[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [APD] Wicked man
>I used to have an internal powerhead/filter with the co2 tube at the intake,
>this thing used to spurt out micro bubbles by the millions and I must say
>that since I stopped using it and switched to your reactor things have been
>much better! So from experience I must say that I do not know how you can be
>arriving at these new found conclusions.
By trying it.
By thinking about why what appears at first glance to be wasteful(both disc and the venturi reactor) wasting is producing sucgh growth.
Adding PO4 seemed contradictory initially as well.
>By blowing micro bubbles at the plants so that they build up under the
>leaves the plant is better able to take in the gas as its much more
>accessible, is this what you're saying? Makes sense for sure.
>But is'nt this defeating the purpose of having *submerged* growth.
Plants are still submerged.
> Adding co2 till a ppm of
>30 and then blowing micro bubbles of co2 all over the plants on top of that
>makes me think that we are fooling our plants into making them believe they
>are growing in emersed conditions.
Oh more that, even better than emerrgent growth actually.
Recall, 100% CO2 vs the 0.038% in air.
When we add 1800ppm to air vs the ambient 380ppm(it's risen over 30ppm in my life thus far), we can get 30-50% more in emegernt growth.
> Perhaps another mechanism is triggered
>where the plant goes into 'emersed' mode and then the problem switches over
>to a lack of o2 instead of co2. Does that make any sense at all?
I do not think there is any lack of O2.
Excess O2 rather quickly perhaps.......
>> 100% dissolving ability might not be the best solution for practical
>I beg to differ. I think its great if its coupled with a very strong
No, a gentle current that is even will put the bubbles where you need them. This is not hard to do with a small reactor and a spray bar.
>> Simply getting the gas to the plants directly in gas form might be the
>If it is then are we all better off going with a Paludarium type setup and j
>ust ditching all our co2 equipment?
You are taking this out of the water and missing the point.
I like submersed plants.
> Seems like alot less hassle for sure.
>Its just that the plants, fish and tank in general look so crisp and healthy
>when you're pushing things to the limit with light/co2. Diana Walstad tanks
>just don't do it for me, they're too 'slow & dirty' :)
Then you need to see some of my non CO2 tanks, a little dirty due to mulm, but that can be cleaned up easily. But they look as good and in most cases better than many CO2 enriched tanks, they are small so I do not want fast growth.
But I can control the rate of growth in tanks very easily and take advantage of the trade offs with different methods.
>> I know many folks have seen and observed their plants near the CO2 reactor
>>outflow and neat the disc, plants always pearl better there.
>> Now why not the entire tank?
>A solution would be to cut narrow slits in your reactor near the bottom so
>that the micro bubbles have a better chance of escape, then just add another
>powerhead at the opposite end of the tank for improved circulation.
Yes, this can be done but simply using the filter/spray bar will do this.
Larger tanks use 2 spray bars and two small reactors/disc.
Amano uses 2 smaller disc on larger tanks rather than one big whopper, Steve did this years ago in his 185gal. Greg also uses two small Venturi reactors for his 180.
The issue here is one of delivery and concentration to the plant, not efficiency of dissolving the gas into water. That also works, but I'm saying this will work better.
We have lots of offgassing when we have 30ppm from the water to the air, we cannot see it, but it does occur.
So whether we have offgassing that way, or with bubbles we can see, where the gas goes and at what concentration it's at when it hits the plants seems more critical.Sure, you can lose a lot with too many bubbles escaping, but the plants do not lie.
The growth and O2 levels do not lie.
At least based on my data with DO, usage of venturi loops and disc, current patterns and plant observations. It's pretty significant difference, enough to warrant serious consideration.
Think about CO2's role as a nutrient and it's % of plant biomass, focusing on CO2 more will greatly enhance the chance of significant growth than say messing with Fe or Ca levels.You need both, but one sure does make a difference with algae and growth much more.
>> Time to go kill some weeds:-)
>You wicked, wicked man. :)
Well, maybe not that wicked, they are "bad weeds", they deserve to die, the kind that bother other pleople and plants. So it's okay "to kill" them. If it where furry little bunnies or kittens, most would hate me, and claim a moral and ethical higher ground, but plants? Few care.
Irony has no limit.
A Tree hugger is also a critter hugger since the critters need somewhere to live.
Save the plants and habitat, you save the critters also.
Happly plants= happy critters.
Yahoo! for Good
Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
Aquatic-Plants mailing list
Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com