anybody using rox 0.8?

[reeftankguy]

I had some bad experiences with Purigen...I had used it for years...but I really noticed an increase in the overall look of my tank when I stopped using it. Weird, I know....If running GFO and Carbon, I don't see the need for the Purigen.

 

Maybe I will stop using it then and see if I notice any changes...

 

Truth be told, its basically a filter in the first teer in my media rack, I put it on top of my Floss, Amazingly its the same dimensions of that chamber. By the time the water gets to my BRS Elite most of all the sediment/crap has been filtered out... Thanks!

[burtbollinger]

BRS told me this when I discussed it on the phone. I have discussed this exact issue with them, and they also mention it in their videos.

 

ROX carbon is not what they recommend for their BRS reactor if using both GFO and carbon in the same reactor. they recommended their other carbon.

 

you need to do research before you accuse people of not knowing what they are talking about. I don't make things up out of the blue...ROX carbon can sometimes clog reactors.

 

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1569009

 

http://www.reefcentral.org/forums/showthread.php?p=17026536

 

http://www.bareefers.org/home/node/8911

 

now go play thread police somewhere else.

Edited December 30, 2010 by burtbollinger

[reeftankguy]

Please explain your opinion? Who says Bollinger is giving inaccurate advice? You?

 

It seems logical that water flowing through a bed of Carbon would be exposed to more surface area and cleaned faster than water circulating thru carbon that is tumbling around in a reactor

[Flying_Hellfish]

Are you guys just emptying the filter sock and replacing GFO and rox or washing them before reusing or tossing them? I'm thinking of going this route in my BC29 in a media rack in C2.

Edited December 30, 2010 by Flying_Hellfish

[reeftankguy]

Are you guys just emptying the filter sock and replacing GFO and rox or washing them before reusing or tossing them? I'm thinking of going this route in my BC29 in a media rack in C2.

Toss of course

 

I guess it depends on how cheap you are... I buy ROX and GFO in Bulk... So I toss it!

 

EDIT: forgot to add 5 gals of ROX and 1 Gallon of GFO... I have alot left and its been a year... Def worth the $300 I spent

Edited December 30, 2010 by reeftankguy

[paneubert]

Really?

 

 

Who in their right mind would have told you that ROX or any other carbon works less efficiently in a reactor?

 

I think the claim is that ROX is to small to work well in the reactor due to clogging and such. Not that it is "less efficient" in one. I could be wrong but that is what I took from the thread and my own research. Also, to your claim that "any carbon" would work better in a reactor, I submit the question about powdered carbon or carbon that is the size of something like Purigen. Would that work better in a reactor than say......a filter bag/sock that can contain it properly?

Edited December 30, 2010 by paneubert

[Flying_Hellfish]

Toss of course

 

I guess it depends on how cheap you are... I buy ROX and GFO in Bulk... So I toss it!

 

EDIT: forgot to add 5 gals of ROX and 1 Gallon of GFO... I have alot left and its been a year... Def worth the $300 I spent

 

 

I realize that what I said came off a little wrong. I meant the filter sock itself. I was in no way implying that I would try to reuse carbon or GFO. lol

Edited December 30, 2010 by Flying_Hellfish

[paneubert]

I realize that what I said came off a little wrong. I meant the filter sock itself. I was in no way implying that I would try to reuse carbon or GFO. lol

 

I wash as best I can. At some point it gets so dirty that I doubt how much flow is going through it anymore and that is when I toss it and use a new bag.

[Genj]

I'm confused: Doesn't BRS suggest you run the rox carbon in their reactor? Regardless of if you utlize GFO or not, they say to 'use rox almost every time' and then they suggest to use the reactor. This from their carbon demo movie.

[paneubert]

Touche

[burtbollinger]

In a single reactor with ONLY ROX carbon...yes. You should be good to go...it's an ideal way to run ROX

 

That said, In a single reactor with both ROX carbon and GFO in the reactor...it gets to be a clogged mess and you end up having to play with the flow rate over time. If I really felt the need to rin both carbon in GFO in the same single BRS reactor, In that case, I'd go with the Lignite carbon they offer. I was told the same thing by BRS.

 

Now then, in my experience, I ran a single BRS reactor with both BRS Lignite carbon and GFO for a while...i got tired of how it clogged up. As a remedy, I decided to move on to the better BRS ROX carbon in a sock, and keeping the GFO in the single BRS reactor by itself...and I feel it is the best way to go...

 

UNLESS you want to get a dual BRS reactor, run ROX in one chamber and GFO in the other.

 

bottom line...ROX carbon + GFO in a single reactor would not be the best way to go. In a BRS dual reactor, you'd be fine.

Edited December 30, 2010 by burtbollinger

[Genj]

Ok, got it. I may give it a try since I have 3 extra cartriges and run so little of each material. I'm going to try this to see if it clogs;

 

 

If it has problems, then I'll just run GFO for 4 weeks, then carbon for 2 and switch back and forth.

[burtbollinger]

diagram looks correct...yes.

 

I cannot stress enough, and I'm speaking from direct experience here:

 

You are much better off running just the GFO in the single BRS reactor (change every 7-8 weeks), and placing the ROX in a filter sock. (change every 2 weeks)

 

The ROX is damn effective, reactor or not.

 

I strongly feel you are just making an unecessary, unefficient and stressful mess for yourself, running ROX carbon and GFO in a single BRS reactor. As it turns out, they make that dual BRS reactor for a reason.

 

Regardless, once you try it "my" way...you won't go back.

Edited December 30, 2010 by burtbollinger

[gmckay]

BRS told me this when I discussed it on the phone. I have discussed this exact issue with them, and they also mention it in their videos.

 

ROX carbon is not what they recommend for their BRS reactor if using both GFO and carbon in the same reactor. they recommended their other carbon.

 

you need to do research before you accuse people of not knowing what they are talking about. I don't make things up out of the blue...ROX carbon can sometimes clog reactors.

 

 

Your opinion, and the opinion of others that you selectively harvested from various forums, does not accurately reelect the truth...that being the recommendation to use a reactor for the most effective use of ROX carbon.

 

What is apparent is that SOME reactors need a finer sponge to ensure that the particles do not escape the chamber, and that alone is a valid point to be addressed.

 

In my experience, I do not mix different weighted media in the same reactor, so have not had an issue.

Edited December 30, 2010 by gmckay

[burtbollinger]

We're talking about the BRS single reactor and the sponges that it comes with. A reactor I have had and experimented with at length.

 

Check my original post...over and over I mention with the BRS reactor.

 

Do you have a BRS reactor? Do you run ROX carbon and GFO in it? If so, how has that worked out for you? I would imagine you don't and you haven't...so you really can't comment.

 

Bottom line is this: You cannot run ROX carbon and GFO in a single BRS reactor without signifigant clogging occuring within 1-2 weeks of running it. If you must run GFO and carbon in the same BRS single reactor, you are better off using BRS Lignite carbon.

 

Your entire line of BS is based on a misunderstanding...no one is arguing than running carbon in a reactor is more effective than in a sock. I would agree 100% that in a perfect world, running ROX in a reactor is the way to go....

 

What part of the above don't you understand? Why do you feel the need to discredit my experience, which I have laid out in detail? I challenge you or anyone reading this thread to look at my statements, and then look at yours and not tell me you are misreading/mischaracterizing what I have said.

 

Frankly, you're borderline insulting with your tone.

Edited December 30, 2010 by burtbollinger

[paneubert]

We're talking about the BRS single reactor and the sponges that it comes with. A reactor I have had and experimented with at length.

 

Check my original post...over and over I mention with the BRS reactor.

 

Do you have a BRS reactor? Do you run ROX carbon and GFO in it? If so, how has that worked out for you? I would imagine you don't and you haven't...so you really can't comment.

 

Bottom line is this: You cannot run ROX carbon and GFO in a single BRS reactor without signifigant clogging occuring within 1-2 weeks of running it. If you must run GFO and carbon in the same BRS single reactor, you are better off using BRS Lignite carbon.

 

Your entire line of BS is based on a misunderstanding...no one is arguing than running carbon in a reactor is more effective than in a sock. I would agree 100% that in a perfect world, running ROX in a reactor is the way to go....

 

What part of the above don't you understand? Why do you feel the need to discredit my experience, which I have laid out in detail? I challenge you or anyone reading this thread to look at my statements, and then look at yours and not tell me you are misreading/mischaracterizing what I have said.

 

Frankly, you're borderline insulting with your tone.

 

+1

[Genj]

burt,

 

I agree with your statements and want to see if I can improve the single reactor with dual media approach. Since a dual reactor works without clogging, I'm wondering what is it about a dual reactor that prevents the clogging, and can it be replicated somehow in a single reactor? Different sponges, adjusting flow rates, etc...

[paneubert]

I'm wondering what is it about a dual reactor that prevents the clogging, and can it be replicated somehow in a single reactor? Different sponges, adjusting flow rates, etc...

 

Pretty sure I heard the guy explain why he says the dual does not clog in the BRS video for that product. I cannot remember the reasons he gave though.

[gmckay]

There is no need to feel insulted. Let's agree to set emotions aside ok?

 

I Do have a dual chaber reactor from BRS.

 

The unit was filled up as instructed- packing the bottom chamber to ensure the carbon DOES NOT tumble, then filling the top chamber with GFO-setting the flow rate to ensure it does tumble (required to ensure it does not clump)..worked like a charm.

 

I found however that using a dual media single reactor has it's tradeoffs, that being it is not possible to gently suspend the carbon AND seTting the flow to allow the GFO media to tumble. (the reason BRS recommends packing the carbon in the chamber between two pads so as not to move)

 

I now alternate 2weeks of carbon alone-then 1 week GFO.

 

Perhaps you did something different in your setup that caused you to experience a mess.

 

Remember that it is never recommended that carbon be tumbled, or it will turn into powder,

[burtbollinger]

Deal on the not insulted part....I ran mine as shown in the diagram above...carbon on top, sandwiched as not to tumble...GFO on bottom, as to allow tumbling. I rolled this way for @ 10 months before I gave up...at times I wished I had gone with the dual for just such reasons.

 

I don't know anything about the Dual BRS reactor...as I have not had one...I have only had a pair of single BRS reactors.

 

From my experience, what happens is the ROX carbon, due to its small size, kinda acts as a tightly packed, natural water trap, reducing flow...the BRS Lignite carbon wasn't much better...along with that, I felt the top sponge was getting clogged even easier for some reason. Aside from that, the issue though for me was the mess, combined the odd timing of having to replace the one vs. the other, and also having to readjust the BRS reactor's flow valve to keep water flow at a good rate to tumble the GFO...

 

For all of these reasons, combined with the knowledge that BRS ROX carbon is still damn effective product in a sock (it works like a magnet), means I am a much happier camper using the single BRS reactor for the single media...

 

Your best bet is really to call BRS and speak with their folks...they have great customer service and would be happy to help. I can only share what I know from experience. Anyway...good info starts @ 3 min ih here:

Edited December 30, 2010 by burtbollinger

[Genj]

What about doing this:

 

[paneubert]

What about doing this:

 

 

I know ROX is like a magnet just sitting in water, but I wonder if the tube would just let the water escape the ROX. Water and electricity will always take the path of least resistance.

[Genj]

True, but it will still move through the carbon to some degree right? Could it be worse than putting a bag in an open chamber?

[paneubert]

True, but it will still move through the carbon to some degree right? Could it be worse than putting a bag in an open chamber?

 

I do not think it is any worse that the bag method. Bag is totally passive while reactor with no tumble and a tube at least pushes water against the ROX before it either goes through it or the tube.

 

But I think we are all over thinking things! I am just commenting still because I like hypothetical situations.

Edited December 30, 2010 by paneubert

[burtbollinger]

real world...that new diagram is going to be NO FUN to make happen every time you do a change.

 

All of what I've recommended is based mostly on time to set up, change, and mess with.

 

For my time, its easier to just use the single BRS reactor with just the GFO inside...and toss in the bag of ROX every two weeks to a high flow area...

 

trust me, unhooking and unplugging the reactor, taking the reactor out of the tank, walking itover to the sink, dripping water everywhere every two weeks to swap out carbon is no fun...not when your're having to mess with the GFO to even get to and access the carbon...

 

yuck!

 

In the end, I'm thinking that the effectiveness of slapping ROX in a reactor along with GFO isn't worth it for the time, effort, hassle it takes to set up the single BRS reactor correctly.

 

I say give it a shot your way but remember this thread if and when you find its become a headache.

Edited December 30, 2010 by burtbollinger