Krish
RF STAFF
That's pretty cool. I use to just toss the carbon after one werk. Didn't realize in a mesh bag it could be rinsed, mixed up and reused.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Using Carbon in a Mesh Bag, Helpful?
- Thread starter 10gnano
- Start date
Help Support Reef Aquarium & Tank Building Forum:
That's pretty cool. I use to just toss the carbon after one werk. Didn't realize in a mesh bag it could be rinsed, mixed up and reused.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Boomer
Well-known member
Frankie
I totally disagree that carbon "reactors" are better then a mesh bag.
You are way off here old friend
So, let me as to the why's of fluid dynamics and diffusion.
There are 3 types of fluid flow filtration with media
1. Passive
2. Semi-Active
3. Active
This simple dye test GAC graph shows it all, where no explanation is needed. Semi-Active is in between the two.
Water is moving through that thing so fast the carbon has very little contact time.
You are suppsoe to have water movement/flow as the flow and pressure drives the water into the media. You are saying, in so many words, that your RO/DI GAC pre-filter, at 50 psi tap water pressure, is not working right, to in include all of the large remediation plants and filtration plants that use a reactor or "canister" type filter for GAC.
Also reactors cause channeling from biofilms making even less contact time with each grain of carbon.
A mesh bag in a sump will have allot more channeling and on a big scale that you are not looking at Frank. That bag in the sump acts as a dam as water passes by it and that water will go mostly around that bag, as a function of the route of least lively resistance, which is gross channeling. About all you get out of a bag in a sump is diffusive filtration, due to concentration gradients, between the bag and water surrounding water.
All types of fluid media filtration have channeling and all is a function of the rule of BTFP (Break Through Flow Point). And there can be others than just std Channel Effect, like "Chimney Effect" and "Tunnel Effect" .
BTFP = gal / hr where the water starts to channel or go around a media reducing filtration and adsorption efficiency below 99 % retention rate.. A bag in a sump has the lowest BTFP and a canister is about the highest. So, why is that ?
A canister has walls, is sealed, has pressure and higher flow and water must go in one end and out the other and a bag in a sump does not do that. Even with channeling the water in the canister is just diverted to another area of the canister filter and its media and will take much more time to plug it up before any full blown channeling. A bag has no walls, so said water just leaks right back into the sump water or just sits in the bag. Dye test can prove any of this and has been done many times. Said sump bag with such a low flow and pressure around will cause the outer part of the sump bag and outer media to get plugged very fast as the water can not be driven through the media via flow and pressure. Now if the said bag is in a high flow or higher flow area this effect will be reduced some.
BTFP = (gal/ hr) = dcm ( 0.009 ) cc
If we were to run comparative tests, Sump Bag, HBO filter, cartridge filter and canister filter we will get this for theoretical BTFP of equivalent size parameters.
1. Bag, 1 gal / hr
2. HBO Box filter with partition plates 2 gal / hr
3. Cartridge, 10 or so gal / hr
4. Canister 100 gal /hr
However, the BTFT is not necessarily the option BTFP. 1 and 2 can not go much above their BTFP and a cartridge can come up some or better that 1 and 2, maybe 200 %. But a canister can go 400 - 500 % its BTFP and still be very efficient, where the rest crash in efficiency.
If anyone has any doubts to this seek out FAMA, April 1983, pg 19- 23 and pg 59 - 62, Primer for Filtration, by Dr. Leo Morin.
So, can one put a bag in a sump ? Sure but it will require daily removal for cleaning and will not, still, be very efficient.
I totally disagree that carbon "reactors" are better then a mesh bag.
You are way off here old friend
So, let me as to the why's of fluid dynamics and diffusion.There are 3 types of fluid flow filtration with media
1. Passive
2. Semi-Active
3. Active
This simple dye test GAC graph shows it all, where no explanation is needed. Semi-Active is in between the two.
Water is moving through that thing so fast the carbon has very little contact time.
You are suppsoe to have water movement/flow as the flow and pressure drives the water into the media. You are saying, in so many words, that your RO/DI GAC pre-filter, at 50 psi tap water pressure, is not working right, to in include all of the large remediation plants and filtration plants that use a reactor or "canister" type filter for GAC.
Also reactors cause channeling from biofilms making even less contact time with each grain of carbon.
A mesh bag in a sump will have allot more channeling and on a big scale that you are not looking at Frank. That bag in the sump acts as a dam as water passes by it and that water will go mostly around that bag, as a function of the route of least lively resistance, which is gross channeling. About all you get out of a bag in a sump is diffusive filtration, due to concentration gradients, between the bag and water surrounding water.
All types of fluid media filtration have channeling and all is a function of the rule of BTFP (Break Through Flow Point). And there can be others than just std Channel Effect, like "Chimney Effect" and "Tunnel Effect" .
BTFP = gal / hr where the water starts to channel or go around a media reducing filtration and adsorption efficiency below 99 % retention rate.. A bag in a sump has the lowest BTFP and a canister is about the highest. So, why is that ?
A canister has walls, is sealed, has pressure and higher flow and water must go in one end and out the other and a bag in a sump does not do that. Even with channeling the water in the canister is just diverted to another area of the canister filter and its media and will take much more time to plug it up before any full blown channeling. A bag has no walls, so said water just leaks right back into the sump water or just sits in the bag. Dye test can prove any of this and has been done many times. Said sump bag with such a low flow and pressure around will cause the outer part of the sump bag and outer media to get plugged very fast as the water can not be driven through the media via flow and pressure. Now if the said bag is in a high flow or higher flow area this effect will be reduced some.
BTFP = (gal/ hr) = dcm ( 0.009 ) cc
If we were to run comparative tests, Sump Bag, HBO filter, cartridge filter and canister filter we will get this for theoretical BTFP of equivalent size parameters.
1. Bag, 1 gal / hr
2. HBO Box filter with partition plates 2 gal / hr
3. Cartridge, 10 or so gal / hr
4. Canister 100 gal /hr
However, the BTFT is not necessarily the option BTFP. 1 and 2 can not go much above their BTFP and a cartridge can come up some or better that 1 and 2, maybe 200 %. But a canister can go 400 - 500 % its BTFP and still be very efficient, where the rest crash in efficiency.
If anyone has any doubts to this seek out FAMA, April 1983, pg 19- 23 and pg 59 - 62, Primer for Filtration, by Dr. Leo Morin.
So, can one put a bag in a sump ? Sure but it will require daily removal for cleaning and will not, still, be very efficient.
Thanks for being a bit more gentile boomer
Sorry to take so long to reply. RS got hosed from a hacker and I needed some time to think on what your talking about.
As usual your post makes sense to me and I see where your getting at. I thought from past discussions with you that you liked the reactors for lignite and mesh bags for the ROX due to the size of the GAC.
You need to update me when thing change though so I don't appear to look like a tool so bad LOL
The way I do the mesh bags there is not much go around room and the sump water must pass through the media bags in order to get returned to the DT. Kinda like Mikes GAC box method but I just dropped the bags in that chamber and hand kneaded them nightly. I had great results doing it this way over the Two Little Fishys Phos Ban reactors I was trying back then. They sucked for GAC to be honest and where I had found the channeling to occur. That is why I Kneaded the bags daily.
I guess I was not passive in my approach though and more Semi-passive.
Rhodes19 has a BRS GAC reactor and I need to go over there and check that thing out. If I can get away from one more daily chore in this hobby that would be great.
As always thanks for the corrections buddy. Never a dull moment in this hobby~
Sorry to take so long to reply. RS got hosed from a hacker and I needed some time to think on what your talking about.
As usual your post makes sense to me and I see where your getting at. I thought from past discussions with you that you liked the reactors for lignite and mesh bags for the ROX due to the size of the GAC.
You need to update me when thing change though so I don't appear to look like a tool so bad LOL
The way I do the mesh bags there is not much go around room and the sump water must pass through the media bags in order to get returned to the DT. Kinda like Mikes GAC box method but I just dropped the bags in that chamber and hand kneaded them nightly. I had great results doing it this way over the Two Little Fishys Phos Ban reactors I was trying back then. They sucked for GAC to be honest and where I had found the channeling to occur. That is why I Kneaded the bags daily.
I guess I was not passive in my approach though and more Semi-passive.
Rhodes19 has a BRS GAC reactor and I need to go over there and check that thing out. If I can get away from one more daily chore in this hobby that would be great.
As always thanks for the corrections buddy. Never a dull moment in this hobby~
Boomer
Well-known member
I thought from past discussions with you that you liked the reactors for lignite and mesh bags for the ROX due to the size of the GAC.
True to a degree and there is a reason behind that if you remember, as I have posted on it many times. Some people have issues with ROX in reactors as it blows it out if you do not put in some kind of screen where the Lignite will not. I have also said many times SeaChem Labs Matirx is probaly the best fluid dynamical and hardness wise. Hardness wise Ligntie is about the worst. Reactors will have a habit of grinidng up softer GAC more than harder GAC. Matrix and ROC are the hardest then Buium GAC lik the filterguys, then Lignite. But these issues have nothing to do with adsorption capacity over time or what type of GAC filter "device " is the best. And mesh bags isin a canister filter or box, not Passive, where a bag is sitting in a sump. I highly advice against passive mesh bags use as given above, i.e., sitting in a sump bottom. I hate Passive and almost all so called Passive is a mesh bag sitting in the bottom of a sump.
You need to update me when thing change though so I don't appear to look like a tool so bad LOL
^^
This is not an update have said it many times in the past.
I have talked to Mike about his method on the phone, which is Semi-Active. We have been on the phone about Ozone reactors and skimmers with Ozone and what approach he can or may take and what to do about the ozonated water that needs to go through GAC. I gave him one DIY method and he said his box does just that. It is not as good as a canister but has something many like, to include myself. You can just reach in and pull it out, no values, lines and canister with pump or a GAC reactor for that matter. Mike and I then talked about the box where it needs to be and how water should go in and out, with no splashing. When you have a box and water flowing into it and out of it, the box full of GAC, in a bag or not, it is no longer Passive but Semi-Active, as there is "forceful flow".
Discussion of this Frank like mine are about maximum efficiency and not about cost, unless that cost is out of line, like the cost of SeaChem Matrix is way to pricey, even if I have recommended it many times. I had a guy two years or so ago that sat down and figured oiut how much GAC's cost /l or / lb and was shocked with that SeaChem price. This is it here:
True to a degree and there is a reason behind that if you remember, as I have posted on it many times. Some people have issues with ROX in reactors as it blows it out if you do not put in some kind of screen where the Lignite will not. I have also said many times SeaChem Labs Matirx is probaly the best fluid dynamical and hardness wise. Hardness wise Ligntie is about the worst. Reactors will have a habit of grinidng up softer GAC more than harder GAC. Matrix and ROC are the hardest then Buium GAC lik the filterguys, then Lignite. But these issues have nothing to do with adsorption capacity over time or what type of GAC filter "device " is the best. And mesh bags isin a canister filter or box, not Passive, where a bag is sitting in a sump. I highly advice against passive mesh bags use as given above, i.e., sitting in a sump bottom. I hate Passive and almost all so called Passive is a mesh bag sitting in the bottom of a sump.
You need to update me when thing change though so I don't appear to look like a tool so bad LOL
This is not an update have said it many times in the past.
I have talked to Mike about his method on the phone, which is Semi-Active. We have been on the phone about Ozone reactors and skimmers with Ozone and what approach he can or may take and what to do about the ozonated water that needs to go through GAC. I gave him one DIY method and he said his box does just that. It is not as good as a canister but has something many like, to include myself. You can just reach in and pull it out, no values, lines and canister with pump or a GAC reactor for that matter. Mike and I then talked about the box where it needs to be and how water should go in and out, with no splashing. When you have a box and water flowing into it and out of it, the box full of GAC, in a bag or not, it is no longer Passive but Semi-Active, as there is "forceful flow".
Discussion of this Frank like mine are about maximum efficiency and not about cost, unless that cost is out of line, like the cost of SeaChem Matrix is way to pricey, even if I have recommended it many times. I had a guy two years or so ago that sat down and figured oiut how much GAC's cost /l or / lb and was shocked with that SeaChem price. This is it here:
That makes complete sense now pertaining to the hardness of the GAC being used. I never thought about it before. I can also see softer GAC compressing from breaking up into a powder from the force of the reactor. I also noticed the zeoheads not following the passive idea as originally recommended in their method, and are now placing the carbon bags on top of the zeolites inside of the zeoreactor for a continuous flow through.
The Matrix looks good. bituminous coal-based, macroporous carbon, not coconut, and spherical to help eliminate "packing". Though rox is tubular and has the roundness, it is not a sphere. Also it is much softer then other GAC I have used in the past. But I never put much thought to that before. Good stuff to think on.
I have a question about quantity per gallon. With the rox I found 2 1/2 cups for a net volume of seawater 289 gallons. That would get me through just about 5 weeks before I noticed a diminishing in water clarity and overall sharpness to the corals colors. I never saw much water parameter change in my system from everything else I was doing (rigorous weekly water changes, heavy skimming and the ion exchange from the zeolite) so I mainly used the GAC for water polishing and polutant removal of stuff I could not test for.
How do we figure out what amount of what GAC to use per gallon of water? This time around my water volume is just under 100 gals. If the Matrix is the way to go, I am not to worried about cost with the water volume I am running. 4L = just over 16 cups/ $72 at marine depot. I am sure I can find it cheaper even.
Do I go with their directions, (250 mL will easily treat 400 L (100 gallons*) for several months) or is there a formula I can follow?
The Matrix looks good. bituminous coal-based, macroporous carbon, not coconut, and spherical to help eliminate "packing". Though rox is tubular and has the roundness, it is not a sphere. Also it is much softer then other GAC I have used in the past. But I never put much thought to that before. Good stuff to think on.
I have a question about quantity per gallon. With the rox I found 2 1/2 cups for a net volume of seawater 289 gallons. That would get me through just about 5 weeks before I noticed a diminishing in water clarity and overall sharpness to the corals colors. I never saw much water parameter change in my system from everything else I was doing (rigorous weekly water changes, heavy skimming and the ion exchange from the zeolite) so I mainly used the GAC for water polishing and polutant removal of stuff I could not test for.
How do we figure out what amount of what GAC to use per gallon of water? This time around my water volume is just under 100 gals. If the Matrix is the way to go, I am not to worried about cost with the water volume I am running. 4L = just over 16 cups/ $72 at marine depot. I am sure I can find it cheaper even.
Do I go with their directions, (250 mL will easily treat 400 L (100 gallons*) for several months) or is there a formula I can follow?
