Re: [APD] CO2 mist

[Jerry Baker <jerry at bakerweb_biz>]

Thomas Barr wrote:
> Well, if you do not try it yourself, you will never know. Heck,
> it does not cost much to try either. Just try it and see, then
> you'll be able to see the issue and measure and observe and
> think about that.

First of all, something needs to be cleared up. It appears that you 
fundamentally misunderstand what people who are discounting your theory 
are saying. I have repeatedly, on this list and at plantedtank.net, 
stated that I do not doubt you see better growth and increased pearling 
using your method. What is being called into question is *why* this 
happens. It is the theory that CO2 becomes increasingly difficult to 
dissolve at concentrations from 0 - 30 mg/L that is in direct 
contradiction to known laws of physics. Ficke's law makes it extremely 
unlikely that CO2 is somehow not dissolving and remaining around to 
adhere to your plant leaves.

Second, a proper scientific discourse does not resemble the following:

Scientist A: "I discovered how to do cold fusion."
Scientist B: "Really? How is that?"
Scientist A: "Just put a doohickey into a solution of thingamajig and
              apply electricity."
Scientist B: "That doesn't sound very plausible. Do you have
              experimental data?"
Scientist A: "Just do it, you'll see."

> Do not believe me? Fine then try it and measure the CO2/O2
> levels yourself. I suggest you do. 
> 
> Use them eyeballs. Consider other factors. 
> They are not difficult to rule out.  
> 
> Same deal with adding PO4, people said it violated Liebig's law
> of minmums and that limitation was the key to good plant growth
> and to retard algae. Sounds crazy now(limiting a plant to make
> it grow better?), but everyone on the APD and every forum
> believed it.....till Steve and I saw I had lots of PO4, no algae
> and dramatic plant growth. We added PO4, and folks got rapid
> uptake a rapid growth improvement. Now everyone does it. So
> misapplied laws and theories can cause myths in this hobby while
> good observational and testing skills help to re evaluate them
> correctly. 

Perhaps I'm being dense, but I can't see how prior disagreements about 
phosphate have any bearing on CO2 concentration.

> .......I have had quite a few people try this method out and
> with no other changes or slight ones, they have significantly
> increased their plant growth rates, reduction in algae and
> shorter time frames till pearling is observed(1 hour vs 3-4
> hours). 
> 
> Don't take my word for it, prove it to yourself.  

See first comment about not doubting the result, but the cause.

I could have popped onto this list a few years ago and said, "Eureka! If 
you set up a contraption to slowly stir your tank using the root of an 
Ecuadorian mahogany you will see 25% increased plant growth." I could 
have further postulated that the increased growth was due to special 
chemical properties of the Ecuadorian mahogany that were transferred to 
the water during stirring. That theory will work. Anyone who tried it 
would see increased growth if they had not been creating circulation 
prior. When you stir an otherwise unstirred tank, you will see increased 
growth. However, we know it's not because of any property of the 
mahogany root, but because increased circulation increases the 
availability of nutrients. The stirring can be done by a powerhead, an 
airstone, a canister filter, or whatever.

The point of the absurd example above is that just because a technique 
works, it doesn't mean that the theory behind it is correct. It is 
important to investigate *why* it works in order to see if those 
conditions can be achieved through other methods.

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