Thanks for the input guys, very helpful
This is a question that comes up often as we tend to not want to use things that work but often want to improve them---even when it doesn't work.
Singalong has a pretty good design that is close to the original which was proven to work well enough that it became a common standard for reactors!
But then folks do add things like changing the way the CO2 enters. Rather than trust what works we often see complaints about a bubble of gas. Pulling the tubing in through a hole so that it meets the water flow mid-stream works and doesn't leak.
I find the idea of increasing pressure in the reactor is a bit questionable if it is open at the end? Overthinking/engineering is a common trait when dealing with new stuff. I just go with the item the way they work and the original design works very well.
Thanks. I understand the concept of co2 entering the center of the waster column, and why it is better. I just cant get comfortable with the idea of using the undersized hole method. It may not leak in 100 years....doing it that way just doesnt appeal to me.
I find the idea of increasing pressure in the reactor is a bit questionable if it is open at the end?
How is it questionable? Anything that restricts flow going out will increase the pressure behind it. A 90 degree barb instead of a straight one, a smaller exit hole, a cut off valve that you can partially close, increase the flow going in, etc
Pressure dissolves co2 better than anything. Think soda pops. They arent made by swirling bubbles round and round and round. They are made using pressure.
Ive built a few different versions recently, similar to the 2" I posted above. Some worked fairly well. Some collected a bubble up top that you could begin to hear after a few hours. Some blew mist out the bottom.
Adding a cut off valve to increase the pressure helped every single time. So did bio balls. Whether the bio balls helped by agitating the water/holding micro bubbles, or because having them inside created more resistance which increased the pressure...cannot say for sure, combination of both maybe, but they definitely helped as well.
Here is a youtube vid where the guy fixes the bubble in his cerges by increasing pressure.
The only reason Im not using the 2" pictured above...is not because a bubble built up. There was no bubble. It is because I had to restrict the flow too much with the cut off in order to get 100% dissolution. I want the ability to have more flow coming out.
A couple of things I like about the above design;
1. The incoming water is moving at a fairly high speed when it dumps into the reactor chamber. This will cause a lot of turbulence fight at the top of the reactor which will help breakup the bubble of cO2 should it form.
2. Having the cO2 line positioned this way should help - but remember, the high current of water coming in is going to blast the bubbles everywhere.
3. Burr, if you inject the cO2 in at point 2 (which is basically the way mine is setup), the cO2 will flow right with the water into the top of the reactor. The incoming water will create turbulence and the bubble will float at the top until they are dissolved.
4. With a clear housing like mine and like the one above, you soon realize the bubbles don't really go down more than 6-8". A 20" tall reactor may not be needed.
5. Last thought, on the reactor above, I can also see bubbles getting trapped at the top of the lower T, just before exiting the chamber. This design idea would further limit small bubbles from getting into the tank.
Im going to use "point 2" in the diagram as you suggested, was leaning that way to begin with. May cut the 3" pipe down to 16'" or so. Length is not an issue because I have plenty of vertical space. As far as I know being longer than necessary doesnt hurt anything?