I know some run a T off of their return line and some people use a small powerhead. The easiest way for me, I think would be using a powerhead in the sump. What I want to know is how you connected your reactor to your tank and why you chose the method you use? If you used a powerhead what size did you use? I can't wait to get this reactor set up and running.

------------------
Jeff

http://www.homestead.com/jeffsreef/index1.html

[This message has been edited by Personifer (edited 03-21-2001).]

I ran a tee off of my 3/4" main pump line, which is connected to a 1/2" ball valve, which is connected to a 1/4" needle valve. You really need the needle valve to fine tune the flow into the reactor.

Marty

I would also recommend using a tee off of the main pump. Most powerhead are not pressure rated and would lose a lot of push going through the reactor. The extra push helps remove any bubbles that may form in the reactor. Also, one less pump to worry about.

I'm buying the kit from PA for the geo reactor. It includes a needle valve.Is this needle valve used for the water flow in to the reactor or is it needed elsewhere on the reactor? I'd like to get everything I need in one order.

------------------
Jeff

http://www.homestead.com/jeffsreef/index1.html

[This message has been edited by Personifer (edited 03-22-2001).]

The needle valve you need is one that controls water flow from your sump/pump to the reactor itself. The needle valve on your CO2 equipment is used to control your bubble count. HTH

------------------
My Reef
Calcium Reactors
myreef@aol.com

Ok, let me make sure I understand this. I will need another needle valve to control the water flow. So what I need to order is the geo package, media, and another needle valve. I already have an extra ball valve lying around.

------------------
Jeff

http://www.homestead.com/jeffsreef/index1.html

geo package from PA and a powerhead like maxijet1200 is all you need. geo reactor has the rest. the IV needle to drip effluent.

Question? Why would you need a needle valve to control the flow into the reactor? I thought you would only need to control the effluent out of the reactor.

My reactor does not have a needle valve to control the flow into the reactor and has been working fine for over a year.
(calcium level = 440, 40 bb/min and effluent = 30ml/min)

Some reactors are built with a control valve at the input, others with a vale at the top in front of the out put line and some with a control valve at the end of the out put line. I have tried it all three ways and like it better at the end of the out put line.
Jeff, I supply all the hoses,fitting and a valve.

Nartman--I like a needle valve at the front only because I have seen the effluent build up and clog a needle valve at the output. Think of the effluent as excess water in the reactor...what rate the water leaves the reactor is the same as it coming into the reactor. Both ways work..its just semantics.

------------------
My Reef
Calcium Reactors
myreef@aol.com

[This message has been edited by myreef (edited 03-23-2001).]

Myreef,

We've had some disagreements in the past, but I'm honestly asking you a question about your setup. I hope you view it as such. I am interested in how you are able to accurately control effluent output using only a needle valve from the input(sump pump). If I understand you correctly, you are placing this between the feeder pump, and the recirculating pump. I know on my reactor set up, if I open the ball valve at the end of the output hose, water rushes out at a rate greater than what my feeder pump is capable of supplying. I eventually have a cavatating recirc pump. Obviously this is due to the fact that the recirc pump creates a pressure within the reactor itself, if full, independent of pressure being supplied by the feeder pump. Many people do not use a feeder pump at all, and allow syphoning to get water from their sump to the reactor. My set up would not allow this.

Using your theory, that positive pressure into the reactor = amount of water out of the reactor, I don't see how this could work. Secondly, it would seem you are capable of greater effluent rate control, with a valve at the output rather than the input. And you would be able to keep the effluent under pressure being while being recirculated(which in my opinion aids is dissolution of the media), whereas in your model, any increase pressure would result in effluent being expelled.

I do agree and have had a valve at effluent output clog. I remedied this by simply placing the valve under the waterlevel in the sump. This constant immersion in water has kept this valve from clogging again for over 10 mos.

I do not remember seeing any other commerically avail model utilizing your method, which of course means nothing. And perhaps there is. If so, could you point me in that direction?

Again...this is not a flame. And obviously your menthod must work, and I'm sure you've been using it successfully for a while. I'd appreciate a few more details about how you are achieving this result, if you don't mind. Thanks! [img]/ubb/smile.gif[/img]

Technobuyer....

I was skeptical at first also, until I tested the theory. I got the idea from an article I read last year from Sanjay Joshi. In this article Sanjay used the needle valve at both points, but then when it started to clog he moved it to the input side. Also in the article it describes using a smaller diameter output line-vs-input. Thus making the CO2 difficult to escape from the reactor. It worked as advertised. I did not want to have clogged needle valves and I like being able to see my effluent drip rate into the tank...versus having the needle valve under water. I feel this gives me better control over the effluent. If you have anymore questions...feel free to email me or leave a post here.

PS...I have not seen any commercial reactors built this way. Several have a valve at both ends, but I feel it is unecessary. Lifereef and Precision Marine both use a valve at input and output.

------------------
My Reef
Calcium Reactors
myreef@aol.com



[This message has been edited by myreef (edited 03-24-2001).]