Diffusion

• To: Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com
• Subject: Diffusion
• From: gomberg at wcf_com (Dave Gomberg)
• Date: Mon, 28 Aug 95 07:33:44 PDT

On Mon, 28 Aug 1995 03:39:03 -0400 you wrote:
>From: Stephen.Pushak at hcsd_hac.com
>> From: gomberg at wcf_com (Dave Gomberg)
>> I was just reading a limnology book at the lib yesterday and for a gas in
>> solution (the example used O2) to diffuse 10m in a lake that was 
>> undisturbed takes about 600 YEARS.  So forget this mm per day stuff.  >>Their point was that diffusion is VERY SLOW.  
>I think your quote is out of context Dave. If you are referring to
>diffusion in water (which is never undisturbed) these numbers can't
>be applicable.

Wrong.  The book is Limnology by Tarkington(?) and it is the classic work
in the field.  His point was that disturbance was the name of the game.  If you
depend on diffusion you will never get there.  

> If you are referring to oxygen diffusion through 10m
>of very compact clay at the bottom of a lake, I cannot judge if this
>is reasonable.

Tarkington(?) was talking about water, not substrate.


Dave Gomberg, Experimenta      San Francisco CA USA   gomberg at wcf_com

• Prev: Re: Ick and
• Next: Re: nutrient diffusion into vermiculite
• Index: Aquatic-Plants Mailing List