kirkleigh84
Active Member
Hooked up a BRS carbon reactor with a MJ 1200 pump. Do you run the pump wide open or pinch it back? Thanks.
Carbon reactor
- Thread starter kirkleigh84
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Alky
Longboard on tap!
Thanks for the heads up
Just got this from BRS site;
"For use in a reactor or canister filter. (Preferred Method)
- Rinse. Add the carbon to the reactor and hold the carbon in place with the filter pad. Place the reactor's return line into a bucket or sink and turn on the feed pump to flush the fines from the carbon. When the water runs clear place the return line in the tank.
- Adjust flow rate. If your equipment allows, reduce the flow rate so the carbon is just gently tumbling. Activated carbon works best with lower flow rates."
Eggs
Well-Known Member
I thought the GFO should have the lower flow - just tumbling.
Carbon is better with a higher gph to get more water through it. Going by what alot of local reefers do.
Last edited:
GFO should just tumble but carbon should be even slower.
+1
I'm trying to find an article I read a couple years ago. Carbon will work at higher flow rates but just not as efficiently when contact time is decreased.
Eggs
Well-Known Member
I'll have to check out the articles.
I wonder if there is alot of misconception among hobbyist about the gph for Carbon.
I have one of the BRS dual chamber reactors for GFO and Carbon, and it list the GFO first - which would give a lower gph through the Carbon chamber. One person I know of rigged the dual chambers to allow a higher gph through the Carbon. Mine is set-up with the Carbon second, which would have the lower gph flow - but thought about the increase gph through the Carbon chamber.
I think many people believe you only need a lower flow for GFO.
I wonder if there is alot of misconception among hobbyist about the gph for Carbon.
I have one of the BRS dual chamber reactors for GFO and Carbon, and it list the GFO first - which would give a lower gph through the Carbon chamber. One person I know of rigged the dual chambers to allow a higher gph through the Carbon. Mine is set-up with the Carbon second, which would have the lower gph flow - but thought about the increase gph through the Carbon chamber.
I think many people believe you only need a lower flow for GFO.
Last edited:
No it wasn't those. It was one in which the addressed mainly the amount of carbon used and the frequency which it was changed out. The amounts were one thing that caught my eye because it was a fraction of the amount of carbon that most put in their reactors.
Here is the article: Aquarium Frontiers On-Line: Feature
Here is a portion of that article:
"Thiel’s current recommendation of 3 tablespoons per 50 gallons is probably all that is necessary to keep a reef tank free of color. Thiel also recommends using carbon for 12 hours a week and then removing it. This too is prudent advice. A healthy tank, particularly one with an adequate foam fractionator, should not need much more than this duration of carbon usage.
Unfortunately, Thiel does not mention circulation rates through the carbon. As I mentioned in Part One, the typical power filter for carbon use moves water past the carbon at a much faster rate than research recommends. A popular canister filter for carbon use has a flow rate of 250 gallons per hour. Evidence suggests that adsorption rates decline when water moves past the carbon faster than 65 milliliters per minute, roughly one gallon per hour. Spotte recommends that no more than one tank volume be circulated through the carbon per day. Using Thiel’s 12-hour guideline combined with Spotte’s one tank volume suggestion, translates into a flow rate of about 4 gallons per hour for a 50-gallon tank. Clearly, using a power filter for carbon is not the best approach."
Here is a portion of that article:
"Thiel’s current recommendation of 3 tablespoons per 50 gallons is probably all that is necessary to keep a reef tank free of color. Thiel also recommends using carbon for 12 hours a week and then removing it. This too is prudent advice. A healthy tank, particularly one with an adequate foam fractionator, should not need much more than this duration of carbon usage.
Unfortunately, Thiel does not mention circulation rates through the carbon. As I mentioned in Part One, the typical power filter for carbon use moves water past the carbon at a much faster rate than research recommends. A popular canister filter for carbon use has a flow rate of 250 gallons per hour. Evidence suggests that adsorption rates decline when water moves past the carbon faster than 65 milliliters per minute, roughly one gallon per hour. Spotte recommends that no more than one tank volume be circulated through the carbon per day. Using Thiel’s 12-hour guideline combined with Spotte’s one tank volume suggestion, translates into a flow rate of about 4 gallons per hour for a 50-gallon tank. Clearly, using a power filter for carbon is not the best approach."
The article wasn't Thiel's it was a test run based on Thiel's recommendations. I was more concerned with the test and the author's(Richard Harker) conclusion/findings. It just made perfect sense to me. No need to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Last edited:
