The Planted Tank Forum banner
1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
133 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
171 Posts
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!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,011 Posts
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.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,128 Posts
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:
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
791 Posts
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).
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,011 Posts
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.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,128 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
791 Posts
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.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,011 Posts
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.
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top