Re: [APD] Science

[Jerry Baker <jerry at bakerweb_biz>]

urville wrote:
> Okay I did make the discovery so I dont know the tech behind it. But it seems to me that plants overall take in co2 better in gas form.

This is exactly what I'm trying to avoid when I challenge Tom's theory. 
It is extremely unlikely that bubbles contain significant levels of 
carbon dioxide after a few seconds in the tank. I do not challenge that 
you see better growth using this method, but it is unlikely due to 
gaseous CO2. It would be a setback to the hobby if we accepted that 
theory and it weren't true.

Some might think, "big deal if it's not true ... it still works," but 
consider the consequences. The natural conclusion, then, is to find more 
ways to introduce more gaseous CO2 to submerged plants. What a wasted 
effort it would be if it were wrong. My position is that it is easier, 
and more prudent, to investigate the cause before making assumptions. 
That way we can find out what is really going on and see if there are 
ways to improve the mechanisms at work even more.

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