Re: [APD] Re: CO2 usage in a sump versus non-sump

["Justin Collins" <jucollin at du_edu>]

The primary down side I've heard to the CPR overflows is that they have a
nasty habit of losing their siphon as compared to traditional U-siphon ones.
There are solutions to the poilet sound that are cheap and simple, such as
the overflow additions developed by Richard Durso.

Justin Collins

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Larry Jones" <ljones at usc_edu>
To: <aquatic-plants at actwin_com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 6:38 PM
Subject: [APD] Re: CO2 usage in a sump versus non-sump


> > Which overflow, the CPR or another one?
> >
> > Scott H.
> > --- Larry Jones <ljones at usc_edu> wrote:
> >> I noted a huge decrease in my CO2 usage when I bought a
> >> CPR overflow. . .But this overflow
> >> seems to save me much CO2 and it is also much quieter.
>
> Wow, you guys are really getting me on my poor grammar. <grin> But I do
know
> better, so I had better act like it. The CPR overflow is better, period.
The
> CPR saved me CO2 and is quiet. The old overflow used to sound like a
toilet
> that was running over. Now my aquarium is basically silent. Also if you
are
> in the market. Look at http://www.amekaaquatics.com , Look under the
factory
> seconds and you may find a great deal on a not quite picture perfect
> overflow. Mine is not visible but I couldn't see why it was a second.
> Larry Jones M.D.
> ljones at usc_edu
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Aquatic-Plants mailing list
> Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com
> http://www.actwin.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/aquatic-plants

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