constant drip rate with Ca reactor?

[Delphinus]

I'm on the 2-part dosing bandwagon again myself but I think the key to Dez's ease of use is the controller. That's the other thing I would use if I ever were go to a calcium reactor again (although I wouldn't , but if I did, I'd want a pH controller)

One cautionary note about T'ing off the sump return like what has been described above: the flowrate should be controlled at the inlet side of the reactor (ie., like how Mark has shown, the valve must be between the sump return pipe and the reactor ... not on the output side of the reactor). The reason for this is that sump return pumps might be capable of producing enough pressure inside the reactor that the acrylic seams and the flange are under more stress. I actually blew up a reactor doing this (weak seam I guess, I don't think that's typical, but certainly the other issue I had was that the darn flange always had a little bit of wetness). It drove me crazy. That's why I switched to a powerhead feed - the flow control on the output side gave me a more steady effluent rate and a powerhead isn't capable of pressuring the vessel enough to cause any problems like that.

[imcosmokramer]

I have both. a valve limiting the pressure from the return, and one limiting the outlet. I'm sure it's overkill, but hey, isn't that what we're in this hobby for?
________

[RuGlu6]

Originally Posted by whatcaneyedo

I've done the required reading for 2 part but to me it still sounds like a lot more work compared to a Ca reactor if you can figure it out.

+1
same here, reactor is way cheaper, simpler (once you figure it out, they all are the same principle), less testing and corals love it!
If dosing screwed its more trouble in very short time. If calc reactor screwed you have a lot longer to fix the problem.

Sure dosing is a nice toy, just like LED lighting (compare to MH) but it cost so much more initially as well as in the long run to replace all vulnerable parts i am staying away from it.

I go for what is simpler, has less vulnerable/breakable parts, easy to control/fix, does not require large investment and the only moving part is the circ pump. Can't make it more simple.

[RuGlu6]

Originally Posted by Delphinus

One cautionary note about T'ing off the sump return like what has been described above: the flowrate should be controlled at the inlet side of the reactor (ie., like how Mark has shown, the valve must be between the sump return pipe and the reactor ... not on the output side of the reactor). The reason for this is that sump return pumps might be capable of producing enough pressure inside the reactor that the acrylic seams and the flange are under more stress. I actually blew up a reactor doing this (weak seam I guess, I don't think that's typical, but certainly the other issue I had was that the darn flange always had a little bit of wetness). It drove me crazy. That's why I switched to a powerhead feed - the flow control on the output side gave me a more steady effluent rate and a powerhead isn't capable of pressuring the vessel enough to cause any problems like that.

This is also a very good point.