So it's 2010 now. Who still uses a calcium reactor and who's all on 2-part dosing?

[andestang]

I spent some dough on a good reactor years back. Had some issues for first little while such as water supply to reactor, clogged lines and such but after addressing everything its been relatively hassle free. I like the appeal of the new dosers as I have a good controller to run one and they look neat but can't see spending money in this area of the tank right now when I have something that works OK. As for the saved real-estate I can't see it being much better for a doser as you still need to have you containers for dosing and all the containers for mixing and such laying around. But maybe one day in the future.

[Dez]

Never had dosers, I've always been happy with a calcium reactor. I used to hate manually adjusting the bubble count/effluent rate, but now that I have a controller, the ph in my calcium reactor is always between 6.6 - 6.7 with the controller controlling the amount of C02 going in. The best thing that I have done is "T" off of my return line to feed the reactor. I used to gravity siphon feed but it wasn't as consistent. Now it is truly a set and forget item. I couldn't imagine the regular labour of 2 part dosing. I am so lazy that I cringe at changing my carbon once a month even though it only takes 10 minutes. I cringe at changing my zeo rocks once every 2 months....

So I guess my vote is Calcium reactor all the way!

[kien]

This has been an interesting thread. For being such a labour intensive/cringe inducing/pain in the arse method, most people seem to prefer it.

I can't say that I prefer it over Calcium Reactors since I have never used a calcium reactor so have nothing to compare it to. I am lazy and even I don't really mind the chore though. There is nothing that I have to do on a daily basis. The frequency for me with dosing seems to be weekly top ups which I can live with.

Again, different strokes for different folks right? Lots of people are fine with shaking zeo rocks and dropping additives every day (or so), while others may think that is way too much work. I find it fascinating where people draw the line in the sand bed when determining what commitment they are welling to invest.

[fkshiu]

I've used both methods. Currently I've got a GEO reactor and it has been set and forget. Change the media and add CO2 every 7 or 8 months. The only issue has been a faulty needle valve which was replaced.

I got tired of manually dosing 3-part. I could've gone with a auto-doser but a reactor seemed more mad scientist-like. I remember reading a RHF article comparing various methods and their cost. I think that somewhere around the 125 gallon mark a calcium reactor becomes more economical in the long run than dosing.

Like was said: two ways to the same result - there's more than one way to skin a cat.

[Tracey2]

Mitch, thank you for taking the time to explain. I still have many questions but will try to do a little more research first.

Ok, maybe 1 question, I have a co2 tank on my planted tank and have a hard time keeping the co2 consistant, I have a bubble counter and I have to play with it every few days. Is there a regulator that works better or do you use a regulator at all?

[MitchM]

You're welcome

I have a freshwater setup as well, and I use a Red Sea (I think) regulator on that, but I find the bubble control pretty consistant with it.

Mitch

[Aqua-Digital]

FM balling with trace elements with GHL doser, install and forget

[lastlight]

Originally Posted by fkshiu

I remember reading a RHF article comparing various methods and their cost. I think that somewhere around the 125 gallon mark a calcium reactor becomes more economical in the long run than dosing.

I think this is what you were thinking of. Great read.

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/sh...1&postcount=27

Although if I ever have a large tank again I will still dose.