constant drip rate with Ca reactor?

[ickmagnet]

I've been gravity feeding my Ca reactor and I find that I have to adjust the drip rate every two or three days. Is there a better method? I hear that some people use pumps. Any suggestions and how much would a workable pump cost?

[eli@fijireefrock.com]

You could feed it through your main pump.
it will pressurize the reactor and the valve will be adjusted accordingly.
mine been running that way for a year.

[Delphinus]

I settled on using a small powerhead to feed the reactor from the sump and then a dripline valve on the exit side of the reactor to adjust the effluent rate. Wasn't perfect: it would tend to vary a tiny bit, some days a little higher, some days a little lower. The overall average flowrate was the basic key. If I ever did a calcium reactor again (but I wouldn't, but if I did) I would use a peristaltic pump or a metering pump set at the desired flowrate.

[mark]

started off just by tapping off my main pump to feed mine.

http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h316/das75/feed.jpg

[ickmagnet]

Nice pic. So I guess I would just drill a little hole in the PVC on the return pipe.

[mark]

drill, tap and a little teflon tape...

[reefermadness]

. Is there a better method?

yes...dosing pumps and 2 part.

seriously though I got tired or adjusting my old ca reactor and went 2 part. I feel its much more controlled and calculated system.

[whatcaneyedo]

Mine's fed from my return line the same way Mark is describing. I've got it dialed in so that now I only adjust it about once a month and service the reactor once every three months. I've done the required reading for 2 part but to me it still sounds like a lot more work compared to a Ca reactor if you can figure it out.

[Willito]

CA reactors are PITA to get working properly. I've tried every possible way without good results until I implemented a peristaltic pump. The feed to the reactor was gravity fed and the output was attached to a peristaltic pump. I formulated the amount of drops the tank required and got a non adjustable pump to match that (think it was 50ml/minute). Of course a variable speed pump (adjustable) would have been better, but thought it was too pricey at the time. With a CA reator you do need to run a ph controller to properly adjust the ph, otherwise it's a guessing game and the results become sporatic. After getting a consistant result for a year, the pump started getting noisy, too much ware on the motor 24/7. This is when I switched to 3 part dosing with a high end dosing pump. This setup was highly controllable, accurate, easy to use, and a nice piece of mind. Next to the RO/DI filters, this is the best investment for any reef requiring contant dosing. Scrap the CA reactor and join the new era of reefing, you'll see what I mean.

[Dez]

I've been running my calcium reactor for the past 1 1/2 years with little trouble. I have a full blown sps tank and I just let the controller control the ph in the reactor. I run the effluent at almost a full stream. The feed is a T of of my return pump. I've had no trouble and it's pretty maintenance free. About once every 4 months or so I fill it with new media. My reactor is a screw top so it's quite easy to do. I haven't tested any of my parameters in over 6 months, but my corals are definitely happy and growing. Once you get a calcium reactor dialed in, it's really no pain. I've filled my C02 twice now in a year and a half. I have a 10lb bottle. Hope this helps.

[Delphinus]

I'm on the 2-part dosing bandwagon again myself but I think the key to Dez's ease of use is the controller. That's the other thing I would use if I ever were go to a calcium reactor again (although I wouldn't :p , but if I did, I'd want a pH controller)

One cautionary note about T'ing off the sump return like what has been described above: the flowrate should be controlled at the inlet side of the reactor (ie., like how Mark has shown, the valve must be between the sump return pipe and the reactor ... not on the output side of the reactor). The reason for this is that sump return pumps might be capable of producing enough pressure inside the reactor that the acrylic seams and the flange are under more stress. I actually blew up a reactor doing this (weak seam I guess, I don't think that's typical, but certainly the other issue I had was that the darn flange always had a little bit of wetness). It drove me crazy. That's why I switched to a powerhead feed - the flow control on the output side gave me a more steady effluent rate and a powerhead isn't capable of pressuring the vessel enough to cause any problems like that.

[imcosmokramer]

I have both. a valve limiting the pressure from the return, and one limiting the outlet. I'm sure it's overkill, but hey, isn't that what we're in this hobby for? ;)
________

[RuGlu6]

I've done the required reading for 2 part but to me it still sounds like a lot more work compared to a Ca reactor if you can figure it out.
+1
same here, reactor is way cheaper, simpler (once you figure it out, they all are the same principle), less testing and corals love it!
If dosing screwed its more trouble in very short time. If calc reactor screwed you have a lot longer to fix the problem.

Sure dosing is a nice toy, just like LED lighting (compare to MH) but it cost so much more initially as well as in the long run to replace all vulnerable parts i am staying away from it.

I go for what is simpler, has less vulnerable/breakable parts, easy to control/fix, does not require large investment and the only moving part is the circ pump. Can't make it more simple. :smile:

[RuGlu6]

One cautionary note about T'ing off the sump return like what has been described above: the flowrate should be controlled at the inlet side of the reactor (ie., like how Mark has shown, the valve must be between the sump return pipe and the reactor ... not on the output side of the reactor). The reason for this is that sump return pumps might be capable of producing enough pressure inside the reactor that the acrylic seams and the flange are under more stress. I actually blew up a reactor doing this (weak seam I guess, I don't think that's typical, but certainly the other issue I had was that the darn flange always had a little bit of wetness). It drove me crazy. That's why I switched to a powerhead feed - the flow control on the output side gave me a more steady effluent rate and a powerhead isn't capable of pressuring the vessel enough to cause any problems like that.

This is also a very good point.