# New Sera CO2 Reactor



## TLE041

Hi,

Has anyone used the newly released "Aktiv" in-line CO2 reactor? It looks like a standard Rex Grigg DIY reactor that features a twin rotor that "ensure strong blending of CO2 with the aquarium water, allowing to dissolve several hundred CO2 bubbles per minute."










More info:

http://www.sera.de/en/products/tech...omponenten/sera-flore-co2-active-reactor.html
http://reefbuilders.com/2010/07/30/sera-co2-reactor-pinwheel-mix-carbon-dioxide-ozone-gas/

Being a Sera product, it's not widely available in North America but you can get it on eBay for around $35. If this actually works as advertised, it's a decent alternative for someone (like me) who doesn't want to go through the hassle of making one.

I'd appreciate your thoughts/opinions.


----------



## MrMoneybags

never used one...but i would think that its a waste of money...for the $35 you could make 2 RG reactors

and since it takes about 10mins or less to do...I dont think of it as much of a hassle either

RG reactors are very efficient to begin with...so not sure how much better it could be...but who knows..maybe it churns out club soda :hihi:


----------



## tuffgong

$35 isn't bad for those who aren't into DIY if it's effective.


----------



## TLE041

tuffgong said:


> $35 isn't bad for those who aren't into DIY if it's effective.


I agree. 

I'm not overly concerned about the price. It's the efficacy that I was wondering about. How does something like this compare to other in-line diffusers like the Aqua Medic 1000 (much more $$$) or this one.


----------



## MrMoneybags

1. efficient is efficient...RG are 100% (at the proper flow rate/diameter/length)
and you cant beat that!...unless your tank is HUMONGOUS (lets say 500+ gallons) Im 99.8% certain a RG reactor will work for you

i kno someone with a 400 gal custom tank...IMO its not practical and I would NEVER want one and he runs 2-3 RG reactors (cant remember how tho)

2. a RG will be more efficient than the waterplant one...and again...$25 is too high when eBay has them for $15ish (tho when I got mine months ago they were $4(shipped))

I use the inline diffuser to supply CO2 to my RG reactor

for the money...I would take the 30mins to learn how to build one...or take a picture to the hardware store and get some help

things youd need to know

filter tubing size (1/2" or 5/8" [hard to find] or 3/4")
thats it


----------



## neumahrs

I got one recently, so I'll post a review in the future once I have it running.


----------



## Sharkfood

I'd like to see that review. I have a reactor based off the RG style, and it works well enough, but if this thing can do the same as the RG while taking up less space, I'd give it a shot.


----------



## neumahrs

Still haven't hooked this thing up but here is a pic showing what you get.









And a better look of the inside


----------



## random_alias

neumahrs,

Thanks for those pics.



Here's the manufacturer's PDF: http://www.sera.de/fileadmin/gbi/08057_8_sera_CO2_Reaktoren_2009_11_INT.pdf


When being judged, this product will inevitably end up being compared to the commercial Reactor 1000 and the DIY reactor variations, such as the Barr reactor and the Rex reactor. 

Even though most DIY CO2 reactors work just fine, there are some ideas floating around about design changes that seem to be theoretically sound. I think the work involved and cost of incorporating these design changes into DIY reactors has kept most of us from trying them. The attraction of DIY reactors has always been their simplicity and price. 

Still, I find this reactor to be very interesting. In theory, it looks like this design addresses pretty much all the "room for improvement" concerns people have voiced about external CO2 reactors. 

First, the pinwheel looks like it would chop up any CO2 pocket that may form in the top of the reactor. Second, the outflow pipe opening being so close to the bottom of the reactor, and the way it is designed, should make it more difficult for those tiny CO2 bubbles to be prematurely forced out of the reactor and into the aquarium. Third, the fact that the reactor can be opened may be useful for maintenance purposes. Fourth, the hose connectors are screw-down, hopefully making hose connections/disconnects easier. Fifth, it has an actual CO2 tubing connector.

Since I haven't used this reactor, all those observations are purely speculative at this point. My primary concern is what this thing might sound like during actual use.

Whether any of this holds up in practice will be the final test. I am about to order one.


----------



## milesm

the sera site says to use the larger model for big tanks and _planted tanks._ looking forward to see reviews by neumahrs and random.


----------



## Tunze

Mine should be here this week. I bought the 1000 from Ebay last Saturday.
This reactor really looks like it should perform very well.


----------



## TLE041

Received mine as well. I won't have a chance to try it out until a few weeks, though (tank is undergoing a dry start). Here are a few pictures:


----------



## Tunze

One thing I wasn't able to find was the size of the hose connections.
Can you tell me what size they are?


----------



## Sharkfood

I'm still anxious to see the reviews. :bounce:

I'd like to know what the recommended flow rates are for these devices.


----------



## random_alias

Page 8 of the above pdf gives the hose size and the flow rates.


----------



## Solid

This thing actually looks pretty nice. Not sure if the spinning rotor at the top is effective but I'm interested in a review as well. 

Also i might be retarded, but I couldn't find the hose connection sizes either. It does say that one accessory comes with 16mm (5/8") hose so im assuming that is the the size of the outlets. But can anyone confirm?


----------



## random_alias

said:


> ...one accessory comes with 16mm (5/8") hose...


Items that are not included with the reactor are listed in the accessories section: CO2 tubing, a check valve, screws for the mounting plate, and 5/8" ID hose.

neumahrs mentioned to me that his 500 reactor had 5/8" connectors.


----------



## Momotaro

At first look, I like it.

Reminds me less of the tube reactors and more of the converted phosphate reactor I was running.

I don't think the price is all that bad either if it works well.


----------



## Tunze

Solid said:


> It does say that one accessory comes with 16mm (5/8") hose so im assuming that is the the size of the outlets. But can anyone confirm?


Yes, the hose connections are 5/8"
Mine came in the mail today so I took some pics. I bought the 1000 and the only difference between this and the 500 is the length of the body.


----------



## hubble13

Does anyone know if there is an adapter you can use to fit this on 12/16mm (1/2")hose?


----------



## neumahrs

just buy 1/2 to 5/8 barbed fittings. I tried stretching the 1/2" tubing over the barbs but it kinks up pretty badly. So I'm going to have to grab a little 5/8" tubing and fittings to make it all work.


----------



## hubble13

probably a stupid question but were would you pick up the barbed fittings?


----------



## neumahrs

some lfs should carry them or you can get them directly from grainger for 3.88 for a pack of 10. maybe Home Depot/Lowes/Menards and places like that have them?


----------



## bill321

I just ordered the 1000 model from eebay

I hope it works better than my DIY reactor. At least I will be able to see whats going on inside there and take it apart to clean 

Bill321


----------



## TLE041

hubble13 said:


> probably a stupid question but were would you pick up the barbed fittings?


I bought one made by Eheim for my filter tubing from Big Al's (but it was overpriced just like every other Eheim parts).


----------



## jrman83

Pardon me if should do more searching, but what is a RG reactor?


----------



## snausage

I don't own this product, but IMO Sera products are the best value out there. I recently bought one of their heaters is excellent. I also have a few miscellaneous items (food, testing equipment, air stuff) and it's all Hagen quality with a lower price tag.


----------



## hbosman

Several years ago, I had a reactor that was very similar to this. I believe it was made by Ista. It worked very well especially for it's size. Since it wasn't of the same quality this one looks to be, I wound up breaking the threading on it when I opened it for cleaning. There is one thing that might be considered though, the spinning propeller thing will make splashing noises but, if it's in inside your cabinet, that shouldn't be a big deal.


----------



## hubble13

Has any one hooked this up yet? Cant Wait to hear the review!


----------



## odie

Where can you find these? ebay only?


----------



## Sharkfood

Bleh. The flow rate for my canister is 2x what they recommend for the flore 1000. I'll have to go back to another Idea I've been toying around with.


----------



## fishykid1

Sharkfood said:


> Bleh. The flow rate for my canister is 2x what they recommend for the flore 1000. I'll have to go back to another Idea I've been toying around with.




That's a bummer... what's the flow rate on the 500 rated for? I have a inline reactor that i put together, but it's burping every once in a while.. maybe need a higher angle...


----------



## TLE041

Sharkfood said:


> Bleh. The flow rate for my canister is 2x what they recommend for the flore 1000. I'll have to go back to another Idea I've been toying around with.


Couldn't you decrease the filter's flow slightly? If you had an Eheim, just close one of the quickconnect valves down a notch.



fishykid1 said:


> what's the flow rate on the 500 rated for?


500 = 132 gph
1000 = 185 gph


----------



## hubble13

Anyone know the flow rate for a 2213.


----------



## Solid

I would think that having more flow wouldn't be bad, it would be less flow that cause a problem. I could be wrong though.


----------



## TLE041

hubble13 said:


> Anyone know the flow rate for a 2213.


It's 116 gph, which is slightly less than the recommended flow rate of 132 gph for the 500, but it's not a problem for me as the filter is already overpowered for the Mini-L that I'm planning on using this setup with.

I would think that the lower flow rate allows more time for the CO2 gas to dissolve, thus avoiding fine bubbles from being released into the tank.


----------



## captain_bu

Solid said:


> I would think that having more flow wouldn't be bad, it would be less flow that cause a problem. I could be wrong though.


If there is too much flow the CO2 bubbles will get pushed into the tank before they have had a chance to dissolve in the reactor. If you are building your own reactor you can build a longer one out of wider PVC to compensate for heavy flow.


----------



## Solid

captain_bu said:


> If there is too much flow the CO2 bubbles will get pushed into the tank before they have had a chance to dissolve in the reactor. If you are building your own reactor you can build a longer one out of wider PVC to compensate for heavy flow.


Ahhh ok thnks!


----------



## hubble13

THanks!


----------



## random_alias

Came in the mail today. Got it hooked up but impressions will have to wait until tomorrow when the CO2 is actually on. 

First impression: This 500 model is tiny!
Second impression: The water swirls around the center pipe like a tornado.
Third impression: Please remember to attach the CO2 tubing *BEFORE* you turn the filter on...please.

I had forgotten how much I *HATE* dealing with tubing.

More to follow.


----------



## herns

jrman83 said:


> Pardon me if should do more searching, but what is a RG reactor?



+1. What is a RG Reactor?


----------



## gotcheaprice

I might have to get one of these soon. Starting to hate on the mist, haha.


herns said:


> +1. What is a RG Reactor?


http://www.rexgrigg.com/diy-reactor.htm


----------



## Tunze

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/diy/22296-rex-reactor.html




herns said:


> +1. What is a RG Reactor?


----------



## Momotaro

Little history lesson?

The actual reactor being mention was originally brought to the attention of the hobby community by a fellow named James Hoftiezer back in 2002 on Robert Hudson's old Wet Thumbs forum. Ghazanfar Ghori also published plans at about the same time. 

http://www.gwapa.org/articles/inline_co2_reactor/

Here is a link to James' website detailing the build of one of the finer American aquascapes. James was a pioneering hobbyist for sure:

http://www.hoftiezer.net/personal/aquaria/index.htm

Rex took that form and removed the bio balls. I believe to compensate for the removal of the media within the chamber of the Hoftiezer reactor, Rex made the chamber of the reactor longer. The reactor worked, but the flaw to me always seemed to be the actual size of the reactor. It was too tall for many aquarium stands and a little difficult to plumb because of the size. 

Steve Scolley began playing around with adding a misting device inside of the chamber of the reactor in order to both increase the dissolution of CO2 inside the reactor and scale own the size of the unit.

There have been a few variations of the PVC CO2 reactor over the years, but I personally believe the Steve Scolley tweaks are probably the best.

There you go. The history of and evolution of the _HOFTIEZER_ reactor as I remember it.


----------



## random_alias

CO2 enters the reactor from the top. Water flows into the reactor from the top side, at the same height as the CO2 pocket. As water enters the reactor from the side, it immediately hits a rotor and starts it turning. This agitates the CO2 pocket. The CO2 rotor is virtually silent, or at least quiet, when there is no gas in the reactor. When trapped air is ejected from a canister filter, it gets trapped in the reactor and is agitated. When CO2 enters the reactor, it gets trapped and agitated. Whenever there is any gas in the reactor, you can hear it being agitated. Thus, anyone looking for an absolutely silent external reactor design should look elsewhere. 

There is a central cylinder that runs down to the bottom of the reactor. Water spins around and down this central cylinder (imagine a tornado) until it reaches the bottom, where it is forced up into the cylinder and then out the top of the reactor and into the aquarium.

The reactor has a tiny clip on the side that allows you to slide in a mounting bracket. Visualize sliding a cell phone or pocket knife over your belt, same principle. Once you add the bracket, you have the option of using screws or the two suction cups that come with the reactor. Personally, mine is temporarily just hanging, suspended in mid air, by the two canister hoses. I would not recommend this for long term use for obvious reasons.

I have just started using this reactor, so these are initial impressions only. I thought about reserving my impressions until I had spent a reasonable amount of time with the reactor, but I see a lot of people want information about this reactor, now. So, accept these impressions as being tentative for the moment.

The 500 reactor is small, by normal reactor standards. It is dwarfed by the AM 1000 commercial unit and most DIY reactors. However, this unit has a central cylinder that the other reactors do not. Thus, it is more difficult for CO2 bubbles to be forced out the bottom of the reactor with this design, all other things, such as length, etc, being equal. (Do not assume this means it is impossible. It still happens with strong enough water flow).

This reactor does not have a purge valve on the top to allow you to vent excess gas, for example, when priming a canister filter. This requires a little creative thinking at times but I would not consider it a disadvantage since most external reactors do not have a purge valve, the AM 1000 being the exception. If you hold the reactor so that the top side inflow point is the highest point, the trapped air will rise to that point. You can then open a disconnect valve on your canister outflow and the force of the water being pulled down from the aquarium outflow and through the reactor will force most of the trapped air out.

This reactor has a threaded bottom half that can be taken apart. There is a rubber o-ring attached to the top half of the reactor to create a seal. I experienced a very, very, very slow leak when I first assembled the reactor. Do not worry, there is a very easy fix for this if it occurs. Place petroleum jelly on the threads (and inside the threads) of the bottom half. Also, place petroleum jelly on the very top edge of the bottom half, where it meets the o-ring when reassembled. The petroleum jelly on and in the threads of the bottom half seals the threads and, most importantly, gave me a little extra “twist” when I reassembled it. This additional amount of twist, and the fact that there was jelly on the top edge, allowed the reactor to make an extra tight seal with the o-ring. The simple lube job was enough to give me a water-tight seal…no more leaks.

I did a water change that night, which put my drop checker into the deep blue. My CO2 cuts on before the lights. The next morning, my drop checker was green when the lights came on.

When I placed a black background behind the tank, I could see some very, very tiny CO2 bubbles exiting the outflow and entering my aquarium. I want to make a point here: I am using the smaller 500 model reactor and I am using a SunSun 303B canister filter, which is manufacturer rated at 378 GPH. I do not know if using the larger 1000 model reactor with this powerful canister filter would eliminate the small bubbles entirely. Maybe, maybe not. As long as I am using a background-less aquarium, I feel no need to try to eliminate such tiny bubbles. It isn’t like a CO2 mist setup or anything that drastic, and I am pushing a heck of a lot of water through the smaller of the two reactor models. Even with some CO2 escape, the drop checker is still in the green. I think the fact that a 378 gph (manufacturer rated) canister doesn’t immediately blow the entire CO2 pocket out of this 7 inch reactor says a lot about the design. Imagine trying to use a 7 inch DIY reactor with this canister.


----------



## odie

Thanx for the explanation and the pics! Very helpful!


----------



## comatoast

Mine is shipping today- been using the cheapo boyu and living with the 7-up effect. Random_Alias' review has me hoping this will alleviate that issue while still giving me good CO2 saturation.


----------



## tuffgong

Random_Alias,

Yes, we are dying for more info! Thanks for the update! Your initial impressions are impressive for early results. I really like the fact that you didn't have to do any hose conversions to connect to the reactor. I've got the same filter and can see myself using this reactor due to ease of setup. All I would need to do is add a pressurized CO2 setup and I would be good to go. I look forward to your updates.

With the SunSun being virtually silent already how loud would u say the 500 reactor is in comparison? Based on what you said it doesn't sound like it's very loud and that if your setup was enclosed in a cabinet you might not hear anything at all.


----------



## random_alias

tuffgong said:


> With the SunSun being virtually silent already how loud would u say the 500 reactor is in comparison? Based on what you said it doesn't sound like it's very loud and that if your setup was enclosed in a cabinet you might not hear anything at all.


If you get a bunch of air trapped in there, it's loud. It sounds like a water faucet running on high, because that is essentially what it becomes. You get a ton of water splashing into an open area. Of course, you aren't supposed to have a bunch of air trapped in there.

Once any trapped air gets purged, you are down to a small amount of CO2 in the top. Then, it gets quiet. It sounds like a light water trickle.

Basically, the volume depends on the water:gas ratio. I'm listening to it right now and can imagine it being totally silent if I had an enclosed stand. You can't get much more open than an ADA Garden stand with the reactor suspended in mid-air by the filter hoses  Even with my setup, it's only slightly noticeable, and not annoying at all. It's kind of relaxing. I absolutely hate buzzing or rattling noises. I can' stand them. This is not that kind of sound at all.

To give you some idea of my sound tastes, I absolutely hate the sound diffusers make when the little bubbles squeeze out. That chirping sound used to drive me nuts!


----------



## random_alias

I ordered the 1000 model and will be installing it hopefully the last part of this week to compare how it works with the SunSun 303B flow. If you are planning to buy one of these reactors, you may want to wait until I try the 1000. I can then tell you if the $20 for the larger of the two reactor models will make any difference.


----------



## bill321

My 1000 model was delivered today!

I am not sure how I am going to make this work......I might have to do some creative plumbing. My goal is to have everything under the tank inside the enclosed stand.

Since the output of this new reactor is on the top....well I am not sure how I am going to get water thru my in-line heater now.

Here is a pic of my current set up. As you can see the water comes in the top of my DIY reactor and then out the bottom....then from there into the in-line heater and then up to the spray-bar. So I am not sure how I am going to do the plumbing now without making a giant S from the top of the new reactor to the bottom of my in-line heater. :confused1:











Bill321


----------



## Tunze

I wanna stress the importance of putting a lubricant on the threads and O ring just like Random_Alias said.
I'm using the 1000 and a Fluval 404 which is rated @ 340 GPH and have not been able to push bubbles out yet. 
I pushed it to see what It could do and got the Co2 pocket about an inch below the threads and still no bubbles. I only ran it like that for few minutes though.
It does make some noise but not to bad. It might be to loud for someone trying to sleep though.


----------



## random_alias

bill321 said:


> My 1000 model was delivered today!
> 
> I am not sure how I am going to make this work......I might have to do some creative plumbing. My goal is to have everything under the tank inside the enclosed stand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill321


Looks like you'll need to run your Hydor at a 45 degree angle.

If you put the Sera where your DIY reactor is, your filter outflow hose should work without modification. Then, attach your Hydor inflow hose to the top of the Sera and that should put the Hydor at a 45 degree angle and still let you run your Hydor outflow hose out the back of the stand. You may need to shorten up the Hydor inflow and outflow hoses.

It'll be a tight fit to get everything lined up without s-curves.

Once you get it worked out like you want, I'd like to see a pic of how you manage it.


----------



## random_alias

Side-by-side comparison...


----------



## random_alias

I placed the black background behind the aquarium again, this time using the 1000 model instead of the 500. I saw no bubbles exiting the outflow.


----------



## odie

Sharkfood said:


> Bleh. The flow rate for my canister is 2x what they recommend for the flore 1000. I'll have to go back to another Idea I've been toying around with.


 Actually that was their minimum they don't state max.


----------



## odie

random_alias said:


> I placed the black background behind the aquarium again, this time using the 1000 model instead of the 500. I saw no bubbles exiting the outflow.


You think it could handle 600-700 gph?


----------



## random_alias

odie said:


> You think it could handle 600-700 gph?


Any answer I gave would be complete and total speculation.


----------



## scolley

Momotaro said:


> Little history lesson?
> 
> Steve Scolley began playing around with adding a misting device inside of the chamber of the reactor in order to both increase the dissolution of CO2 inside the reactor and scale own the size of the unit.
> 
> There have been a few variations of the PVC CO2 reactor over the years, but I personally believe the Steve Scolley tweaks are probably the best.
> 
> There you go. The history of and evolution of the _HOFTIEZER_ reactor as I remember it.


OK. What I'm about to say is not definitive... because I can not back it up with fact. However, I am a somewhat arrogant person, and have a clear tendency to remember in solid detail those things that show my contributions in a way that shines a favorable light on my efforts. This does not hit that mark, I'm afraid.

IMO Momotaro's recollections are right on target, including my own experimentation with this particular "tweak" to standard CO2 injection methods. So, can I recall the specifics of my findings? Unfortunately, no. Not in clear detail.

But that's only because they were not particularly impressive. Believe me... if I had just tinkered with the best thing since sliced bread I'd have been the FIRST to post about it! My ego demands as much. But my DIY experience with this particular idea resulted in a reaction in the "So what?" category.

I'm glad to see the vendor community is trying to fill the void of revenue opportunity to assist our hobby. But I'm not personally convinced that this is the bandwagon we all must jump upon.

But, as always, being wrong can be quite a treat!


----------



## random_alias

Scolly, I'm not sure if you are referring to the addition of a CO2 mister or the addition of spinning rotors in your above post. They are two different things and I don't want to make any assumptions about the "tweak" you are addressing. Did you experiment with water-powered spinning rotors inside a DIY Hoftiezer, or did you experiment with adding a CO2 diffuser inside an external reactor? Also, did you experiment with adding a central outflow cylinder with the intake at the very bottom? I want to be sure I understand what it is about the Sera reactor that you have tried in the past and found to be not particularly impressive.

I've been trying to share as much first hand information and personal experience as I can, having actually used both models. The informed choices people make after that are entirely up to them. I would, however, ask anyone to actually try this reactor before they speculate on it's effectiveness. That always rings true for any product or any idea.

I wouldn't call the Sera reactor a bandwagon. It's a physical product that attempts to fill a need in the community. That need is for an external reactor that is smaller and cheaper than the AM 1000 and does not require assembly from hardware store parts.

Whether the rotors help or not, this has been a great external reactor for me so far. The 1000 model fits my filter flow well and my drop checker is always in the green when the lights come on.

Having said that, these reactors will not be for everyone. Some people prefer DIY reactors to save money, or for the enjoyment of building something themselves. Some people prefer the diffuser mist method. There is no right or wrong approach.

In the past, I have used a DIY bell reactor, a powerhead mister, an AM 1000 reactor, a DIY reactor made by Rex Griggs and shipped to me, an ADA pollen glass, cheap glass diffuser knockoffs, a wood airstone, and infusion through Eheim, Marineland, and SunSun canister filter intakes.

For people looking for an external reactor that does not require DIY building, I feel this reactor fits that bill better than anything else I've ever come across. The price point, the design (including or ignoring the rotors), and the performance of this reactor are what I've liked about the Sera so far.

Now, this is a relatively new product. Some others have commented on their experiences with it. I would like to hear more feedback from others who have actually used this product. It is entirely possible that my impressions are not in line with the majority of users. 

The broader our cross sample of impressions, the more likely it is that forum readers will get an accurate reporting on this reactor.


----------



## random_alias

I woke this morning to a very annoying ticking/rattling sound. It sounded similar to the sound of a canister filter starting up, so my first thought was that something was wrong with my filter. I quickly realized that the sound was coming from the reactor. I have no idea what had happened over night to cause this, but it was unacceptable. I troubleshot. 

I turned the filter off, then back on again, in hopes of "resetting" or "settling" the rotors. No change. I then opened the reactor and felt the rotors with my fingers. Nothing seemed unusual. I turned the bottom rotor upside down since it seemed the fit tighter that way. This lessened the volume of the noise, but it was still unacceptable. I opened the reactor again and proceeded to remove both rotors. This solved the problem. This made me curious. Could this reactor work without the rotors?

I went back to sleep. When I woke up, the CO2 pocket in the reactor was getting blasting and swirled with water. No bubbles were exiting the reactor. My drop checker was green. The only noise coming from the reactor was a relaxing "trickle" sound of water as it was running through the CO2 pocket. 

Later today, my drop checker is light green and my plants are pearling. I guess that settles it. At least in my case, this reactor works well even if I remove the rotors. Just wanted to let you guys know in case you wanted to try the reactor rotorless.


----------



## bill321

I have a problem with the "union nuts" that lock the tubing onto the input/output of the reactor.....

I am using the green Eheim 16/22 tubing and its outer diameter is too big to be able to use the locking nuts of the Sera reactor. The Eheim tubing inner diameter is perfect to fit onto the input and output nipples....but I can't use the locking nuts to tighten it all down and ensure the Eheim tubes don't come off in the middle of the night and drain my tank.

So I went back to my old DIY PVC reactor for the time being.

I still had the problem with being able to fit everything under my case since the output of the reactor is on the top of the Sera reactor....and now with the 16/22 tubing being slightly too big to be able to slide the locking nuts over....

Well....I guess my search for the "perfect" CO2 reactor is still ongoing


----------



## inkslinger

bill321 
Atomic CO2 Diffuser for inline that will fit your 16/22 hose
http://www.greenleafaquariums.com/co2-diffusers.html


----------



## bill321

inkslinger said:


> bill321
> Atomic CO2 Diffuser for inline that will fit your 16/22 hose
> http://www.greenleafaquariums.com/co2-diffusers.html


 
Yeah...I have been watching the discussion on those new diffusers over at GLA and I really like what I am seeing.

But there are two things holding me back on getting one.

1. I don't want any bubbles in my tank.
2. How long do they last before the ceramic diffuser part gets clogged ?

Hmmm...i think you just inspired me to go post a question to Orlando 


Bill321


----------



## speedballz

Isn't this similar to the ISTA Max Mix CO2 reactor. Can't find much info on it but people in the Far East and Australia have been using it for years. Similar design and concept except this one has 2 impellers, one at the top and another at the bottom to help break up the CO2 bubbles.

http://www.ttnet.net/show_html.jsp/...0022767/item_no/2/itno/HS300/dtno/080/type1/A

Here's a link on youtube of it in actions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkKlYRPOFsY


----------



## TLE041

It's been a few weeks since you guys had this Sera reactor running. Any updates?


----------



## random_alias

It still works.


----------



## bricemarques

random_alias said:


> In the past, I have used a DIY bell reactor, a powerhead mister, an AM 1000 reactor, a DIY reactor made by Rex Griggs and shipped to me, an ADA pollen glass, cheap glass diffuser knockoffs, a wood airstone, and infusion through Eheim, Marineland, and SunSun canister filter intakes.
> 
> For people looking for an external reactor that does not require DIY building, I feel this reactor fits that bill better than anything else I've ever come across. The price point, the design (including or ignoring the rotors), and the performance of this reactor are what I've liked about the Sera so far.


Hi random_alias, thank you very much for sharing your experience on the Sera and other reactors that you have used before.

I do not have any aquariums, but I came across this method (CO2 reactors) of diffusing CO2 in water, which could very well be a part of the solution for what I am actually trying to do.

I am a student at university and would like to set up an experiment trying to get as much CO2 as possible dissolved in water (supersaturating water with CO2), as fast as possible. Although I am aware that you have only used this system to finely balance the CO2 dissolved in your aquarium, so it doesn't kill your plants.

One of the main issues for me though is that I am undecided as to which CO2 reactor I should get: either the AM 1000, or the Sera 1000. Which one do you think would be most suitable in my case, especially to get the CO2 concentration in water as high as possible?

I would be grateful if you could please share your thoughts and experience once more, and anything else you may think of, any advice at all you could give me would be much appreciated.


----------



## random_alias

Hi bricemarques.

There are lots of people on this forum that have great deals of experience in dissolving CO2 into water.

First, I'd like to explore some exceptions that you may or may not be able to use to increase your chances of success. Can you only use one source of CO2? For example, can you use a reactor and a diffusor at the same time? Can anything be added to the setup to eliminate or reduce CO2 naturally off-gassing into the atmosphere? For example, can you place a lid on the aquarium to trap CO2 in a small amount of air so that the atmosphere above the water surface has a large CO2 concentration, thus slowing off-gassing since the liquid and atmosphere will have CO2 closer to being in equilibrium with other? Can you place a thin layer of oil on the surface of the water to help block off-gassing?

I have always tried to hover slightly over 30 ppm of CO2. I have no (intentional) experience going much higher than that. I see that you have acknowledged this in your post, so I know that you are aware. Unfortunately, this means that any response I could give you would be a guess, instead of an experience.

I honestly have no idea which reactor, when run to full capacity, would mix more CO2 into a body of water. I can explain some differences between the two reactors that may influence your decision.

AM 1000

To reduce the CO2 being a limiting factor in your reactor, you are going to want to over inject CO2 into the reactor. This means you will be adding CO2 into the reactor faster than it is being dissolved. This will form a gas pocket at the top of the reactor. Now, the AM 1000 is BIG. However, it is designed to have a jet of water enter the top and flow straight down through the reactor chamber and out of the bottom. There are "bio balls" packed inside the reactor chamber, but a strong flow can still blow smaller CO2 bubbles straight past them, out the bottom of the reactor chamber, and into your aquarium, where they will quickly rise to the surface and pop, thus enriching the atmosphere above the water more than the water itself.

That is not a given. The amount of water flow you are running through the reactor will play a strong part in determining the "dwell time" of Co2 bubbles in the chamber. Blast a large amount of water through and it will force the bubbles out. Match the flow to the reactor and you will have bubbles bouncing or dancing within the reactor, which is ideal.

Sera Flore 1000

This reactor injects CO2 into the reactor from the top, just like the AM 1000. From that point foreward, there are more differences than similarities. The sera flore reactor introduces water from the wide of the top of the reactor chamber. Your CO2 will naturally want to float and pool into the top of the reactor, forming a CO2 gas pocket. The sera flore shoots a horizontal (an opposed to the AM1000's vertical) beam of water into and through the gas pocket. In the process, the force of the water also hits the rotors and causes them to spin. Now, the water spirals down and around a central column until it reaches the very bottom of the reactor, where the water enters the bottom of the central column and flows up the column and out of the top of the reactor.

This design seems to do two things rather well. First, the water cannot simply shoot down through the top of the reactor and blast Co2 bubbles out the bottom. There is no "straight shot" path for the water to take. This gives the CO2 bubbles a greater dwell time, allowing more CO2 to be dissolved into the water than escaping into the atmosphere above the aquarium. Secondly, I believe the vertical introduction of the water does more to agitate the CO2 bubble in the top of the reactor. The beam of water flows through the width of the Co2 pocket, not just the height.

Once again, it may be possible to introduce such a strong water flow that the central column design is defeated and Co2 gas blows out of the reactor.

I cannot say if the rotors make a big difference or not. I removed mine shortly after installation to eliminate a rattling noise I was hearing.

The Sera is also like half the price of AM 1000 and easier to disassemble for cleaning, should that need ever arise.

Conclusion

These reactors represent two different designs and it is up to the individual to determine which design he or she prefers. I prefer the Sera Flore 1000 design. 

I do not know if either reactor will allow you to achieve supersaturation, since I have never attempted it. I can tell you that the CO2 gas bubble will dissolve more quickly when you initially begin CO2 enrichment. As the ppm of CO2 in the water starts to rise, your Co2 bubble in the reactor will grow as the rate of dissolving will slow down, which your rate of adding Co2 to the reactor will be constant, unless you adjust it. For all I know, you could end up completely filling the reactor will a CO2 pocket before the aquarium water is supersaturated. 

Naturally, you will not want to try your experiment on a 75 gallon tank. If you use a very small body of water, your reactor will be able to saturate it much quicker. Also, a body of water that has less surface area will saturate quicker because there will be less surface area for gas exchange with the atmosphere, so a taller and narrower container will work better than a longer and shallower one. Any plants in the tank will absorb part of the CO2, so if you want the absolute best results, don't have any plants in the water. No surface agitation. The surface of the water should be completely smooth for what you are trying to do.

If you could afford an AM1000, you can afford to buy two Sera Flores, thus doubling your reactors and making yourself more likely to supersaturate the water. Also, you mentioned doing this as quickly as possible. Using two reactors would cause a change in the aquarium water faster than one. The financial problem with using two reactors is that you would need two canister filters or two water pumps to power both reactors. If you use a canister or pump with flow control, such as ball valves that can be squeezed shut or opened up all the way, you can control the amount of water flowing the reactors and "tune" them so you are getting enough flow without having too much.


----------



## random_alias

Have you decided how to measure the results of your experiment? Most hobbyists use drop checkers, but drop checkers will only tell you if you are around 30 ppm, below it, or above it. Shades of blue change to shades of green which then change to yellow. Far from exact, especially at measuring rates above 30 ppm. There is a PH:KH chart which some people used to use. It involves an accurate PH test and KH test. Even then, I am not sure how exact it is or how high it goes. 

I'm sure other people with more knowledge and experience than myself will chime in here and help you out. I know there's no point to conducting an experiment if data cannot be collected for the observation, confirm or deny hypothesis, adjust hypothesis, and repeat phases of the scientific process.

GOOD LUCK. Also, if you collect any data, I think we'd love to see you post it in the forums. Most of us have not seen the extreme side of Co2 injection (as I said earlier, not intentionally anyway  ).


----------



## bricemarques

random_alias said:


> Can you only use one source of CO2? For example, can you use a reactor and a diffusor at the same time?


I can use more than one source of CO2, as well as a reactor and diffuser at the same time. I could also have more than one CO2 reactor and put them in series, or put a reactor and diffuser in series. Which combination do you think would work best, i.e. dissolve the most CO2 into the water? Also, should I have the reactors or diffusers in series, or separate?



random_alias said:


> Can anything be added to the setup to eliminate or reduce CO2 naturally off-gassing into the atmosphere? For example, can you place a lid on the aquarium to trap CO2 in a small amount of air so that the atmosphere above the water surface has a large CO2 concentration, thus slowing off-gassing since the liquid and atmosphere will have CO2 closer to being in equilibrium with other? Can you place a thin layer of oil on the surface of the water to help block off-gassing?


This is a great point to consider. I was thinking of filling a vessel with water and then closing, so not only the CO2 will not escape, but also it pressurises the vessel, which helps dissolve more CO2 into the water and slows off-gassing, as you mentioned. I never thought about the layer of oil, which is definitely something worth investigating.



random_alias said:


> I have always tried to hover slightly over 30 ppm of CO2. I have no (intentional) experience going much higher than that. I see that you have acknowledged this in your post, so I know that you are aware. Unfortunately, this means that any response I could give you would be a guess, instead of an experience.
> 
> I honestly have no idea which reactor, when run to full capacity, would mix more CO2 into a body of water. I can explain some differences between the two reactors that may influence your decision.


I greatly appreciate your help and advice and am extremely happy that you are sharing your experience with me to try and make this work.



random_alias said:


> AM 1000
> 
> To reduce the CO2 being a limiting factor in your reactor, you are going to want to over inject CO2 into the reactor. This means you will be adding CO2 into the reactor faster than it is being dissolved. This will form a gas pocket at the top of the reactor. Now, the AM 1000 is BIG. However, it is designed to have a jet of water enter the top and flow straight down through the reactor chamber and out of the bottom. There are "bio balls" packed inside the reactor chamber, but a strong flow can still blow smaller CO2 bubbles straight past them, out the bottom of the reactor chamber, and into your aquarium, where they will quickly rise to the surface and pop, thus enriching the atmosphere above the water more than the water itself.
> 
> That is not a given. The amount of water flow you are running through the reactor will play a strong part in determining the "dwell time" of Co2 bubbles in the chamber. Blast a large amount of water through and it will force the bubbles out. Match the flow to the reactor and you will have bubbles bouncing or dancing within the reactor, which is ideal.


That is a great tip, balancing the water and CO2 flow in the reactor, to maximise the contact time and dissolve as much CO2 in the reactor as possible, ideally shown by bubbles bouncing within the reactor. This is very interesting because it influences what flow rate delivered by the pump I will need to use and the pressure from the CO2 cylinder that I have to set by the pressure regulator. Getting the balance right is key.



random_alias said:


> Sera Flore 1000
> 
> This reactor injects CO2 into the reactor from the top, just like the AM 1000. From that point foreward, there are more differences than similarities. The sera flore reactor introduces water from the wide of the top of the reactor chamber. Your CO2 will naturally want to float and pool into the top of the reactor, forming a CO2 gas pocket. The sera flore shoots a horizontal (an opposed to the AM1000's vertical) beam of water into and through the gas pocket. In the process, the force of the water also hits the rotors and causes them to spin. Now, the water spirals down and around a central column until it reaches the very bottom of the reactor, where the water enters the bottom of the central column and flows up the column and out of the top of the reactor.
> 
> This design seems to do two things rather well. First, the water cannot simply shoot down through the top of the reactor and blast Co2 bubbles out the bottom. There is no "straight shot" path for the water to take. This gives the CO2 bubbles a greater dwell time, allowing more CO2 to be dissolved into the water than escaping into the atmosphere above the aquarium. Secondly, I believe the vertical introduction of the water does more to agitate the CO2 bubble in the top of the reactor. The beam of water flows through the width of the Co2 pocket, not just the height.
> 
> Once again, it may be possible to introduce such a strong water flow that the central column design is defeated and Co2 gas blows out of the reactor.
> 
> I cannot say if the rotors make a big difference or not. I removed mine shortly after installation to eliminate a rattling noise I was hearing.
> 
> The Sera is also like half the price of AM 1000 and easier to disassemble for cleaning, should that need ever arise.


The greater dwell time, overall design and the way you explained that the water contacts CO2 in the reactor actually seem to do a better job at dissolving CO2 into the water than the AM 1000. But as you mentioned, getting the balance between water and CO2 again is key to avoid defeating the central column design and forming CO2 gas pockets within the reactor, thus separating the phases, rather than dissolving the CO2. Forming a high gas pressure pocket inside the reactor could be dangerous, as it might damage it. 

So I think I will go for the Sera Flore 1000. I would try with the rotors first though, just because they might increase the contact between water and CO2, so more gas is dissolved.



random_alias said:


> Conclusion
> 
> These reactors represent two different designs and it is up to the individual to determine which design he or she prefers. I prefer the Sera Flore 1000 design.
> 
> I do not know if either reactor will allow you to achieve supersaturation, since I have never attempted it. I can tell you that the CO2 gas bubble will dissolve more quickly when you initially begin CO2 enrichment. As the ppm of CO2 in the water starts to rise, your Co2 bubble in the reactor will grow as the rate of dissolving will slow down, which your rate of adding Co2 to the reactor will be constant, unless you adjust it. For all I know, you could end up completely filling the reactor will a CO2 pocket before the aquarium water is supersaturated.


Yes, I guess the reactor can only take me so far. Once equilibrium is reached, then I have to start thinking about other ways to increase the solubility of CO2 in the water, such as decreasing the temperature of the water flowing through. I have to constantly monitor the CO2 bubbles in the reactor to see when I should stop trying to increase the flow of CO2, keep it constant, or simply stop supplying CO2. Having CO2 gas above the water in the tank also increases the solubility.



random_alias said:


> Naturally, you will not want to try your experiment on a 75 gallon tank. If you use a very small body of water, your reactor will be able to saturate it much quicker. Also, a body of water that has less surface area will saturate quicker because there will be less surface area for gas exchange with the atmosphere, so a taller and narrower container will work better than a longer and shallower one. Any plants in the tank will absorb part of the CO2, so if you want the absolute best results, don't have any plants in the water. No surface agitation. The surface of the water should be completely smooth for what you are trying to do.


Great advice again! Using a taller and narrower tank will be much better indeed. I don’t plan on having anything else in the tank besides water, so no plants. Moreover, I would have thought agitating the tank with a stirrer could also help to increase the CO2 solubility capacity and rate. This is a part of what the CO2 reactor does, by mixing the water and CO2 intensely, more CO2 is dissolved. 



random_alias said:


> If you could afford an AM1000, you can afford to buy two Sera Flores, thus doubling your reactors and making yourself more likely to supersaturate the water. Also, you mentioned doing this as quickly as possible. Using two reactors would cause a change in the aquarium water faster than one. The financial problem with using two reactors is that you would need two canister filters or two water pumps to power both reactors. If you use a canister or pump with flow control, such as ball valves that can be squeezed shut or opened up all the way, you can control the amount of water flowing the reactors and "tune" them so you are getting enough flow without having too much.


Yes, having two reactors is a great idea. You also mentioned before about using diffusers. Referring back to my first question, should I have two reactors, or a reactor and a diffuser, and I should I have them in series or separate? If they are in series, then I would only need one water pump.
But I have a hunch putting them separate would be a better solution to dissolve more CO2 faster.

Since I don’t have anything else in the tank besides water, I guess I don’t need a canister filter.



random_alias said:


> Have you decided how to measure the results of your experiment? Most hobbyists use drop checkers, but drop checkers will only tell you if you are around 30 ppm, below it, or above it. Shades of blue change to shades of green which then change to yellow. Far from exact, especially at measuring rates above 30 ppm. There is a PH:KH chart which some people used to use. It involves an accurate PH test and KH test. Even then, I am not sure how exact it is or how high it goes.


I am thinking of measuring flow rates with flow meters and inferring the CO2 concentration from potentiometric or conductometric methods, i.e. with a pH meter, or a conductivity meter. I could also take a sample of the water and do a titration experiment, or use gas chromatography.



random_alias said:


> I'm sure other people with more knowledge and experience than myself will chime in here and help you out. I know there's no point to conducting an experiment if data cannot be collected for the observation, confirm or deny hypothesis, adjust hypothesis, and repeat phases of the scientific process.
> 
> GOOD LUCK. Also, if you collect any data, I think we'd love to see you post it in the forums. Most of us have not seen the extreme side of Co2 injection (as I said earlier, not intentionally anyway ).


Thank you ever so much for all your great comments, and for the very quick reply.

It would be great to hear from others about any comments they might have, or suggestions.

When I have bought all the equipment required and have the system up and running, I will take pictures and collect data to show you and everyone who helps out the results of their suggestions!

THANKS AGAIN!!!


----------



## random_alias

bricemarques said:


> Moreover, I would have thought agitating the tank with a stirrer could also help to increase the CO2 solubility capacity and rate.


You could use a powerhead to create a strong water flow within the container. In a closed system, I am not sure if there would be any appreciable heat buildup, since the water would not be able to evaporate and cool itself. I have no idea.



bricemarques said:


> I could also have more than one CO2 reactor and put them in series, or put a reactor and diffuser in series. Which combination do you think would work best, i.e. dissolve the most CO2 into the water? Also, should I have the reactors or diffusers in series, or separate?


I am not sure how much a diffuser would help. Since most diffusers create bubble that can eventually float up and pop at the surface, I suppose it would help in creating a CO2 atmosphere above the surface of the water and below the lid. The problem would be maintaining this atmosphere. With a closed lid, you can create a pressure issue. I wouldn't use a diffuser because of that issue. The small pocket of atmosphere between the water surface and the lid should soon have a high CO2 concentration anyway, since the water CO2 level will be higher than the atmosphere and equilibrium will be reached with such a small amount of atmosphere.

I would use multiple reactors if funds allowed for it. I would run each with an independent source of water flow. Putting them in a series would reduce the water flow by adding extra frictional resistance and backpressure.


Is there a reason why you aren't using a seltzer bottle and CO2 chargers like they use to carbonate water for softdrinks? That might be a great way to start your body of water off at a very high CO2 concentration from the get-go..


----------



## home grown

I bought the 500 model one for my 30gal with rena xp3 filter. It's completely silent and the wheels spin but i can see large bubbles emerging from my output spray bar. The co2 isn't completely dissipating within the reactor. quite disappointed. I saw much smaller bubbles with the use of a normal ceramic diffuser. 

-Tony


----------



## TLE041

home grown said:


> I bought the 500 model one for my 30gal with rena xp3 filter. It's completely silent and the wheels spin but i can see large bubbles emerging from my output spray bar. The co2 isn't completely dissipating within the reactor. quite disappointed. I saw much smaller bubbles with the use of a normal ceramic diffuser.


That means that the filter's flow is too high. The CO2 doesn't have enough time to dissolve into the water before reaching the output pipes.

If you can, try adjusting the flow down a little bit.


----------



## johnny313

is it possible to install this reactor in a sump and have the return pump shoot the co2 into the tank?


----------



## qxz06090

what happen if flow rate is too low , co2 not going to dissolve in water?


----------



## Fishwhore

johnny313 said:


> is it possible to install this reactor in a sump and have the return pump shoot the co2 into the tank?


 
its possible..buts thats alot of psi through that reactor....i used a diffrent pump hooked up with the co2 regulator timer.... if you want to use one inline id maybe reccomend the aquariumplants reactor.....


----------



## A643578

Does this reactor work with DIY CO2? 

I am worried about the pressure that needs to be exerted. And with DIY, high pressures = guarantee leaks.


----------



## papelboyl1

apologies for bringing up an old thread but i thought its better than creating a new one 
-----------
Has anyone experience flow rate loss using the reactor? If yes, was it considerable that you noticed it immediately? thank you


----------



## kassysimon

so its just like cerges DIY reactor....

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/diy/110100-cerges-reactor-diy-inline-co2-reactor.html


----------

