PDA

View Full Version : Neat observation about my new system and reactor


Canadian Man
09-16-2003, 06:12 AM
Just a tidbit for you all to ponder.

So on my old 90g with 75g sump aprox 140g total watervolume I ran my very large reactor. The setting's were aprox 45ml/min of water output and about 80 bpm of Co2. These setting's kept up with the demands of the tank and I did not add anything as far as additives go to the tank.

The new system (as most of you know) is a 230g tank, 100g sump and 75g refugium. Now when I swapped over the corals and equip and such I just plugged the reactor in and used the same settting's it was set to as the coral load has not increased just water volume. When I tested my alk and Calcium they dropped substantially over a few day's. the alk was dropping 1.0meq/l a day with the old reactor setting's :eek:

I am still adjusting the reactor but I now have it set to about 75ml/min of output water and about 160 bpm of co2.

I think it's very intresting results considering that the coral load has remained the same. My coraline is actually growing now that I am using a diffrent lighting setup than just Iwasaki's. In the other tank I just had coraline on the bottom of rock's so it was not outstanding like it seem's to be in the new tank.

Anyway, my reactor uses a 26" tall by 6" reactor tube and easily hold's 2 container's of ARM, so 16 lbs of media. In the past 3.5 month's it's dissolved aprox 5 inches of media in the chamber.

Cheers

smokinreefer
09-16-2003, 06:18 AM
In the other tank I just had coraline on the bottom of rock's so it was not outstanding like it seem's to be in the new tank.


coralline can consume alot of Ca/Alk. perhaps that is where it is going.

Canadian Man
09-16-2003, 06:25 AM
That's kinda what I am figuring. It's only been two week's or so and I can allready see coraline growth on my DIY rock.

Aquattro
09-16-2003, 07:39 AM
Jon, if you used any new sand, some Ca will adsorb to the grains.

Canadian Man
09-16-2003, 03:35 PM
Jon, if you used any new sand, some Ca will adsorb to the grains.

Really! I never new that. The whole sandbed in the 230 is new.
How come this happens?

Delphinus
09-16-2003, 03:42 PM
Coraline and sand notwithstanding (which I assume is a big part of course) I would still have expected you to need to dial up your reactor, without an increased coral load, because the ratio of reactor turnover to tank volume has decreased significantly. This may be a bit of an oversimplification, but think of it this way: If it takes a given density of calcium and carbonate ions in the water column, simply increasing the volume equates into "needing more ions" to maintain the same density. No?

Canadian Man
09-16-2003, 03:46 PM
Yea that makes sense as well Tony.

Hmm it's all comming together now

Delphinus
09-16-2003, 03:56 PM
What surprises me is how much water turnover both you & I need (well, how much you "needed" and how much I "still need" because only one of us upgraded their tanks.. :redface: ) in the first place. I thought a larger reactor would need less water turnover and less CO2. I wonder if there's an optimal balance of "amount of media" to "amount of tank/coral load" and if it's too much one way or the other then you end up with settings that don't seem to match other designs?? On that note I actually have a question about reactors and media but I'm going to put that in another thread so as not to hijack this one.. :biggrin:

Doug
09-17-2003, 01:04 PM
Thats an extremely high co2 bubble rate. I,m slowly cranking my large reactor up. So far up to about 60bbm and an effluent rate of almost a steady stream, as compared to a distinct drip. {maybe I will measure the amount}.

All evaporated water is kalk replaced. Most of my sps are smaller, growing frags, but my walls and rock are heavily coralline encrusted. My reactor keeps my alk at around 13dkh, but still bringing the calcium up. Currently around 360ppm.

Canadian Man
09-17-2003, 02:06 PM
What bubble counter are you using Doug?

It's amusing to see the discrepancy's between some peoples reactor's and the bubble counter they are using. For example in DJ's case with his new reactor design. He is touting 8 bubbles per minute but that's on his DIY bubble counter which has a much larger output size than say SWC's bubble counter (which is the one I am using).

I do agree though, I am using a very high bpm rate. My outflow looks like a steady stream as well.

If you have time measure your's and see what you get.

Thanks

Doug
09-17-2003, 05:29 PM
Mine is also one of Jaysons. Its the combo guages, counter and solonoid. I believe its made by Blueline.

I moved it a couple days ago, back down to the sump. I will take some new measures soon. Before it was running at a fast drip, but not yet a stream, {hmmm, sounds like a song, :lol: }, 60bbm, effluent alk @30dkh, effluent ph @6.7

I have been slowing the effluent rate slightly, to try decrease the alk output and increse the calcium output, until it catches up.

Doug
09-17-2003, 11:32 PM
Just measured,

effluent=55 ml/min
co2=65bbm
effluent ph=6.75

As for alk. & calcium output, still have to measure.

Canadian Man
09-17-2003, 11:48 PM
Doug,
That's about on par with my old reactor setting's. About the same bpm/co2 pm and similar ph.

You were talking about changing the output alk and calcium level with diffrent reactor setting's? Can you explaine furthur?

I am asking because I found that most of the time my calcium would stay the same but alk would drop slowly.

Thanks

Doug
09-18-2003, 01:59 PM
Jon,
I found that a good effluent flow rate, with say a specific co2 rate, produces an effluent with an alk of around 30dkh and a calcium of mid to low 400ppm. Thats means it can just maintain normal levels, which is what most of us have noticed.

However, in a thread many moons ago, Stephane mentioned that he noticed by keeping the same bbm and reducing the effluent rate slightly, the calcium output increased and the alk decreased.

Thats what I am trying to achieve. Now if I would just quit moving my reactor, I could find out. :lol:

Delphinus
09-18-2003, 03:29 PM
Could it have something to do with the alk/Ca see-saw relationship? Let me think this through ... By reducing the effluent but maintaining the CO2 we drop the pH in the reactor (presumably). This means more dissolving of media, meaning more concentrated product/effluent, but since the rate is slower there is less overall product (calcium and carbonate ions) being introduced into the tank. So presumably you already have reasonable levels in the tank, but the effect in the tank is that calcium gets depleted so long as there is enough alk to provide for that. Both Ca and Alk drop a little, but as soon as the Ca starts to go down that tends to push the Alk up higher. Does any of this sound right to you ... (pop! Ow I think I just busted a vein in my brain :eek: ) :question:

Doug
09-18-2003, 03:39 PM
Tony, should you not be working instead. :lol:

I think you are on the right track. I think the lesser effluent @ the same bbm, produces less overall as you mentioned, but a higher level of calcium.

I need to measure to prove this though. :mrgreen:

Jack
09-19-2003, 12:22 AM
What if the pH of the reactor goes too low?

I was at 380 and 14dkh so I increased the effluent. Now I'm at 350 and 12 dkh.

Will test later tonight and post back quick. Maybe I should be reducing the effluent?

Jack
09-19-2003, 03:35 AM
Just tested all my parameters.

Reactor:

90 bpm
95 ml/min. effluent
7.0 pH

Tank:

Alk 11 dkh
Ca 460 ppm
8.2 pH


So did increasing my effluent raise my calcium and lower my dkh? Wtf.

Edit: Testing's from the previous post were 1 week apart and a 7 gal water change 3 days ago.

Doug
09-19-2003, 01:10 PM
Jack, those tank readings are pretty good. Hard to argue with your results. Did you increase the bbm at the same time as the effluent? What kind of reactor is that?
Man you guys crank some kind co2 rate. :confused:

I just measured everything again. Something must be working as the calcium is now up to almost 400ppm and the alk is holding at 13dkh.

stephane
09-19-2003, 09:38 PM
new aragonite sand will always pricipitate a lot of calcium for severale month