PDA

View Full Version : SPS and Algae Reactor?


malx
07/09/2017, 10:58 PM
Does anyone here with SPS run an Algae Reactor? I have a small one on low flow because my system is a bit low on nutrients. The corals look good, but my reactor is due for a trim. If I cut out like 1/2 of the Cheatomorpha that's in there now, what kind of issues could that cause?

JohnnyHildo
07/10/2017, 07:36 AM
you run a reactor because your nutrients are a bit low? i'm going to assume that's a typo.
i personally don't run a reactor but it seems pretty straightforward, if you take its efficiency down by removing the chaeto it'll result a modest increase in phosphates but otherwise not a whole lot.

reefmutt
07/10/2017, 05:04 PM
If your nutrients are low, removing half shouldn't have a huge impact..
But if your nutrients are low, you might consider shortening the photoperiod in the reactor..
Not sure lowering the flow helps.. just allows longer contact time for the cheato to remove nutrients from the water.
Wether low or high flow- to a degree I suppose- the nutrient reduction will be the same..

jda
07/10/2017, 07:18 PM
Triming chaeto often causes a growth spurt. It needs water changes (or iron added) and regular trimming to grow as fast as possible. Huge, interwoven balls will stall out growth.

This should be just fine. Like we have talked about before, this is where the aragonite binding with phosphate can act as a phosphate buffer for you. If the phosphate gets a tad bit high (higher than now), the aragonite will bind a bit more of it. As the chaeto starts to grow again and uses up the phosphate in the water column, the aragonite will give some back into the water column. This is the same principle as water changes.

malx
07/13/2017, 01:08 AM
Thanks everyone for the tips. I'll plan accordingly and see how it goes. And no it's not a typo. I have "low flow" on the reactor in passive mode because my nutrients are low.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

malx
07/14/2017, 10:03 PM
If your nutrients are low, removing half shouldn't have a huge impact..
But if your nutrients are low, you might consider shortening the photoperiod in the reactor..
Not sure lowering the flow helps.. just allows longer contact time for the cheato to remove nutrients from the water.
Wether low or high flow- to a degree I suppose- the nutrient reduction will be the same..

I shortened the photo period by an hour. Just a small tweak. I really do want to increase the flow in the reactor. My reactor is connected to my return line so it does not use a pump. If you think that increasing the flow in the reactor won't remove more phosphates than slowing the flow, that would be great! Let me know!

reefmutt
07/15/2017, 01:44 PM
Well, I'm thinking out loud here..
I really don't know for sure..this is all hypotheses
assuming the rate of no3 reduction is constant and that it only happens during photosynthesis... AND that the water exiting the reactor is not completely stripped of no3, I would assume that during light hours, if the flow is, say 100 gph and the cheato removes, say 5ppm... I can only assume that if the flow were half that, the cheato would remove twice as much because it would have twice the time to remove the no3..
whether it is sitting in a sump or in a reactor, it's basically the same thing...
unless it is so efficient that it is stripping all no3, then maybe increasing flow would not give the cheato the same amount of reaction time and this may prevent it from stripping all the no3..
Then, I guess the length of the reactor plays a role as well....
There seem to be plenty of variables.. not to mention type and intensity of the light source..
But.. all things being equal, I personally don't see flow as being a huge factor..
I guess there is an interesting experiment in all this hypothesis..
I'm pretty sure this didn't help you at all!! :)

malx
07/15/2017, 05:34 PM
Well, I'm thinking out loud here..
I really don't know for sure..this is all hypotheses
assuming the rate of no3 reduction is constant and that it only happens during photosynthesis... AND that the water exiting the reactor is not completely stripped of no3, I would assume that during light hours, if the flow is, say 100 gph and the cheato removes, say 5ppm... I can only assume that if the flow were half that, the cheato would remove twice as much because it would have twice the time to remove the no3..
whether it is sitting in a sump or in a reactor, it's basically the same thing...
unless it is so efficient that it is stripping all no3, then maybe increasing flow would not give the cheato the same amount of reaction time and this may prevent it from stripping all the no3..
Then, I guess the length of the reactor plays a role as well....
There seem to be plenty of variables.. not to mention type and intensity of the light source..
But.. all things being equal, I personally don't see flow as being a huge factor..
I guess there is an interesting experiment in all this hypothesis..
I'm pretty sure this didn't help you at all!! :)

Haha! Not really. What I don't want to happen is to increase the flow in my reactor and then have a drop in nutrients. The nutrients are low in my system and I've had lots of issues with bleaching. Now that I removed my ZEOvit reactor (I'm running ZEObit but just no reactor) I want to increase the flow through my algae reactor, But the more I think about it, I really don't have a reason to increase the flow so why bother? I'll just let it be for now until I have a nutrient issue and I need to remove phosphates for whatever reason.

I did trim half of the algae today though.

ca1ore
07/15/2017, 05:41 PM
Hmmn, agree with 'mutt, not sure flow rate is necessarily limiting nutrient availability unless it's incredibly slow, so I think your basic premise is flawed. I doubt increasing flow to the reactor will affect much of anything.