I am interested in getting a carbon and a GFO reactor for my 120. I have looked at the type that looks like 2 RO/DI cartrige holders on an L-bracket. This would work well in my tank as it would mount to the side of the stand. Does anyone have experience with this type of reactor?
Reactor Types
- Thread starter DRN
- Start date
Help Support Reef Aquarium & Tank Building Forum:
The Two Little Fishes Phosban Reactors work very well and you can run multiple units, in series. They work on an "upflow" principle, which helps to keep the media "suspended," and from getting compacted, creating dead spots that don't receive flow. They're also inexpensive and their quality has been proven, through the years.
http://www.twolittlefishies.com/tlf_prod_access.html?lang_id=1
http://www.twolittlefishies.com/tlf_prod_access.html?lang_id=1
mcoomer
Who's your daddy?!?
I run the BRS reactors in my tank. I've got one full of GFO and the carbon in the other. Connect a Maxi Jet 1200 and you're good to go. I went with 2 of their deluxe canisters so that I could control the flow for each.
Mike
Mike
Krish
RF STAFF
I agree with the Two Little Fishies phosban reactor. I had one on my old setup and was straight forward, inexpensive, compact and very convenient. All you'd need is a little maxijet to run it. 
Krish
RF STAFF
I like to run them seperate on 2 different pumps. The phosban media requires very little flow as you don't want the media tumbling so even with a maxijet 400, you have to throttle back the flow to where there is very little surface aggitation of the media. Carbon, on the otherhand, I like a lot of flow so if it were me, I'd run 2 seperate pumps. Nonetheless people do it differently and it's just my preference.
Last edited:
I PMd Boomer, asking him to chime in, here. Hopefully, we'll hear from him and get his expert opinion.
Krish
RF STAFF
Sounds good cause I'd like to know myself. I always thought carbon required good flow (ie fast) and phosban, well we all know that it needs really slow flow (like the Julian Sprungs formula) so I couldn't see how you would be able to run one pump to power 2 reactors at different speeds. Hopefully he'll chime in
Last edited:
Krish
RF STAFF
so I couldn't see how you would be able to run one pump to power 2 reactors at different speeds. Hopefully he'll chime in
Unless you put a "Y" on the pumps output and ran to ball valves. Duhhhh. Inline different story
I think some of the reactors have their own flow control, built into them.
Krish
RF STAFF
Nice! I was pretty much just thinkg about the TLF phosban reactors running inline. A member posted a picture here rectenly. Let me find it.
Krish
RF STAFF
Look at post # 23 second picture in link below I would think running carbon and phosban in that arrangement wouldn't work so well off of one pump unless carbon works well with slow flow which I'm waiting to get confirmation on from Boomer. If it can use slow flow then that's really cool!
http://www.reeffrontiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57591&page=2
I would think running carbon and phosban in that arrangement wouldn't work so well off of one pump unless carbon works well with slow flow which I'm waiting to get confirmation on from Boomer. If it can use slow flow then that's really cool! http://www.reeffrontiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57591&page=2
Boomer
Well-known member
f you run charcoal and phosban or GFO in series does it matter which one is first?
Yes, it matters and BRS has it ass backwards. Their reasoning is to keep any GFO fines from the tank. I would be more worried about GAC fines entering the tank based on new test on HLLE. For me, it is just stupid to run un-filtered water through GFO last. Your are plugging the pores and reducing the adsorption, efficiency, and life expedience oft he GFO. You want your water pre-filtered before the GFO not after it.
If we are talking GAC reactors, like a phosban reactor, then it is about the same. The GAC should barely be moving NOT fluidized. If you fluidized the GAC you will end-up grinding up the GAC from tumble abrasion more so than GFO usually. GAC in other filter is another issue due to varying BTLP (Break Through Flow Point), which is a fucnion of the design, i.e, Box, Canister, Cartridge etc.
With any GFO reactor you should add some "spacer" media. GAC works fine or tiny plastic balls, small sand like Aragonite oolites ( Quartz better) or soemthing else. The "spacers" stop the GFO from turning into a big mass.
Edit:
Post 23 is fine. But me, if I have a choice, two separate reactors and two separate pumps. I would rather see post 23 that way if he had a bypass lines, so you do not have to take the whole unit off-line to change out one media. GAC usually does not last as long as GFO and some GAC's are more efficient that others by a long shot.
Yes, it matters and BRS has it ass backwards. Their reasoning is to keep any GFO fines from the tank. I would be more worried about GAC fines entering the tank based on new test on HLLE. For me, it is just stupid to run un-filtered water through GFO last. Your are plugging the pores and reducing the adsorption, efficiency, and life expedience oft he GFO. You want your water pre-filtered before the GFO not after it.
If we are talking GAC reactors, like a phosban reactor, then it is about the same. The GAC should barely be moving NOT fluidized. If you fluidized the GAC you will end-up grinding up the GAC from tumble abrasion more so than GFO usually. GAC in other filter is another issue due to varying BTLP (Break Through Flow Point), which is a fucnion of the design, i.e, Box, Canister, Cartridge etc.
With any GFO reactor you should add some "spacer" media. GAC works fine or tiny plastic balls, small sand like Aragonite oolites ( Quartz better) or soemthing else. The "spacers" stop the GFO from turning into a big mass.
Edit:
Post 23 is fine. But me, if I have a choice, two separate reactors and two separate pumps. I would rather see post 23 that way if he had a bypass lines, so you do not have to take the whole unit off-line to change out one media. GAC usually does not last as long as GFO and some GAC's are more efficient that others by a long shot.
Last edited:
Krish
RF STAFF
Thanks Boomer! So in otherwards, a bag of GAC hanging in the input section of a sump where say 700 gph of flow is passing over it is fine once the GAC is not knocking around in the bag. In addition, slow flow is fine as well just your main concern is that there is no tumbling action going on with the carbon? Do I have that right?? If so, is one better than the other (ie slow flow vs. fast flow where carbon is concerned) or it doesn't really matter?
Boomer
Well-known member
Krish, see edit
I do not like bags in sumps, they are not very efficient but prefer a reactor or canister filter.
Slow flow in a reactor yes, a canister can have much higher flow. BTLP (Break Through Flow Point) is the real key here or to take "your" unit, adjust its flow rate, doing a number of Methylene Blue dye tests.
When tumbled many of the GAC turn , so to speak, to dust. Something you do not see in a canister.
I do not like bags in sumps, they are not very efficient but prefer a reactor or canister filter.
Slow flow in a reactor yes, a canister can have much higher flow. BTLP (Break Through Flow Point) is the real key here or to take "your" unit, adjust its flow rate, doing a number of Methylene Blue dye tests.
When tumbled many of the GAC turn , so to speak, to dust. Something you do not see in a canister.
Last edited:
