Chambered Media Reactors

[RuskiBusiness]

Hi guys,

Don't really post that much, but I have been on reef central for a long time learning everything I know about reefing :)

Most media reactors released claim to be different and innovative, but essentially are all the same with different color acrylic. A cylinder, inlet/outlet, a tube down the middle with a top baffle and bottom baffle. When it comes to changing media, this is extremely high maintenance, especially if you have a bank of these plumbed externally.

I've found two reactors that have a removable media compartment: the BRS GFO?Carbon reactors and the Innovative Marine All-In-One. The IM one is tiny and comes with a powerhead. It's off the table mainly because of its size. The BRS one looks like an RO unit, so it's really lacking in the looks department (I am really OCD about my sump area).

So my question is this: do you guys think there is something inherently detrimental in a cartridge-style design? I think it would be awesome if a company made a good-looking reactor with a cartridge to fill the media with. Or is there already one being made somewhere and I just don't know about it?

[firebirdude]

The BRS one looking like an RO unit looks bad? So you think your RO unit looks ugly too? Preference I guess....

It's built like a tank compared to some others on the market.

BRS's works like a champ. I don't run it right now, but have in the past. Lots and lots of positive reviews.

[sleepydoc]

I'm not sure you'll find any other form factor. The point of any reactor is to have the water interact with some sort of media, and the most efficient way to do that is to flow it through a tube.

As far as an easier way to change media is concerned, you could conceivable have disposable cartridges, but the cost for bulk media is so much cheaper that I think it would be a limited market since most people wold elect to change the media.

[Tweaked]

extremely high maintenance seems a bit excessive no? I twist the valve to off, unscrew the canister. walk over to the trash and dump. add new media and rinse. walk back to the tank and re-install. turn valve slowly back to desired tumble. Probably took more effort to type that lol

[RuskiBusiness]

As far as looks, I am not saying the BRS ones look bad, but as far as reactors go, I prefer the look of traditional acrylic tube style ones, as do most people considering the plethora of media reactors out there. Also, you have to mount the BRS reactors to a wall; they don't do very well free-standing. The other draw back is, being RO units, they don't hold as much media as traditional ones do.

What I was trying to convey is how come no companies that make all the acrylic tube reactors don't adopt the removable cartridge style of the BRS? "Extremely high maintenance" was a bit hyperbolic, but it is more work to remove the whole reactor to change media compared to just the cartridge because the downtube is connected to the lid and the lid is connected to the hoses running the water. Just an idea.

P.S. I actually switched to the BRS ones and find changing the media is by far easier.

[sleepydoc]

Well, whether you like the looks of the BRS reactors or not is just personal preference, so I won't comment on that.

The BRS reactors come with a wall mount, but they can also be placed directly in the tank, too, which is how I had mine before I tore down my system. The wall mount also comes with keyhole mounting holes, so it's easy to lift it off if necessary. The mount easily unscrews, so you can remove it completely and could probably make another mount to hang it on the tank if you like.

I haven't compared volumes to other reactors, but the BRS reactors come in 3 sizes, so if you're having to change media too often, perhaps the jumbo one might work better for you.

My main complaint with the BRS reactors is that the GFO tends to clog the slits in the bottom of the media chamber, reducing flow. The other popular reactor I've seen, the Two Little Fishies phosban reactor seems to have issues with the connectors breaking, so it seems there's no perfect one.