Nilsen Reactor
- Thread starter Osama
- Start date
- Location
- Palatine IL
Baalz; Andy will make sure our reactors work fine and that we are satisfied. A couple of us ordered larger than his std reactors. We ordered 8 inch diameter and 30+ inches tall Nielsen. We are trying to get the best combination of stirring bar lenght to move the powder across the full diameter and not just the center 2-4 inches... AND a wear plate with the proper thickness and diameter and wear resistance & low friction
BASED ON THE ABOVE EXCHANGES my reactor is now working. ...
Steve. I tested the longer bar that Andy just sent me & the smaller one by putting two pieces of acrylic on top of the motor and turning the motor from slow to fast. With the small bar I was able to rotate the bar with no plates, one plate or two plates between the motor & the bar. At the higher speeds the bar spins out of control . The longer bar is also thicker & heavier and did not rotate at all with no plates or with one plate in between. All trials were done exposed to air and no liquid etc...
Based on these tests I centered the smaller bar inside the reactor and set the control at the level where things worked fine in the air. I checked that everything worked fine with water in the reactor ( 2/3 full). Then added the Kalk very slowly ( 2 cups ). Things are working fine 24 hrs later. My concern would be if the stirring bar gets some addtitional resistance and I had to put more torque; that the bar will spin out of control and get stuck between the wear plate (5--6 inch) and tube (8 inch) and I would have to disassemble everything and restart..... Maybe a wear plate that gets closer to the edge of the tube would solve that possibility. I do not know. Andy is on vacation for a few days and we will sort this out on his return...
BASED ON THE ABOVE EXCHANGES my reactor is now working. ...
Steve. I tested the longer bar that Andy just sent me & the smaller one by putting two pieces of acrylic on top of the motor and turning the motor from slow to fast. With the small bar I was able to rotate the bar with no plates, one plate or two plates between the motor & the bar. At the higher speeds the bar spins out of control . The longer bar is also thicker & heavier and did not rotate at all with no plates or with one plate in between. All trials were done exposed to air and no liquid etc...
Based on these tests I centered the smaller bar inside the reactor and set the control at the level where things worked fine in the air. I checked that everything worked fine with water in the reactor ( 2/3 full). Then added the Kalk very slowly ( 2 cups ). Things are working fine 24 hrs later. My concern would be if the stirring bar gets some addtitional resistance and I had to put more torque; that the bar will spin out of control and get stuck between the wear plate (5--6 inch) and tube (8 inch) and I would have to disassemble everything and restart..... Maybe a wear plate that gets closer to the edge of the tube would solve that possibility. I do not know. Andy is on vacation for a few days and we will sort this out on his return...
Osama, would there be a difference in stir bar action when you test with water in or out? I never tested the one Andy made me dry. I've always test it with reactor 1/2 filled with RODI.
Moreover. I never have to turn the magnetic setting all the way up. Mine was set about 1/3 turn on the knob. I leave the stir bar spinning all the time. With slower spin rotation, kalk is always mixing to reach maximum solubility. I need to adjust the spin rate so that the top 1/3 of the reactor column stays clear while it is cloudy in the lower 2/3. This way, I can set it, and forget it!
Moreover. I never have to turn the magnetic setting all the way up. Mine was set about 1/3 turn on the knob. I leave the stir bar spinning all the time. With slower spin rotation, kalk is always mixing to reach maximum solubility. I need to adjust the spin rate so that the top 1/3 of the reactor column stays clear while it is cloudy in the lower 2/3. This way, I can set it, and forget it!
- Location
- Palatine IL
Dan:
It seems from other posts that it does make a difference whether you test in water or out. I do not know. I have learned a lot from this thread. I have mine working now. I have it set on a controller ( Neptune) to go on every 4 hrs for 5 minutes. I will increase the rate or leave it alone as I test the output over a few weeks. When the mixer is on; the tube gets cloudy to half height. I do not want to increase the speed out of fear of loosing control of the stirring bar....
It seems from other posts that it does make a difference whether you test in water or out. I do not know. I have learned a lot from this thread. I have mine working now. I have it set on a controller ( Neptune) to go on every 4 hrs for 5 minutes. I will increase the rate or leave it alone as I test the output over a few weeks. When the mixer is on; the tube gets cloudy to half height. I do not want to increase the speed out of fear of loosing control of the stirring bar....
Posted by Osama:
My concern would be if the stirring bar gets some addtitional resistance and I had to put more torque; that the bar will spin out of control and get stuck between the wear plate (5--6 inch) and tube (8 inch)
-Ah I see, my plate fits snug to the 6" diameter, I can see where this could be a problem. BTW, I have mine on a timer also with the stirrer set at a very low speed, I turn it up full only when I am mixing a new batch of kalk.
Steve
My concern would be if the stirring bar gets some addtitional resistance and I had to put more torque; that the bar will spin out of control and get stuck between the wear plate (5--6 inch) and tube (8 inch)
-Ah I see, my plate fits snug to the 6" diameter, I can see where this could be a problem. BTW, I have mine on a timer also with the stirrer set at a very low speed, I turn it up full only when I am mixing a new batch of kalk.
Steve
SPC,
The big differance between your 6 inch reactor and our 8 inch diameter reactor is the thickness of the bottom plate. Our bottom plate alone is as thick as your bottom plate and wear plate combined.
these large reactors are designed for very large systems that evaporate more than 6 to 10 gallons a day plus.
The external stir motor from the top would work well and we may need to go this rout if this stir bar does not work. So far mine is working perfectly with the new thin wear plate.
Andy had to make the bottom plate on our taller and larger reactor thicker to be able to handle the added weight of the 7 gallons of water for longevity.
Now add in the thickness of the wear plate and then we had problems with the stir bar being too far from the stir motor.
I have Osamas new UHMW wear plate ready but just need to get it to UPS. I built an extra one from my plastic I ordered until Andy can make more for everybody.
Osama, your new wear plate is 7.5 inches in diameter so there will not be much gap.
Hopefully my wife can get to UPS tomorrow. It wont hurt your reactor to run with out it for a few days. You just don't want to run with out it for months.
I wonder why the new stir bar would not turn? I will check mine when I get it.
Jeff
The big differance between your 6 inch reactor and our 8 inch diameter reactor is the thickness of the bottom plate. Our bottom plate alone is as thick as your bottom plate and wear plate combined.
these large reactors are designed for very large systems that evaporate more than 6 to 10 gallons a day plus.
The external stir motor from the top would work well and we may need to go this rout if this stir bar does not work. So far mine is working perfectly with the new thin wear plate.
Andy had to make the bottom plate on our taller and larger reactor thicker to be able to handle the added weight of the 7 gallons of water for longevity.
Now add in the thickness of the wear plate and then we had problems with the stir bar being too far from the stir motor.
I have Osamas new UHMW wear plate ready but just need to get it to UPS. I built an extra one from my plastic I ordered until Andy can make more for everybody.
Osama, your new wear plate is 7.5 inches in diameter so there will not be much gap.
Hopefully my wife can get to UPS tomorrow. It wont hurt your reactor to run with out it for a few days. You just don't want to run with out it for months.
I wonder why the new stir bar would not turn? I will check mine when I get it.
Jeff
Just an update for people that were following this thread.
I got my 3 inch larger stir bar in and it works great! It puts that thinner 2 inch bar to shame. It is the cure for the thicker acrylic bottom. I am able to use the thick acrylic wear plate and run the bar on high everytime and it stirs MUCH MUCH better. I get almost complete mixing of the settled kalk on the sides of the tube. It stirs 2/3 to 3/4 way up the column on my 8 inch by 30 inch tall unit where the best the other bar could do was stir about 1/2 way up. There is a little left on the bottom right in the corner where the tube meets the bottom but not much. I have a whole can of balls pickeling lime in there. Higher quality kalk may mix better than the clumpier balls.
As far as the UHMW wear plate. It is great stuff but the darn stuff floats! I did not think this high molecular weight stuff would be less dense than water. I cant use this stuff unless I find a way to either glue it down or weight it down. The stir bar can't hold it down because on high it creates too much current and the current lifts up the plate and dislodges the bar. We will see how long the acrylic wear plate lasts. It works so well it is not necessary to use the thinner material thank goodness.
Any Ideas on how to get this thin UHMW wear plate to work or stay on the bottom with out floating up. The kalk powder probably would hold it down but I did not try it.
Very happy now.
Jeff
I got my 3 inch larger stir bar in and it works great! It puts that thinner 2 inch bar to shame. It is the cure for the thicker acrylic bottom. I am able to use the thick acrylic wear plate and run the bar on high everytime and it stirs MUCH MUCH better. I get almost complete mixing of the settled kalk on the sides of the tube. It stirs 2/3 to 3/4 way up the column on my 8 inch by 30 inch tall unit where the best the other bar could do was stir about 1/2 way up. There is a little left on the bottom right in the corner where the tube meets the bottom but not much. I have a whole can of balls pickeling lime in there. Higher quality kalk may mix better than the clumpier balls.
As far as the UHMW wear plate. It is great stuff but the darn stuff floats! I did not think this high molecular weight stuff would be less dense than water. I cant use this stuff unless I find a way to either glue it down or weight it down. The stir bar can't hold it down because on high it creates too much current and the current lifts up the plate and dislodges the bar. We will see how long the acrylic wear plate lasts. It works so well it is not necessary to use the thinner material thank goodness.
Any Ideas on how to get this thin UHMW wear plate to work or stay on the bottom with out floating up. The kalk powder probably would hold it down but I did not try it.
Very happy now.
Jeff
SPC
You will have to get that info from Andy. He ordered it for us free of charge to get our reactors working.
Not sure how it would work with your smaller stirrer. It probably would work fine. The larger mass makes it spin slower on high but the larger bar moves more water per rev. and I was also able to run my stir bar on high where the smaller one I could not run past 30%
Even with out the wear plate the smaller bar would have trouble because the mass was so low it would spin at very high rates and that may have been part of the problem. The momentum of the small bar may have caused the problem. The larger bar may be the way to go even for your model. Can't hurt to try it.
There are even other types of bars that look like discs with fins and triangle bars etc... Might be nice to experiment.
Jeff
You will have to get that info from Andy. He ordered it for us free of charge to get our reactors working.
Not sure how it would work with your smaller stirrer. It probably would work fine. The larger mass makes it spin slower on high but the larger bar moves more water per rev. and I was also able to run my stir bar on high where the smaller one I could not run past 30%
Even with out the wear plate the smaller bar would have trouble because the mass was so low it would spin at very high rates and that may have been part of the problem. The momentum of the small bar may have caused the problem. The larger bar may be the way to go even for your model. Can't hurt to try it.
There are even other types of bars that look like discs with fins and triangle bars etc... Might be nice to experiment.
Jeff
osama":3jbewqik said:
Curious. Why would one need an 8" diameter Nilsen? It adds considerably to cost and (unless you're running an extremely large system) is not necessary IMO. I know someone running a 6" Ecotech on a system ~600 gallons without a problem.
- Location
- Palatine IL
Jim: Hopefully with the large one we will have less frequent addition of media and less frequent cleaning. Maybe an unnecessary expense.... My experience with calcium reactors that claimed to be good for a certain size and was way overrated caused me to think bigger and so I went for the bigger size.
My thinking on the oversized unit was I wanted a certain volume of water in the unit. I wanted it close to the total volume of water I replaced per day or close to it. To do this I either had to make it very tall or larger in diameter.
I have a total system volume of 850 gallons and I evaporate roughly 7 to 8 gallons per day.
Smaller probably would have worked but at the rate I would replace water I would be filling more often. I should not have to fill it as often with the bigger capicity.
Jeff
I have a total system volume of 850 gallons and I evaporate roughly 7 to 8 gallons per day.
Smaller probably would have worked but at the rate I would replace water I would be filling more often. I should not have to fill it as often with the bigger capicity.
Jeff
I'd like to comment on a few things
I talked to Andy about this when he first started making these reactors and I see he still hasn't taken my advice I suggested he put in a small glass plate on the bottom. I work in a lab and we use mag stirs all the time, we never use plastic, only glass. I wonder if any of you guys have tried this? it seems like it would be real easy to drop a 8" round piece of glass in.
I'm not knocking Andy's reactors, in fact I plan to have him build me one to fit my mag stir as soon as I get a few bucks. I'd like to compare the two.
I had George build me a kalk reactor that uses a powerhead, even tho I have a mag stir in my garage I felt the powerhead unit would work better. So far so good, this unit hasn't missed a beat and the cost is less then half. I on't say its better but it sure works for me.
I talked to Andy about this when he first started making these reactors and I see he still hasn't taken my advice I suggested he put in a small glass plate on the bottom. I work in a lab and we use mag stirs all the time, we never use plastic, only glass. I wonder if any of you guys have tried this? it seems like it would be real easy to drop a 8" round piece of glass in.I'm not knocking Andy's reactors, in fact I plan to have him build me one to fit my mag stir as soon as I get a few bucks. I'd like to compare the two.
I had George build me a kalk reactor that uses a powerhead, even tho I have a mag stir in my garage I felt the powerhead unit would work better. So far so good, this unit hasn't missed a beat and the cost is less then half. I on't say its better but it sure works for me.
In theory, a Nielsen whould hold at least the daily evporation fo rthe system. Based on that, and using the following formula from ozreef, you can determine the proper height and width of the reactor. (Diameter of vessel (either 4, 6, or 8 inches) squared x 0.8 x Height of vessel in inches) divided by 231 = gallons in a cylindrical container
Example: Determine how tall a 6 inch container must be if the evap. rate is 1 gallon.
daily evap. rate = 1 gallon
1 gallon x 125% = 1.25 gallons
1.25 = [(6x6) x 0.8 x height]/231
1.25 = [36 x 0.8 x height]/231
1.25 = [28.8 x height]/231
1.25 x 231 = 28.8 x height
288.75 = 28.8 x height
288.75/28.8 = height
10.02 = height
Therefore, the equation indicates that the reactor should be 10.02 inches tall or, rounding up, 11 inches tall. However, an additional 2 inches will need to be added to compensate for the lid to the reactor. Hence, it needs to be 13 inches tall.
So if Jeff's case of evaporating 7-8 gallons/day, you can easily see the need for a wide and tall reaction chamber.
I have been using a DIY version similar to golfish's for the past 2 years without a problem. I change the O-ring on the Maxi-Jet ever 6 months as a preventative for leaks and so far, so good. The magnetic stirers do give you a great level of control over the stirring action though.
Example: Determine how tall a 6 inch container must be if the evap. rate is 1 gallon.
daily evap. rate = 1 gallon
1 gallon x 125% = 1.25 gallons
1.25 = [(6x6) x 0.8 x height]/231
1.25 = [36 x 0.8 x height]/231
1.25 = [28.8 x height]/231
1.25 x 231 = 28.8 x height
288.75 = 28.8 x height
288.75/28.8 = height
10.02 = height
Therefore, the equation indicates that the reactor should be 10.02 inches tall or, rounding up, 11 inches tall. However, an additional 2 inches will need to be added to compensate for the lid to the reactor. Hence, it needs to be 13 inches tall.
So if Jeff's case of evaporating 7-8 gallons/day, you can easily see the need for a wide and tall reaction chamber.
I have been using a DIY version similar to golfish's for the past 2 years without a problem. I change the O-ring on the Maxi-Jet ever 6 months as a preventative for leaks and so far, so good. The magnetic stirers do give you a great level of control over the stirring action though.
Golfish,
I also talked to Andy about glass and the main reason we did not go that rout was expense compared to just replacing a round piece of acrylic. I may have a local glass shoppe make me one now that I know the UHMW plastic won't work. Butt first I just want to see how long the plastic disc will last. We will see. I guess I could just go and look for a large glass coaster. " I will take just one 8 inch coaster please!"
So far the larger stir bar is still working perfect through the thick bottom plate and the thick wear plate. So far it has been fill and forget. The settled kalk powder on the bottom is 3.5 inches thick or so and it stirs it up easily now.
Jeff
I also talked to Andy about glass and the main reason we did not go that rout was expense compared to just replacing a round piece of acrylic. I may have a local glass shoppe make me one now that I know the UHMW plastic won't work. Butt first I just want to see how long the plastic disc will last. We will see. I guess I could just go and look for a large glass coaster. " I will take just one 8 inch coaster please!"
So far the larger stir bar is still working perfect through the thick bottom plate and the thick wear plate. So far it has been fill and forget. The settled kalk powder on the bottom is 3.5 inches thick or so and it stirs it up easily now.
Jeff
Off topic a bit, but I was just doing another batch of kalk, and found out my stirrer size is probably the smallest of all yours out there, 1". Not that it doesn't work, but if I dump more then 2" of kalk in the reactor, the stirrer can't turn at all.
I will defenitely wait for the large stirrer Andy have been telling to exchange for me.
Not that it doesn't work, but if I dump more then 2" of kalk in the reactor, the stirrer can't turn at all.I will defenitely wait for the large stirrer Andy have been telling to exchange for me.
danmhippo,
I have a 2" mag if you want it. I'm not using a mag stir right now and don't have plans too in the near future. Your welcome to come by and pick it up.
Jeff, You would think that a piece of glass would cost less then acrylic. I guess if you don't have the tools it wouldn't.
Mark
I have a 2" mag if you want it. I'm not using a mag stir right now and don't have plans too in the near future. Your welcome to come by and pick it up.
Jeff, You would think that a piece of glass would cost less then acrylic. I guess if you don't have the tools it wouldn't.
Mark
Sponsor Reefs
We're a FREE website, and we exist because of hobbyists like YOU who help us run this community.
Click here to sponsor $10:
