Ca Reactor vs Two Part vs Kalkwasser

[fish-unit]

why has layton not been kicked off yet this is a joke he causes 99 percent of shit on this website :roll:

[lduncan]

Well, I stick on topic. Make some logical statements, backed up by real information. Questioned some peoples rational.

Then cookie posts a pot shot at me, tries to make out that i've said that a reactor is a "crappy thing, which is just useless and hard to work", when i've never said or implied it.

But i'm just out to cause "shit"?

I'm just trying to help people out with accurate information. Challenging stuff which doesn't make sense (and showing why). Why are people so offended by me asking questions of them? It's meant to get them thinking about things from a different perpective.

The only aim of this is to put people in the best possible position, with the best possible information, to make a choice for themselves in what they want to do. If some people take offence to that, then unfortunately there's not a whole lot I can do about that.

Remember it's about making sure information is accurate, it's not a "my way is the only right way" attitude.

Layton

[wasp]

I have no problem with either system, used both for years.

However, I do feel that in this thread and other linked threads, the 2 part system has been made to sound much easier than it is, and reactors have been made to sound much more complicated than they are.

A person with no experience reading this material, would be led to the conclusion that reactors are reliant on "guesswork" and are so complex as to be virtually impossible to use.

Whereas the 2 part system has been described as a system that you test your water, test again 24 hours later, do some calculations to set your dose, and that's it. :roll: . Don't even have to worry about mixing chemicals because you simply mix enough in one hit to last "years".

A newbie believing that is going to be badly dissapointed. After he does his test, then another one 24 hours later, and on the basis of that sets his dose, he will VERY soon find he has to fiddle with his dosing rate, just "like a calcium reactor"

I am not saying you have been deliberately dishonest Layton, however there has been a lack of balance. Which has reflected your own personal prejudices. It is this has rubbed people up the wrong way, and when they say something you immediately shoot them down claiming "logic". In reality you have been no more logical than anyone else. Think about it.

Also, it is no use rubbishing something on paper, or in theory, when the practise does not bear it out. In the end what is important is what works. The 2 part system works, and I used it for years. Calcium reactors work, and that is the system I now use because in the real world it is easier and less time consuming. That's my experience, but may be different for someone else, that's fine with me, no problem. There is more than one way to skin a cat, and as they say, one mans meat is another mans poison. As this thread bears out :lol: .

Please take these comments in the way they are intended, they are not an attack, I am just trying to inject some balance, and I'm almost afraid to say, logic .

[lduncan]

I don't really want to drag this out, and I can see you're trying to be diplomatic wasp, but all I said was

Tuning:

Calcium reactors take time to tune, as it must be done using trial and error. This can take a week or so, sometimes more, sometimes less.

2-part systems don't have that issue. You can easily determine and set the dosing amounts by doing two tests 24 hours apart. No trial and error tuning, like with reactors.

Maintenance:

Calcium reactors are high maintenance. Tubes block, pumps clog and ware. Dosing pumps require far less mainenance.

Method In General:

I like to keep stuff as simple as possible. Just taking a step back and comparing how these two methods are adding calcium and alk. The reactor, you're effectively taking solid calcium carbonate, disolving it in acid environment within a cylinder which is more or less attached, and part of your tank, in order to liberate the individual calcium and carbonate ions.

As opposed to the 2 part systems where you are directly adding the individual calcium and (hydrogen) carbonate ions, no locallised acidification, or worying about excess gas. When the bottle is going to run out, retuning the reactor as media is used, tubes constrict, etc

Control:

With a calcium reactor you don't have individual control over calcium and alk.

With the 2 part systems you decide how much of each you add. This can be an adantage, as alk is not always used in the ratios which a reactor provide.

Also people who use reactors often find that every so often they need to use one or other of the 2 part chemicals to make adjustments and bring the ratios back to where they want them anyway. If you have to have these chemicals around anyway, why not use them instead of the reactor?

Another consideration is what else you are adding when you're dissolving natural calcium carbonate reactor media. Although there are low phosphate media, all natural medias release phosphate, which is yet another unecessary source of phosphate to tanks which are already loaded in phosphate. 2-part system don't add phosphate. Then there are heavy metals etc..

and

Mixing chemicals a couple of times a year can be a pain...

Just like unblocking the calcium reactor tubs,

Tuning the reactor,

Replacing the reactor media,

Refilling the CO2 bottle,

Filling the bubble counter,

Mixing the kalk to offset the reactor ph thing can be a pain.

And some people take that a reactors are so complex as to be virtually impossible to use :-? I just think some are getting overly defensive over this for whatever reason.

Layton

[markoshark]

For a 200L tank with 80L of sumps, which is going to be easier & cheaper.

Time is not a problem

And it will mainly be a soft coral tank..

[wasp]

2 part will be cheaper, in fact you can set up a basic system for less than 50 bucks.

A 25 kg sack of calcium chloride from the swimming pool shop, and some baking soda from Gilmores. For Magnesium, a 25 kg sack from Rd1.

You can spend ever increasing amounts of money if you wish, to make the system less time consuming, ie, use a dosing pump, and to get higher grade chemicals.

[davidb]

two part.

[wasp]

but all I said was

That stuff was not all you said. The reactor / 2 part argument has a long history .

[lduncan]

Actually that's pretty much the history in that thread I posted.

As for good options for a soft coral tank? Two part is probably most versatile, in that you can dose calcium and alkalinity at different rates.

Remembering that some bacteria are significant consumers of alkalinity. (7ppm alk used to process 1ppm ammonia). And that in a tank with low calcification use for alk / calcium, that usage imbalance might be more pronounced.

Kalk is another inexpensive balanced method, but not as versatile, or scalable as two part.

Layton

[chimera]

What's pH got to do with calcium and alkalinity levels?

exactly what i said, measuring the effluent of the calcium reactor to be 6.7pH. *start sarcasm* yeah, like thats guesswork *end sarcasm*

my CR keeps calcium spot on at 400. alkalinity does drop a little so I dose baking soda every now and then. other than that, everything stays pretty balanced.

[lduncan]

exactly what i said, measuring the effluent of the calcium reactor to be 6.7pH. *start sarcasm* yeah, like thats guesswork *end sarcasm*

But we aren't talking about measuring and controlling pH. We're talking about measuring and controlling calcium and alkalinity.

Keeping the effluent pH at a certain level is not going to help maintain calcium and alk if you don't have an appropriate drip rate. That's where the guesswork / trial and error comes into it.

It's harder to correlate effluent pH, drip rate, and bubble count to a certain usage of calcium and alkalinity.

Layton

[wasp]

Actually that's pretty much the history in that thread I posted.

Layton

No, that is not the case.

Think back. Whenever a picture was posted of a nice tank that did not have a calcium reactor, you had a nasty habit of making a wind up post aimed at calcium reactor users, that said something like "another nice tank without a calcium reactor :lol: "

There has also been a lot of other rather silly calcium reactor bashing, not included in your last thread.

This plus other deliberate wind ups you took enjoyment in, went on for months if not years. Also these jibes were not very "logical", for someone who says that other people are not "logical".

Then you wonder why people have a negative reaction to your posts on the subject, it's cos you've already been winding them up for years. THAT is the history I'm referring to, not just one thread which you claim to be pretty much the entire history.

But, once again, not an attack. Just you seem to be mystified at why people don't see everything your way, the FULL history may help explain it.

[wasp]

It's harder to correlate effluent pH, drip rate, and bubble count to a certain usage of calcium and alkalinity.

Layton

No.

Not for me it wasn't, anyway. I didn't use any complex mathematical formulae, simply adjusted the reactor till it held the tank where I wanted it. Simple really. You could refer to this as "guesswork", I say so what. It worked, and it was easy.

AGAIN, not an attack. Just putting in some balance, and some honesty.

Also I'm not trying to encourage anyone to go reactor rather than 2 part. 2 part is probably best for people starting as it is cheaper for the initial set up, plus helps people learn how it works & why they do what they are doing. But just cos a person uses one system does not mean they have to bash the other.

[Jettin]

Ok enough battling,

Keep it on toic.

HOW DO YOU DISSOLVE BAKING SODA?!?!?!?!

Ive had it in a pot boiling with DI water for about 10mins and its still the same!

[wasp]

Precisely what I referred to as hassling around mixing those additives! :lol:

We all get sick of it, some take a couple of years to realise though!

Easy way, tip the baking soda into a bucket of water. Put your hand in & dissolve the lumpy bits with your fingers. Let's know how it goes.

[Jettin]

um,

doesnt work, theres no lumpy bits left, but it all just settles on the bottom, a very thick layer of it 300grams.

Any other ways?

[wasp]

Well it is difficult, the baking soda is the hardest one.

Assuming you have the correct amount of baking soda to the correct amount of water, you will get there in the end. Try working it with your fingers, that was the easiest way when I was doing it. Otherwise heat and stir the crap out of it, but the finger way worked best for me.

If you just cannot do it, perhaps double the amount of water, bearing in mind to do the same for the calcium part to make it easy to dose in balance.

It was this very job, or the dread of it, that eventually drove me to a calcium reactor.

[davidb]

you have it in a bottle? I made mine up so it was the right concentration for a 3L Juice bottle. I half filled the bottle with warm RODI water then put the cap on, gave it a really good shake, then filled it to the top. I then took out the 80 mL i needed for my tank that day. Then, each day before dosing the 80 ml I give the bottle a good shake. problem is you need a large water volume to dissolve it because it is only partially soluble. Once you stick it in a high flow area in the sump you will be fine as it will dissolve quickly into the tank water. Make sure you shake daily before dosing otherwise you will be dosing at a very low concentration till you get near the end of the bottle.

[lduncan]

wasp, that wasn't winding people up. That was making a point to those people who were saying at the time of these discussions, that most nice sps tanks use calcium reactors. I was making them aware, that there are quite a few nice high demand sps tanks which don't use reactors.

It wasn't bashing reactors, or winding people up. Just backing up my previous claims.

HOW DO YOU DISSOLVE BAKING SODA?!?!?!?!

My first question is, are you baking the baking soda? If you are, i wouldn't bother. It's harder to dissolve if you bake it first.

There's no need to boil it. All you need is a saturated solution. Mix it up as best you can (around 300g to 4 liters). It's not a major if there is a little left undissolved, even if it sits on the bottom, it will reach equilibrium to form a saturated solution by itself in a few days.

The stuff I get from medchem dissolves easily, without too much effort. Other forms may be more time consuming to dissolve, and may have some insoluble impurities in it.

300grams of pure sodium bicarbonate completely dissolves in 4 litres.

Layton

[Jettin]

hmmm maybe its not dissolving because i dont have enough water in there?

I was trying to dissolve 300g in 1L then add it to my 4L container.

Thoughts?

Otherwise im just gona add it in and it can just sit on the bottom.

[lduncan]

hmmm maybe its not dissolving because i dont have enough water in there?

I was trying to dissolve 300g in 1L then add it to my 4L container.

Thoughts?

Otherwise im just gona add it in and it can just sit on the bottom.

That won't work.

The solubility of baking soda is 78 grams per Litre at room temp / pressure.

To get the 300g to completely dissolve, you need it in 4 litres of water. Mix as best as possible. Like i say, if there's a little left on the bottom, it will dissolve to form a saturated solution by itself in a couple of days.

Layton

[lduncan]

Cookie has mentioned about skewing of chemistry when using two part dosing schemes. Mainly the buildup of chloride ions.

if water changes alone can not keep calcium up (which we know is a correct statement) then how do we know that water changes alone (and we are still adding more chlorides each day to maintain levels) will ensure that the ion balance stays correct? unless of course we do a 100% WC which not many do. so how long does it take before you end up with a huge imbalance and problems?

A legitimate concern, worth looking at. So exactly how quickly does this build up of chloride happen?

Randy has crunched the numbers in his article:

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-02/rhf/index.php

A 0.5% increase in chloride ions over a year, dosing 41mL every day to a 200L tank, and assuming no water changes at all. Alternatively, there is a more complete two part dosing method, called the Balling Method, which incorporates a sodium chloride free salt, used in conjunction with the two parts, to keep ions in perfect balance, if you want. It just substitues for a part of the water you'd normal use in water changes.

So some of the info in that article might be a little exagerated:

If regular water changes are not done, and calcium chloride is used, chlorine ions can accumulate in the system, causing harm to the livestock.

Another disadvantage is that the use of calcium chloride will cause a loss of alkalinity. Therefore, when dosing calcium chloride, it is important to routinely measure the alkalinity of the aquarium, and add buffer to maintain alkalinity levels. If either calcium chloride, or buffer, is adding too quickly or in too large of a concentration at once, precipitation can occur which results in lowered alkalinity AND lower calcium levels. This often results in a seesaw experience of dosing one, then the other, to help maintain proper tank parameters.

I also wouldn't class that as a disadvantage, as it's entirely avoidable with proper use. It's kind of like saying if you don't put CO2 into your reactor you won't be able to maintain you cal and alk levels.

Layton

[wasp]

wasp, that wasn't winding people up.

I don't think anyone who was there at the time is going to buy that one .

When it comes to winding people up, you are King :lol: .

Also you claim all those jibes were nessecary because someone at the time was saying that most of the nice sps tanks use calcium reactors. Is that not the case? I believe that is in fact correct.

[wasp]

Also Layton, on the positive side, how is that peristaltic pump coming along?

Just wondered what will be the literage, is it adjustable and if so what is the minimum and maximum, and what is the head pressure?

What is your primary envisaged application for it? With all these budding young 2 part dosers coming along :lol: , there could be a market for it. Also, a peristaltic pump has been a huge asset to my calcium reactor I am trying to talk everyone else into getting one. (peristaltic pump that is! :lol: )

[lduncan]

I don't think anyone who was there at the time is going to buy that one .

You forget the people who were pointing out all the nice tanks which run reactors, as part of their argument. Were they winding me up? I don't think so. ;-)

Also you claim all those jibes were nessecary because someone at the time was saying that you could not have a good tank unless you had a calcium reactor. Who said that?

No, no one was saying that. People were however using the fact that a nice tank happens to use a calcium reactor as a rational for using one (like they tried to here in this thread). Those "jibes" were necessary to illustrate my point at the time that that isn't particularly relevant in evaluating which to use.

I was illustrating a point, not bashing reactors.

Layton