View Single Post
  #55  
Old 07-20-2010, 05:45 PM
Delphinus's Avatar
Delphinus Delphinus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary
Posts: 12,896
Delphinus has a spectacular aura aboutDelphinus has a spectacular aura aboutDelphinus has a spectacular aura about
Send a message via MSN to Delphinus
Default

Theoretically the fiddling with rates due to increasing demand as corals grow is equivalent between parts dosing and reactors. You still have to test regularly and adjust effluent or dose rates as needed. The nice thing about a reactor was that Ca is always in balance with Alk, so if you were inclined to be lazy, you could theoretically get by with testing just Alk instead of testing both Ca and Alk (still a good idea to keep an eye on both, however). This is, however, with one large caveat: your levels needed to be in good proportions to begin with, if they are not, there is no perfect effluent rate to correct that. So where dosing trumps a reactor is the ability to zero in on one parameter and adjust it independent of any other. But once the levels are "in balance" then theoretically there will be no need to zero in on just one parameter.

So at least from the perspective of increasing consumption rates, it sort of balances out, I think.

What's weird (and adds a little to my "reactor nostalgia") is that I didn't get my perfect target numbers running a reactor, but despite that I did get better growth (when things were at their peak) than I ever did with "perfect" numbers using dosing. So there was some intangible benefit to the reactor that I couldn't quite quantify.

Having said that, it wasn't all roses with me and reactors. The biggest complaint I did have was the constant compaction causing cavitation (wow, can I add any more c words to that sentence??) There was a reason I got out of using reactors, nostalgia always lets you look back with rose coloured glasses and I just need to remember that I switched to dosing, not only because I wanted to embrace the idea of dosing but also because I was giving up on reactors (for reasons other than "I don't have to refill it as often"). Another factor that weighed in was I wanted to reduce my reliance on CO2 because I had a feeling David Suzuki would not have approved of my CO2 usage (I doubt he still approves of my hobby mind you. Darn it all. Oh well. Baby steps.)

Anyhow given the #'s I find it interesting that there are still lots of people who use reactors. This has been a fantastic discussion so far and very enlightening (and thought provoking) so if you've participated, I thank you. Please keep it going.

@PFoster - actually there should have been an option for both. Sorry if this wasn't clear in my original post but you can actually select both options as this was meant as a multiple choice poll.

cheers
__________________
-- Tony
My next hobby will be flooding my basement while repeatedly banging my head against a brick wall and tearing up $100 bills. Whee!
Reply With Quote