# AquaMedic 1000 reactor vs. ceramic diffuser



## cedwards (Mar 7, 2006)

I currently have a 55 gallon that I am planning to replace with a 90. Right now I'm using the Red Sea Reactor 200 for CO2 diffusion. This is only supposed to be good for about 50 gallons so I know I'll need something new for the 90. I've been thinking about the AquaMedic 1000. I'd be curious to hear any opinions on the reactor over the ceramic diffusers. I like the idea of not having the extra piece of equipment (diffuser) in the tank, plus these things need periodic cleaning.

If I do go with the AquaMedic, will an Eheim 2128 be sufficient to run it, or would I be better off with a powerhead?

Any advice would be appreciated!
Thanks, Chris


----------



## jcbyrne (Jan 29, 2006)

There is a Red Sea Reactor 500 that goes up to 125. I have it and really like it in my 60 gallon.


----------



## Ultimbow (Sep 10, 2005)

the aquamedic 1000 is wonderful really worth the buy first it is not in the tank second work better then anything i try no waste of c02 at all for my part
i run mine on a eheim 2217 so they will be no problem for yours and since it usually in a dark place the reactor doesn't get dirty as fast


----------



## Salt (Apr 5, 2005)

According to Tom Barr, the ceramic disc diffuser is superior because it delivers "micro bubbles" of CO2 directly to plant leaves.


----------



## Gomer (Feb 2, 2004)

The solubility of CO2 in water isn't going to change, regardless of what diffusion method you use. The only way I can make sense of Tom's comment is if he means that CO2 bubbles that are not fully desolve, physically collect on the underside of leaves.

If that is the case, then there is the efficiency issue on if the total flux of CO2 into the tank is greater than the CO2 leaving due to bubbles bursting at the surface.


----------



## Salt (Apr 5, 2005)

A while back there was a VERY long thread on another forum with a lot of debate over this. Tom absolutely insisted that he tested it repeatedly and got superior results with a bubbling diffuser. I believe he said he was using a fine pore Sweetwater airstone. Most of the debate was about the why's and how's.


----------



## cedwards (Mar 7, 2006)

Actually it was Tom Barr's comments that had me considering the continued use of a diffuser. My first choice would be a reactor because it would be outside of the tank but Tom's theory on mist made me question that. I was just wondering what other people have observed.


----------



## Salt (Apr 5, 2005)

Here's the thread I mentioned...

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/general-planted-tank-discussion/21340-co2-revelations.html


----------



## IUnknown (Feb 24, 2004)

Thats a long thread, but from the little I read the testing had not been finished. I can uderstand how having a Co2 bubble actually sitting under a leaf is better than the Co2 diffussed in the water. But how many bubbles actually make it under your plants? My Co2 goes into my reactor and gets completely dissolved into the water (no bubbles come out). I would think you would have better chances of Co2 getting into the plants if it was dissolved in the water, rather than trying to aim it under the leaves (most would end up on the surface).

My goal with my tanks is to get everything out of the aquascape. I never liked seeing tons of Co2 bubbles getting thrown around a tank. I'd rather compensate by injecting more into the reactor. I'd think the reactor is more efficient, you see all of your Co2 get dissolved rather than seeing bubbles rise to the surface. Maybe in a smaller tank?

I use this one from aquatic-store, $20,


----------



## redstrat (Apr 3, 2006)

I have to agree IUnknown, I think its pretty noticable when your using a Co2 mist, I used to do something like that but I switched to a reactor and I have noticed better growth since... maybe there are other factors at play here but personally would rather not have equipment in the tank. Plus reactors are pretty much zero maintenance. All of this considered I think reactors are a much better option for me.


----------



## IUnknown (Feb 24, 2004)

Man the diffusser vs reactor debate is a long one. Tony you should read through it, kind of interesting. I'm at the Co2 mist could be O2 part. I used to use diffusser's and I do remember more pearling in my tanks. If you are injecting the same amount of Co2 or O2, I don't get why diffusing would saturate the water any more than a reactor. I've got like 100 post to go though.


----------



## cedwards (Mar 7, 2006)

When I first got my CO2 system I got the Red Sea Reactor 200 primarily just because it was cheap. Had no idea I'd be doing what Tom Barr now seems to recommend. I have the diffuser located under a power head output so the bubbles just blow around. I've gradually been increasing the CO2 and am now at a point where the bubbles fly by the counter so fast that I don't know how much I'm adding. I think I am pretty close to the 1.0 drop in ph between tank water and water that sits out overnight, but I find it very hard to get an accurate reading by trying to judge the color in the tube. 

Anyway, I've never seen pearling like Tom describes and I still have quite a bit of algae growth. I'm not too concerned about pearling, I am pretty happy with the plant growth if I could just get rid of the algae. I've just recently reduced my lighting period so hopefully that will help.

As for my next tank, I'm leaning towards the reactor at this point.


----------



## Robert Hudson (Feb 5, 2004)

Well even Tom admits that a diffusor is less effective in larger aquariums and says you should have two diffusors in the aquarium. I think the biggest draw to the diffusor is the cost and ease of use, particularly for small tanks or even nano tanks. The Reactor 1000 is a good external reactor for large aquariums. It has a lot of surface area inside it to collect the C02 bubbles. It is not that difficult to set up and attach to either a pump or a cannister filter.


----------



## cedwards (Mar 7, 2006)

A basic question - When you use a reactor with it's own pump, do you need to get a "pump" or are there powerheads that you can hook up hoses to?


----------



## banderbe (Nov 17, 2005)

In my 29 gallon, switching from inline reactor to diffuser made a noticeable improvement.


----------



## zeek (Jan 5, 2005)

I pulled apart my AM1000 and placed a diffuser inside of it, replacing as many of the bioballs as would fit. Seems to work fine for my 215gal.



Isaac


----------



## MatPat (Mar 22, 2004)

I recently replaced the AquaMedic Reactor 1000's on my tanks with $2 Sweetwater Fine Pore diffusors. I'm not using the mist method but actually running the stones under my Fluval 304. When the stones are placed at the bottom of my 75g tanks, nearly all of the "micro bubbles" dissolve prior to reaching the surface. 

For the past month they have been working great. I have actually had to decrease the amount of CO2 I pump into the tanks since using the Sweetwater stones. As a drawback, the stones or any diffusor will need to be cleaned every week or two but for $2 each, I bought several and just swap them out when they get dirty.


----------

