Re: [APD] CO2 and pH control

["S. Hieber" <shieber at yahoo_com>]

The diff a change is set up makes on how much faster or
slower CO2 is shed depends in part on how fast it was being
shed before the change.

When I first set up my sump/trickle filter I even used the
same pump that George used. I'm not saying my set up was
just like George's but I did try to do msot things as
George and Karla described them on their excellent website.
It was pointed out to me by another APD reader that
George's system to start off (pre-sump) was less miserly
with CO2 than was mine.

My CO2 consumption about doubled whenI switched from
canister to sump/trickle. Others have reported similar
results at least while Tom B has reported that his results
were similar to George's. 

I've tried a number of things over the past few years to
decrease the rate of CO2 consumption with the sump set up,
including doing what Dave G suggests, i.e., removing the
trickle element. Definitely some improvement there. And
some other things have helped. But despite all my attempts,
the only way I've been able to substantially narrow the gap
between the sump set up and canister is by increasing the
rate of CO2 consumption while using a canister.

I don't think any of these results, by George, Dave, etc.
are bogus -- I don't even think they are inconsistent.
However, I think I might disagree with the conclusions that
some have drawn. I think the results show that sumps are
not *generally* the most conservative when it comes to CO2
*and* that some canister set ups can be as inefficient as
some sump set ups.

Some things that appear to make a diff in the rate that CO2
is shed:

whether the sump and overflow are tightly covered --
uncovered tend to shed faster;
whether a trickle chamber is used -- trickles tend to shed
faster;
whether the drain exhausts above or below the water surface
in the sump -- exhausting above the surface tends to drain
faster;
the diameter of the drain -- larger sheds faster;
the amount of turbulence in the overflow --an Amiracle
U-tube type overflow will shed CO2 more rapidly than a
CPR-type overflow -- more turbulence sheds faster;
the water flow rate -- higher rates tend to shed faster;

Consodering the things above that tend to increase the rate
that CO2 is shed, the faster the rate the CO2 is shed, it
seems, the less adverse impact in a given set up.


Have plants, have gas, have fun,

Scott H.
--- George Booth <gbooth at frii_com> wrote:

> Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 09:45:53 -0600
> From: Gordon and Susan Watkins <gwatkins at ritternet_com>
> 
> > Thanks for the in-depth information George. So where do
> you currently 
> > stand on the impact of trickle filters on CO2
> efficiency?
> 
> Where I've always stood - if set up correctly, they don't
> have a serious
> impact.  I'm sure that you could optimize other
> filtration setups to be more
> CO2 miserly but it doesn't matter much to me.  Canisters
> are a pain to clean
> compared to trickle, the sump is a nice place to put
> equipment and they are
> nitrate generators (which is good these days, right?). 
> 
> See my website for the CO2 Loss Experiment. 


* * * * * * * * * * *
All the other terrific entries in the 6th Annual AGA Aquascaping Contest are on display:

http://showcase.aquatic-gardeners.org


In service to the community, the AGA has opened forums:

http://forum.aquatic-gardeners.org/
_______________________________________________
Aquatic-Plants mailing list
Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com
http://www.actwin.com/mailman/listinfo/aquatic-plants