Re: Watts/gallon guidelines and CO2 tanks that blow out

>From: "shaji (s.) bhaskar" <bhaskar at bnr_ca>

>In my opinion, there is no hard and fast requirement on lighting.  The
>wattage needed depends, among other things, on:
>1. The depth of the tank.

I agree, and this depth is very important.
>Overall, I agree with you that it is difficult to come up with a
>formula for how much light is needed.  I'm not so sure that the
>larger tank = less watts/gallon pattern that you noticed in Amano's
>book can be generalized.

Don't you think that a generalization can be made from fact 1 above?  All
other things being equal, the volume goes up on the order of the cube of the
depth (assuming that tanks tend to be of the same general shape, i.e., you
increase other dimensions as you increase the depth also).  This is a very
very rough generalization, but I can see how less light is usually needed
with larger tanks from this fact.

>From: krombhol at freud_inst.com (Paul Krombholz)
>Which gets me back to my method of producing CO2.  I'm curious to know why
>your comment about it was, "very funny".

You meant you were serious?  It seemed like such an inefficient way of
injecting CO2, considering the low concentration of CO2 in your breath.
It must be a very big bag of air you use.  How long does it take to fill it
with your breath?  And you are not just injecting CO2, but O2 and N2
(mostly).  How do you deal with undissolved gasses?  (I don't have the
original posting anymore and I can't remember what you used for the reaction
chamber.)  I'm sorry if I had offended you, but I thought you were joking.  ;-)