[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [APD] CO2 mist
I never had pearling like this until I used this Co2 method. of course
if you hate bubbles all over the tank, which was a concern for some at
APC, then I suggest against it. But I just cut one of the plastic bars
on my powerhead intake out so as not to pinch the incoming line and let
the powerhead do the chopping and aimed it down and diagonal across the
tank. I'm at about 3 or 4 BPS, and there are literally bubbles
everywhere. You do "waste" more co2 in that ialot goes up and escapes,
but my canister flow helps that, and quite frankly I have no complaints
as to growth.
If I choke the incoming co2 to a full stop and let the exsisitng bubbles
peter out I can see a champagne action of pearling. I never did that for
longer than maybe one minute, just in case. I dont like to make havoc
for the fish more than needed. No ones died, and everything is putting
out bubbles even the noctoriously slow growing java fern. The key IME is
getting the bubbles everywhere flowing across the plants. I suppose if I
wasnt lazy and tried harder the effect would be better, in my ten where
the bublles really get circulated via an extra heavy current the
pearling is literally out of control. So i can see how the circulation
physiucally over the leaves in greater volume really makes a difference
It makes sense (to me) if you consider a terrestrial plant, which some
would say is a mistake to do so... But if you put heavily co2 saturated
water on a terrestrial leaf your still never going to get the same
growth if you put a canister on it blowing co2 on the plant in gas form.
This is evident by reasearch the USDA is doing out here at the HPGRS
RRRU right now. They use a tank like the giant White Propane tanks.
Looks like a giant Amoxcillian. They hook it up to a metal matrix of gas
line in square half foots and do monthly tests using different levels of
co2 and measure growth.
Hope you find it as successful. I was relieved to be honest. I wanted
heavy pearling so bad, and now I wonder how it was ever hard to get.
william ruyle wrote:
>Yours is one of several glowing testimonials of Tom's new CO2 method.
>And you betcha, I'm
>going to try it and if I have the same results perhaps it should be:
>"flies *on* the face of known
>scientific principles":-) Bill
>>I heartily mean no offense to anyone personnally. this is just a fav pet
>>peeve of mine on any level.
>>Ah and the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth and the
>>atom was the smallest.
>>alot of Science <AHEM not all... i dont think...> is nothing more than
>>a synonym for theory. and theroy is a guess just waiting to be disproved
>>by some other theory and on and on.
>>you know guys theres alot of holier than thou or rather elitist
>>attitudes. I dont think anyone is guilt free on that around here.
>>the fact is if it works, then i'm happy and thats gonna be most people.
>>i dont know about you but i dont have a grant from a science foundation
>>nor the time to write lengthy science journal articles, i think it's
>>called a hobby? anyway, it works and if it comes to bitter rivalry
>>rather than actual discussion (the difference being the national academy
>>of annoyances level of annoyance rating), then frankly professor i dont
>>care. does it work? check one yes, check two no..
>>these comments are not directed at mr. baker in paticular as i rather
>>agree with him often. if thy shoe fit, thou must wear it.
>>just a nickel in a 2 cent war. hey, replying with passive aggressives
>>tones always looks like fun to me and since i figure the truly self
>>determined intelligent people partake who am i to question it?
>>>>>flies in the face of known scientific principles.
>>Aquatic-Plants mailing list
>>Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com
>Aquatic-Plants mailing list
>Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com
Aquatic-Plants mailing list
Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com