So I need to get myself some more carbon because I recently ran out. I went to BRS and watched that video they have again about the comparisons between the various types of carbon and how ROX is the best, but the other 2 lignite and bituminous perform pretty well for their specified particulate size removal.
While watching this, I had a thought as to why not run both of the cheaper carbons to have pretty much the performance of the ROX for a fraction of the cost.
I figure running them both in the same chamber with the lignite being upstream and the bituminous being downstream which would allow the lignite to take out the larger sized particles and preventing these larger particles from "gunking up" the smaller pores of the bituminous. In theory I see this working equally well as ROX 0.8, and would actually average out the cost to be cheaper than the lignite, and only slightly more expensive than running the cheapest bituminous carbon.
Wondering if anyone runs the 2 types and can provide some input, or if anyone else has any thoughts on the matter.
While watching this, I had a thought as to why not run both of the cheaper carbons to have pretty much the performance of the ROX for a fraction of the cost.
I figure running them both in the same chamber with the lignite being upstream and the bituminous being downstream which would allow the lignite to take out the larger sized particles and preventing these larger particles from "gunking up" the smaller pores of the bituminous. In theory I see this working equally well as ROX 0.8, and would actually average out the cost to be cheaper than the lignite, and only slightly more expensive than running the cheapest bituminous carbon.
Wondering if anyone runs the 2 types and can provide some input, or if anyone else has any thoughts on the matter.
