# The consensus on CO2 mist vs. inline reactor



## danepatrick (Jul 17, 2006)

well since i'm pretty new at this, i'll ask the newb question. what is the misting way? i have an inline reactor and am not all that impressed. could this be a better way?


----------



## banderbe (Oct 10, 2005)

Basically you make CO2 mist by using a ceramic diffuser or limewood stone or something similar and place it below your spray bar or by the intake of a powerhead so the little CO2 bubbles are blown all around the tank.

Some people for some reason cannot stand the sight of the little bubbles all over but I like it a lot. Besides it's easy to turn off the bubbles for photographs of the tank, etc.


----------



## Urkevitz (Jan 12, 2004)

I tried in my tank, but my filter isn't powerful enough, the bubble didn't get spread around the tank at all. Now I just inject the CO2 into my filter intake.


----------



## dougiefresh (Sep 5, 2006)

I like the misting much better in my little 12 gallon tank with diy - using a coral life wood airstone. Was shooting through a pump. def


----------



## PineyMike (Mar 22, 2006)

I never used an inline reactor. Never had to use one. The results I get from using glass diffusors are great. I just picked up a Red Sea reactor 500 for cheap. It's a small in-tank powered venturi type diffusor. I'm going to try that as soon as I get the time to install it. I doubt it could be better than the glass diffusors I use now but I like the size and design of it. Alot of people rave about the venturi type diffusors. We'll see.


----------



## joejoe123 (Aug 22, 2006)

do you have a picture of your co2 setup banderbe i would like to see it if you do 
i dont have my co2 hooked up yet but was planning on using the inline reactor but im still a little confused on the whole co2 setups i would like something small and out of the way my tank is only 8 gallons 

joey :0)


----------



## dougiefresh (Sep 5, 2006)

joejoe123 - You can get mini glass diffusers and they are pretty small.  Unless you have a external canister or sump, don't mess around with the inline method - just diffuse it with no mechanics in a little tank. One nice thing about diffusing this way is that it's completely silent. Here's one that maybe nice for your tank::thumbsup: 
eBay: Nano Co2 diffuser - Small aquarium with live plants (item 250028336988 end time Sep-14-06 17:56:42 PDT)

def


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

I love the effect of CO2 mist on the plants - more pearling than I have ever seen before, and the plants grow very well. But, they grow so well they tend to choke off the flow of mist around the tank. Yes, I should be pruning to avoid that, but for now I am using the 29 gallon tank to grow enough plants for when I set up my 45 gallon tank.

One potential problem I see is that it takes actual dissolved CO2 in the water to suppress BBA, and CO2 mist doesn't guarantee much will be dissolved into the water. That depends on a lot of factors. So, even though I run a bubble rate of at least 4 bubbles per second, which should logically be annoying the heck out of the fish, it doesn't bother them at all. And, BBA does keep growing anew in somewhat stagnant areas of the tank. 

So, my conclusion is that CO2 mist is great, but really should be done in addition to a reactor to raise the dissolved CO2 amount near 20 ppm. I currently plan to go back to a reactor when I set up the 45 gallon tank, using a Barr internal venturi reactor. Later, I may add CO2 mist again.


----------



## Adrian (Aug 17, 2005)

I ran my co2 through an AC powerhead 50 for a short time (the output nozzle has a hole the fits co2 tubing perfectly) but was never truly satisfied with it.


----------



## distrbd (Feb 17, 2006)

I use both external reactor and co2 mist using an ac powerhead attached to a pray bar with another pump just under it to spread the tiny bubbles around. In my experience,in a 72" long tank you can not rely on one external reactor ,it just won't be sufficient,you would need another form of diffusion in order to have an even distribution of co2.


----------



## Rex Grigg (Dec 10, 2002)

I'm still not convinced it's the CO2 mist. An actual mist of CO2 in a tank will do one of two things. Dissolve or dissipate. I am inclined to believe that the extra current is actually what helps.

There has not been a study of this to my knowledge.


----------



## banderbe (Oct 10, 2005)

Rex Grigg said:


> I'm still not convinced it's the CO2 mist. An actual mist of CO2 in a tank will do one of two things. Dissolve or dissipate. I am inclined to believe that the extra current is actually what helps.
> 
> There has not been a study of this to my knowledge.


I'm convinced it is the CO2. I was using a reactor of your design for months and it did a good job dissolving CO2 and growth was good but then I bought a new stand and couldn't use the reactor anymore so I put a limewood airstone in the tank below the spray bar, and the difference is really night and day. The plants just grew bigger, faster, more robust.. and after a month or so when the limewood stone starts to become less efficient, clogged etc, the growth slows noticeably. Recently I changed to a glass diffuser (once my last limewood stone was getting gummed up again, and WOW. In 24 hours the difference in growth is obvious.

If you have grown L. Pantanal you know how sensitive to CO2 that plant is. When my tank is full of CO2 mist, the Pantanal do great. When the limewood stone would peter out, the Pantanal looked sad. Leaves not growing as long, color not as eye popping.. 

Keep in mind, the flow in my tank has been the same all along.. only difference has been the efficacy of the diffuser I have used..


----------



## banderbe (Oct 10, 2005)

joejoe123 said:


> do you have a picture of your co2 setup banderbe i would like to see it if you do
> i dont have my co2 hooked up yet but was planning on using the inline reactor but im still a little confused on the whole co2 setups i would like something small and out of the way my tank is only 8 gallons
> 
> joey :0)


I don't have a photo, sorry 

It's just like everyones, 5lb tank and Milwaukee regulator.. I started with an inline reactor too.. and probably would still be using it today had I not had the serendipitous occassion to stop using it and switch to a diffuser.

I say, try them all. Start with an inline reactor, use it for four or five months to get a good feel for how it works for you.. then pull it and use a diffuser.. see if it makes a difference.. and the key is circulation of the bubbles. If they are just rushing to the surface out of the diffuser then that will not be very beneficial at all.. 

On second thought your tank is so small you would probably do well with a DIY Co2 setup of yeast/sugar. I think a diffuser would work great for you.. an inline reactor on an 8 gallon tank is a bit of an overkill. Most reactors would be longer than the tank itself. Mine was 2' long and 2" in diameter.


----------



## Betowess (Dec 9, 2004)

banderbe said:


> I don't have a photo, sorry
> 
> It's just like everyones, 5lb tank and Milwaukee regulator.. I started with an inline reactor too.. and probably would still be using it today had I not had the serendipitous occassion to stop using it and switch to a diffuser.


It seems to me most people using the mist setup don't have 75G or larger aquariums. Do you guys know of anyone using a series of mist setups in larger tanks, or is this more of a small to medium tank device? I bought a diffusor for my 26 gallon, but haven't gotten around to plumbing in a required bulkhead on the regulator. I do want to try this out also.


----------



## IUnknown (Feb 5, 2003)

> I am inclined to believe that the extra current is actually what helps


From what I can tell no one has been changing there flow rates. Or maybe you mean from the bubbles stirring things up Rex (Prandtl boundary, etc)? My diffuser comes in this week. I'm going to keep the reactor plugged in, just without any Co2. I expect to see what everyone else has been seeing. 

I'm not convinced its just Co2. I think other things are going on. O2 diffusing into the Co2 bubbles increasing oxygen in our tanks, feeding benificial bacteria, less ammonia, all around better tank health (reason for increased pearling). I think there is a benifit, I just don't think anyone has figured out the reason.


----------



## danepatrick (Jul 17, 2006)

so what about using both? right now i have a rex grigg diy reactor made up, and maybe it's all in my head, but after reading threads like this, i feel like i'm not satisfied with my pearling/co2 being diffused properly. i can say this though.. i still have bubbled coming out of the outflow of my pipe. i think i'm going to continue to use this, but also use a glass diffuser/power head mist system. i'm going to use one of the zoo med powerheads that rotate so that the co2 gets sprayed everywhere. i'm going to use a "T" connector to separate the two lines so that i can place the glass diffuser and powerhead on the other side of the tank. i think you guys get the idea. so how does the sound?


----------



## snafu (Oct 9, 2004)

banderbe said:


> Are there still folks who remain convinced that inline reactors are best?
> If so, why?


i've run both diffusers and reactors on various tanks in the past, and now i run just reactors for a variety of reasons - most 'stemming' from reducing maintenance, time and costs on my systems ... more efficient CO2 usage, less trips to get bottle filled, diffusers get clogged have to be cleaned, etc
-snafu


----------



## lewisjl481 (Oct 26, 2004)

I agree with Rex about the increased flow. I just added a second XP3 to my 90G and the tank exploded with growth and pearling. That was the only thing I changed. Still using the external reactor and plan to stick with it.


----------



## TWood (Nov 1, 2005)

lewisjl481 said:


> I just added a second XP3 to my 90G and the tank exploded with growth and pearling.


I have an Eheim 2028 connected to an extended water return system on my 90 gallon and I don't get much water movement with it. Does the XP3 have a higher flow rate than the comparable Eheims? (I know Eheim works on the low-flowrate theory, but that doesn't really apply to planted tanks any more.)

TW


----------



## Betowess (Dec 9, 2004)

TW, I think their flow rates are fairly comparable...On my 90 gallon I use an XP3 with a reactor and a hydor, though I'm not sure I need the Hydor, due to ambient room temp. And on the opposite end of this same 90 gallon I have a Eheim 2128 - without any peripherals attached. The Eheim has terrific flow by itself. And I tend to agree with Jim (and Rex) thinking it is the increased flow/current which bumps up the growth. I believe a majority of planted tank hobbiest use two cannisters on bigger 4' and up tanks. (Sorry for being a little off topic here).


----------



## TWood (Nov 1, 2005)

Thanks,

I notice there's an XP4 now, but with a big price jump.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

I've been using a venturi mazzii for a few weeks now and I am more pleased with it than other systems, needs high current, but the mist that comes out is awesome. Very fine, like those marine protien skimmers in bubble production, but in freshwater.

Venturi's can be added in a sump or in line, they will reduce the current a significant amount, but if you use 2 canisters etc, they would work well.

Folks with canisters and other filters often slack and the filter flow is greatly reduced, has lots of mulm built up, this reduces CO2 and mixing, then you get algae and still think the CO2 is okay.

Mist essentially uses the tank as the "reactor" and the gas is mixed well in the tank, rather than dissolving it all into solution prior.

As a packet of CO2 gas bubble dissolves, the region around the bubble is higher in CO2 than the adjacent regions at the microscale. Even if the bubble is entirely dissolves, this will still hold true. After a few more seconds, the turbulance will mix it into the adjacent regions, but this is a time dependent thing, CO2 gas does not dissolve instantly, which is what some have said.

If you have an increase in O2, then you must have an increase in plant production.

Bacteria live on surfces, these surfaces are plants, gravel, equipment etc, the plant's themselves will have the highest levels of O2 as it's nearly pure as it leaves the plant. Mixing the O2 into the water column more would reduce that, but increase exchange. Some photorespiration relief may help the plants grow more if you accepted this line of thinking from reduced O2 build up near the plant surfaces. I don't think the mist effect is due to that, but it might play some role.

Mist is at a much smaller scale than a large reactor bubble, I wish I could say otherwise because it would be much easier to test, but for now, O2 measurements and CO2 ppm addresses the effectiveness of mist vs dissolved only. That does not prove it's mechanism, something I've never claimed, but it does show the method to be very effective in terms of plant growth.

Some of the best scapers in the world use it and given the CO2 related poor growth/lulls/algae related issues with CO2, it cannot be that bad

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## BSS (Sep 24, 2004)

Betowess said:


> It seems to me most people using the mist setup don't have 75G or larger aquariums. Do you guys know of anyone using a series of mist setups in larger tanks..?


If I'm not mistaken, there is this gent over in Japan...what's the name...Amano, I believe, that favors this setup in all of his tanks :biggrin: . Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Regarding increased flow, I believe that by removing most in-line reactors, your current canister filter will create more flow. So, removing the reactor and going to misting would, in most cases, increase flow rates.

I've been using misting for quite a while now. To me, I like to be able to see (externally) when my SMS is adding CO2, and it prevents problems with priming my canister during cleanings. Though, I've battled problems with acid sources and the such, I'm currently running pH~6.1-6.2 (had to kick it down another step because BBA was starting to reappear on DW) with KH ~9. I can see some level of bubbles swirling around my tank. I get moderate to low end pearling fairly late in my light cycle. I've never personally experienced the 'insane' pearling/champagne effect that a diffuser seems to produce for most folks.

If someone can help diagnose my 'difference', I'm all ears. But, based on my experience, YMMV!
Brian.


----------



## Betowess (Dec 9, 2004)

BSS said:


> If I'm not mistaken, there is this gent over in Japan...what's the name...Amano, I believe, that favors this setup in all of his tanks :biggrin: . Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
> 
> Regarding increased flow, I believe that by removing most in-line reactors, your current canister filter will create more flow. So, removing the reactor and going to misting would, in most cases, increase flow rates.
> 
> ...


Ah, you got me on Amano. :icon_redf 

Brian, I can get plenty of Champagne type pearling with just inline reactors, caveat being: when everything is right with enough plant load. Definately not always, but often enough... and when it happens, it makes it hard take a picture without it looking like I'm shooting in a mist/fog or out of focus. A good dose of Excel will make it even more so, I've noticed.


----------



## dschmeh (Feb 5, 2006)

MikeNas102 said:


> I never used an inline reactor. Never had to use one. The results I get from using glass diffusors are great. I just picked up a Red Sea reactor 500 for cheap. It's a small in-tank powered venturi type diffusor. I'm going to try that as soon as I get the time to install it. I doubt it could be better than the glass diffusors I use now but I like the size and design of it. Alot of people rave about the venturi type diffusors. We'll see.


I just started using a red sea 500 seems to work ok but 2 soon to tell let me know how yours is and how u like it PM me
Dave


----------



## danepatrick (Jul 17, 2006)

for arguement sake, i've recently set up a mister with a glass diffuser and power head and have not had good pearling results. when i went back to using my external "rex grigg" reactor, the difference was noticable. my plants are pearling way more than they did with the powerhead/glass diffuser. sorry to say, but from MY experience, the reactor is winning.


----------



## magicmagni (Nov 7, 2003)

I just disconnected my DIY inline reactor and installed an ADA beetle 50 diffuser on my tank a week or so ago. It is actually my second try. First time I had problems with leaks because of the high pressure needed to run the diffuser as opposed to the reactor, but got it sorted out now. Initually it started really well, but then pearling tapered off. Swapped back to the reactor and pearling resumed the next day (like I said though the system was leaking).

Take two:

One thing I did this time around was install the spray bar vertically in the back corner of the tank opposite of the filter intake (last time it was on the same side and the spraybar was mounted horizontally near the surface). The spray bar goes down 20" from the top of the tank (24" tall tank). Just an inch below this I have the diffuser. One thing I did to enhance performance was to drill a small hole at the end of the spraybar so that current blows down onto the ceramic disk of the reactor. I figure this would do one of two things: 1. keep debris from settling onto the disk and fouling it. 2. agitate the bubbles.

My observations so far almost two weeks now into it as described are really good. As the bubbles leave the diffuser they are pummeled by the jet of water that cuts up any of the larger bubbles that get though the diffuser then the fine bubbles rise up across the series of jets along the spraybar as they rise, blowing them across the upper half of the tank through the plants. Then they reach the opposite side of the tank where the other spraybar (mounted near the surface) blows them downward into the substrate and back across the bottom half of the tank to where they started. 

I notice at the very least just as much, maybe a little more pearling from the plants, but I notice pearling happens maybe an hour sooner now. As far as what one is better... whatever one works for you! Although I really want to try using both and that may be the best of both worlds??

Anyone try all different ways: Co2 reactor, Co2 differser and both methods?


----------



## danepatrick (Jul 17, 2006)

magicmagni said:


> Although I really want to try using both and that may be the best of both worlds??
> 
> Anyone try all different ways: Co2 reactor, Co2 differser and both methods?


i JUST tried both of them together the other day, but the problem was that all of the co2 would go through the diffuser rathen than being split up evenly and some going throught the reactor and some the diffuser. i guess the pressure wasn't high enough to push the water past the check valve into my external reactor. i guess if my check valve was mounted ON to my reactor, it would have worked. well, i know for next time! :thumbsup:


----------



## banderbe (Oct 10, 2005)

danepatrick said:


> for arguement sake, i've recently set up a mister with a glass diffuser and power head and have not had good pearling results. when i went back to using my external "rex grigg" reactor, the difference was noticable. my plants are pearling way more than they did with the powerhead/glass diffuser. sorry to say, but from MY experience, the reactor is winning.


That's funny, I just put a mini 606 pump above my glass diffuser resulting in a fine mist throughout the entire tank.. pearling increased dramatically! Far better than a rex reactor.


----------



## TWood (Nov 1, 2005)

Six inches of one end of my 90 gallon tank is sectioned off for an in-tank sump where the return water just overflows into it. An Eheim 2028 intake is connected to a PVC pipe at the bottom of the sump and that's where a Sweetwater diffusor stone is placed.

The return of the 2028 has to make several turns as it goes into an undergravel piping system that eventually comes up at the back corners. Flow was greatly reduced, so I put a power head on each return to assist the 2028 and increase flow. Big difference on plant growth, lots of bubbles getting blown around as every now and then the 2028 burps a bunch of bubbles. 

So I guess this is sort of a 'both' scenario, the 2028 acts a reactor, the powerheads are blowing anything that doesn't dissolve.


----------



## millsk (Sep 24, 2006)

*CO2 to fluval suction?*

I have a fluval..forget what number but a large one for a larger tank..

In the past I have hooked a very small hose to the intake and bubbles have been sucked into the filter. I didn't see any great growth increase..

Is there reason to think the CO2 isn't being dissolved into the water?


----------



## Betowess (Dec 9, 2004)

danepatrick said:


> i JUST tried both of them together the other day, but the problem was that all of the co2 would go through the diffuser rathen than being split up evenly and some going throught the reactor and some the diffuser. i guess the pressure wasn't high enough to push the water past the check valve into my external reactor. i guess if my check valve was mounted ON to my reactor, it would have worked. well, i know for next time! :thumbsup:


I think one needs a manifold and clippard needle valves/bubble counters to successfully split a CO2 line. Maybe you were doing this? At least I've heard there is no way to split a CO2 line unless one uses a manifold and a needlevalve/bubble counter for each gas line inorder to accurately control the CO2...


----------



## Robert H (Apr 3, 2003)

> That's funny, I just put a mini 606 pump above my glass diffuser resulting in a fine mist throughout the entire tank.. pearling increased dramatically! Far better than a rex reactor.


I just can not get that kind of result, no matter how much I try. For one thing I do not use cannister filters, I use HOB filters. I do not want the strong current of a power head bending over my plants... but even so I have tried it. I have a power head above the diffusor and the best it does is blow the c02 bubbles onto a few plants in front of it not across the whole tank. And it never blows ALL the bubbles. A good percentage no matter how small the bubbles are still make it past the powerhead to the water surface. On a discussion on APC several people said the same thing.

I found something else to make a diffusor work much much better. I made a bubble "catcher", a 3inch square plastic box one inch deep just below the water surface directly above the diffusor. So whatever bubbles head to the water surface go inside this box and stay there until it is pushed out. This keeps the C02 that would just be disapated at the water surface in contact with the water longer, so it is not wasted. I have seen a tremendous difference since doing this

Of course this is what a reactor does, but the reactor does it much better, but the diffusor and bubble catcher take up much less space, and some of the plants I suppose are getting sprayed with bubbles.


----------



## guaiac_boy (Nov 5, 2005)

I've never liked the look of the 'mist' thing, so I can't comment on its effectiveness, but I thought I'd share something that I built recently.

I have a single in-line reactor on a 180g tank that produces so much pearling that it's actually annoying. By the end of the day the tank looks like bubble-land. The reactor is about 24" long and is made from 3" dia PVC pipe. It feeds out to a spraybar extending along the enitre length of the tank's back wall. This is driven by an Eheim 1260 pump on a closed-loop that circulates at about 300-350 gph.

So, a single in-line reactor can be done on a large tank but it takes a little planning. Trying to do it with a single 1-1/2" or 2" reactor driven by a canister filter probably doesn't cut it circulation-wise.

If you have enough flow to keep a big tank well circulated you probably need a larger diameter reactor (3" or 4") to slow the flow down enough to allow for adequate contact time and dissolution.


----------



## fishnfst1 (Mar 18, 2006)

I'm using both in one of my tanks right now so we'll see how it goes.. I have an inline venturi style reactor and a elcheapo glass diffuser... I have a larger one on order righ tnow so we'll see how it goes....


----------



## skeletalmachine (Aug 25, 2006)

Hoppy said:


> One potential problem I see is that it takes actual dissolved CO2 in the water to suppress BBA, and CO2 mist doesn't guarantee much will be dissolved into the water. That depends on a lot of factors. So, even though I run a bubble rate of at least 4 bubbles per second, which should logically be annoying the heck out of the fish, it doesn't bother them at all.


Why do you get the impression that dissolved co2 levels are not as high with a diffuser? According to my pH controller my dissolved co2 levels are ~30 ppm and my co2 is only on for about 1/4 of the time at a bubble rate of 2 - 3 bubbles a second. I find very few bubbles ever reach the water surface. I can see them shrink to nothing as they are blown about the tank. I believe in my situation wasted co2 (the bubbles that reach the surface) is very minimal.


----------



## magicmagni (Nov 7, 2003)

Yeah I'm finding the same thing. Actually at first not as much, but then when I raised the diffuser up closer to the surface I got finer bubbles that float around and even tend to sink to a certain degree. Kinda cool.


----------



## Rex Grigg (Dec 10, 2002)

danepatrick said:


> i JUST tried both of them together the other day, but the problem was that all of the co2 would go through the diffuser rathen than being split up evenly and some going throught the reactor and some the diffuser. i guess the pressure wasn't high enough to push the water past the check valve into my external reactor. i guess if my check valve was mounted ON to my reactor, it would have worked. well, i know for next time! :thumbsup:


Only way to actually split a CO2 line is with a manifold of some kind and separate needle valves. Otherwise the gas will take the path of least resistance.


----------



## Brilliant (Apr 11, 2006)

I think real pearling and "bubble-land" caused by a mist reactor are two different things. Right?


----------



## Rex Grigg (Dec 10, 2002)

Brilliant said:


> I think real pearling and "bubble-land" caused by a mist reactor are two different things. Right?


Correct. And I have to wonder about the mist method. You have all these little bubbles in the tank. As they drift around they will get caught in the vegetation. How does one distinguish between bubbles of introduced gas and actual pearling?

I have had my tanks pearling in the past to the point where the aquarium looked like the proverbial Champagne glass. Not really the look I wanted.


----------



## fresh_lynny (Mar 9, 2006)

First of all, intense pearling is highly overrated IMO, but that said, I get crazy pearling on all of my plants, daily. I use an Aqua Medic reactor, and pressurized CO2. The only time I have ever noticed a lack of pearling is when my CO2 is not high enough, then I calibrate my pH probe, reset and all is back into swing. I think it is a matter of preference. I would assume there will be some CO2 bubbles in there with O2, when you mist, so how would you discern which is which? I think you have to strictly go by plant growth, not pearling. look at your leaf formation, color, growth rate, offshoots. That would tell you more, I believe.


----------



## Brilliant (Apr 11, 2006)

I also have an inline reactor...the AM 1000.

I understand what your saying and dont want to discredit that. I am just saying...the point I am trying to make that Rex explained a bit clearer is that the real pearling ( or lack of) shows an almost immediate sign of something good (or wrong) whereas your signs are almost more advanced or not so immediate...I hope this makes sense.


----------



## fresh_lynny (Mar 9, 2006)

it makes sense but the instant gratification does not a better method make....


----------



## Brilliant (Apr 11, 2006)

fresh_newby said:


> it makes sense but the instant gratification does not a better method make....


its more like a signal then gratification..a daily notice... that says things are doing great...the bubble-land IMO is a drawback of the mist technique.


----------



## skeletalmachine (Aug 25, 2006)

Rex Grigg said:


> Correct. And I have to wonder about the mist method. You have all these little bubbles in the tank. As they drift around they will get caught in the vegetation. How does one distinguish between bubbles of introduced gas and actual pearling?


Several plants I have have constant streams of bubbles flowing from them. Clearly this is not a result of co2 bubbles getting trapped under leaves. Although, on some plants nearer to the diffuser I can not tell if they are trapped co2 bubbles or actual pearling.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

I've seen as have many other folks, the growth rate differences using CO2 mist vs not.

The hardest palnts that are avalible grow like weds with this method.
You cna see ther growth difference visually in a few days, if you want tio measure pearling, you need a Dissolve Oxygen meter.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## Bert H (Dec 15, 2003)

I tried a glass diffuser on a 10 gal which previously had the CO2 injected into the AC mini filter. I used the same gas flow rate and, personally, I didn't find any appreciable difference after trying it for several weeks. Plus I had an added item in the tank, which needed to be bleached every couple of weeks to clear out the gs/gd which grew on it. My 2 cents.


----------



## Evergreen (May 1, 2006)

I'm a mister. My tank is growing like crazy! threw out a whole trash can worth of weeds just the other day.

Keith,


----------



## banderbe (Oct 10, 2005)

Brilliant said:


> I think real pearling and "bubble-land" caused by a mist reactor are two different things. Right?


Oh sure, but it's obvious which is pearling.

O2 bubbles rush to the surface. CO2 bubbles are much slower in going up since CO2 weighs more than O2.

Also in a mist scenario, the CO2 bubbles are much smaller than pearling bubbles.


----------



## banderbe (Oct 10, 2005)

fresh_newby said:


> First of all, intense pearling is highly overrated IMO, but that said, I get crazy pearling on all of my plants, daily. I use an Aqua Medic reactor, and pressurized CO2. The only time I have ever noticed a lack of pearling is when my CO2 is not high enough, then I calibrate my pH probe, reset and all is back into swing. I think it is a matter of preference. I would assume there will be some CO2 bubbles in there with O2, when you mist, so how would you discern which is which? I think you have to strictly go by plant growth, not pearling. look at your leaf formation, color, growth rate, offshoots. That would tell you more, I believe.


I think pearling happens when the water is O2 saturated, right? So yeah it's not a sure fire way to tell if plants are happy but it definitely means they're not UNhappy!


----------



## spypet (Sep 15, 2006)

I'm a fellow mister, and blow the bubble out and up from an aerator, then down again from my water outlet. As for pearling, I think most of it is a lot of nonsense as most people who think they are getting pearling simply have bubbles stuck in their plants. Ideally pearling comes from the plants so happy and productive that they are respirating O2 from their leaf tops faster than the water can absorb it, so high gas saturation in your water may be a factor, but not the cause of pearling.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

banderbe said:


> I think pearling happens when the water is O2 saturated, right?


*No!!!!*

If that were the case, then we'd also see CO2 come out of solution right since it's like 10X above ambient saturation values?

You are thinking of super stauration above abiment, not real saturation values for water and O2.

Think about that, I add O2 to 15ppm, almost 190% and doesn't get plant bubbles.

Unless the plants are actively growing and pushing out gas, you will not get pearling based solely on staturation. Bubbles can be sticky due to adhesion, but.......usless there's strong growth, there's no bubbles formed. Some slower growing plants will have the O2 absorbed fairly rapidly, but O2 is not particularly souble in water, CO2 is due to the carbonates.

I sat and watched the CO2 mist swirl around an ADA display tank at Aqua forest. Those CO2 bubbles presisted for a long time, over a minute.
As folks have claimed, other gas might dissolve into the _apheron_, the techy name for those microbubbles.

But if one accepts that gases above ambient levels of saturation (this is different than stauration values for the gasse in the water) will dissolve into the apheron as fast as the as CO2 dissolves out, then they might have something to stand on, but the thing is..............

That rate would need to be fairly similar and CO2 is very souble vs N2 and 
O2 which are the other main two gases, both of which are pretty darn insoluble.

I don't buy that.

The other thing is, with the CO2 ppm's being 10x that of air in terms of saturation(say 30ppm of CO2 vs ambient air of say 3ppm) while the O2 is only 1.2 times that of the air(say 10 ppm vs 8ppm), and since N2 is the same and not being added, nor produced, it'll be fair close to the same as the air, wouldn't the CO2 also dissolve back into the bubble as well from the water?

I do not buy that O2 and N2 are dissolving at a slightly slower rate than CO2 is dissolving out.

I know that larger amounts of CO2 in a reactor will dissolve rapidly, especially if the water is at ambient levels with the air. But applyign and assuming the apheron is the same is speculation and there's support that suggest otherwise in the research. 


Regards, 
Tom Barr












regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

The best way to measure pearling by any reasonable assumption is using a dissolved O2 meter, DO meter.

This is *the standard *protocol for aquatic photosyntheisis production rates for algae and macrophytes.


Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## fresh_lynny (Mar 9, 2006)

well getting slightly off topic, I found a couple links that may be helpful to those who want a diffuser like the Amano Beetle, but want a less expensive alternative *wink*
these are knockoffs called Rhinox 1000 They also come in 2000 5000 etc depending on size. They come up on ebay from time to time, but I think this one has ended already.


http://cgi.ebay.com/Rhinox-2000-Jap...5099082QQihZ015QQcategoryZ66794QQcmdZViewItem


these are lab-types http://www.aceglass.com/html/2005/pdf/index.php?page=186
You can also get the lab types here https://www1.fishersci.com/index.jsp


----------



## the_noobinator (Jun 10, 2006)

mine is diffused through a T placed on a powerhead. the problem is that i have to bang it against the wall once a week when it gets cavetated. anyone know how to solve this?


----------



## Robert H (Apr 3, 2003)

> well getting slightly off topic, I found a couple links that may be helpful to those who want a diffuser like the Amano Beetle, but want a less expensive alternative *wink*
> these are knockoffs called Rhinox 1000 They also come in 2000 5000 etc depending on size. They come up on ebay from time to time, but I think this one has ended already.


There are lots and lots of glass diffusors out there. Isn't this EBAY person a sponsor here? Say his name! Be proud! Support Planted tank sponsors! If you are going to pitch someone, go all the way! Looking at your sig Fresh newby it looks like you have a little of everything. How is that Reactor 1000 working for you? I love that reactor. Its like the reactor Tom Barr used to make a few years ago, except more solid. :wink:


----------



## fresh_lynny (Mar 9, 2006)

You are right, Robert...lol Aquaticmagic is the ebay dude...lol I didn't even look. I just wanted to provide some links in case someone wanted some. I will not go the glass diffuser route in my 90 gal. I like the Aquamedic reactor just fine. It seems to do the trick for me. There isn't a day that goes by that I don't have mad pearling, and aside from the ocassional BGA below the substrate line <because I have my tank by the window> I have yet to have an algae problem <knock wood> and that's no algae anyway lol
Oh and Robert has some glass diffusers too that sound a lot like our own Momotaro!!!! www.aquabotanic.com


----------



## Robert H (Apr 3, 2003)

Yeah, the Reactor 1000 has always been my favorite. Its easy to hook up, great if you have a cannister filter to connect the outflow to. Some people actually hang it on the back of their aquarium and connect it to a power head. For large aquariums it runs like a workhorse, but I know a couple people who connected it to a 55 gallon and even a 30 gallon tank. I wish I could sell them, but unfortunelty I can't meet their minimum.



> Oh and Robert has some glass diffusers too that sound a lot like our own Momotaro!!!! Aqua Botanic Aquarium Plants Sales and Forums


HAHA. I was just trying to make up a name that sounded Japanese!:smile: 

If you want a small glass diffusor, buy the nano diffusor from aquatic magic. Best deal going out there.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

I no longer make CO2 reactors because the DIY versions are 2-10$ each and do the same thing and allow the user to customize to suit their individual tank needs.

I like those Rhino ADA beetle like diffusers, as long as the ceramic disc is uniform and of good quality, they should do very well in the market place. 

The smaller micro pollen glass style ones where varied in their quality and popped off the CO2 line and cracked in 1 case. I had 6 to try out about 1-2 years ago or so now. They are not nearly as good as the much more costly ADA glass ware, but there should be a happy medium for smaller tanks and hopefully the Rhino's will do well.

I have two local folks using them here and I may get a few to see how they do.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------

