Need help with Rex Grigg type reactor with a FX5 - The Planted Tank Forum
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 42 (permalink) Old 01-27-2009, 04:48 AM Thread Starter
 
PTrader: (0/0%)
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 90
Need help with Rex Grigg type reactor with a FX5

So I've built many Rex type reactors and not many have been successful for me. I think the Fluval FX5 filter has just too much flow as well as me not designing them to what i needed.

I did how ever make the mistake of going larger in diameter instead of longer which i know know i should be doing.

Can anyone with an FX5 let me know how you built yours or if you have pictures so i don't waste more money building a reactor that just has the CO2 pop out the outlet.

I was thinking 2 or 3" x at least 3ft or so with possible things in it to break up any bubbles.
PUNISHER VETTE is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 42 (permalink) Old 01-27-2009, 02:27 PM
Planted Tank Guru
 
tazcrash69's Avatar
 
PTrader: (22/100%)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Hawthorne, NJ
Posts: 3,207
I don't have an FX5, but why not just plumb in a bypass?
Split the line, put a valve to control flow, then either combine back, or use 2 outputs?

Walter

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
and
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
or my
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
.
Proud former member of:

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


--May the floor under your tank always be dry, and your glass clear!!!
tazcrash69 is offline  
post #3 of 42 (permalink) Old 01-27-2009, 11:11 PM Thread Starter
 
PTrader: (0/0%)
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by tazcrash69 View Post
I don't have an FX5, but why not just plumb in a bypass?
Split the line, put a valve to control flow, then either combine back, or use 2 outputs?
That's not a bad idea and wouldn't be too hard. Slightly more risk of a line popping off but nothing too bad.

I'd have to see if any local stores have a splitter that i would need...in the FX5 size which i believe is 1" or something close to that.

Now if i did make a Rex Grigg reactor does the CO2 enter the bottom or the top? I've always put it at the top but have seen it done differently and didn't know what's right/wrong.

And the longer i make it the better right? I know Rex designs his to about 20" but what if i double that couldn't i get that much more diffusion?
PUNISHER VETTE is offline  
 
post #4 of 42 (permalink) Old 01-28-2009, 01:34 AM
Planted Tank Obsessed
 
PTrader: (24/100%)
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lake Travis Texas
Posts: 418
I run mine on a marine land c220 220gph.
My reactor is 20 inches long and 2" pipe
the co2 enters about a 3rd of the way up. so it is closer to the bottom
Alot of people mount them at an angle to increase diffusion
if you mount it at an angle be sure your output is facing down! the bubbles will have a harder time getting out
wakesk8r is offline  
post #5 of 42 (permalink) Old 01-28-2009, 03:02 AM Thread Starter
 
PTrader: (0/0%)
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by blue-ram View Post
I run mine on a marine land c220 220gph.
My reactor is 20 inches long and 2" pipe
the co2 enters about a 3rd of the way up. so it is closer to the bottom
Alot of people mount them at an angle to increase diffusion
if you mount it at an angle be sure your output is facing down! the bubbles will have a harder time getting out
The output of CO2 or of the reactor?

If it's the CO2 by facing down that means it's on top of the reactor right?

Now in the past i've had a 1/4" barbed end that i screw into the side of the reactor for easy on/off access. Do you think this was a bad?
Here's a picture of one i had built a long time ago....probably don't even have it assembled anymore.

as you can kinda see the barbed end is near the top in this old design. I guess i could have switched ends but...
PUNISHER VETTE is offline  
post #6 of 42 (permalink) Old 01-28-2009, 01:08 PM
Planted Tank Obsessed
 
PTrader: (24/100%)
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lake Travis Texas
Posts: 418
the out put of the water needs to point down.
from your pic the co2 input seems a little high up. A lot of people put it near the top.
I figure the further down the longer the bubbles have to dissolve.
Those brass fittings are a bad idea if yo plan on shrimp.
I think you could probably just flip it over and it should work.
i don't have time to post a pic of mine but i will do it when i get home from work
wakesk8r is offline  
post #7 of 42 (permalink) Old 01-28-2009, 01:13 PM
Planted Tank VIP
 
Gatekeeper's Avatar
 
PTrader: (96/100%)
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 6,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by blue-ram View Post
the out put of the water needs to point down.
from your pic the co2 input seems a little high up. A lot of people put it near the top.
I figure the further down the longer the bubbles have to dissolve.
Those brass fittings are a bad idea if yo plan on shrimp.
I think you could probably just flip it over and it should work.
i don't have time to post a pic of mine but i will do it when i get home from work
Why flip it over? That reactor looks fine to me. Inflow connects to top, outflow to the bottom. If you are getting CO2 leaking out of the bottom and into the outflow, then you need to slow down the amount of CO2 you are adding, add turbulence to the reactor (like bio balls or something), or do something like Walter said above and run a bypass. Nothing wrong with making the diameter bigger too.

These reactors are not rocket science. Don't over do it.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Gatekeeper is offline  
post #8 of 42 (permalink) Old 01-28-2009, 02:14 PM Thread Starter
 
PTrader: (0/0%)
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 90
I think i'll try and make this reactor the same but in a 3" and slightly longer.

I'll also connect the CO2 more near the bottom. i always figured if it was near the top they'd have the longest way to go to dissolve. But that's the opposite by your reasoning and obviously mine hasn't worked so well so far.

I think no matter what i do I'll have to reduce the flow of my filter anyway as it's just too powerful. I think water is just going to be skyrocketing out with bubbles no matter how well i design it.
PUNISHER VETTE is offline  
post #9 of 42 (permalink) Old 01-28-2009, 03:34 PM
Planted Tank VIP
 
Gatekeeper's Avatar
 
PTrader: (96/100%)
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 6,628
? So your going to put it closer to the bottom even though you have already stated that the reactor is not providing sufficient contact time for the CO2 to dissolve???? Now your going to decrease it even more????

Think about the process before you rebuild it. I think the by pass loop hsa been the best advice so far...


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Gatekeeper is offline  
post #10 of 42 (permalink) Old 01-28-2009, 04:08 PM Thread Starter
 
PTrader: (0/0%)
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmccreedy View Post
? So your going to put it closer to the bottom even though you have already stated that the reactor is not providing sufficient contact time for the CO2 to dissolve???? Now your going to decrease it even more????

Think about the process before you rebuild it. I think the by pass loop hsa been the best advice so far...

All the pictures of working ones i've seen here as well as people suggest putting it more near the bottom so the bubbles can float up.
I on the other hand I have never done that as i figured my filter was too powerful and they would just get pushed out faster. So far my way hasn't worked too well so maybe doing it their way will result in a success?

I also think adding bioballs inside will help reduce flow as well as break up the bubbles. They say they don't need it but when i've got this much flow i don't see why not.
PUNISHER VETTE is offline  
post #11 of 42 (permalink) Old 01-28-2009, 04:55 PM
Banned
 
fshfanatic's Avatar
 
PTrader: (24/100%)
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,279
My CO2 goes into the bottom. However, I dont have it plumbed into my FX5. The flow from the FX5 might just push the bubbles right out of the reactor. If you are not getting the amount of co2 into your water, turn it up.

Ehfipimp #273 ( Eheim Classic: 2260, 2217, Eheim Ecco: 2236, 2232 ) Fluval FX5

fshfanatic is offline  
post #12 of 42 (permalink) Old 01-28-2009, 05:01 PM
Banned
 
fshfanatic's Avatar
 
PTrader: (24/100%)
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,279
Heres mine:

Ehfipimp #273 ( Eheim Classic: 2260, 2217, Eheim Ecco: 2236, 2232 ) Fluval FX5

fshfanatic is offline  
post #13 of 42 (permalink) Old 01-28-2009, 07:12 PM Thread Starter
 
PTrader: (0/0%)
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 90
Yeah. I think i'll build it
3" diamater, 24+ inches long, co2 going in near the bottom.

IF my FX5 seems to be too powerful i'll just have to look into splitting the lines. Have 1 slower flowing one route to the reactor and what ever is left bypassing.

Only problem is i don't know if they make a Y splitter with flow valves.

Only thing i can think of would be something for a garden hose but then i'd have to find a way to connect hoses to that.
PUNISHER VETTE is offline  
post #14 of 42 (permalink) Old 01-29-2009, 12:13 AM
Planted Tank Obsessed
 
PTrader: (24/100%)
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lake Travis Texas
Posts: 418
bubbles flow up,
The further to the bottom you put the input the more contact time you have.
as long as the co2 input is not so close to the h20 output that it just blows out.
heres mine
Attachment 11768
if you turn yours upside down the h20 will come in from the top on the side instead of directly from the top. This will create a vortex smashing the co2 into smaller bubbles.

PM me if you need more advice. I have built a few of these.
Mine does NOT send small bubbles into the tank.
100% dissolved 2-3bps

Last edited by wakesk8r; 06-09-2009 at 07:29 PM.
wakesk8r is offline  
post #15 of 42 (permalink) Old 01-29-2009, 12:49 AM Thread Starter
 
PTrader: (0/0%)
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by blue-ram View Post
bubbles flow up,
The further to the bottom you put the input the more contact time you have.
as long as the co2 input is not so close to the h20 output that it just blows out.
heres mine
Attachment 11768
if you turn yours upside down the h20 will come in from the top on the side instead of directly from the top. This will create a vortex smashing the co2 into smaller bubbles.

PM me if you need more advice. I have built a few of these.
Mine does NOT send small bubbles into the tank.
100% dissolved 2-3bps

But if bubbles float up then if i add them near the top wouldn't they still be floating near the top? No matter what i think the flow on my filter is too powerful so no matter where i inject the CO2 it'll get pushed out without diffusing.

I'm still going to try it your way but I have a feeling it can't help any more then reducing my flow.
PUNISHER VETTE 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