unnecessary equipment but best investment

[christyf5]

Oops I didn't see it was multiple choice. I added my vote for chiller then.

I have a wavebox as well, and while I agree that it is a great piece of equipment to have and I've never seen my corals with such incredible polyp extension. I don't think I would have any problems going without it as my Tunze powerheads were getting the job done for me before I got the wavebox. Not that I'm saying the wavebox isn't great, its just not a neccessary piece of equipment IMO. Just as a ca reactor or chiller isn't necessary if you don't have a tank crammed with sps or your tank is in a cool basement or something

As for the aquarium controllers, they're out of my league. I have read up o them several times and I still don't really "get it"

[niloc16]

i have a controller and i still dont know how to use it to the full potential . but from i do have hooked up it is a big help.

[Delphinus]

Interesting question! Also considering that there are different ways to view what consitutes a "good investment". At any rate I voted calcium reactor and phosban reactor because those were the only two items on the list that I actually have. I probably didn't need to vote phosban reactor because I'm not sure that it's neither unnecessary (it could be viewed as necessary), nor a good investment (eh, I've been running carbon in them for a while, I only just started up one with actual phosphate reducing media two days ago. Hardly a lifesaver in my case!).

Calcium reactor on the other hand ... sure, you could argue it's not necessary, but I find it's one of the best bangs-for-buck there is. Not only do I find running a calcium reactor cheaper in the long run over other methods (although the startup costs are high, if you look at the cost of additives over 2 or 3 years you might find the additives to be the more costly option. At least I did at the rate I was going through additives), but also I find there's just nothing to compare to the set-and-forget aspect. It was a little tricky trying to dial them in at first but once they're set, they're set. If I go away for a weekend or whatever, I don't have to get someone to add my alkalinity additive in the morning and the calcium additive at night (because you shouldn't add them at the same time), or alternatively not worry about making my tank go through weird swings because nobody's adding them. So the peace of mind counts as a return on that investment as well. And, and and and!!! One more thing, I found that I got *better* growth of SPS using a calcium reactor than I was getting with the additives, despite even having lower Ca and Alk values than I was acheiving with the additives. My thinking on this is that the values are replenished at the same rate they are depleted, thus acheiving a more constant steady-state situation, whereas you get a "sawtooth wave" effect with the additives (sudden rise when you add them, followed by slow depletion over the course of a day, rinse and repeat). So ... cost, peace of mind, better results. Complete slam dunk!

[niloc16]

wow delphinus, you sould be a salesman for ca reactor. you have me sold and i already have one

[littlesilvermax]

Originally Posted by Delphinus

Calcium reactor on the other hand ... sure, you could argue it's not necessary, but I find it's one of the best bangs-for-buck there is.

I have a HUGE calcium reactor and would not have it any other way.

Chemicals that are gotten at the right price are significantly cheaper (I worked it out to 20% the cost) of using a reactor.

I bulk buy (100s of lbs at a time) calcium reactor media becaus I go through 2 lbs a month. It costs me a total of $6 per lb for media, about $60 a year for CO2 rental and gas, and about $950 for equipment to run it properly (54 inch reactor, dosing pump, externally run circulation pump, and head for dosing pump). I run my ph down to 6.3 and have an effluent dkh of over 65! All of this to keep my levels at 420 and 9.5.

Cost break down over 10 years:

-media $1440
-equipment $950 (assuming it lasts that long, already replaced a head for the dosing pump at $150)
-CO2 and rental fees $600

Total $2990!!!!!


Total cost of using chems (this is assuming same number of lbs of chems is required, though I think it is close):

$600


The only reason I use a reactor is because of convenience, and it takes less time. But as you can see I pay a lot for convenience!

[Delphinus]

Wow ... so much for that argument then. I still like my reactor better than dosing. So there!!

[littlesilvermax]

Originally Posted by Delphinus

Wow ... so much for that argument then. I still like my reactor better than dosing. So there!!

Hey so do I, in fact I am rather proud of my DIY biggest I have yet seen calcium reactor.

I used to think that additives were the more then a reactor, that was when I was paying $26 for 2.2 lbs of calcium or carbonate alk. (+ tax)

Cost break down over 5 years for a simpler system (sans dosing pump and normal sized reactor) assuming 10 lbs of media used per year.

-media $300
-equipment $400
-CO2 and rental fees $490

Total $1190!!!!!


Total cost of using chems:

$125


There it is almost 10% the cost!


If I lost my job I would dose manually each day, assuming I could still even afford my tank at all!

[Snappy]

I have a chiller but voted for the controller. I think in an sps tank both are actually "necessary" but the awesome flow that the (Tunze) controller creates with the pulsing action makes a world of difference. The chiller will keep my stuff alive and looking good (with no rtn/stn) through the summer heat. Now I have these items I wouldn't give them up any more than I would stop using R/O filtered water. Next on the equipment list is a calcium reactor.

[Johnny Reefer]

Chiller here. Don't have a Ca reactor, wavysea or wavebox and the only controllers I have are 2 Tunze 7091's which hardly count. Have a Phosban reactor but it's sittin' in a closet doin' nothin' but nothin'. Need to get another chiller for the FOWLR before summa.

Cheers,