florida reef
Well-Known Member
Hey all,
I have both the MR1 and the SMR1 reactors and have been running them on my 90g for about 1 1/2 years now with my only major complaint being the channeling of media, both phosban and ecoback pellets. I attributed this to what I thought was lack of sufficient flow. Since then I have recently set up a frag tank out in my garage that totals around 300 gallons and thought it would be better to just use my current reactors(MR1 and SMR1) on the frag set up since they have a large capacity and take up a lot of room under my 90g. To replace the Nextreef reactors for my DT, I ordered the common TLF Phosban 150. I had always thought Nextreef was superior to TLF, though now that I think about it I'm not sure why...probably bc they look cooler?
Anyway, a few days ago I received the new TLF reactor and plumbed it in the exact same way my Nextreef reactors were plumbed, coming straight off a manifold which is fed by an Eheim 1260. My initial observations lead me to believe that the TLF is a better reactor for my setup bc of the small footprint, uniform flow that causes the media to evenly tumble, and the fact that it is about half the price of the MR1.
I have both the MR1 and the SMR1 reactors and have been running them on my 90g for about 1 1/2 years now with my only major complaint being the channeling of media, both phosban and ecoback pellets. I attributed this to what I thought was lack of sufficient flow. Since then I have recently set up a frag tank out in my garage that totals around 300 gallons and thought it would be better to just use my current reactors(MR1 and SMR1) on the frag set up since they have a large capacity and take up a lot of room under my 90g. To replace the Nextreef reactors for my DT, I ordered the common TLF Phosban 150. I had always thought Nextreef was superior to TLF, though now that I think about it I'm not sure why...probably bc they look cooler?
Anyway, a few days ago I received the new TLF reactor and plumbed it in the exact same way my Nextreef reactors were plumbed, coming straight off a manifold which is fed by an Eheim 1260. My initial observations lead me to believe that the TLF is a better reactor for my setup bc of the small footprint, uniform flow that causes the media to evenly tumble, and the fact that it is about half the price of the MR1.
- Space is something that can be priceless under a reef tank...space for reactors, ATO reservoirs, sump/refugiums, etc. I like to save space when I can and when I find a product that performs as well or better and also takes up less space, I'll choose the space saving product any day.
- Tumbling media is the phenomenon we as hobbyists all struggle to define. The rate of tumble is almost as subjective as the color deciphering in the test kit dilemma. What exactly is a "gentle tumble." While the amount of tumbling is annoyingly subjective, one conclusion that is widely agreed upon is evenly tumbling media is more efficient than channeling media. I think the problem of channeling media in the Nextreef reactor is because it's a larger diameter and height and requires more water pressure to tumble the media evenly. That means bigger pump, more heat, higher electric bill, etc. Also, the design of the tube that leads to the bottom of the reactor where the water flows up has two holes that seems to inevitably cause tumbling no matter how much pressure you have.
- Finally, the cost factor. It's not rocket science here...cheaper dry good products allow us to have more available money or livestock.
