Canreef Aquatics Bulletin Board  

Go Back   Canreef Aquatics Bulletin Board > General > Product Review and Equipment Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-10-2010, 04:49 PM
Willito's Avatar
Willito Willito is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Calgary
Posts: 443
Willito is on a distinguished road
Default

From what I gather so far, it seems that the more fluidize pellets you can create in the reactor, the better the results are. With that in mind, can you actually have too much flow that can somehow adversely be detrimental? If not, then why not super-fluidize the pellets in a larger recirculating reactor and control the throughput by other means.

I am thinking of a recirculating design like a ca reactor with the throughput being determined by the size of the a feed pump and/or valve. Of course it wouldn't be drops per minute but rather gph for the effluent and you would need two pumps in this setup. what's your thought on this?

Last edited by Willito; 02-10-2010 at 04:54 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-10-2010, 05:00 PM
Delphinus's Avatar
Delphinus Delphinus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary
Posts: 12,896
Delphinus has a spectacular aura aboutDelphinus has a spectacular aura aboutDelphinus has a spectacular aura about
Send a message via MSN to Delphinus
Default

I was thinking along the lines of that myself Will, at the very least maybe a circular flow style reactor; since I have had a few incidents of the pellets clumping up on me - it would be nice to find a more trouble-free way to run it (for now I'm just going to go with a larger reactor so that the pellets can move around more freely).

My guess on a recirculation/multipass reactor however is that it would probably be not as good. The mulm production of these pellets is insane and if not actively shed from the reactor, as it is produced, seems to act as a binding agent for the pellets and they eventually stop fluidizing and then you have to manually stir them up to re-energize them and you also end up releasing a LOT of mulm (I think there's such a thing as "too much of a good thing" in this case). Just my guess though.

Plus though, seeing as single pass is enough to emit effluent with 0 nitrates, there may not be that much benefit to going beyond that. My tank bioload is huge and single pass seems enough to make that zero.
__________________
-- Tony
My next hobby will be flooding my basement while repeatedly banging my head against a brick wall and tearing up $100 bills. Whee!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-10-2010, 06:00 PM
Willito's Avatar
Willito Willito is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Calgary
Posts: 443
Willito is on a distinguished road
Default

IMO, something like TLF phosban reactor might be too tight for us to achive the fluidization we want without it binding and clogging. In a larger reactor, you will definately be able to turn up the flow and super charge the pellets in a way that I think it is meant to be. I have a huge recirculating reactor powered by an 500gph pump that I think will keep the pellets nicely suspended to do the job. With this level of flow within the reactor, the pellets shouldn't encounter the binding problem, especially if it's composed of light weight polymers, and the mulm should not be noticable as it sheds. For the throughput I am considering a 200-300gph pump, or might even consider gravity feed.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-10-2010, 06:15 PM
banditpowdercoat's Avatar
banditpowdercoat banditpowdercoat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: 100 mile hse BC
Posts: 2,568
banditpowdercoat is on a distinguished road
Default

Ya, when I get my new skimmer, I'll be retiring my DIY recirc. That might make a nice in sump reactor too?
__________________
Dan Pesonen


Umm, a tank or 5
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-10-2010, 06:24 PM
globaldesigns's Avatar
globaldesigns globaldesigns is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 1,863
globaldesigns is on a distinguished road
Default

I have to agree with Tony. I initially put the pellets in the ZeoRX and saw some mulm and changes, but still could not get the green film on back glass to go away, it would dissapate but still form in a different area.

Since putting them in a deltec fluidizer, and only a week later, wow what a difference. No green algae film forming and everything else falling off the back walls.

They do work, if setup properly
__________________



Setup: 180G DT, 105G Refuge (approx. 300lbs LR, 150lbs Aragonite)
Hardware: Super Reef Octopus SSS-3000, Tunze ATO, Mag 18 return, 2x MP40W, 2X Koralia 4's Wavemaker
Lighting: 5ft Hamilton Belize Sun (2x250W MH, 2X80W T5HO)
Type of Aquarium: mixed reef (SPS & LPS) with fish
Dosing: Mg, Ca, Alk
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-10-2010, 09:03 PM
don.ald's Avatar
don.ald don.ald is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Victoria
Posts: 719
don.ald is on a distinguished road
Default

with these pellets one would not run macroalgae as well, correct?
assuming no nutrients for the algae to grow.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-10-2010, 09:05 PM
Delphinus's Avatar
Delphinus Delphinus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary
Posts: 12,896
Delphinus has a spectacular aura aboutDelphinus has a spectacular aura aboutDelphinus has a spectacular aura about
Send a message via MSN to Delphinus
Default

I have been running a chaeto fuge but have noticed a significant slowdown in its growth since starting. I'm considering stopping running it altogether, just haven't quite pulled the plug on it as yet.
__________________
-- Tony
My next hobby will be flooding my basement while repeatedly banging my head against a brick wall and tearing up $100 bills. Whee!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:14 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.