Any Reviews on BRS Carbon or GFO Reators?

[acroholic]

Budsreef;388238 wrote: I bought two of the BRS reactors and have been running carbon for about three weeks on both my systems. I'm going to switch them both to GFO today. Is there any concerns with stating the GFO, I seem to remember reading in another thread that it can cause initial start up problems. Are there any cautions I should take?

Now I wish I would have gotten four of them to run carbon and GFO at the same time on both systems. I'll probably go ahead and order two more.

I just bought two of the BRS single reactors a couple weeks ago. I love them. Easy to use, and when you open the compartment, there are no leaks. These actually cost about the same as the TLF reactors, and better built. The only advantage to the TLF reactors is they can be in sump.

I run GFO in one and Purigen in the other.

 

[ralph atl]

25% of the media that they recommend to start.

 

[budsreef]

C3gear;388253 wrote: Here is a link to build a dual reactor for a fraction of the cost.

http://www.oceanathome.com/diy-phosban-reactor-plus-carbon/">http://www.oceanathome.com/diy-phosban-reactor-plus-carbon/</a>[/QUOTE]


[QUOTE=][B]grouper therapy;388255 wrote:[/B] I bought two ro type housings on ebay and built my own for 20 bucks about two and half years ago and never had an issue . they are just like the brs.[/QUOTE]


Thanks, guys. Normally, I have no problem with the DIY stuff but due to some circumstances out of my control at the moment I'm just going to buy two more of the BRS ones.

 

[budsreef]

Acroholic;388256 wrote: I just bought two of the BRS single reactors a couple weeks ago. I love them. Easy to use, and when you open the compartment, there are no leaks. These actually cost about the same as the TLF reactors, and better built. The only advantage to the TLF reactors is they can be in sump.

I run GFO in one and Purigen in the other.

Dave, why purigen rather than carbon?

I'm happy with the two I already have and had originally thought I would run carbon in one and GFO in the other for a while and then switch them between the two systems, but once I started running carbon on each system now I want to go ahead and get two more.

 

[budsreef]

Thanks, Ralph. BRS website says to start with 2 grams per gallon and increase over time as you said. Now I just need to convert grams into something I know how to measure easily.

mysterybox;388261 wrote: 25% of the media that they recommend to start.

 

[oz]

I have 2 BRS reactors running. Both with GFO in the first chamber and then Carbon in the second. I wish I had 2 separated larger reactors now due to my impending system volume.

Also with their sponges, you can run GFO in the bottom of a single container &gt; 2" space &gt; carbon at the top &gt; sponge to exit. They have video's of this setup on Youtube. The GFO tumbles in the lower section then passes through the carbon up top. Just limits the ability to change out either media at any time like the dual units.

 

[budsreef]

Ok, I took the plunge today and removed the carbon from each system's BRS reactor and am now running GFO, 1/2 cup for 120G DT/220G TV and 1/4 cup for 125G TV, in each system.

I still need to order two more reactors so I can run carbon at the same time especially on the 120G DT/220G total volume system since I have so many leathers and mushrooms I worry about toxin warfare.

 

[acroholic]

Oz;388286 wrote: Also with their sponges, you can run GFO in the bottom of a single container &gt; 2" space &gt; carbon at the top &gt; sponge to exit. They have video's of this setup on Youtube. The GFO tumbles in the lower section then passes through the carbon up top. Just limits the ability to change out either media at any time like the dual units.

Using one reactor for both also limits the rate you can run water thru the carbon, if that makes a difference. You are limited to the rate at which you can safely flow thru the GFO, which is pretty slow. I'm sure that would be just fine for a smaller system, but mine is 275 net gallons, so I like to flow water a bit faster thru carbon/purigen, so for me separate reactors are better.

Dave, why purigen rather than carbon?

I'm running Purigen now because it is supposed to be better than carbon at scavening organics, and I am on an anti-algae campaign now, in additon to adding turbos, adding a Kole Tang, less feeding, reintroducing a Nilsen stirrer, using 55 micron socks, and using Kent Tech M!

I'll go back to carbon after the algae subsides. I have a 5 gallon bucket of BRS carbon to use.