Co2 reactor
1 - 14 of 14 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.
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.
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.
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.
+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).
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.
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.
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
Join the discussion
