2 and the innate slower diffusion rate even at 100% capacity being lower than the reactor may make the total ramp time even larger. But a standard reactor, with a much smaller CO2 bubble inside, would ramp up faster, probably. And you won't get true stability until the reactor is at 100% capacity, and then the CO2 concentration also reaches stability.

It may be a small disadvantage, dwarfing at the face of the positives, but it is something. I don't like pros and cons tables without any cons.
 
I might be being blind but I cannot see a link to said spreadsheet.
I have not attached a spreadsheet. The dimensions are calculated following the logic as outlined in the first post - basically scaling up (or down) 22802 Tank surface area and volume to any other tank dimension. Can be done with a simple calculator, or with spreadsheet. I am happy to double check calculations for the first users, so that we avoid mistakes and get it first time right. May later build a spreadsheet that we feel is robust enough for all cases and can be used without double checking.

There is a large CO2 reservoir in there to be depleted.
Actually it is not that big, if compared to the total CO2 volume used per day. CO2 dissolves very fast (I estimated that the average lifetime of a bubble in my AquaMedic Reactor was less than 15 seconds), and the gas pocket in the Co2 Spray Bar or Horizontal Reactor will be fully absorbed in typically 15-30 min. And if we would be worried about waste, just turn the solenoid a little earlier off at night.

This is no different from any type of reactor or diffuser. There's a time lag to reach 2 to 5ppm CO2 to 30ppm CO2
Indeed, there is really no reason for concern here. A bubble reactor also has a reservoir of CO2 (the sum of volumes of all bubbles at any given time), but CO2 is gone soon after we start injecting.

And you won't get true stability until the reactor is at 100% capacity, and then the CO2 concentration also reaches stability.
Please refer to my measurement on CO2 Spray Bar, and note that the horizontal reactor follow the same physics. Your argument can be validated if you quantify, or do actual measurements. I used my CO2 Spray Bar for a year, and no problem with ramp up and stability whatsoever. Measurements and various tests are posted in the thread.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That first post doesn't actually lay out the calculations clearly enough for me to follow I'm afraid.

I can see you work out the ratio of surface area, volume, front face (Width * height) and tank width. You suggest the diameter of the reactor scales with the ratio of the front face? But then you suggest it need by scaled by width only.

We have several variables Tank L, Tank W, Tank H, Reactor L and Reactor D. Is your goal to maintain a particular ratio of surface area in the reactor x% of the way up to surface area in the tank?
 
That first post doesn't actually lay out the calculations clearly enough for me to follow I'm afraid.

I can see you work out the ratio of surface area, volume, front face (Width * height) and tank width. You suggest the diameter of the reactor scales with the ratio of the front face? But then you suggest it need by scaled by width only.

We have several variables Tank L, Tank W, Tank H, Reactor L and Reactor D. Is your goal to maintain a particular ratio of surface area in the reactor x% of the way up to surface area in the tank?
It can be a bit confusing, but the key things are (note first and second priority in the below):

Therefore the surface area of a CO2 Spray Bar or Horizontal Reactor scales up with (tank length * width) for steady state during the photo period.
22802 tank with 22802 Spray Bar did 1.5 pH drop during steady state. So if the surface area of your tank is twice 22802's tank, you need a reactor with twice 22802's tank reactor surface area (tube length * tube diameter) for having the same maximum 1.5 pH drop during steady state. This is the first priority.

Things get a bit more complicated if we want to understand how fast the tank can ramp up in the morning, but I would see this as a second priority (we mainly focus on steady state as above)

When we start injecting a fully outgassed tank, obviously the amount of CO2 needed in the process is proportional to the tank volume (length * width * height).
This suggest that if you want to have the same speed of CO2 accumulation during ramp up, you need to take the total volume of your tank into account. However, this assumes the tank is fully outgassed over night, which often is not the case. We have lost some CO2 during the night, and this is actually again proportional to the tank surface area. So the time it takes to compensate for this loss is not proportional to the tank volume, but indeed again to the tank surface area:
Therefore for a morning ramp up with CO2 Spray Bar or Horizontal Reactor, we need to scale the dimensions proportional to the surface area (length*width) of the tank.

So in summary I would as first priority calculate the reactor surface area (length * diameter), so that we achieve the same maximum 1.5 pH drop. Then, have a check if we believe the ramp up time would be acceptable, and as a second priority perhaps make some correction for that (this could be the case for a very large tank).

Happy to double check the calculations for your tank @LightingBamboozled , please send me a PM when you are ready to go.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top