BRS Carbon / GFO

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Did they say why?

While I mix them in a canister filter, I think there might be a slight advantage of using GAC first instead of GFO first if you have a choice.

Both will bind organic matter, and I'd rather have the cheaper GAC bind the organics than the more expensive GFO.

[Sacohen]

They probably did but this was like 6-8 months ago and I really don't remember right now.

[Jetlinkin]

Originally Posted by Randy Holmes-Farley

Did they say why?

While I mix them in a canister filter, I think there might be a slight advantage of using GAC first instead of GFO first if you have a choice.

Both will bind organic matter, and I'd rather have the cheaper GAC bind the organics than the more expensive GFO.

While I do not know for certain, I believe it is to catch any GFO that might try to escape the reactor. With the dual reactor, they instruct you to remove the sponge filters in the canister for GFO and some fines will migrate to the second chamber. I do not do this. I put the sponge filter in the top part of the canister only, and then use the sponges on the top and bottom of the GAC to hold it in place so that it does not tumble. In their instructional video, they do reference the fact that GAC will grind itself up if allowed to tumble.

I do like your idea of using the GAC in the first chamber though. I just don't get much organic matter as I run the input pump right after my socks.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

If GFO might escape, that is a reasonable plan.

By organic matter, I am mostly referring to soluble organics (like individual proteins, etc) that will get through a sock, but which will occupy binding sites on both GFO and GAC.

[Sacohen]

Now that you guys are talking about it. The fact that GFO might escape sounds familiar from my conversation with BRS.

[Jetlinkin]

Originally Posted by Randy Holmes-Farley

By organic matter, I am mostly referring to soluble organics (like individual proteins, etc) that will get through a sock, but which will occupy binding sites on both GFO and GAC.

DOH! I knew this.

I am liking you idea more and more. I'll need to figure out how to insure no GFO escapes and I might try this set up. Seems like I'll save on GFO.

[MorganAtlanta]

If you watch the BRS video on setting up their clownfish tank, you'll see they actually just mix the GAC and GFO in the same reator-- not just place them in the same one, but actually mix them together. I've been doing the same with 1/3 cup GFO and 2/3 cup carbon well mixed, and haven't had any problems with the GFO clumping like I used to have when I kept them separate.

[cidbozek]

+1 on mixing them together, split my dual reactor about a year ago and i have had no issues.

[igot2gats]

Originally Posted by maddmaxx

i took the dual reactor and split them into single reactors.

How do you split them?

[Jetlinkin]

All you need to do is remove them from the mounting bracket and then unscrew the two chambers apart from each other. They are joined with a straight nipple between them. You will then need to buy some connections to run another output hose from the first one, and a new input and pump for the second one. Then you will just end up with two single reactors.

[HumbleFish]

I think I'm gonna try splitting and/or mixing. Cuz what I'm doing now just ain't working. Thanks for the ideas, guys.

[Sacohen]

Mixing is fine if you are going to be changing both GFO and carbon at the same time, but as stated earlier in this thread GFO is exhausted sooner than carbon and changing them both at the same time you are throwing away carbon that is still useful.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

GFO isn't always depleted faster. It all depends on the tank.

If GFO is depleted faster in your tank, you can always scale back on the amount of GAC so they deplete at the same time, couldn't you?

[greyreef]

sidbozek, are you a bozek?
Im chris bozek
Always good to meet another bozek!
I was going to use my reactor for GFO only, put my carbon in a filter sock
If you want to reuse your GFO, would be hard to do if your mixing it with carbon

[Ryanrttu]

I ended up buying two separate BRS reactors with one pump.

[cidbozek]

Originally Posted by greyreef

sidbozek, are you a bozek?

+1 lol

[k427]

Originally Posted by 3dees

is there any way to run these on a sumpless tank?

I have a sumpless system and run the BRS reactor. Here's a current picture of my filtration.





Hearing about the faster flow through the carbon I'll probably move the carbon over to the canister before the heater and see how it improves.

[Notquiterite]

That looks pretty impressive!

[Sammykonga]

Originally Posted by k427

I have a sumpless system and run the BRS reactor. Here's a current picture of my filtration.





Hearing about the faster flow through the carbon I'll probably move the carbon over to the canister before the heater and see how it improves.

That is impressive. I have never seen a set-up like that before. Very unique. Question, how well do you like this set-up?

[ahmed_iAM]

Very impressive indeed

[sowildpaul]

Originally Posted by mluntz

But if you go with two separate reactors, wouldn't you need two separate pumps instead of just one?

Not necessary. One pump's outlet can be split into two outlets using a true wye barb (one outlet with flow control valve for GFO).

[ajcanale]

Originally Posted by Bpb

What is your purpose for getting the reactor? I mean this with the utmost respect, but if you're unsure about the difference between different classes of reactors, how they work, and what they do, you likely won't be certain exactly what you need. Just saves a lot of money to know specifically what you need, how to use it, and what problem in particular it will solve. A calcium reactor which uses co2, and a gfo/carbon reactor have virtually no similarities beyond they're both used on saltwater tanks and made of acrylic.

Being said, I think a dual reactor is an incredibly valuable tool to have. Whether you use both chambers or not. I have a dual reactor and recently stopped running gfo. I use it strictly for carbon now and just have an empty chamber. My phosphates were driven so low that I had to take the gfo away but it's nice to have the space if I want to run it in the future.

Another valuable asset to the dual reactor is if you only wanted to run carbon alone, or gfo alone, you can split the media in half and replace it twice as often, but only one canister at a time, to avoid system shock. Like if your tank called for 1 cup of gfo, run 1/2 cup in each canister, and replace one canister every two weeks, rather than the full cup in one, replaced monthly.

The dual reactor is less of a reactor and more of a fluidized filter with zero bypass. Designed to run gfo, which is a phosphate removing media, good for reducing algae growth. Also designed to run activated carbon which is food for polishing the water, making it clearer and removing dissolved organics, and toxins before they can create problems in the water. It's easy to overdo it on both, and you can cause more harm than good with over use. Very useful tools either way

Excellent reply.

[k427]

Originally Posted by Sammykonga

That is impressive. I have never seen a set-up like that before. Very unique. Question, how well do you like this set-up?

To be honest, I don't know. It's apart of my first tank and I just started it.