[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: wet/dry's for that 125 and CO2
>What? IMO (and I'm sure we're going to hear a lot more), you definitely
>should utilize purposeful mechanical filtration in your 125... to remove
>particulates, circulate dissolved gases, destratify the system thermally...
>would not use a sump... too much surface disruption, loss of CO2... but do
>look into good canister filters 9my fave line, Eheim) or inside power
I like Ehiems too<g>. But have to disagree on the loss of CO2 caused by
overflows and wet/drys sumps. Mr Booth did a test on this one sometime ago
and found that it doesn't make much difference.
Here's an old post which states *what I too have found independently* of Mr
Booth and Mr Dixon regarding wet/drys.
Check George's post back from Nov1995 vol 1# 90 on the 27th for a more in
depth look at wet/drys and CO2.
Steve Dixon wrote:
>The reposting of George's CO2 loss test results for various water return
>configurations got me to wondering if I should take some of that advice.
>I've been going through a 10# bottle of CO2 every three months or so in my
>125 gal. with trickle and canister filters.
>My trickle filter return is located about 2 inches below the water line of
>the tank. I can see only the slightest bit of surface rippling as the
>return water crosses the length of the tank. I made one change to my
>setup: I turned the small plastic fan blade on the return pipe outlet
>upside down and then angled the blade to about 15 degrees downward toward
>the gravel. The effect is to direct the return water slightly downward
>rather than level or flat (when the blade is used in the normal manner). I
>did not raise or lower the return pipe.
>The pH quickly dropped from 6.8 to 6.5 and dropping when I adjusted the
>needle valve to reduce the flow of CO2. My guess is my CO2 consumption has
>been cut by one-third. I was surprised and pleased. George must be right
>that the trickle filter box (which is where one would think the CO2 losses
>would be greatest) gets filled up with CO2 and doesn't result in much loss.
>Regards, Steve Dixon
Having done several techy tanks with wet/drys and sumps with and without dry
sections in them I have found it makes little difference( the tank did do
better with the wet/dry section). Surface turbulance, airstones, returns or
added air cause the problem, not the the dry sections or the overflows. I
use spray bars on the bottom of my tanks rather than up higher in the tank.
This gets the CO2 were you want it and where it has the most contact time if
not completely dissolved. It also allows massive even current without any or
much surface turbulance. Good even mixing. Even if there is some outgassing,
CO2 is very cheap to add compared to lighting and trace elements etc. All we
do is add more with twist of a valve or add to the tank in a more efficient
manner rather than giving up a great aquarium tool/filter such as wet/dry
and the sump. Mr Dixon also added the return water(full of CO2) downward to
It would be the method and it's usage, not the wet/dry that may give the
myth that wet/drys and sumps drive off lots of CO2.
Set up well, they don't cause any issues for CO2 loss. Many other folks will
agree. Ehiems are good but cost as much and sometimes more than wet/drys.