two little fishes phosban reactor 150

JN Reef · #1 07/04/2006, 06:05 PM

I have one, but have to get a pump for it. I want to use it for carbon filtration.

The recommended flow for it is:
Recommended flow rate: 80 gph for 130 grams PhosBan, 90 gph for 200 grams.

How much carbon do you guys put in yours and what pump do you use?

SteveOhh · #2 07/04/2006, 09:06 PM

I use a Rio 400 & fill about 3/4 full with carbon...

STeve

Bebo77 · #3 07/05/2006, 09:01 AM

i used a mj 1200.. that really got the carbon moving in there...

JN Reef · #4 07/05/2006, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bebo77
i used a mj 1200.. that really got the carbon moving in there...

Do you really want the carbon to move that much? because if the flow is too high, then wouldn't that make it more difficult for the particles in the water to get lodged into the pores of the carbon? Isnt' that the purpose of chemical carbon filtration?

kusanagiz · #5 07/05/2006, 12:35 PM

I just set mine up last night coincidentally. I had some extra maxijets but they got thrown away w/out me knowing it!

So I went ahead and bought a Via Aqua 80 gph pump. That thing is tiny! But it does the job. I also just filled 3/4ths of the way. Not too much movement w/ the carbon considering how weak the pump is.

Bebo77 · #6 07/05/2006, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JN Reef
Do you really want the carbon to move that much? because if the flow is too high, then wouldn't that make it more difficult for the particles in the water to get lodged into the pores of the carbon? Isnt' that the purpose of chemical carbon filtration?

i filled the reactor 80-90% full.. only the very top danced...

29reef · #7 07/05/2006, 01:06 PM

i would say first tell us how much tubing your running (head pressure) then a pump which is rated at that size can be decided upon.

second for you guys using larger pumps with more media in the reactor watch out these things will leak if water starts to back up into them. So check them daily

Captain Quirk · #8 07/05/2006, 06:07 PM

TMU you don't want too high of a flow when using a phosphate remover; too much agitation and they particles will grind each other into a powder and go back into your tank. Which is not good...

FWIW

SWfan · #9 07/05/2006, 06:23 PM

Using carbon in a phosban reactor requires you to discard the instructions that came with it. Running phosban requires low flow, like kernelangus stated. However, running carbon requires high flow and heavy surface agitation.

You do not want particulate matter to become lodged in the GAC. The most efficient way to run carbon is aggressively with replacement every 3-4 weeks.

I only use about 2 cups of GAC in my fluidized media chamber (which is all a Phosban Reactor is). I'd say this is about 1/5th - 1/4 full. Remember, you WANT the tumbling action.

organism · #10 07/06/2006, 12:43 AM

I used a maxijet 1200, and linked two tlf 150's together, carbon in first one, phosban in the second one, after adjusting the valve that they come with a bit the flow was fine

ReefMeister2 · #11 07/06/2006, 12:49 AM

Does anyone have any experience with the Kent Phos-Reactor?

http://fishsupply.com/seckm-k0884.html

I was going to get one to run carbon through, just for kicks and giggles

SWfan · #12 07/06/2006, 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ReefMeister2
Does anyone have any experience with the Kent Phos-Reactor?

http://fishsupply.com/seckm-k0884.html

I was going to get one to run carbon through, just for kicks and giggles

Same concept as the TLF Phosban Reactor. It's just an inexpensive fluidized media chamber.

Mchava · #13 07/06/2006, 02:57 AM

Kevin I personaly like the Kent version only becuase its a real quick release and its already has the tubing facing downward. I looked at the new TLF's and did not like that fact that I have to unscrew the whole thing out. The older version was worse. As far as the kents version. Verry easy to use, just twist it alittle and it of. I have two of them T on to a MJ1200. One runs carbon the other Denitrator.

kusanagiz · #14 07/06/2006, 03:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SWfan
Using carbon in a phosban reactor requires you to discard the instructions that came with it. Running phosban requires low flow, like kernelangus stated. However, running carbon requires high flow and heavy surface agitation.

You do not want particulate matter to become lodged in the GAC. The most efficient way to run carbon is aggressively with replacement every 3-4 weeks.

I only use about 2 cups of GAC in my fluidized media chamber (which is all a Phosban Reactor is). I'd say this is about 1/5th - 1/4 full. Remember, you WANT the tumbling action.

eh?.so.what.happens.if.you.use.low.flow?.carbon.won't.be.fully.utilized?.excuse.the.periods.as.my.fr eakin'.space.button.doesn't.work.

tamphuong · #15 07/06/2006, 07:32 AM

Phosban reactor vs. filter canister(say Eheim brand)? Which one get more efficiency?

WarDaddy · #16 07/06/2006, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tamphuong
Phosban reactor vs. filter canister(say Eheim brand)? Which one get more efficiency?

A Canister seems like it would be an easy solution.

Problems I se there, touh to run a canister with a sump, they need to be below the tank level, as they rely on gravity and water pressure to run. Second media, the reactors make it easy to add, remove and clean the media, canisters are a little mpre trouble, not much though.

in theory I can not see why one would perform any better than the other.

ReefMeister2 · #17 07/06/2006, 09:33 AM

Canister filters would use 3 - 4 times more electricity, depending on the model, since the motors are designed to run at 250 gph or more

ReefMeister2 · #18 07/06/2006, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mchava
Kevin I personaly like the Kent version only becuase its a real quick release and its already has the tubing facing downward. I looked at the new TLF's and did not like that fact that I have to unscrew the whole thing out. The older version was worse. As far as the kents version. Verry easy to use, just twist it alittle and it of. I have two of them T on to a MJ1200. One runs carbon the other Denitrator.

Thanks Mario,
I suspected that the Kent unit may be a little more user-friendly

I hope you can make the SCMAS Workshop at my house this Saturday. The rest of you guys should all come as well; plenty of food, ideas, and a chance to meet local reefers in the area:

http://archive.reefcentral.com/forum...hreadid=877595

Kevin

WarDaddy · #19 07/06/2006, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ReefMeister2
Canister filters would use 3 - 4 times more electricity, depending on the model, since the motors are designed to run at 250 gph or more

Not really the case...

The Fluval 305 uses 15W / 205 uses 9W
http://www.marinedepot.com/aquarium_...al.asp?CartId=

The Maxi 1200 uses 20W / 900 uses 9.5W
http://www.marinedepot.com/aquarium_...et.asp?CartId=

The canisters get away with low power because they leverage gravity/water pressure. It is basically a closed loop, because of that head pressure is a small factor in the flow.

SteveOhh · #20 07/06/2006, 10:39 AM

The canister filters are also a more "true" 250 or 350 gph flow then the maxi-jets on a phosban reactor................I'm sure a 900 doesn't push 230 gph w/ the loss that would come from a 3/4 full chamber of carbon.

Wow those fluvals really would be more efficient as a "carbon canister"....................get rid of a powerhead or two in the tank too!!!!!

ReefMeister2 · #21 07/06/2006, 11:20 AM

Ah, I stand corrected
I'm glad you guys checked

I was soon going to shut down one of my nanos to conserve electricity (which I REALLY didn't want to do because it is literally the best coepepod and amphipod farm I've ever seen!)

After checking with my Kill-A-Watt Meter, my Eheim Ecco 2235 evidentily uses only 11 watts of power. Man, that is nothing!

Nonetheless, for the carbon reactor, I plan to feed off of my main return (which I have a little excess flow anyway) with a "T" and ballvalve regulating the flow.

WarDaddy · #22 07/06/2006, 11:35 AM

hey... there is an idea, off the main...

Question... that would totally unfiltered return water. How likely are you to clog the reactor with crap? I was thinking that either flow from the return or skimmer would work. I have an IDEA for a CHEAP DIY. Let me draw something up for you all to look at.

ReefMeister2 · #23 07/06/2006, 11:44 AM

sheesh
I don't know what I'm thinking

I made my own calcium reactor and secondary chamber from water filter housings. (simply added a down-feed-tube to make it reverse flow)

There's no reason I couldn't make the same exact thing for running carbon....hooking it up inline, and reverse flow so it's fluidized.

My return water is rounted through a filter sock, so no crud concerns here

JN Reef · #24 07/06/2006, 11:46 AM

LOL, I didn't think my post would get such a large reponse.
keep the information coming!!!

WarDaddy · #25 07/06/2006, 11:56 AM

How is this for a cheap DIY Reactor idea?

Simple enough... Water in the top goes throughthe middle pipe, out holes in the middle pipe. then filters up through the carbon untill it spills out the holes in the top sides of the 4" pipe.

Window screen, or some other similar material coould be siliconed to the inside of the pipes to keep carbon inside the reactor.

To clean pop the top off and dump in trash, refill, rinse, repeat.

no pump needed to run it. you could have your skimmer output dump into it, or the overflow (flow might be too fast).

Simple, cheap ($10 parts ar lowes).

what you think?