Two part versus Calcium Reactor thoughts...

[Dave McReeferson]

Perhaps it is time to try a reactor Otherwise your just guessing, many people who use reactors have dosed and understand the ins and outs
of it. Plus time will tell where your phosphate issues came from if you continue to dose.

I am not just guessing about the two part method. It seems many people seem to like to dismiss it out of hand as not good enough or sufficient for a large system, or, it takes more work and is somehow more complicated, I think both of these assumptions are unfounded. Though I am sure many people have dosed two part, how many here have set up a system as I have described? Show of hands?

It is like the difference between naturally occurring food and processed food. Naturally occurring food such as pods and algae are part of the operation of the Eco system and processed food is like a added foreign impurities.

A reactor is part of the system, water flows through it and it becomes part of the Eco system where as dosing is an outside processed impurity.

Just my theory on it, but I believe any thing that we do should be part of the system if at all possible. Would you remove the water to run it through a skimmer and then put it back in the system?

A point being argued here is based around just that. Are the supplements we use for two part dosing better, or is the media we use in our reactors better? We are both adding something from the outside, in a reactor, you add it as one lump sum every time you refill the chamber, in a two part system, you slowly trickle them in.

I see your point. But I personally would rather spend an hour every three months or so vs worrying about filling my 2 part buckets every week. There is also the element of human error measuring the 2 part and filling the buckets every week or so. I have made such errors with similar weekly tasks and any task that requires a short period between such tasks, weather it is simply measuring and mixing or whatever, is more prone to human error.

I clean my reactor every time I refill it. It takes around an hour, or less, to both clean and refill my reactor.

For small tanks I can see the advantages of using 2 part. For larger systems there are so many more things to worry about on a daily, weekly, etc basis that automating as many things as possible becomes necessary, at least for me, so that I can spend the time doing other things like admiring my tank. There is also a larger requirement on space for top off water, sump, etc. So it gets to a point where space can get scarce. You also have to find a place to store the bags of Dowflake or whatever you use.

I don't claim to be an expert in 2-part use but somewhere I remember that adding calcium chloride over a long period of time is "not good" for some reason or other. But maybe that is only if you use it without the "other part" of a balanced 2 part solution. I also remember reading (when I was looking a calcium reactors back in the dark ages) that the cost of dosing 2 part far exceeds the cost of the media for the calcium reactor...but this was a while ago and may have changed.

Don't forget that dosing pumps need cleaning and maintenance as well.

Peristaltic pumps actually require very little maintenance, rough math, I spend about an hour a year, total, maintaining this system.

 

[dz6t]

By the way, I have more trust on DOW chemical and ARM & HAMMER than coral skeleton crushed by metal roller on land.

 

[Dave McReeferson]

By the way, I have more trust on DOW chemical and ARM & HAMMER than coral skeleton crushed by metal roller on land.

And that is what it comes down to in the end, what each of us feels comfortable with. IMO these are both viable solutions.

 

[Aquaman_68]

By the way, I have more trust on DOW chemical and ARM & HAMMER than coral skeleton crushed by metal roller on land.

Shuran media is natural & uncrushed...Yeah...it probably has impurities...As the coral grew it retained some in it's skeleton.... But it isn't crushed on a metal roller..... BTW...a metal roller if in fact it is used to package the shuran media is only on the surface...We do rinse our media in ro/di water before use .....don't most reefers, if not all????? (oh yeah I forgot.....


Dong,
Don't you practice just using straight water out of the tap for your reefing??? Last I recall you didn't believe in using ro/di ...As I quote..."there is not a reason...you can have a viable reef using tap water" Remember posting this????

I got a question for ya & everyone else out there that this pertains too...If your using two part.........Have you ever tried using a Ca reactor?...If you haven't you can't be a judge on the two types of systems....IMO


For that matter as explained on an above post......
Anyone who hasn't used or succeded at using a Ca reactor can't really comment on using the two......I have used both methods & flourished at using both....I switched to using a Ca reactor & yes it is easier for me...Takes less space, & if you truley weigh out the difference in time to fill every month at the most (two part containers) to filling a reactor every 6 months....(& cleaning it if you choose to do it...it isn't that much time......) Hey I got a system....replenishing all media cleaning flushing...R&R of equipment...all in 15 mins flat.....(thumbscrews to filled up & dripping at the accurate drip rate)...I don't think that is that much time to spend every 6 months...Much better for me..than 15 mins every 30 days....(which was the average by the time I cleaned & put all mix containers away) Initiall setup of the reactor... Is a little different....Plumbing it in the system etc is time consuming...(I work slow at setting up equipment.....took me about 4-5 hours to set up this last reactor...(but that was draining the sump & drilling it to move a pump so I had the room for an under the cabinet install. If it wasn't for that....It would have taken me less than an hour!!!!)

One note:
The time I take to maintain my reactor is not exagerated......I've been doing it for a very very long time....It comes natural after years of doing it!!! These are actual times I stated above...


Thats my 99cents....not meant to ruffle any feathers....(I'm going back to bed!!!)
B

 

[Dave McReeferson]

People with a huge demand in Ca & Alk can't keep up with the levels just using two part

So are you backing off of the above statement then?

The problem I have with much of this debate is that I am hearing a lot of the same old "this is right and that is wrong" song. For all any of us know, whatever we swear up and down is the best way to go may well not be at all. All I am saying (again) is that both systems have merit, I say this because I know people have enjoyed demonstrable success with both. To proclaim from the hilltop that one is better than the other is baloney, plain and simple. There is no proof, and before you say the proof is in the pudding (you know you were thinking it ), run two tanks side by side, exactly the same, except for the supplementing scheme, then come back, and tell me which is better.

I have not yet run a Ca reactor, have you run a system exactly like mine? Same pumps, same water volume, same stocking level, same supplements, same schedule? No you have not, so you may as well not comment on that either if I am not to comment on reactors. If you look back, you will see I never make any claims about a reactor's ease of use, I never claim that a reactor wont do the job or say it is a poor way of doing things, indeed, I plan to run one myself (for reasons discussed earlier). I merely defend dosing as a viable option, and once I have switched to a reactor, I will not suddenly claim that it is not.

Personally, I have enjoyed what I would call success with a two part system. Every time I look back through pictures and find shots of tiny little frags that are now colonies, I am amazed at how things have grown. If my fish are happy, and my corals are growing like weeds, is that not success? If Mark finds his system to be easier for him to deal with and he achieves good growth and maintains good health in his specimens, who will stand up and say he did it wrong? If he achieves those things it wasn't wrong, it was right, for him.

I am adding a reactor to my system now, not because two part could not do the job or was a pain to keep up with (quite the contrary), but because I feel there is logic to the idea of dissolving coral skeletons being more beneficial for my charges, if not only in some immeasurably small dimension. Now you'll say "time will tell", but will it really? A year or two down the road will I be able to say "I wouldn't have gotten here had I stuck with two part"? Save for any new developments in the science behind reefing, no, I will not, just as you can not state that the very same results you have achieved could not have been achieved with a two part scheme, sure you could, but then that too would be baloney.

Thats my $1.05....not meant to ruffle any feathers. Sleep tight.

 

[swreef103]

well that settles my decision to build 1.i am not 1 to be tuning every day.the less it touch my tank the better it grows.i have always used 2-part additives and had great results so why spend more money than i have to.i make diy recipes also and lately been up and down in levels but i'm getting the hang of making the right mix 4 my tank demands.i think that cuz my tank is still getting corals added to it that now i know why my diy's are always off.

 

[dz6t]

B, I think your statement is that your way is the right way and indeed, you are entitle to your opinion. I remember someone in the Whitehouse used to say "either with me or against me." Well, the real world is not black or white, it is black and white plus grey. There are many way to skin a feline as they say.

Yes, I still use tap water and I have no problem with it. I just can't justify wasting 1000 gallon of water to get 100 gallon of RO water. It is just ain't green, man! If by any chance my coral grow slower than yours (they still grow like nuts), so be it and it doesn't make a dent on my enjoyment of this hobby.

This is my 10 cents (vs. your 99 cents because I spend a heck less of money than you in this addition and my enjoyment of this hooby is no less than you, hahaha)

Just let you know, my reason of not using a reactor is that I don't like to have a compressed CO2 tank in my house.

 

[Liam]

By the way, I have more trust on DOW chemical and ARM & HAMMER than coral skeleton crushed by metal roller on land.

what a strange statement Dong

How do those chemicals find their way from source to box,must be some kind of teleporter like star trek J/K

 

[delta]

I am not just guessing about the two part method. It seems many people seem to like to dismiss it out of hand as not good enough or sufficient for a large system, or, it takes more work and is somehow more complicated, I think both of these assumptions are unfounded. Though I am sure many people have dosed two part, how many here have set up a system as I have described? Show of hands?

That is my point though you do not run a reactor and never have, yet you make comment in regards to reactors. I did not say you method was not a viable option I have restated that throughout this thread, no need to sell me.

I looked into a dosing system but after some lenthy reasearch decided I would end my dosing that also ended my excess nutrient issues. Can I prove that was the issue ...Nope.

Do I believe it was the issue absolutely. I just do not think a container sitting there stagnant is better than a reactor that is part of the biological systems we run. It is possible that it was my fault the two part had excess nutrients on top of what was in the container.


But like I said previously I run a reactor and would not go back to dosing, but one can successfully run a system running a two part solution whether it be dosed or not.


Edit adding

you add it as one lump sum every time you refill the chamber

It is not in soluble form at that point and it is added slowly as it is disolved. Now if you want to add the negative efeects of CO2 in the system I will agree that can be an issue if not handle right as is the high PH content of the two part.

This is the issue I took with Mark at the beginning of the thread.
The more straight forward about the system we run the better information we produce for other to weight out there options. I am not just trying to be "right" about my system. Every system has a balance and each individual is a balance of that system. You cannot just copy someones system and think it will just work for you.
because you are not them.

 

[dz6t]

what a strange statement Dong

How do those chemicals find their way from source to box,must be some kind of teleporter like star trek J/K

Very tight quility control, consistancy from batch to batch, advance disclosure of content change (say, Br), that is the industral standard DOW Chemical is known for. For people who are not in the field, DOW Chemicals is a giant company with the reputation in the chemical field as...let's say...BMW?

Once again, DOW flake is not made for use as ice melt only. It is a pure chemicals (Calcium Chloride hydrate) that happen to be cheap enough and people use it as ice melt. Please don't confuse DOW Flakes with other brand of ice melt, which are really meant to be used to melt ice on the road.

Do CabiSea pubish the content of ARM media or even publish an analysis of the media? No, they do not and they can not.

The question is, do you really know what you are adding to your tank? The answer is you are not sure. But does it really matter? It is not because calcium reactors are proven to be successful.

At the end, no matter what you use, it is OK for this hobby.

Now, if someone can find a way to avoid the CO2 tank, I will use a reactor too.

Another question is, is it OK to use those paint ball gun CO2 canister? It pose less danager than a 10 lb CO2 tank.

 

[NateHanson]

Another question is, is it OK to use those paint ball gun CO2 canister? It pose less danager than a 10 lb CO2 tank.

I doubt they do. They're a very thin metal cylinder, meant to be disposable, and not individually tested for integrity. I think any fear of a CO2 cylinder exploding under your tank is an irrational fear. Have you heard of any CO2 tanks or fire extinguishers exploding in homes? Every few years these tanks are put underwater, and pumped full of many times the pressure they hold in normal service. If they don't fail at that pressure, they're certainly safe for service. I just think the danger of a failure of a properly tested tank is extremely slim. If you want to be extra safe, buy a new tank, but then just don't worry about it.

 

[Aquaman_68]

So are you backing off of the above statement then?

The problem I have with much of this debate is that I am hearing a lot of the same old "this is right and that is wrong" song. For all any of us know, whatever we swear up and down is the best way to go may well not be at all. All I am saying (again) is that both systems have merit, I say this because I know people have enjoyed demonstrable success with both. To proclaim from the hilltop that one is better than the other is baloney, plain and simple. There is no proof, and before you say the proof is in the pudding (you know you were thinking it ), run two tanks side by side, exactly the same, except for the supplementing scheme, then come back, and tell me which is better.

I have not yet run a Ca reactor, have you run a system exactly like mine? Same pumps, same water volume, same stocking level, same supplements, same schedule? No you have not, so you may as well not comment on that either if I am not to comment on reactors. If you look back, you will see I never make any claims about a reactor's ease of use, I never claim that a reactor wont do the job or say it is a poor way of doing things, indeed, I plan to run one myself (for reasons discussed earlier). I merely defend dosing as a viable option, and once I have switched to a reactor, I will not suddenly claim that it is not.

Personally, I have enjoyed what I would call success with a two part system. Every time I look back through pictures and find shots of tiny little frags that are now colonies, I am amazed at how things have grown. If my fish are happy, and my corals are growing like weeds, is that not success? If Mark finds his system to be easier for him to deal with and he achieves good growth and maintains good health in his specimens, who will stand up and say he did it wrong? If he achieves those things it wasn't wrong, it was right, for him.

I am adding a reactor to my system now, not because two part could not do the job or was a pain to keep up with (quite the contrary), but because I feel there is logic to the idea of dissolving coral skeletons being more beneficial for my charges, if not only in some immeasurably small dimension. Now you'll say "time will tell", but will it really? A year or two down the road will I be able to say "I wouldn't have gotten here had I stuck with two part"? Save for any new developments in the science behind reefing, no, I will not, just as you can not state that the very same results you have achieved could not have been achieved with a two part scheme, sure you could, but then that too would be baloney.

Thats my $1.05....not meant to ruffle any feathers. Sleep tight.

Hey, Dave....All I read was your first statement or reply to my comment from a previous post...I thought to myself after logging off...(watch someone pull my previous comment & try to constrew what I say as if it contradicts with post comments...)
So for everyone out there reading this thread...(including you, Dave...)

I did in fact flourish using two part....BUT...As my corals grew out it became more of a hassle to keep up with the demand.....I will say it can be done....It is a major PITA...

With that said...I don't know why anyone (for me personally) with a tank volume of 560 gals would want to dose two part!!!
Your tank build thread is awesome & shows alot of thought into setup....I was very impressed I may add...


Then I see your firm thoughts on dosing two part on a system that large....Makes me step back a bit & think...
IMO it's just crazy....

& your intitled to have your take on this....as well as Dong... Do it whatever way that makes you comfortable... Or safe.......BTW...I bet the peralistic pump diphram will last a long time dosing two part thru it.....If that is how you do it.....

 

[NateHanson]

Then I see your firm thoughts on dosing two part on a system that large....Makes me step back a bit & think...
IMO it's just crazy....

Read the text you quoted in your last post!

I am adding a reactor to my system now, not because two part could not do the job or was a pain to keep up with (quite the contrary), but because I feel there is logic to the idea of dissolving coral skeletons being more beneficial for my charges, if not only in some immeasurably small dimension.

 

[Dave McReeferson]

I did in fact flourish using two part.

Ok, that's all I wanted to hear.

Then I see your firm thoughts on dosing two part on a system that large....Makes me step back a bit & think...
IMO it's just crazy....

Whatever, that's cool too.

BTW...I bet the peralistic pump diphram will last a long time dosing two part thru it.....If that is how you do it.....

FWIW

The Cole Parmer pumps mentioned in this thread use tubing rather than a diaphragm, and I think you might find the life of that tubing to be very impressive indeed, I did.

 

[Dave McReeferson]

That is my point though you do not run a reactor and never have, yet you make comment in regards to reactors.

Did I misspeak? I don't think I made any comments on reactors in here that anyone would disagree with, please correct me where I went astray from well known facts. If there is one thing I don't want to be, it is misinformed.

 

[dz6t]

I doubt they do. They're a very thin metal cylinder, meant to be disposable, and not individually tested for integrity. I think any fear of a CO2 cylinder exploding under your tank is an irrational fear. Have you heard of any CO2 tanks or fire extinguishers exploding in homes? Every few years these tanks are put underwater, and pumped full of many times the pressure they hold in normal service. If they don't fail at that pressure, they're certainly safe for service. I just think the danger of a failure of a properly tested tank is extremely slim. If you want to be extra safe, buy a new tank, but then just don't worry about it.

I am worry about the tank fall and snap off the top and you get a rocket. I remember some threads earlier on BRS to advice people not to put CO2 tanks drectly under the glass bottom of the tank.

 

[NateHanson]

I am worry about the tank fall and snap off the top and you get a rocket. I remember some threads earlier on BRS to advice people not to put CO2 tanks drectly under the glass bottom of the tank.

I understand what you're worried about. I'm just wondering if there are any actual instances of those things happening. Are there any tanks with a hole shot through the bottom from a cylinder spontaneously exploding upwards?

I just think it's a completely irrational fear. Just trying to put you at ease.

 

[Dave McReeferson]

I am worry about the tank fall and snap off the top and you get a rocket. I remember some threads earlier on BRS to advice people not to put CO2 tanks drectly under the glass bottom of the tank.

I think you are overly worried about this Dong, it takes a good amount of impact to knock the top off one of those bottles, they are very safe, you just need to handle them with respect is all. It takes more than one of these bottles falling on it's side to break to valve assembly off, you may damage the regulator, but a catastrophic failure of the tank's valve is very unlikely in all but extreme circumstances. When you bring it into your house keep the protective cap on the bottle until it is ready for use, and when you hook it up, secure the bottle in an upright position so it can't easily be knocked over.

 

[stevenp]

I think tanks nowadays are pretty darn safe. Otherwise they wouldn't let the sick and/or elderly wheel oxygen tanks around everywhere they went.

I suppose it would be possible to snap the top off with enough force, but I'm thinking something like a full swing with a baseball bat would be needed.

Rocketing tanks exist mostly in Hollywood and video games.

 

[dz6t]

I understand what you're worried about. I'm just wondering if there are any actual instances of those things happening. Are there any tanks with a hole shot through the bottom from a cylinder spontaneously exploding upwards?

I just think it's a completely irrational fear. Just trying to put you at ease.

There are documented incidents in many work places. Part of my job is serving as a safety officer in a pharmacetical company and I saw examples (I am not saying any incident like that ever happened in my company in the past).

When I was in grad school, a Ar tank fell and the top snapped off, it went through the wall like a rocket.

Well, it is less likely to snap the top off a smaller tank, say 5lbs.