I never said anything about the amount of gas needed to lower pH. What I am saying is that the solubility of CO2 is affected by temperature. Thus the amount of carbonic acid increases with the amount of CO2 dissolved and maintained dissolved, until the acid is utilized for the disassociation of the calcium carbonate media.
And no not all the CO2 is utilized otherwise a gas pocket would not form at the top off the reactor.
Bottom line is CO2 dissolves more readily at lower temperature.
Ozone will react until it is either dissipated into atmosphere or disassociated into O2.
Variable flow actuated manifolds provides both flow rates, although not concurrently.
Allowed for a higher UV dose when desired and lower dose for bacterial/algae when desired.
Again it is rude and disrespectful to merely say that serves no purpose, when also unwilling to explore and consider all potential outcomes.
Your explanation conflates several different concepts. Carbonic acid isn't simply "used up" by dissolving the media. We are not pouring acid into the tank to be consumed. It is an equilibrium reaction. The gas pocket doesn't prove CO2 is being wasted. Don't we already basically run reactors close to equilibrium? How would chilling help exactly?
If not all CO2 is consumed (your gas pocket) that actually indicates that CO2 availability may not be the limiting factor, and pH likely is, right? So how does colder water help? We lower flow to give CO2 more time to dissolve and be consumed, right? Remember that and let's move on and just concentrate on temperature.
What is the effort worth? Let's say 10% as a target increase in solubility, is that fair?
Tank temp 78 F. Tank capacity 150 G.
If we look at Henry's law, for 10% more solubility, we need a delta T of ~5 to 7 F.
If the reactor flow is 150 GPH and holds 1 gallon of water (let's assume the media is at steady state) can you tell me how large of a peltier is needed?
Second question, can you tell me the system temperature drop due to the cold effluent?
I will save you the math. If we ignore a complex integration and just use a first order estimate, you need over 2 kW of cooling for that delta T. Real peltier electrical will be far higher than that with any meaningful delta T over the plate. Not even remotely realistic either way.
But back to the solution to a problem that isn't. How do we get that delta T without needing 2+ kW of cooling? We lower the flow, right? That reduces the cooling requirement, but magically it also gives the CO2 more contact time. But wait, then why do we need the chiller in the first place then if we just lower the flow?
Also, how do we prevent the tank temperature from plummeting? Do we use the hot side of the peltier to warm the water back up? Does this mean we need a temperature controller and bypass? More complexity to what benefit?
Okay, let's back up and say we can get a 2 degree delta T in the reactor. That may be attainable, but to what end? ~2% more solubility? We consume maybe 1 kW in real peltier power. Why when just lowering the flow slightly would achieve the same basic outcome?
Why engineer complexity and cost and failure points into a system for no and call it “better” when there does not appear to be a real world benefit?