• You are viewing the forum as a Guest, please login (you can use your Facebook, Twitter, Google or Microsoft account to login) or register using this link: Log in or Sign Up

Bypass for AM 1000

jsiegmund

Member
Joined
15 Nov 2014
Messages
167
Location
Netherlands
I have an AquaMedic 1000 CO2 reactor and am preparing to set up my new filter; a Fluval FX5. The ribbed Fluval hosing isn't that compatible with the AM 1000 I'm afraid, so need some alternative.

I found that I should be able to use standard 19/25mm hosing to fit to the FX5 connectors. My AquaMedic supports up to 16/22 hoses, so I'd need to reduce the hose size in order to pass the flow through the AM. So I thought of doing a bypass, just want to run this by you guys for verification.

I'd take a 19/25 hose and connect that to a Y-piece. On one side, 19/25mm hose with a valve in the middle in order to reduce flow when required. On the other side, convert 19/25 to 16/22, running that through the reactor. Then going back to 19/25 to connect both to a Y piece again, having one hose running to the spray bar.

I've seen a lot of PVC being used for bypasses as well, is there any advantage? I'd need some guidance one which exact pieces to buy as I'm kinda new to that stuff.

So your opinions please:
a) is a bypass a good idea / necessary?
b) is this a good approach, or should i better look into PVC instead?
c) any other ideas or suggestions are also welcome of course :)
 
Not the same spraybar. I would make a spraybar for the CO2 side, the Fluval would be independent. The bypasses and hose diameter changes will drop the output of the Fluval to too little volume for the high tech setup i am afraid.
 
So two spraybars? Sorry for the confusion here, just trying to get where you're going. I've read about people hooking up an inline reactor to the fluval so it should be doable at least. My tank is 240L (netto 200?) so I have some headroom on the filter capacity (3500 / 2300 circulation) when I don't go too heavy on filter media.

Basically what I have available at this time are:
- JBL e901 greenline with default intake and a plastic lily pipe as outlet (currently in use)
- Fluval FX5 with streamer intake and the default two-nozzle outlet
- Additional Tetratec spraybar which can hook up to the FX5
- CO2 reactor AM1000

I'd like to go for an end result which includes enough flow, the lowest amount of tech inside of the tank and not too much additional costs for parts. I'm afraid my cabinet won't fit the JBL and the FX5, so running the JBL only for CO2 is not really an option.
 
Right, just trying to outthink my future mistakes here :p

Another option I came up with... I've got two spare nozzles for the AM1000 lying around. I could attempt to glue some 25mm connectors on there, making the AM basically 25mm compatible. Then I could place it inline as usual, not bothering with a bypass at all. The AM has some bioballs in it, that's it. Wondering how that would affect performance. Maybe I should give Aqua Medic a call.
 
Ok so I promised I would share a solution, here it is.

I had to spare nozzles lying around and bought two new hose connectors (the glue type). And then some DIY magic happened:

am_nozzle.png

+

am_thule.png


=


WP_20150207_002.png


The original nozzles have two plastic rings in the bottom part. The biggest has an inner diameter of 25mm, which was exactly the outer diameter of the connectors I used. So I ended up with a tight fit which was easily glued together. I used the vulcanizing type glue so the two have really merged to become one. Of course I cannot be sure until tested, but I have good faith that this will be water tight and pretty durable as well.

The ribbed hosing should fit snuggly over these connectors, making my AM1000 compatible with the FX5. Now waiting on delivery of a new hose because I have no room to spare with my current setup. I'll update with a picture when completely finished.

Is there any easy way to measure the reduction in flow? Curious to see how much this will actually matter. The connectors are a few millimeters tighter than the kind Fluval uses, so water will have to squeeze through those a bit. Still beats reverting to 16/22 hose though.
 
Okay! So here's a small update. I finally got to setting the AM1000 inline, it went flawlessly. Used some new fluval hosing to hook it up, which is much better than the old style hosing I was using.

I removed all the bioballs to get as much flow as possible. Although obviously I lost some flow, I haven't got the feeling that there's that much difference (didn't measure it, sorry). The only thing I'm doubting is the fact that small co2 bubbles are exiting the spray bay continously. They're tiny, but still; this means smaller bubbles are caught in the flow before they dissolve completely. So apart from reinserting the bioballs in the reactor, are there any other ways to solve this? I have already tried removing the inner tube and using half the length, the latter is a bit better but still not ideal.
 
Ok. That sucked.

When I got home yesterday, there was about 20 liters of water on the floor. I had disconnected the reactor in the morning to insert a little piece of hose to the CO2 connector. Got it inline again and checked several time for leaks, nothing. The bottom nozzle must have unscrewed itself a tiny bit by pressure on the hose, apparently I did a lousy job tightening it. Everything was still intact until I rushed in to fasten it and broke of the thread on the nozzle completely, leaving me with a broken one. Luckily the reactor is still ok.

Some wet towels and swears later, it was all good again. I'm back to where I was: running the AM1000 off my JBL Now have to redo another nozzle, since the glued one is unsalvageable. At least I know the glued part isn't the weak link, but I am...
 
Setup is up and running again for a few weeks now, without further issues. I reinserted the bioballs in the reactor to counter the bubbles escaping. It's better now, only really tiny bubbles escape from time to time. So the tiny bubbles are apparently not buoyant enough to counter the flow and thus get sucked in. Unfortunately this does mean a sacrifice in flow so I'd like to get the bioballs out again somehow. Any brilliant ideas left to make it even better?? I considered to hook up an airstone to the co2 line inside of the reactor. But I think that would only give me tiny bubbles a bit faster, they'd be caught in the flow anyway. So I need a way to get rid of the bioballs without too much gas escaping in the flow.

DSC01571.png

DSC01572.png
 
That might work, good idea. The only thing I have lying around is a Fluval fine filter pad, might hinder flow when is starts to get polluted. I'll get something different as soon as I visit my lfs.
 
Btw, old pictures these. I replaced the regulator with one from Co2Art which is dual stage so should provide far more stable co2. The one on the pictures gave me an end-of-tank dump when I got home after a business trip last week :(
 
Okay, so obviously it took me quite some time to get this done, had to wait weeks for a shipment of stuff to come in. But now it's done and here's some phone pics of the new situation:

WP_20150509_005.png


I did a couple of things;
- Removed the bioballs from the reactor
- Put in two pieces of foam at the bottom to trap any bubbles on their way out. Maybe one is sufficient but it's very coarse foam so it shouldn't hinder flow much more than the bioballs did.
- Hooked up an airstone to the co2 line inside of the reactor to get smaller bubbles to begin with. The tie-wraps by the way are to prevent the stone from sanding the reactor from the inside.
- Replaced some hosing

WP_20150509_006.png


And as always when I touch things, something broke. I bumped the CO2 bottle standing in the living room, which fell over. The SMC valve took the hit so ended up in a 45 degree bend :( Running single stage until a new one arrives. And yes: this bottle is almost empty ;)
 
Back
Top