# do reactors use 2X more Co2 than inline diffusers?



## underH20garden (Dec 19, 2017)

I was told by GLA that reactors use 2X more Co2 that inline diffusers is this true?
they also said with reactors you get clear water but with inline you still get some bubbles. I would like little to no bubbles in the tank but @ 2x the usage of Co2?? in the end that might not be a big deal or it could ad up over the year in time and $$. 

so what are your experiences with this?


----------



## PlantedRich (Jul 21, 2010)

Thinking through that answer makes it seem a bit odd. They are telling you you will get less bubbles with a reactor. We know that the whole idea of less bubbles is that the CO2 is added to the water more thoroughly. That thorough mixing makes the CO2 less prone to gassing off. 
So adding those two together makes me feel there is more marketing/sales talk than fact. Possible they sell a pretty good inline diffuser but a really poor reactor? 
Regardless of the reason, I do not agree with the basic idea.


----------



## Quagulator (May 4, 2015)

Reactors could use 2x LESS CO2 because it's 100% diffusion, no waste bubbles ever make it into the air.... a proper reactor would have no place for the CO2 to go except into the water.... 

so no, reactors do not require 2x the CO2, they will most likely need less than traditional diffusers.


----------



## nilocg (Jul 12, 2010)

PlantedRich said:


> Thinking through that answer makes it seem a bit odd. They are telling you you will get less bubbles with a reactor. We know that the whole idea of less bubbles is that the CO2 is added to the water more thoroughly. That thorough mixing makes the CO2 less prone to gassing off.
> So adding those two together makes me feel there is more marketing/sales talk than fact. Possible they sell a pretty good inline diffuser but a really poor reactor?
> Regardless of the reason, I do not agree with the basic idea.


As far as I know they sell diffusers not reactors. I doubt either would use 2x less than the other(if functioning properly), but its pretty common sense you will use less with the reactor. Some feel that the small bubbles you get with the diffusers are better because they stick to plants but I dont buy that.


----------



## KayakJimW (Aug 12, 2016)

Reactors should go through less CO2 than diffusers.

If you have a seriously awesome incredible diffuser on its best day, it may be equal to the reactor, but this is not likely

Maybe it was worded oddly and they meant reactors are twice as good?


----------



## Maryland Guppy (Dec 6, 2014)

GLA want to sell you something! Most likely their stuff.:grin2:


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

How big is your tank? Anything about 55G and over I would highly recommend a reactor. 

No bubbles, no maintenance, pretty much set and forget. 

On the other hand, in line diffusers more bubbles, and they will get clogged and require maintenance. Removing that in line piece to clean/replace is a bit of a pain. 

And if they fail (break at the seam)......well that happened to me and it was just short of a disaster.


----------



## underH20garden (Dec 19, 2017)

Quagulator said:


> Reactors could use 2x LESS CO2 because it's 100% diffusion, no waste bubbles ever make it into the air.... a proper reactor would have no place for the CO2 to go except into the water....
> 
> so no, reactors do not require 2x the CO2, they will most likely need less than traditional diffusers.


this was my noob thinking to that why I was so confused. 



Maryland Guppy said:


> GLA want to sell you something! Most likely their stuff.:grin2:


yes they sale inline diffursers but not reactors. soooo...yeah maybe  

ok so this is the levels of efficiency in adding Co2 to the aquarium. ( going from lest to most effective) 
1. intake 
2. inline diffusers 
3. inline reactors 

do I understand this correct?
cheers

Bump:


Greggz said:


> How big is your tank? Anything about 55G and over I would highly recommend a reactor.
> 
> No bubbles, no maintenance, pretty much set and forget.
> 
> ...


tank size will a 40br.
yeah see I did not even think of the fact they could break making a big mess. I like the set and forget with the reactors.
question how big ( LxW ) should one be to get best dissolution?


----------



## ChrisX (May 28, 2017)

Its not possible for anyone to commercially manufacture/ship a reactor that anyone would choose over a DIY design, that's why you don't see them for sale. A proper Griggs reactor is pretty long, made of PVC, and would be expensive to ship, take a lot of space in inventory.

That's why you see diffusers and inline atomizers advertized; they are small, easy to manufacture, and can turn a profit. Its not that they are any better.


----------



## underH20garden (Dec 19, 2017)

I am thinking of making a Griggs reactor. research now...
is the Griggs the "gold standard" over other methods? if so why?


----------



## mgeorges (Feb 1, 2017)

ChrisX said:


> Its not possible for anyone to commercially manufacture/ship a reactor that anyone would choose over a DIY design, that's why you don't see them for sale. A proper Griggs reactor is pretty long, made of PVC, and would be expensive to ship, take a lot of space in inventory.
> 
> That's why you see diffusers and inline atomizers advertized; they are small, easy to manufacture, and can turn a profit. Its not that they are any better.


NilocG sells Griggs reactors. In fact, I just bought two from him! I don't have a lot of free time between work and family so the added expense of convenience was worthwhile. Quality product though. Shipping really wasn't bad either.

Griggs reactor works very well and it's simple, that's why people love and use it.


----------



## MCFC (Feb 12, 2017)

ChrisX said:


> Its not possible for anyone to commercially manufacture/ship a reactor that anyone would choose over a DIY design, that's why you don't see them for sale.



NilocG might disagree...




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## sdwindansea (Oct 28, 2016)

The only downside I can think of to a Griggs reactor is that some of us have to empty it of water during canister filter maintenance. I cannot get either of my canister filters to start pumping water again unless I drain the reactor. I know several others on this forum have the same issue. That being said, it is a very minor inconvenience.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

sdwindansea said:


> The only downside I can think of to a Griggs reactor is that some of us have to empty it of water during canister filter maintenance. I cannot get either of my canister filters to start pumping water again unless I drain the reactor. I know several others on this forum have the same issue. That being said, it is a very minor inconvenience.


Agree with above. I have same issue. Filter won't prime with reactor full of water.

However, with a Cerges I believe it's a bit easier. Just unscrew filter housing and pour out water. 

Helps to have a housing with a flow control valve like I do.


----------



## mgeorges (Feb 1, 2017)

I had this same problem with priming. What I did to fix it was fill my canister manually with water before putting the head back on it after cleaning, hook up hoses, pull the filter outlet out of my tank and put it at ground level in a bucket, then open up hoses and plug in filter. Voila - water started flowing right away! Shut flow off to outlet hose, stick it back in tank, open back up and good to go.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Aqua Forest Storefront tank (at one point in time)









Remember ADG









One in-tank diffuser for 5 to 6 foot Tanks. There's something magical in those little bubbles.  All methods work IMO it's merely preference. I don't know if it's a straight line with efficiency. There is also a thought process that the small bubbles attaching to leaves are more effective, thus negating some of the co2 loss.


----------



## Kubla (Jan 5, 2014)

underH20garden said:


> I was told by GLA that reactors use 2X more Co2 that inline diffusers is this true?
> they also said with reactors you get clear water but with inline you still get some bubbles. I would like little to no bubbles in the tank but @ 2x the usage of Co2?? in the end that might not be a big deal or it could ad up over the year in time and $$.
> 
> so what are your experiences with this?


I would be a bit upset if somebody tried to feed me this garbage.
It might be interesting to ask them for an explanation. The bubbles clinging to plants being more effective is more garbage. If you're measuring an amount of CO2 dissolved in the water they don't count, if you can see it, it's not dissolved.


----------



## sdwindansea (Oct 28, 2016)

mgeorges said:


> I had this same problem with priming. What I did to fix it was fill my canister manually with water before putting the head back on it after cleaning, hook up hoses, pull the filter outlet out of my tank and put it at ground level in a bucket, then open up hoses and plug in filter. Voila - water started flowing right away! Shut flow off to outlet hose, stick it back in tank, open back up and good to go.


I like that solution. Unfortunately it does not work for given the current setup of the output tubing/PVC.


----------



## ChrisX (May 28, 2017)

mgeorges said:


> NilocG sells Griggs reactors. In fact, I just bought two from him! I don't have a lot of free time between work and family so the added expense of convenience was worthwhile. Quality product though. Shipping really wasn't bad either.
> 
> Griggs reactor works very well and it's simple, that's why people love and use it.


Yes, but its exactly the same as one you or I would build. He basically is charging $25 in labor on top of parts cost. That is more than fair, but it's not exactly a "commercial" product.


----------



## PlantedRich (Jul 21, 2010)

sdwindansea said:


> The only downside I can think of to a Griggs reactor is that some of us have to empty it of water during canister filter maintenance. I cannot get either of my canister filters to start pumping water again unless I drain the reactor. I know several others on this forum have the same issue. That being said, it is a very minor inconvenience.


This is one that has been discussed and almost cussed several times but this is what I find. Others find different. 
I find any large amount of water on the output side of the canister will stop the air in the can from passing on up to the tank, if the water is lower in some spot than the air. I cannot get the air to go DOWN in water, only up. Several have told me this is nonsense but I still can't get it to work! 
So my solution has been to leave the reactor semi-loose, with it only strapped near the top, so that I can swing the bottom up and then the air passes on into the tank. At that point the incoming water fills the canister as it should and forces all the air out and up into the tank. 
Very simple and easy to do once I figured the process but not easy for those who have more solid plumbing or attach the reactor solidly.


----------



## Jeff5614 (Dec 29, 2005)

houseofcards said:


> Aqua Forest Storefront tank (at one point in time)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What House said above and far as ADA's methods "the proof is in the pudding" comes to mind. I've used reactors, in tank diffusers, in tank atomizers and currently an inline atomizer. I don't like a tank full of bubbles either and with an inline atomizer I have a fine mist that, to be quite honest, is only visible as it exits the lily pipe and you have to have your nose against the glass to see it. By the time it makes it to the other end of my four foot tank it's gone. It does go through an inline heater, UV sterilizer and the associated tubing before getting to the tank, probably five or six feet all together. Something that helps is to soak an inline atomizer in water before using it so that the ceramic tube becomes filled with water. It produces a much finer mist if you do that before use. Otherwise it looks like you have an exhaust pipe in the tank.

Efficiency is fine if that's your concern. Personally I don't care if I get two or three months out of a CO2 bottle. 

Reactors work, but they're flow killers, which if you're using two filters is no big deal or don't mind adding a powerhead in the tank is fine. Some people have issues with getting the proper size and you get bubbles blowing out or a lot of gurgling. They can take some patience to size properly which usually comes through trial and error. You do get no bubbles when sized properly and that much desired by some, 100% dissolution.

I've come to prefer atomizers or diffusers as you can tell. They're pretty much plug and play as a far as I'm concerned, simple and effective. Needless to say this all just my opinion and I'll add the "for what it's worth" and "you're mileage may vary" disclaimers.


----------



## ChrisX (May 28, 2017)

PlantedRich said:


> This is one that has been discussed and almost cussed several times but this is what I find. Others find different.
> I find any large amount of water on the output side of the canister will stop the air in the can from passing on up to the tank, if the water is lower in some spot than the air. I cannot get the air to go DOWN in water, only up. Several have told me this is nonsense but I still can't get it to work!
> So my solution has been to leave the reactor semi-loose, with it only strapped near the top, so that I can swing the bottom up and then the air passes on into the tank. At that point the incoming water fills the canister as it should and forces all the air out and up into the tank.
> Very simple and easy to do once I figured the process but not easy for those who have more solid plumbing or attach the reactor solidly.


Post a pic of your reactor and plumbing. We might be able to figure it out. If the top of the reactor is much higher than the canister, there might be problems.

I seem to remember you saying that you had a HW302 w/ griggs. Thats what I have and I'm able to prime.


----------



## sdwindansea (Oct 28, 2016)

@PlantedRich - I will see if I can give that method a shot during the next canister cleaning (just did it yesterday so I'm several weeks away now).
@ChrisX - Here is a photo of my setup (replaced the Hydor with a AquaTop...long, embarrassing story). Nothing else has changed.


----------



## ChrisX (May 28, 2017)

Here is my setup. Maybe the difficulty comes from the looping line leading into top of reactor? This might cause air to get trapped? Plumbing otherwise looks the same.

Also, to prime mine, the output bar needs to be above the water line. If my tank is 100% full, it won't prime.


----------



## PlantedRich (Jul 21, 2010)

ChrisX said:


> Post a pic of your reactor and plumbing. We might be able to figure it out. If the top of the reactor is much higher than the canister, there might be problems.
> 
> I seem to remember you saying that you had a HW302 w/ griggs. Thats what I have and I'm able to prime.


Sorry situation but I posted too many pictures and have exceeded the limits for posting pictures here. But I also have very much the same sdwindansea has pictured. Different brands and no heater inline but otherwise it works the same. 
When I do a filter clean, water will always stay in the reactor and there will be air in the canister. How much air depends on how we each may feel about filling the can, which leaves a small amount of air only at/near the impeller or if we leave the can empty it is totally full of air. Eheim says to start with the can empty and that is what I got used to doing as it is lighter also to carry back from cleaning. But whether it is small air or lots of air, I find it is really, really hard to get air to go DOWN through water. So when I open all the cutoffs on any of the canisters, no matter which brand, The water siphons down and forces air up out of the can but only the amount to get it pressed against the water in the reactor.
Some but not enough to leave the impeller in water. So it can't pump air and the priming has failed! 
BUT if we take the bottom of sdwindansea's reactor and tilt it so that it is higher than the top, the air comes shooting UP through the water, up the tubing and out in the tank! As it does, more water flows into the canister and fills it totally so the impeller can start pumping. 
I now use this as a "standard" restart as I have found it the same on Fluval, several types of Eheim, several Sunsun and Cascade 1000 filters. 
On several occasions, engineers have told me it will not work this way. I'm way past discussing which is heavier, air or water, I just know that my air winds up on top when it can get there and that's all I need to get it primed. :grin2:


----------



## Letsfish (Jul 11, 2017)

I`M planning to build a reactor and most likely I will have to place it after the UV, hopefully, I will not have a priming problem.By doing it this way it will give me better access to the filter when I clean it, the outflow hose is rather short between the filter and the UV. I will have to install the reactor inside the cabinet. Now if this becomes a big problem then a diffuser or atomizer will be used.


----------



## underH20garden (Dec 19, 2017)

Jeff5614 said:


> What House said above and far as ADA's methods "the proof is in the pudding" comes to mind. I've used reactors, in tank diffusers, in tank atomizers and currently an inline atomizer. I don't like a tank full of bubbles either and with an inline atomizer I have a fine mist that, to be quite honest, is only visible as it exits the lily pipe and you have to have your nose against the glass to see it. By the time it makes it to the other end of my four foot tank it's gone. It does go through an inline heater, UV sterilizer and the associated tubing before getting to the tank, probably five or six feet all together. Something that helps is to soak an inline atomizer in water before using it so that the ceramic tube becomes filled with water. It produces a much finer mist if you do that before use. Otherwise it looks like you have an exhaust pipe in the tank.
> 
> Efficiency is fine if that's your concern. Personally I don't care if I get two or three months out of a CO2 bottle.
> 
> ...


thank you for input! as a newbie its nice to see different options and thoughts so I very much welcome it.
not having see a planted tank in "real life" or a Co2 system for that matter its hard to tell or find the amount of bibles in the tank. it good to know you say only a fine mist out of the Lilly pipes. that is encouraging, still leaning towns a DIY reactor but its good to know once I price it all out. 

I will be using the sunsun 404B canister filter so flow of 525GPH minus head heath, plumbing, media inline heater. etc. so I feel I have the flow for it. one reason why I chose that filter. when all said in done I guess i will have 200-300 GPH in the tank.

Bump: * I thought I was always best to fill the canister filters up after cleaning for priming? so I already had that in my mind.

now just to size the reactor for my tank.


----------



## ChrisX (May 28, 2017)

PlantedRich said:


> Sorry situation but I posted too many pictures and have exceeded the limits for posting pictures here. But I also have very much the same sdwindansea has pictured. Different brands and no heater inline but otherwise it works the same.
> When I do a filter clean, water will always stay in the reactor and there will be air in the canister. How much air depends on how we each may feel about filling the can, which leaves a small amount of air only at/near the impeller or if we leave the can empty it is totally full of air. Eheim says to start with the can empty and that is what I got used to doing as it is lighter also to carry back from cleaning. But whether it is small air or lots of air, I find it is really, really hard to get air to go DOWN through water. So when I open all the cutoffs on any of the canisters, no matter which brand, The water siphons down and forces air up out of the can but only the amount to get it pressed against the water in the reactor.
> Some but not enough to leave the impeller in water. So it can't pump air and the priming has failed!
> BUT if we take the bottom of sdwindansea's reactor and tilt it so that it is higher than the top, the air comes shooting UP through the water, up the tubing and out in the tank! As it does, more water flows into the canister and fills it totally so the impeller can start pumping.
> ...


I never had to think about it much because it just works. Is it possible the pump volume of the SunSun is larger? 

With such a good understanding of what's happening, it must be totally confounding for you to not have it prime the normal way. There must be something different in your setup. 

Air can only pool in the top of the canister, the top of the reactor, and/or the canister output tubing if it is higher than the reactor. Priming creates a vaccum in the input line which draws water into the canister. Gravity feeds it into the canister and displaces air, which goes up to the input of the reactor.

Each subsequent pump will draw in a volume of water, the force of gravity on that water would act against the air in the top of the canister. I suppose if that force from above is not enough, air could get trapped. 

One thing that might disrupt this is if the canister is not on the floor, maybe its at the same level as the tank? Or perhaps the top of the reactor is too high above the canister .

IMO, its simple physics. Two things that could fix this are ensure water inlet is several feet above the canister, and make sure that the reactor top is not too high above the canister outlet so that the volume of a single pump can move water from the canister and start a cascade into the reactor. There aren't too many other variables to play with.


----------



## PlantedRich (Jul 21, 2010)

underH20garden said:


> Bump: * I thought I was always best to fill the canister filters up after cleaning for priming? so I already had that in my mind.


This part is still kind of open for debate with lots of folks. Some it works and some not? But the Eheim does say start with it empty. I'm not totally sure it matters a great deal when we are speaking of getting the remaining air that sets around the impeller. Since the impeller is in the lid and we can't fill the can above where the two meet, we can't really expect to get the air out of the impeller well, using either method if there is not a clear path to let more water in to totally fill both the can and the head. 
From the 2217 manual?
Important: When the filter media need cleaning or changing and the filter is taken away from the aquarium, please note the following points 1) The filter must have no water in it when reconnecting to the aquarium. 2) The pressure hose to the spray bar must be drained of water and the tap (if fitted) left open.
This is what pointed me to the idea that leaving water in the reactor, inline heater or droops in the tubing can be a problem for some.


----------



## natemcnutty (May 26, 2016)

I feel like I'm missing something, maybe even doing it wrong...

I have quick disconnects between my inflow and canister, and another set between my canister and my reactor. I cut power, shut both valves, remove canister, clean, fill with water until water is flowing out of the inflow, shut that valve, and top off the canister. I push the media down several times during that process to release bubbles, and with the canister full, I put the lid on and close the outflow valve just as the lid seats fully. Reconnect to tank, open both quick disconnects, and turn on the canister. I have very minor bubbles that get blown into the reactor and go away overnight. Occasionally I have to tilt the canister to get the remaining bubbles out, but that's it.

Am I doing it wrong? By leaving it empty I'd be basically filling my reactor with air with no chance of ever getting it out without completely changing how everything is hooked up in my cabinet.


----------



## underH20garden (Dec 19, 2017)

natemcnutty said:


> I feel like I'm missing something, maybe even doing it wrong...
> 
> I have quick disconnects between my inflow and canister, and another set between my canister and my reactor. I cut power, shut both valves, remove canister, clean, fill with water until water is flowing out of the inflow, shut that valve, and top off the canister. I push the media down several times during that process to release bubbles, and with the canister full, I put the lid on and close the outflow valve just as the lid seats fully. Reconnect to tank, open both quick disconnects, and turn on the canister. I have very minor bubbles that get blown into the reactor and go away overnight. Occasionally I have to tilt the canister to get the remaining bubbles out, but that's it.
> 
> Am I doing it wrong? By leaving it empty I'd be basically filling my reactor with air with no chance of ever getting it out without completely changing how everything is hooked up in my cabinet.


sounds like your doing something right. if you if working for you dont fix it. haha can you post a pic so I can see you setup I think I have a good understand but a picture is worth a 1000 words  

OK so for everyone else is there a DIY tutorial on this? I think I understand the basic concept but want to be sure before i start it.
I think I want to build it out of a RODI housing. i'll ask in the DIY forum too. just thought I would ask here as well we are already talking about reactors


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

Technically you can probably use less co2 with an inline diffuser since you'll get pure co2 bubbles brushing against the leaves. 
Also technically, if we're comparing bubble counts on identical systems keep in mind an inline diffuser is going to bleed slower so the pressure in the bubble counter will be higher. 
That will make the bubble count look lower, and the bubbles will be more compressed. 
Only way to truly compare would be to capture all co2 output and make sure both systems are at say.. 100cc/minute or something. 
But I would agree that the inline diffusers are probably better. 
I just dont like the mist.


Even if the inline diffuser uses more co2, its better.. 
You could maintain an identical dissolved co2 level while also having a mist of gaseousco2 bubbles that brush against the plants.


----------



## Triport (Sep 3, 2017)

I have my pressure on my tank with a reactor from NILOCG set lower than on any of my tanks with diffusers so I assume it uses less Co2. And the inline diffusers will make your tank look like it is full of soda bubbles. Some people don't mind it I guess but I thought it was awful. On my tanks without reactors I just use their regular atomic diffusers (the GLA ones are definitely the best quality ones I have tried).


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

I think it's safe to say every method has some advantages/disadvantages. Personally I like the visual check of seeing the bubbles with a diffuser. BTW most of these inline and intank diffuser / atomizers are all made by the same company overseas and are simply rebranded or changed slightly at retail.


----------



## nilocg (Jul 12, 2010)

houseofcards said:


> I think it's safe to say every method has some advantages/disadvantages. Personally I like the visual check of seeing the bubbles with a diffuser. BTW most of these inline and intank diffuser / atomizers are all made by the same company overseas and are simply rebranded or changed slightly at retail.


There are several companies that make these(or possibly one company that makes several versions with significant differences in quality). Compare an up aqua atomic diffuser and the atomic precision brand(made by Naito Corp) and you will see a significant difference in the fine mist that is produced.


----------



## HBdirtbag (Jun 15, 2015)

PlantedRich said:


> This is one that has been discussed and almost cussed several times but this is what I find. Others find different.
> I find any large amount of water on the output side of the canister will stop the air in the can from passing on up to the tank, if the water is lower in some spot than the air. I cannot get the air to go DOWN in water, only up. Several have told me this is nonsense but I still can't get it to work!
> So my solution has been to leave the reactor semi-loose, with it only strapped near the top, so that I can swing the bottom up and then the air passes on into the tank. At that point the incoming water fills the canister as it should and forces all the air out and up into the tank.
> Very simple and easy to do once I figured the process but not easy for those who have more solid plumbing or attach the reactor solidly.


I have to flip my reactor upside down, rather annoying


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

Im a reactor guy but I do believe there's some merit to a fine mist being better than 100% dissolution.

On several farm tanks Ive ran co2 straight into a powerhead, usually pre-diffused in some way. It makes for a helluva mist but plant response seems better. Also it doesnt take as much PH drop from co2 (uses less) to get the same plant response when there a mist.

Never tried an atomizer but I'd like to give one a test drive someday...


----------



## nilocg (Jul 12, 2010)

burr740 said:


> Im a reactor guy but I do believe there's some merit to a fine mist being better than 100% dissolution.
> 
> On several farm tanks Ive ran co2 straight into a powerhead, usually pre-diffused in some way. It makes for a helluva mist but plant response seems better. Also it doesnt take as much PH drop from co2 (uses less) to get the same plant response when there a mist.
> 
> Never tried an atomizer but I'd like to give one a test drive someday...


I dont think it taking less of a ph drop equates to using less co2. If there are co2 bubbles it means the co2 is not completely dissolve in the water which most likely means it wouldnt have an effect on the ph. Whether its better or not I really dont know.


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

nilocg said:


> I dont think it taking less of a ph drop equates to using less co2. If there are co2 bubbles it means the co2 is not completely dissolve in the water which most likely means it wouldnt have an effect on the ph. Whether its better or not I really dont know.


Right. But what I was trying to say is with a big mist having a 1.1 drop might be fine, but with a reactor along with 100% dissolution the PH needs to drop say 1.3 in order to get a similar positive response from plants.

I do get what your saying and it makes perfect sense. But it also took a higher bps rate to accomplish the latter with a reactor, hence the idea it uses more co2. I feel like it does but could certainly be wrong


----------



## Jeff5614 (Dec 29, 2005)

nilocg said:


> There are several companies that make these(or possibly one company that makes several versions with significant differences in quality). Compare an up aqua atomic diffuser and the atomic precision brand(made by Naito Corp) and you will see a significant difference in the fine mist that is produced.


Ya know, you could be correct. I have one of each and just thought it was my imagination.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

nilocg said:


> There are several companies that make these(or possibly one company that makes several versions with significant differences in quality). Compare an up aqua atomic diffuser and the atomic precision brand(made by Naito Corp) and you will see a significant difference in the fine mist that is produced.


Just for the record I never said it was all of them.



houseofcards said:


> BTW most of these inline and intank diffuser / atomizers are all made by the same company overseas and are simply rebranded or changed slightly at retail.


But there are a ton of these sold that are EXACTLY the same from maybe 20 vendors except the badging and/or marketing. Same of course goes for many regulators and other products as well.


----------



## nilocg (Jul 12, 2010)

houseofcards said:


> Just for the record I never said it was all of them.
> 
> 
> 
> But there are a ton of these sold that are EXACTLY the same from maybe 20 vendors except the badging and/or marketing. Same of course goes for many regulators and other products as well.


I agree, wasnt trying to say you were wrong just pointing out the fact that many people(including me years ago), thought all were the same but with different price tags.

Bump:


Jeff5614 said:


> Ya know, you could be correct. I have one of each and just thought it was my imagination.


Ya from my experience the ones made by the Naito Corp produce an extremely fine mist, the up aqua ones done seem to produce nearly as fine a mist.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

Triport said:


> I have my pressure on my tank with a reactor from NILOCG set lower than on any of my tanks with diffusers so I assume it uses less Co2. And the inline diffusers will make your tank look like it is full of soda bubbles. Some people don't mind it I guess but I thought it was awful. On my tanks without reactors I just use their regular atomic diffusers (the GLA ones are definitely the best quality ones I have tried).


Yeah the mist is kind of ugly, gets old and thats why I switched. 
Even though the Reactor is under pressure the water is flowing and it acts as a venturi and you're actually creating a vacuum at the co2 outlet. 
Gas density depends on pressure so your pressure being set lower or your metering valve being set lower isn't proof of less co2 usage, just that it is flowing more freely and with no resistance. 



nilocg said:


> I dont think it taking less of a ph drop equates to using less co2. If there are co2 bubbles it means the co2 is not completely dissolve in the water which most likely means it wouldnt have an effect on the ph. Whether its better or not I really dont know.


That is exactly the point I think? 
If you were to compare reactor vs atomizer at a 1ph drop the atomizer is probably using more co2 in this case, but the plant response should be better since there will be pure co2 gas in contact with the leaves, especially in the case of leaves with a shape where the co2 bubbles accumulate under the leaves. 
If you were to set co2 static based on actual volume cc/minute the reactor would have a greater pH drop since there is less waste but plant response won't be as good IMO. 
So actual co2 usage might end up higher with the reactor.

That being said I switched to a reactor after disliking how hard it was to see into the tank.


another potential downfall to reactors is that since many people set the outflow to aim at the surface to create surface ripple, the most concentrated co2 levels are at the part of the tank where offgassing is the most extreme, by the time the water is more circulated it may have lost co2. 
Where as with atomizers the mist is carried through the tank and may get trapped in lower flow areas and dissolve there, or at the substrate, etc, and maybe you end up with a much more even distribution of co2. Maybe..


----------



## Jeff5614 (Dec 29, 2005)

Speaking of inline atomizers, here's a nice 180 cm tank using one.


----------



## klibs (May 1, 2014)

bubbles = CO2 not getting to your plants

your plants are not taking in CO2 via bubbles. they are taking in CO2 via CO2 dissolved into the water column


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

klibs said:


> bubbles = CO2 not getting to your plants
> 
> your plants are not taking in CO2 via bubbles. they are taking in CO2 via CO2 dissolved into the water column


How do terrestrial plants take in co2 then if they're not underwater?

It's far easier for plants to take in co2 in gaseous form, so if there is direct contact with mist that is a good thing.
Plus bubbles form under the leaves which become a mix of pure co2 and o2


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

Yeah^ plus the tiny mist bubbles that stick to plants are pure co2, not diluted in the water column


----------



## KayakJimW (Aug 12, 2016)

klibs said:


> your plants are not taking in CO2 via bubbles


Why not? We don't need CO2 for floaters because they get enough from the atmosphere. Bubbles bring "atmosphere" to the plant

The benefits of misting are long debated, with successful hobbyists arguing both sides as seen here for example:Why is CO2 misting so effective? - General Aquarium Plants Discussions - Aquatic Plant Central


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

KayakJimW said:


> Why not? We don't need CO2 for floaters because they get enough from the atmosphere. Bubbles bring "atmosphere" to the plant
> 
> The benefits of misting are long debated, with successful hobbyists arguing both sides as seen here for example:Why is CO2 misting so effective? - General Aquarium Plants Discussions - Aquatic Plant Central


Good grief I'm in that discussion you linked from APC in 2007. I gotta get a new gig


----------



## Letsfish (Jul 11, 2017)

I still don't have all of the stuff for my CO2 system.I`m still waiting for the fittings from DIY CO2.This morning I made a Griggs reactor as a first choice but I have an atomizer coming if that doesn`t work. Because of space I had to move the canister and UV outside of the cabinet.I`m going to feed the Griggs which will go inside the cabinet, from the UV and that may be a problem getting everything primed.The Atomizer is an easy solution if the reactor becomes APITA.


----------



## underH20garden (Dec 19, 2017)

wow what a thread guys, lets keep it going! 

Ok I decided to go with a DIY reactor. main reason is no soda water in the tank. excited to start the build!


----------

