Co2 reactor - The Planted Tank Forum
 4Likes
  • 2 Post By japbart
  • 2 Post By IUnknown
  • 4 Post By nilocg
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 14 (permalink) Old 04-25-2016, 03:53 AM Thread Starter
Algae Grower
 
japbart's Avatar
 
PTrader: (0/0%)
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 128
Co2 reactor

So I saw this online and decide to replicate it. It's 3/4" and 1.5" pvc. It will be powered by a 750 gph pump and will be going into a 90g 6'x2'x1' tank with a 55 gallon sump. Any thoughts?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
MCSLABS and MCSLABS like this.
japbart is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 14 (permalink) Old 04-28-2016, 04:17 AM
Planted Tank Enthusiast
 
PTrader: (2/100%)
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: San Juan Capistrano, CA
Posts: 833
Send a message via AIM to IUnknown
hows it work, whats the benefit?
MCSLABS and MCSLABS like this.
IUnknown is offline  
post #3 of 14 (permalink) Old 05-03-2016, 01:17 PM
Planted Member
 
MaroMan's Avatar
 
PTrader: (8/100%)
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Alburtis, PA
Posts: 161
The benefit is very small bubbles and a large chamber for mixing, the co2 input should be closer to the input side than the output, allows for better contact time. Done correctly you can achieve 100% co2 evaporation. Good luck!
MaroMan is offline  
 
post #4 of 14 (permalink) Old 05-03-2016, 07:55 PM
Planted Tank Enthusiast
 
PTrader: (2/100%)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Morgan Hill, CA
Posts: 791
What is the bypass with the valve for? It's seems this is just a Griggs style reactor with a bypass, whose purpose I cannot determine.
cjp999 is offline  
post #5 of 14 (permalink) Old 05-03-2016, 08:10 PM
Planted Tank Guru
 
PTrader: (538/100%)
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,008
Im assuming you saw that on my site?? I think it looks good, only thing I may say is that I would have gone with larger pipe, but it looks pretty tall so it might still be ok.

Bump: The purpose of the bypass valve is to reduce the amount of water going through the reactor chamber. This reduced flow gives the co2 more time to dissolve before it gets pushed out into the tank.
nilocg is offline  
post #6 of 14 (permalink) Old 05-03-2016, 11:07 PM
Wannabe Guru
 
latchdan's Avatar
 
PTrader: (17/100%)
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Paso Robles, Ca
Posts: 1,287
How do you keep the bypass flow from blowing the co2 out the other side? Check valve?
latchdan is offline  
post #7 of 14 (permalink) Old 05-03-2016, 11:37 PM
Planted Tank Guru
 
PTrader: (538/100%)
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,008
Quote:
Originally Posted by latchdan View Post
How do you keep the bypass flow from blowing the co2 out the other side? Check valve?
Im not sure what you mean? its really just a diverter. If you have it completely open most of the flow will go straight through without going into the reactor. As you close it more and more will go through the reactor.
nilocg is offline  
post #8 of 14 (permalink) Old 05-03-2016, 11:56 PM
Wannabe Guru
 
PTrader: (6/100%)
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: United States
Posts: 1,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by latchdan View Post
How do you keep the bypass flow from blowing the co2 out the other side? Check valve?
It's pressurized flow, it's going to take the path of least resistance which will not be in a reverse direction against the pump.

Bump:
Quote:
Originally Posted by nilocg View Post
Im assuming you saw that on my site?? I think it looks good, only thing I may say is that I would have gone with larger pipe, but it looks pretty tall so it might still be ok.

Bump: The purpose of the bypass valve is to reduce the amount of water going through the reactor chamber. This reduced flow gives the co2 more time to dissolve before it gets pushed out into the tank.
It certainly gives you some adjust-ability. A 2" main pipe would give more area than the 1 1/2 and the 3/4 together. You would have the same amount of water going through the reactor as is going through the reactor and bypass now. Since there is more volume to the 2" you would have more water in the reactor and it would be moving the same speed or slower than when the bypass is wide open. I'm not understanding the advantage.
Kubla is offline  
post #9 of 14 (permalink) Old 05-04-2016, 12:59 AM
Planted Tank Enthusiast
 
PTrader: (2/100%)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Morgan Hill, CA
Posts: 791
Quote:
It certainly gives you some adjust-ability. A 2" main pipe would give more area than the 1 1/2 and the 3/4 together. You would have the same amount of water going through the reactor as is going through the reactor and bypass now. Since there is more volume to the 2" you would have more water in the reactor and it would be moving the same speed or slower than when the bypass is wide open. I'm not understanding the advantage.
+1. A bigger pipe (diameter or length) would negate the need for a bypass and also speed up diffusion (more flow over the CO2 bubbles). The current setup puts an unnecessary limit on how much CO2 you can pump in and not end up with too much CO2 accumulating in the reactor (resulting in it getting pushed out).
cjp999 is offline  
post #10 of 14 (permalink) Old 05-04-2016, 01:30 PM
Planted Member
 
MCSLABS's Avatar
 
PTrader: (0/0%)
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 286
The pump you are using, what is the PSI rating.

Learning what I can..
MCSLABS is offline  
post #11 of 14 (permalink) Old 05-04-2016, 10:10 PM
Planted Tank Guru
 
PTrader: (538/100%)
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kubla View Post
It's pressurized flow, it's going to take the path of least resistance which will not be in a reverse direction against the pump.

Bump:

It certainly gives you some adjust-ability. A 2" main pipe would give more area than the 1 1/2 and the 3/4 together. You would have the same amount of water going through the reactor as is going through the reactor and bypass now. Since there is more volume to the 2" you would have more water in the reactor and it would be moving the same speed or slower than when the bypass is wide open. I'm not understanding the advantage.

It allows you to reduce the amount of flow going through the reactor itself which slows down the flow in the reactor chamber allowing for better dissolution of the co2. The one that I make has a 2" reactor and a 1" by pass. When comparing it to a regular 2" rex grigg the version with the bypass has been much more efficient at much higher flows and amounts of co2.
nilocg is offline  
post #12 of 14 (permalink) Old 05-05-2016, 02:00 PM
Wannabe Guru
 
PTrader: (6/100%)
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: United States
Posts: 1,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by nilocg View Post
It allows you to reduce the amount of flow going through the reactor itself which slows down the flow in the reactor chamber allowing for better dissolution of the co2. The one that I make has a 2" reactor and a 1" by pass. When comparing it to a regular 2" rex grigg the version with the bypass has been much more efficient at much higher flows and amounts of co2.
Ok, that certainly makes sense with a 2" reactor with a 1" bypass. Plus, it's a pretty big jump to go to 3". But doing that with an 1 1/2" and 3/4" just gives you a bunch of extra fittings and complication. A plain 2" reactor the same length will be more efficient at dissolving CO2.
Kubla is offline  
post #13 of 14 (permalink) Old 05-05-2016, 02:54 PM
Planted Tank Enthusiast
 
PTrader: (2/100%)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Morgan Hill, CA
Posts: 791
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kubla View Post
Ok, that certainly makes sense with a 2" reactor with a 1" bypass. Plus, it's a pretty big jump to go to 3". But doing that with an 1 1/2" and 3/4" just gives you a bunch of extra fittings and complication. A plain 2" reactor the same length will be more efficient at dissolving CO2.
I think going from a 2" to a 3" is less of a step than adding a 1" with a valve to a 2" setup. The later takes up more space and probably cost more too. Just go with the 3", although I'd probably go with 2" at the top and 3" at the bottom. The 2" section will give you good turbulence for good diffusion. The 3" section at the bottom prevents any bubble from escaping.
cjp999 is offline  
post #14 of 14 (permalink) Old 05-05-2016, 05:17 PM
Planted Tank Guru
 
PTrader: (538/100%)
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kubla View Post
Ok, that certainly makes sense with a 2" reactor with a 1" bypass. Plus, it's a pretty big jump to go to 3". But doing that with an 1 1/2" and 3/4" just gives you a bunch of extra fittings and complication. A plain 2" reactor the same length will be more efficient at dissolving CO2.

From my testing the 2" chamber with 1" bypass was able to handle significantly more flow and co2 without have bubbles burped out into the tank versus a straight 2" reactor. I havent tested 3" reactors yet, but plan to do so.
nilocg is offline  
Reply

Tags
None

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the The Planted Tank Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may 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
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome