# pH Drop- Review of Levels and CO2 Concentration



## mbkemp (Dec 15, 2016)

Take your base line reading from tank water that has been degassed in a cup over night. With your surface movement your tank should be degassing but you have to make sure. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MCFC (Feb 12, 2017)

High tech tanks generally aim for ~1.2 pH drop from their tank off-gassed pH by the time the lights turn on, or shortly there after. 

My tank off-gassed pH: 8.1
Tank pH when lights turn on: 6.8

I personally wouldn't pay much attention to the pH/KH/CO2 chart or to specific ppm's of CO2. That chart is wildly inaccurate. I'd pay more attention to the tank and fish. If there are no issues in the tank, why change things? If there are issues, what are they specifically, and why do you think CO2 is the culprit? 

When dialing in CO2 levels, just go low and slow until you notice your fish hanging out at the top a bunch, then back off a bit on the injection rate. I find drop checkers only really useful as an extreme warning. If I walk by my tank in the middle of the photoperiod and the DC is blue, there's a problem. Any more than that and I think people are buying into snake oil a bit. 

Lastly, and this is just my personal 2 nickels, I don't know how much faith I'd put in the last digit on the pH pen. If it's one of the generic ~$20 ones from Amazon then I'm pretty sure a reading of 7.98 is just as likely to be 7.90 as it is 8.00...


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

Grobbins48 said:


> the more it seems CO2 issues are the root of all evil!


 That sums up just about every problem!

I agree with @MCFC that you should gradually push to find the optimal level of CO2 where your fish can still be happy. 

However, I also like fiddling and having other feedback options. So, I use a drop checker and CO2 calculators. I use a 5 dKH solution in my dc and keep it just into the yellow region. I also calculate CO2 ppm based upon KH and pH. Occasionally, I use the 1.4 drop from degassed to gassed. All three tests are for reasons of 'calibrating' one against the other. Surprising how they all point to the same conclusion fairly reliably.


----------



## Grobbins48 (Oct 16, 2017)

MCFC said:


> I personally wouldn't pay much attention to the pH/KH/CO2 chart or to specific ppm's of CO2. That chart is wildly inaccurate. I'd pay more attention to the tank and fish. If there are no issues in the tank, why change things? If there are issues, what are they specifically, and why do you think CO2 is the culprit?
> 
> When dialing in CO2 levels, just go low and slow until you notice your fish hanging out at the top a bunch, then back off a bit on the injection rate.


Thanks for the reply. No noticeable issues I am trying to correct now. Actually, maybe a little algae issue, but I also have plants transitioning to submerged form which may have been contributing a bit. I have been slowly upping the CO2 to try and find that sweet spot, and so far have had no issues from the fish at all. This is more about learning and understanding if I truly could be 50-70ppm CO2? 



Deanna said:


> That sums up just about every problem!
> 
> I agree with @MCFC that you should gradually push to find the optimal level of CO2 where your fish can still be happy.
> 
> However, I also like fiddling and having other feedback options. So, I use a drop checker and CO2 calculators. I use a 5 dKH solution in my dc and keep it just into the yellow region. I also calculate CO2 ppm based upon KH and pH. Occasionally, I use the 1.4 drop from degassed to gassed. All three tests are for reasons of 'calibrating' one against the other. Surprising how they all point to the same conclusion fairly reliably.


Thanks- I am in the same thought process, drop checker gives me warning if there is an issue, pH and KH, etc. Just trying to find that balance and learn/ understand this process better!

I am getting pretty fantastic pearling from this tank though. Even more noticeable when I shut the filter off for a min!


----------



## MCFC (Feb 12, 2017)

Grobbins48 said:


> This is more about learning and understanding if I truly could be 50-70ppm CO2?


Not to be rude, but if there are no issues, why does it matter if you have 30ppm, 60ppm, or 100ppm? 

And I'm pretty sure you would need an expensive CO2 meter to know your actual levels. Anything short of that and you're measuring miles with a meterstick...


----------



## Grobbins48 (Oct 16, 2017)

MCFC said:


> Not to be rude, but if there are no issues, why does it matter if you have 30ppm, 60ppm, or 100ppm?
> 
> And I'm pretty sure you would need an expensive CO2 meter to know your actual levels. Anything short of that and you're measuring miles with a meterstick...


In the end it does not matter, just a learning exercise for me. I agree I would need crazy lab equipment to know exactly. This was more about learning and the discussion and gathering experience from others who have been doing this longer than I. Thank you, the feedback is appreciated!


----------



## Surf (Jun 13, 2017)

In order to estimate your CO2 levels you need to know your KH level as well as pH and use a table like this one. 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwj-36aR7bXbAhVH0FQKHdCsDmwQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fbarrreport.com%2Fthreads%2Fco2-ph-kh-table.10717%2F&psig=AOvVaw1HTFlor7K1Wb_GkObiW1I-&ust=1528058900319068

PH alone will not tell you the CO2 level. A drop checker does work as long as you periodically replace the indicator fluid in it. but note the drop checker only measures the CO2 outgassing from the water. It doesn't actually detect the CO2 levels in the water which is probably a little higher than what the drop checker is indicating. what is really important is that you maintain a stable level and that your fish don't show any stress from excessive CO2 levels.


----------



## Grobbins48 (Oct 16, 2017)

I suppose I am curious what other people are getting for readings. I understand the pH/KH table, and that other things factor into KH that can sku the table, so don't take it at face value. I know some use pH controllers for CO2 as well.

From the feedback so far it seems like most people focus on no gasping fish, and healthy plants!


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

Forget the KH/pH tables. This calculator will give you a better grasp: Rotala Butterfly | Planted Aquarium CO2 Calculator


----------



## OVT (Nov 29, 2011)

This is a good discussion / information gathering thread.

Personally, I am conflicted on the whole subject of injected co2 for a number of reasons. Most threads start with "30 ppm is ideal" or "X point drop" or "watch your fish" preambles, focusing on a single aspect of a planted tank and ignoring the rest of the multi-fauceted ecosystem. Moreover, at least 50% of posters assume that co2 is an algaecide that will fix their algae problems, while others focus on pushing their plants to achieve "their full potential".

As an injected co2 user and as an engineer, I question most of the above assumptions, smirk at some statements, and get stuck in the intricacies and the minutia of the proces.

With those personal thoughts, here are the results from rotala butterfly for one of my co2 injected tanks. I have no way to prove them either correct or incorrect but I will bet anyone a box of plants that the result would be correct only by a pure coinsidence.


----------



## Grobbins48 (Oct 16, 2017)

@OVT thanks for posting your numbers. I agree, the idea behind this was to gather information, and share what is working for each individual, while at the same time getting feedback on my measuring process. There are so many variables with our tanks that it is difficult to attribute anything to one single factor, and likely, just like many things in life, there are multiple factors interacting together to create our outputs (plant growth, fish health, algae, etc.). Not to get too technical, but even a design of experiments, or DOE, would be difficult to do in our glass boxes without really controlling and measuring very precisely and accurately. Sorry, this is my statistics side coming out! :surprise:

With that said, the more that people contribute we can learn from the voices of experience. FWIW the calculator put my CO2 @ 45ppm when pH is at 6.6, and when pH is at 6.4 it put me over 70ppm. I'll be measuring the pH more over the next few days to get some more data points (again, I like numbers, what can I say!).

Hope to hear from more people on this and keep the discussion going! :grin2:


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

To me, it's more about making sure we are in the right ballpark, not which seat we are in. If multiple approaches coincide, then I believe the position. If we believe all the estimates are pure coincidence, rather than having some basis in proven theory, then we would do better using a ouiji board.

Using the calculator, you have to bracket the Kh and pH values because you will never know, precisely, what your KH and pH values are.


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

With today’s pH and KH testing accuracy nobody really knows what the CO2 concentration is. Testing pH can be off by more than 0.1 easily, and KH test kits are off by +/- 1 dKH, some even more. So when you look at it, you get only very rough estimation. 

pH, dKH, CO2 ppm
7.0, 5, 15
6.9, 5, 19
6.8, 5, 24
6.7, 5, 30
6.6, 5, 38
6.5, 5, 47
6.4, 5, 60

pH, dKH, CO2 ppm
6.8, 4, 19
6.7, 6, 36

And the 1 pH drop technique is also not reliable since the CO2 air concentrations can vary significantly. Compare country to city or to closed air-conditioning buildings. 



Surf said:


> What is really important is that you maintain a stable level and that your fish don't show any stress from excessive CO2 levels.


That's the best answer, stable. 

Personally, I have the best results, best plants grown in stable and consistent CO2 delivery regardless of the concentration be it 15, 25 or 35 ppm.


----------



## Xiaozhuang (Feb 15, 2012)

Actually, the rotala butterfly calculator doesn't work because you can't extrapolate CO2 levels using a single reading of pH/KH. This is because many things in the water can change pH... acidic substrates, ferts etc. Your KH remains constant, but your pH can drop even without CO2 injection. You need a pair of readings - before and after CO2 injection to even guess at levels.

The pH drop method gives a somewhat good estimate, you can read barr's explanations here:
https://barrreport.com/threads/co2-ph-kh-table.10717/

The best test is direct observation of plants, livestock - because at the end of the day these are your end targets. Even if your readings say you have 30ppm; if you observe livestock stress, then you should lower your CO2 levels regardless. Even if your readings show 30ppm, but you have plants showing CO2 deficiency - then tweaking flow or injection rates will be helpful. However, it takes experience to do this, as many folks may not be able to read CO2 levels just by observing their plants. Many more difficult species certainly do better in higher rates, so having the flexibility to tweak is important. (read up on gaseous exchange). https://barrreport.com/threads/co2-o2-degassing-and-flux-some-thought-experiments-and-theory.11616/

Drop checkers are terrible, best to throw them away.

Also atmospheric concentrations really don't affect CO2 levels in the tank much. Without CO2 injection, median CO2 levels in the tank are around 2-3ppm. Atmospheric concentrations are not different enough to impact this reading significantly - even with a 50% difference, the equilibrium CO2 levels are a world's apart from when the tank is being injected.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

So, if the Rotala Butterfly calculator identifies CO2 as 35 ppm, the 5 dKH drop checker is just into yellow and the pH drop from degassed is 1.2 - recognizing that all of the data points are not precision points - would we say that it is all trash or that it is close to 35ppm of CO2?

I accept the idea that we all eventually develop a 'feel' for a working level, but it is like saying we all have a feel for how fast we're travelling in our car and, therefore, do not need a speedometer.


----------



## Xiaozhuang (Feb 15, 2012)

Deanna said:


> So, if the Rotala Butterfly calculator identifies CO2 as 35 ppm, the 5 dKH drop checker is just into yellow and the pH drop from degassed is 1.2 - recognizing that all of the data points are not precision points - would we say that it is all trash or that it is close to 35ppm of CO2?
> 
> I accept the idea that we all eventually develop a 'feel' for a working level, but it is like saying we all have a feel for how fast we're travelling in our car and, therefore, do not need a speedometer.



The somewhat accurate point here is the 1.2pH drop - the good thing about this method is that as long as your KH is somewhere between 1-9 dKH the correlation is relatively linear. I.e. a 1 to 1.2pH drop will give around 35ppm+ for the ranges of 1-9 dKH, beyond 10+ the correlation changes increases. (barr's notes has the long explanation). This will coincide with the rotala butterfly calculator if you do not have many other tank variables affecting your pH (meaning that CO2 is the only/main cause for pH changes), but for many tanks it is not so. 


Drop checkers are affected by a large range of possible human user errors - color interpretation, dye quality, position in tank (if near surface and captures CO2 bubbles then accuracy goes down; it should be placed near the substrate zone), gaseous exchange in the small space/affected by surface film etc, and it lags even when functioning perfectly. So there are many reasons why the relative pH drop is a better test. For KH test kits, they all work through titration, so you can get higher accuracy KH through doubling the liquid and counting the drops; each drop then represents 0.5 units instead. But as mentioned above, since CO2 levels correlate linearly with pH drop for moderate KH ranges, you actually do not need KH accuracy to do the pH drop method.


----------



## Jeff5614 (Dec 29, 2005)

Just my two cents here. I think CO2 management in an aquarium is as much of an art as a science. How often do we see that someone has the magic 30 ppm, but the plants don't look so well when other needs seem to be met or the lush tank adding what seems like a ridiculously low amount of CO2. 

Consistency in CO2 is key. Enough CO2 isn't the hard part. It's being consistent with it. Careful observation of plants and fish are of more benefit than dropcheckers and pH meters. I know a lot of folks are into numbers and measuring things. I do that sort of thing every day for a living, but I need a break from it at home so I've found leaning more toward the art of a planted tank to be much more relaxing than the science side although it does have it's place, just not so much for me.

Anyway, in summary , numbers won't tell you everything.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

My earlier point was that these tools provide several re-enforcing benefits. I agree that a dc is not a good way to gauge CO2 levels, but it does tell me when my CO2 runs out (canary) and it's nice when the color matches what the other tests say CO2 are ...approximately.

As with any post, all of our tanks, and much of what is in them, are different. It is easier for me to judge CO2 with the pH drop and the calculator (actually use Zorfox's, not Rotala) because I use RO/DI and keep alkalinity around 2 dKH. At these conditions, I have found the calculator and the pH drop to dovetail as well as we can do with our crude methods. However, these are all verification methods and double-checking of each method (I like to know about where I am). I start with these and then slowly push CO2 until fish repeatedly (over days) show signs of stress which identifies my limit. For a novice in CO2, I think it a good idea for them to be able to verify that they are in a given ballpark with these tools and then slowly push the limits from there.

No argument around focusing on stability ...once the desired level is identified. Unstable CO2 is the best way to throw the plant/algae balance out of whack.


----------



## OVT (Nov 29, 2011)

Why does it matter?

If your max co2 concentration is X in *your* tank with *your* fish in *your* house, it is what it is.

If you could push it to X + 1, you would.
I see no one asking how to change it to X - 1.
If the fish is not the limiting factor, then you can push it how high and to what results?
If I say plant A grows "better" at concentration X and Bob says at concentration Y, what then?

"I inject at 3 bubbles per second". Good for you. And?

There are so many other factors that the exact number is number 110 on my "100 things I want to know" list.

Drop checker: additional $10 insurance on a $2,000 tank. Every day at 9am it's rgb(34,139,34) color but today it is rgb(152,251,152). What gives?

If it was X yesterday (half an hour ago, a week ago, etc.) but is Y right now, that is what I want to know. Stick a $200 pH probe in it and re-calibrate wekly.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

100% on the insurance aspect. It's saved me from the risk of an unstable CO2 situation going unnoticed too long.

I think the rest matters because the fish can be trained to adapt to higher CO2 levels than they initially tolerate. If we know where a good starting point is (35ppm), we can use that as a target and then a base. If we can't get there, due to fish stress, then we can figure out what's wrong, e.g.; maybe to little O2 in the tank, and correct. We may push the fish and find them stressed at 20ppm, then assume that's the limit and be happy with it, but the plants might be happier at higher levels.


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

Xiaozhuang said:


> Many more difficult species certainly do better in higher rates, so having the flexibility to tweak is important.


 What plant species are you concerned the most?



OVT said:


> Why does it matter?
> If you could push it to X + 1, you would.
> I see no one asking how to change it to X - 1.


 I agree, this *more is better* thinking is what is holding this hobby back. 
NO3, why not 100 ppm, PO4, why not 20 ppm, trace elements, why not dry dose, CO2, why not half gas my fish? *For what?*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=70&v=1uQqqytyeJQ


----------



## OVT (Nov 29, 2011)

Edward said:


> NO3, why not 100 ppm, PO4, why not 20 ppm, trace elements, why not dry dose, *For what?*


Easy - so that you can water your house plants after WC.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

Edward said:


> this *more is better* thinking is what is holding this hobby back.


Nope: it's dogs and cats. People want to play and cuddle with their pets. That's very difficult to do with fish and nobody (in the US) wants to grow underwater plants - terrestrial are much more flamboyant with little effort and cost. Those that have fish have probably tried plants and, when the plants rot, they give up and buy plastic one's.

That's why there are only ever about twenty of us that are active on TPT at any given time.


----------



## Xiaozhuang (Feb 15, 2012)

Edward said:


> What plant species are you concerned the most?



Proserpinaca palustris for one; most folks ones get thin and off colored... often due to poor CO2.










The Red Erios... most guys fail with this; haven't seen much good ones on the international stage... many due to poor CO2 as well










With many carpets such as HC, success rates are higher even with lowish lighting, if CO2 levels are high. This more of a consideration for scaped tanks where hardscape may shadow certain areas, or impede flow... sometimes you want denser growth as well... higher CO2 levels make all of these easier.







r.

Why does it matter?

Frankly hobbyists have it easy, because generally they can tune at their leisure. Those of us that do commercial work have less margin of error - for example, when Barr sets up Discus tanks for his clients where the fish are more sensitive to CO2 levels. Recently I was called in to tune CO2 levels at the zoo's 2000 gallon tank. You can't sit there and watch the tank all day; so you need a methodology to deliver accurate results fast... and that is why we study these things.



Deanna said:


> Nope: it's dogs and cats. People want to play and cuddle with their pets. That's very difficult to do with fish and nobody (in the US) wants to grow underwater plants - terrestrial are much more flamboyant with little effort and cost. Those that have fish have probably tried plants and, when the plants rot, they give up and buy plastic one's.
> 
> That's why there are only ever about twenty of us that are active on TPT at any given time.


Actually the hobby is still growing.. even on the competition front, US has had the highest number of entries ever in international competitions last year, with the highest number of tanks ranking say top 200 in IAPLC compared to previous years. The thing that changed is that the crowd moved away from such forums. The Facebook groups are very large and active, others form local whatapp groups etc...


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

Xiaozhuang said:


> Actually the hobby is still growing.. even on the competition front, US has had the highest number of entries ever in international competitions last year, with the highest number of tanks ranking say top 200 in IAPLC compared to previous years. The thing that changed is that the crowd moved away from such forums. The Facebook groups are very large and active, others form local whatapp groups etc...


Yes, I've seen some data regarding LFS sales, but the _rate_ of growth is poor and dwarfed by other pet categories. In my region, I have noticed an increasing number of higher quality LFS popping up and these aren't the chains. So, perhaps room for encouragement.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

Xiaozhuang said:


> The thing that changed is that the crowd moved away from such forums. The Facebook groups are very large and active, others form local whatapp groups etc...


Well I for one am glad that folks like you are dropping in here. I look forward to reading your posts, and always consider how I might apply your thoughts to my own tank. 

Now as to CO2, in my tank it's very, very important to get correct. If something gets wonky, it's the first thing I check. Even relative small changes in concentration can have subtle negative effects. And a big change......well look out. Things can go down hill a hurry. 

And it does take some work, is not an exact science, and may be part art......but IMO many would benefit by taking the extra effort to get it correct. 

Personally I let a glass of tank water degass for three or four days, or until the pH becomes stable. I base my drop off that number, which for me is 1.4 peak. 

Now using the Zorfox calculator, it would indicate that my CO2 concentration is about 130ppm? Is that correct? I sincerely doubt it. But I do know that in my tank, once I get past a 1.5 pH measured drop, my Rainbows head for the surface. So regardless of the absolute values, I have something that I am comfortable with and is repeatable.

Now as to drop checkers, I still use one. I know the color I expect it to be, and it offers visual confirmation that all my other nonsense is actually making sense. Makes me feel better to have a "second opinion" if you will. And if I walked by the tank and it was blue or dark green, well I begin looking at things very closely and trouble shooting. So while not an accurate gauge, to me it still has value.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

Xiaozhuang said:


> The Facebook groups are very large and active, others form local whatapp groups etc...


Are you aware of any FB groups that discuss technical details of the hobby, such as this forum? As I've looked at many of them, they are more purely the 'social' aspect of social media. More "Look at mine", "that's beautiful", "You're great" type comments, but lacking any technical details. I'd be interested in perusing one that had some meat to it, if you can point me in the right direction.



Greggz said:


> Now using the Zorfox calculator, it would indicate that my CO2 concentration is about 130ppm? Is that correct? I sincerely doubt it. But I do know that in my tank, once I get past a 1.5 pH measured drop, my Rainbows head for the surface. So regardless of the absolute values, I have something that I am comfortable with and is repeatable.


Very low pH readings readings such as yours (aren't you in the 5.8 pH area? I recall wondering how you keep your bb from stalling.) would make it virtually impossible to use this calculator since it would require pin-point accuracy for the KH and pH reading. Just a tenth of a point off in either reading could mean 30-50ppm CO2 errors. The calculator settles down quite a bit as you move into the low-mid 6's for pH, making the sloppiness of our test kits more useful.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

Deanna said:


> Very low pH readings readings such as yours (aren't you in the 5.8 pH area? I recall wondering how you keep your bb from stalling.) would make it virtually impossible to use this calculator since it would require pin-point accuracy for the KH and pH reading. Just a 1/10 of a point off in either reading could mean 30-50ppm CO2 errors. The calculator settles down quite a bit as you move into the low-mid 6's for pH, making the sloppiness of our test kits more useful.


Deanna my degassed tank water reads 7.3 and the KH reads 3.5. I drop the pH to 5.90 peak. 

I've never felt I need pinpoint accuracy, but I do believe in using consistent methodology. To me, relative values are key in this hobby, not absolute values.

I use a pH controller (another discussion thread entirely), and adjust my pH drop in .05 increments. And sometimes just a little fine tuning brings out the best in my plants. I'm just saying for me, I really do work at getting it correct (for MY tank). 

And another thing that hasn't been discussed here are changes in KH. Water supplies are subject to seasonal swings in KH. So never get too comfortable. I probably go a bit overboard, but I still test my KH every week, and I am dosing RO water to a desired KH. Like the drop checker, it just makes me feel better to knowing nothing wonky has happened that I am not aware of.


----------



## Maryland Guppy (Dec 6, 2014)

Wow! A lot has been said here!
Want to quote, copy, comment etc..
Forget that novel. :grin2:

For me ditch the BPS, the drop checker, and the terrible chart.
pH drop from de-gassed to prime photoperiod is it in IMHO.
Also that every day be the same consistent amount of CO2.

I will add this.
A phishless tank with a 1.6 drop in pH is about it.
Even tried a 3.0 pH drop in this tank and it provided no better growth.
Still haven't killed all of the snails yet, but I'm trying.>


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

@Greggz: I agree. My points throughout have been to focus upon ballpark, not precision. Below about 6.2 pH, there is no way to use the calculator and get in the right CO2 ballpark reading area. But, you know roughly where your CO2 ppm is and, as has been said by nearly everyone, once you fix on a level, the key is to hold it there, AKA: stability.

BTW, do you ever sense that your bb stall once you drop below 6 pH?


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

Maryland Guppy said:


> Still haven't killed all of the snails yet, but I'm trying.>


I can send you my pack of Clown Loaches on loan.........two days max every single snail is gone!!:grin2:

Bump:


Deanna said:


> [MENTION=16861]BTW, do you ever sense that your bb stall once you drop below 6 pH?


No I've not seen any mini cycles or anything from low pH. 

At one point I was dosing RO to 7.1 and dropping to 5.7 and never saw anything negative. Should I? I have no knowledge of what effect low pH might have on bb.


----------



## OVT (Nov 29, 2011)

Xiaozhuang said:


> Frankly hobbyists have it easy, because generally they can tune at their leisure.


Correct, because this hobby is my leisure. And frankly, hobbyist have jobs / businesses to support their hobbies. You know, like an amateur team vs NBA?

Showing me the pictures of plants you can grow better then me prompts me to ask how do you do that. But besides telling me that co2 concentration matters, there is nothing in that professional statement that helps me practically to get from point A to B.


----------



## Maryland Guppy (Dec 6, 2014)

Greggz said:


> I can send you my pack of Clown Loaches on loan.........two days max every single snail is gone!!:grin2:


All of my Neo shrimp would also be gone!!! >
Definitely not what I want.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

Greggz said:


> At one point I was dosing RO to 7.1 and dropping to 5.7 and never saw anything negative. Should I? I have no knowledge of what effect low pH might have on bb.


Yes: at pH below 6.5 nitrification is inhibited and below 6.0 all nitrification stops. Fishless cycling cannot happen below 6.0. Of course, how much time it takes is the question. Additionally, an out-sized colony will compensate ...up to a point. It may be that any damage done while below 6.0 recovers at night, especially if oxygenation is increased. I wouldn't look for an ammonia spike because the plants will probably take it up in the short term, plus it is changed into ammonium below 6.0. It could also be that the pH isn't actually below 6.0 (measurement issues).


----------



## Xiaozhuang (Feb 15, 2012)

"Are you aware of any FB groups that discuss technical details of the hobby, such as this forum? As I've looked at many of them, they are more purely the 'social' aspect of social media. More "Look at mine", "that's beautiful", "You're great" type comments, but lacking any technical details. I'd be interested in perusing one that had some meat to it, if you can point me in the right direction."

You can join The group "high tech planted tanks" which is where I post more often, Tom barr and Karen randall also comments there regularly. Its one of the groups where folks will answer technical questions but ignore simple ones. lol. Same for the AGA group "Aquatic gardener's association" where most of the industry folks are present. Tom is actually pretty active on FB. But FB format is actually not good for this type of discussions due to poor search functions, and lack of organization


----------



## madcrafted (Dec 23, 2017)

Xiaozhuang said:


> The somewhat accurate point here is the 1.2pH drop - the good thing about this method is that as long as your KH is somewhere between 1-9 dKH the correlation is relatively linear. I.e. a 1 to 1.2pH drop will give around 35ppm+ for the ranges of 1-9 dKH, beyond 10+ the correlation changes increases.


What are your thoughts on injecting CO2 in a tank with absolutely no carbonates in the water? How do I know how much drop to aim for in such a tank if the charts are all based off of having at least 1 dKH?

I only ask this because I'm doing an interesting experiment with a soft water shrimp tank at the moment. I'm growing out some rare mosses until I decide to add some shrimp to this tank, so I've been injecting CO2 for a little over a week now. My pH starts off at 6 degassed and I'm finding it extremely difficult to get more than a .8 pH drop without blowing the tubing off of the diffuser. My flow rate is ridiculously high (can't count the bubble rate) for only 7 gallons of water. I realize this isn't an ideal environment for CO2 injection but it's just temporary anyways, so no harm. 

As for the BB, I doubt my pH will ever raise over 6.5, unless I did a large WC with neutral R/O water, so NH3 isn't a concern in such a tank. Nor is nitrites or nitrates because a cycle will never start, correct? IMO, there's no need need for zeolite, prime, etc. with water this soft.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

Going out on a speculation limb, the pH/nitrification issue got me thinking:

Many claim that low KH values allow their plants to do better. Could it be that having low KH, while sustaining low pH via CO2, results in a period of time during lights on when NH3 expands (eventually turning into NH4 below pH 6.0) due to sleeping bb and the plants uptake those sources rather than NO3? Perhaps this daily shot of NH3/NH4 gives the plants a boost.

Many of us have tried urea (I have) and some noticed a benefit (I didn’t, but my pH remains above 6.3). Could it be alkalinity related and aquatic plants have the ability to shift N priorities as pH drops? I better stop before I fall of the limb.

The only way that I can see to test this would be to have someone who is daily gassing to pH levels below 6.0 raise KH enough to stay above 6.5 and watch plants for any changes.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

Xiaozhuang said:


> You can join The group "high tech planted tanks" which is where I post more often, Tom barr and Karen randall also comments there regularly. Its one of the groups where folks will answer technical questions but ignore simple ones. lol. Same for the AGA group "Aquatic gardener's association" where most of the industry folks are present. Tom is actually pretty active on FB. But FB format is actually not good for this type of discussions due to poor search functions, and lack of organization


Dennis that almost makes me want to create a FB account. I am a hold out, but might have to give in.

I have a question for you on CO2 injection. You know many of us here use CO2 reactors (griggs/cerges). Right now Burr is experimenting with an in line diffuser. There is a theory that bubbles are more easily absorbed by the plants.

What are your thoughts on the different methods? One better than the other? I would be willing to try an in tank diffuser, but the thing that turns me off is they need to be cleaned or replaced. So as they clog, does that change the amount of CO2 being delivered gradually over time?

What have you found to be the best solution for CO2 injection, especially in relation to larger tanks (say 75G+)? Thanks for any thoughts you may have.


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

madcrafted said:


> … thoughts on injecting CO2 in a tank with absolutely no carbonates in the water? How do I know how much drop to aim for in such a tank if the charts are all based off of having at least 1 dKH?


 Here are pictures of aquariums under PAR 400, zero KH, inert substrate and CO2 injected into a passive reactor. My passive reactors CO2 dissolving rates are *fixed* by having a constant area size of CO2 to water column contact. The incoming CO2 is adjusted by needle valve so the container is filled with CO2 and if the delivery happens to be more than the rate of dissolution then the extra CO2 overflows out of the reactor. Usually, during the day the reactor is filled with CO2 up to the edge and during night the gas overflows out couple of times. 

According to some, the HC should not be alive and the rest should be infested in algae blooming hell, but?





















Deanna said:


> Going out on a speculation limb, the pH/nitrification issue got me thinking:
> 
> Many claim that low KH values allow their plants to do better. Could it be that having low KH, while sustaining low pH via CO2, results in a period of time during lights on when NH3 expands (eventually turning into NH4 below pH 6.0) due to sleeping bb and the plants uptake those sources rather than NO3? Perhaps this daily shot of NH3/NH4 gives the plants a boost.


 Yes, lower KH better results I get. Why, I have no clue. My CO2 is always on continuously and KH is low to nothing so pH doesn’t support formation of NH3. I think waste is reused by plants fast and highly beneficial to them. Most likely BB in such conditions doesn’t play any role.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

Edward said:


> Yes, lower KH better results I get. Why, I have no clue. My CO2 is always on continuously and KH is low to nothing so pH doesn’t support formation of NH3. I think waste is reused by plants fast and highly beneficial to them. Most likely BB in such conditions doesn’t play any role.


What is your pH?


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

Deanna said:


> What is your pH?


 I guess it should be around 5 but I do not know exactly. Snails are well as long as there is Ca.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

Edward said:


> Yes, lower KH better results I get. Why, I have no clue. My CO2 is always on continuously and KH is low to nothing so pH doesn’t support formation of NH3. I think waste is reused by plants fast and highly beneficial to them. Most likely BB in such conditions doesn’t play any role.


Since your pH is below 6, your nitrification has stopped, leaving the NH3 to become NH4 which the plants will consume rather than NO3 and, as reported elsewhere, e.g.; https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/393c/b31f936ea2c9d501eb99fa9faec39c970726.pdf, plants may do better with NH4.

Without nitrification, there is no NO3 created, which may explain why your NO3 is so low and mine was so high (another post we shared). Hearkening back to our discussion on another post: it may not be that your plants thrive on condition of low nitrates, it may be that low nitrates are just a symptom of the absence of nitrification and your plants are really thriving upon the NH4 stream. The low NO3 levels are just an indicator of low nitrification.

I haven't used bio-media in my filter in over a year and all my NO3 is coming from the bb in the substrate and other surfaces. I'm starting to think that I may want to try pushing my pH down below 6 and watch to see if NO3 comes down and plants do even better.


----------



## madcrafted (Dec 23, 2017)

Edward said:


> Here are pictures of aquariums under PAR 400, zero KH, inert substrate and CO2 injected into a passive reactor.
> 
> According to some, the HC should not be alive and the rest should be infested in algae blooming hell, but?


That's quite a bit of light you got there. Nice results too. There's some misconceptions about growing HC. This nano tank below also has no KH, GH of 4-5, a pH of around 5.7 and absolutely no CO2 being injected. All being driven by a 6W clip-on LED. My HC should look horrible.


----------



## Grobbins48 (Oct 16, 2017)

Been reading but not having a chance to have a substantive reply until now, so bear with me! (also thought I submitted this, must have not. Good thing I drafted in Word and copy paste... phew)

So overall after a few days of checking pH, my drop seems to be in the 1.5 range for my tank. Understanding everything is relative, and there are many variables that factor into this. This numbers seems to work well for my tank now. There has been a lot going on with the tank, so really watching as things progress is what I need to do. The pearling is good, algae is seemingly, and relatively under control (jury still out, I feel as if I am still establishing the tank). I enjoy blending the art and the science aspect together. Part of the fun of this hobby is the learning, and watching how things interact. And to add to that, hearing what others have seen and done.

@Xiaozhuang thank you for the links to the threads, they are a good read, and make sense to me. With my KH being 6-7, I am sure there are other sources of carbonate hardness in my water, making my absolute readings in regard to CO2 concentrations not to be accurate. I agree with most posters that the absolute number of CO2 concentration is not what matters, just relative to me. I do still like to have a drop checker as a quick check as I pass by the tank, as well as the flow meter I have to, see what levels are being input to the tank. And hearing about the professional side, for me, is exciting. This is something I do as a hobby, but I do enjoy watching and learning about the professionals, whether it be competitive or commercial as you have mentioned. Really interesting stuff! I also have check out and joined the Facebook groups to see what they are all about. Might stat being active there as well!

@Edward that is really interesting to see the zero KH and 400 PAR tank. You also have me wanting to learn more about the passive reactor (not necessarily to implement, just to learn!). So if I understand correctly, with CO2 being contact time and surface area as the variables in our equation, you have a method for keeping both fixed? Any way you can share a picture or more description on this? Quite interested.


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

Grobbins48 said:


> @Edward that is really interesting to see the zero KH and 400 PAR tank. You also have me wanting to learn more about the passive reactor (not necessarily to implement, just to learn!). So if I understand correctly, with CO2 being contact time and surface area as the variables in our equation, you have a method for keeping both fixed? Any way you can share a picture or more description on this? Quite interested.


 The CO2 to water contact time is continuous and its surface area is fixed by reactor size. You can disconnect your CO2 tank and go to store for a replacement without interrupting CO2 water column concentration because there is a buffer. It has no moving parts, no wearing components and it is not dependent on any power source be it power head or pump. Still, the main benefit is the consistent CO2 delivery rate. Plants and fish get used to it and adjust perfectly to the stable conditions. My larger aquariums have Aqua-Medic CO2 Reactors 1000 capable of dissolving the ocean but no stability without CO2 flow meters. 










DIY Passive CO2 Reactors 10 gallon and 50 gallon:




































Some people use Air Flow meters for CO2 delivery rates. I think that is an excellent idea for larger aquariums 125 gallon and larger, I will have to try that. Too bad they don’t work on smaller size aquariums.

CO2 Flow Meter, What's Your Setting in CC/Min/Gallon?


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

@Edward: are these placed inside a sump or in your tank?


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

Deanna said:


> @Edward: are these placed inside a sump or in your tank?


 They are on the bottom of an aquarium, you can see my post #40 where one can be seen on the right side and the other is hiding behind plants. Somehow when the flow is not forced through pumps, pressure changes and pipes the CO2 is more efficient.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Xiaozhuang said:


> ...
> Actually the hobby is still growing.. even on the competition front, US has had the highest number of entries ever in international competitions last year, with the highest number of tanks ranking say top 200 in IAPLC compared to previous years. The thing that changed is that the crowd moved away from such forums. The Facebook groups are very large and active, others form local whatapp groups etc...


Actually one year does not make a trend. There were more US entries for IAPLC between 2009-2012 when the entries numbered 37, 39, 42 and 43. The next year it dropped to 23 and then to 10. 2017 did see an increase to 33 US entries up from 14 in 2016, but again we'll have to wait and see if this is just a fluke or real growth.


----------



## Grobbins48 (Oct 16, 2017)

Edward said:


> They are on the bottom of an aquarium, you can see my post #40 where one can be seen on the right side and the other is hiding behind plants. Somehow when the flow is not forced through pumps, pressure changes and pipes the CO2 is more efficient.


Wow, incredible. So for this to work for you, what did you do to determine the surface area for contact you wanted to get a good saturation? I imagine tok much contact can get you in trouble and too little give enough for the tank.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

Edward said:


> They are on the bottom of an aquarium, you can see my post #40 where one can be seen on the right side and the other is hiding behind plants. Somehow when the flow is not forced through pumps, pressure changes and pipes the CO2 is more efficient.


Yup; now I see the one. Aren't they kinda ...uhhh ...ugly, sitting in the tank? I wonder if an inverted canopy-type part suspended on the surface so that the edges were about an inch into the water would work. Such as if you were to cut the bottom of your jar to about 1-2 inches from the base and invert it. Might be better hidden. I like the stability and safety parts of the concept.


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

Grobbins48 said:


> Wow, incredible. So for this to work for you, what did you do to determine the surface area for contact you wanted to get a good saturation? I imagine too much contact can get you in trouble and too little give enough for the tank.


 It is not critical, just tried one and it worked well. This does not carry the risks of gassing fish. When you look at the ADA ceramic CO2 diffusers, they also avoid going through pumps, pressure changes and pipes, they let the CO2 connect with water column directly and having great results doing so. Ever hear of ADA gassing fish, not often.

The question if so and so amount of carbon is sufficient to plants at the conditions is in part regulated by the plant mechanism itself. If they have little they use it more efficiently to compensate naturally, and if they have too much they waste it. Both scenarios more less work except the changes, the changes from one level or one system to the other is very expensive, plants suffer, they hate changes. 

What I found interesting is, when I fill two feet tall keg with RO water, placing coral on the bottom, filling the top with CO2, I get pearling bubbling soda in few hours. There is no water flow, no movement, the CO2 travels down two feet, dissolves the coral and spits it out as the best soda drink. 



Deanna said:


> Yup; now I see the one. Aren't they kinda ...uhhh ...ugly, sitting in the tank? I wonder if an inverted canopy-type part suspended on the surface so that the edges were about an inch into the water would work. Such as if you were to cut the bottom of your jar to about 1-2 inches from the base and invert it. Might be better hidden. I like the stability and safety parts of the concept.


 They do look ugly dry outside, but inside aquariums? We love them, they look silvery-chrome nice looking. They can be easily hidden also. The larger reactor is fun to watch as my Corydoras Sterbai are going in, sometimes in pairs, looking around and then slowly leaving the space in peace. They are really enjoying it. 

The surface placed reactors would not work as well because there is lower pressure. You know drop checkers are detecting lower CO2 levels at the bottom. So I think bottom diffusion works better. Look at the ADA ceramic CO2 diffusers, always doing better job lower they are. 

But yeah, create something like you mentioned, I would love to see you results.


----------



## Grobbins48 (Oct 16, 2017)

So FWIW, my Amazon pH pen gives a gassed off reading of tank water at 8.6. The API high range test kit is clearly light brown, closer to the 7.4 reading, nothing close the purple of 8.4+. I tested distilled vinager again this morning and now get 2.7 pH vs. 2.5 a couple days ago with the pen.

Using the pen I get a peak pH drop to about 6.7 now. Seems everything has shifted up a few tenths, then accounting for the +/- .1 pH error, I feel like I am in no mans land here. Ha!

Again, I understand everything is relative but should I just return this pH as not working? 

What does everyone else use to measure pH?

Things are seemingly fine with the tank so yes that will be my gauge, just would be nice to have a better idea of pH gor my educational and curiosity purpose. Thoughts?


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

Grobbins48 said:


> What does everyone else use to measure pH?


I have the CyberTech ph-107 (from Amazon - $12), the 15-pack pH Meter Buffer Solution Powder (Amazon - $10) and the HM Digital ORP-STOR ORP Electrode Storage Solution (Amazon - $12). It does require calibrating occasionally and, certainly, before first use. I'm surprised yours didn't come with at least one packet of the calibrating powder. Distilled vinegar won't be a perfect pH point from batch to batch.

Were it me, I'd be inclined to say that the API result is closer to reality. However, I would use the calibration powder, which identifies three different pH points, to calibrate the pen. If you still get wacky readings, then I'd return it.


----------



## Grobbins48 (Oct 16, 2017)

Maybe I need to calibrate again? I did use the 3 packets it came with and after initially calibrating it gave accurate results to the solutions. 

For storage solution... can you tell me more about that? How does everyone store their pH meter. Maybe I am doing something wrong there!


----------



## madcrafted (Dec 23, 2017)

Grobbins48 said:


> Maybe I need to calibrate again? I did use the 3 packets it came with and after initially calibrating it gave accurate results to the solutions.
> 
> For storage solution... can you tell me more about that? How does everyone store their pH meter. Maybe I am doing something wrong there!


I only use the 4.0 and 6.86 solutions to calibrate my amazon yellow pen. No need for the 10 pH solution or whatever, unless you are working with extremely hard water.

You can also use the 4.00 solution to store with. It just needs to be an acidic solution.


----------



## Grobbins48 (Oct 16, 2017)

Wow, learning here right now... so do you keep the pen submerged in an acidic liquid between use, or do you dip it on one the cap it between use?

I can see now why I might be getting readings that are a bit off...


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

Grobbins48 said:


> So FWIW, my Amazon pH pen gives a gassed off reading of tank water at 8.6. The API high range test kit is clearly light brown, closer to the 7.4 reading, nothing close the purple of 8.4+. I tested distilled vinager again this morning and now get 2.7 pH vs. 2.5 a couple days ago with the pen.


Have you taken a KH reading???

The reason I ask is that there is some correlation between KH/pH and you can at least tell if you are in the ballpark.

If your pH really is 8.6, your KH reading should be off the charts (like 30+).

If it's actually 7.4, I would expect something in the 4 range or so.

Not an exact science, but it would help in knowing about what pH value to expect.

And personally I prefer a meter that stays in the tank. Easier to check on a regular basis and get an idea of where you are at with a glance. Personally I use Pinpoint Marine products but they are pricey. But the probes do last a very long time. Current one I have is about 2 years old and it still calibrates perfectly.


----------



## OVT (Nov 29, 2011)

If the probe dries out between uses it looses precission.

I certainly can gas fish with in tank ceramic diffuser. Why it is not the case with the ADA branded ones?

In terms of stability of co2 concentration, how stable is stable? Even if the delivery is rock solid, ceramic disks clog up, the flow changes for multiple reasons, the gaseous exchange changes, the uptake / production changes with changes in plant mass. Are these changes negligible?


----------



## madcrafted (Dec 23, 2017)

Grobbins48 said:


> Wow, learning here right now... so do you keep the pen submerged in an acidic liquid between use, or do you dip it on one the cap it between use?
> 
> I can see now why I might be getting readings that are a bit off...


If you are checking your pH several times a week, then you could just dip the pen in 4.0 solution and cap it. If you rarely use it (once a month), you can fill the cap up with solution and place upright somewhere, so it doesn't leak. The clip comes in handy for that. To be honest, I don't bother with either method because I check my pH so frequently when dripping water into shrimp tanks that there really is no need to. These tanks are slightly acidic, so maybe that helps too. I do like to calibrate like once a week. Rarely is it ever off by .05 ppm but it makes me feel better.


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

OVT said:


> In terms of stability of co2 concentration, how stable is stable?


 Maybe it is not the stable CO2 delivery but rather direct CO2 to water column contact that plants like so much.


----------



## Grobbins48 (Oct 16, 2017)

madcrafted said:


> If you are checking your pH several times a week, then you could just dip the pen in 4.0 solution and cap it. If you rarely use it (once a month), you can fill the cap up with solution and place upright somewhere, so it doesn't leak. The clip comes in handy for that. To be honest, I don't bother with either method because I check my pH so frequently when dripping water into shrimp tanks that there really is no need to. These tanks are slightly acidic, so maybe that helps too. I do like to calibrate like once a week. Rarely is it ever off by .05 ppm but it makes me feel better.


Right now I am using it quite a bit to learn, but have not been dipping in any solution, and am not sure if the probe is wet enough when I cap it. I may have to order one of the calibration kits of Amazon and get myself a system. Do you think the pen can recover from a little misuse? 



Greggz said:


> Have you taken a KH reading???
> 
> The reason I ask is that there is some correlation between KH/pH and you can at least tell if you are in the ballpark.
> 
> ...


So the KH is between 6 and 7 every time I take a reading, both in tank and gassed off. My guess is I have committed user error in storing the pH pen. I did look up the Pinpoint units. Seems the cheapest you can get into that game is ~$70. If I were only running one tank off my CO2, and using a controller (which I do not know a ton about, just the basic principle of it) then I might consider. Thanks for sharing your experience!


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

Grobbins48 said:


> So the KH is between 6 and 7 every time I take a reading, both in tank and gassed off. My guess is I have committed user error in storing the pH pen. I did look up the Pinpoint units. Seems the cheapest you can get into that game is ~$70. If I were only running one tank off my CO2, and using a controller (which I do not know a ton about, just the basic principle of it) then I might consider. Thanks for sharing your experience!


If your KH is 6, then I would expect your pH to be somewhere around 7.6 or so. 

No way it's 8.6 unless something else is drastically altering your pH, which I doubt.


----------



## Grobbins48 (Oct 16, 2017)

Greggz said:


> If your KH is 6, then I would expect your pH to be somewhere around 7.6 or so.
> 
> No way it's 8.6 unless something else is drastically altering your pH, which I doubt.


I figured as much, ha. That sounds like what I thought. I'll have to reset all the pH stuff to get a better baseline. Ordering pH buffers for calibrating now!


----------



## OVT (Nov 29, 2011)

Edward said:


> Maybe it is not the stable CO2 delivery but rather direct CO2 to water column contact that plants like so much.


I am trying to understand the "direct contact with water column" concept. Seems to me that it is the same with a typical in tank ceramic diffuser. Is it the difference between co2 bubbles in the tank vs fully disolved co2 or something else? Thanks.


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

OVT said:


> I am trying to understand the "direct contact with water column" concept. Seems to me that it is the same with a typical in tank ceramic diffuser. Is it the difference between co2 bubbles in the tank vs fully dissolved co2 or something else? Thanks.


 Interestingly, when the same CO2 quantity as in passive CO2 reactor, diffuser or atomizer is used in CO2 reactor, the results are not as good. CO2 reactors have to dissolve more CO2 to get closer to the performance of the other systems.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

Edward said:


> Interestingly, when the same CO2 quantity as in passive CO2 reactor, diffuser or atomizer is used in CO2 reactor, the results are not as good. CO2 reactors have to dissolve more CO2 to get closer to the performance of the other systems.


Edward how do you quantify this? Not necessarily doubting, but curious as to how you arrived at this conclusion.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

Greggz said:


> If your KH is 6, then I would expect your pH to be somewhere around 7.6 or so.
> 
> No way it's 8.6 unless something else is drastically altering your pH, which I doubt.


There is a twist to this. It could be. If you use tap water, some water companies add sodium hydroxide (NaOH) in order to raise pH. This will not be detected by KH tests. @Grobbins48: if you are using tap, test the ph and KH to see if they match more of what @Greggz numbers are. If they do, then he's right. If you still get high pH readings and 6-7 KH, check with your water company to see if they are adding NaOH.
@Edward and others subscribing to the theory about CO2 contact: Like @Greggz, I'd like to know if we have more than anecdotal evidence for this.


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

Deanna said:


> @*Edward* and others subscribing to the theory about CO2 contact: Like @*Greggz*, I'd like to know if we have more than anecdotal evidence for this.


Guess this includes me since Edward screencapped my facebook post up there. :icon_eek:

Im not sure how passive diffusion is related since plants are not contacting pure co2, which is what I was talking about. With passive diffusion the co2 is fully dissolved. Edward will have to explain what he meant by that.

What I meant was plants coming into contact with pure co2 in the form of a fine mist via atomizer (my case) or a diffuser.

Think about it; we shoot for 30 or 40 or 50 ppm of co2 dissolved in our aquarium water. That's parts per million. The atmosphere has what, 400 ppm? The mist swirling around from an atomizer is PURE CO2. These mist bubbles come in direct contact with plants, passes over them, bumps into them and often sticks.

Not sure you'll find any hard evidence to prove it but it makes sense to me that even minimal contact with pure CO2 would constitute a potent dose that's very easy to absorb

So instead of force feeding tons of co2 into a reactor hoping to dissolve it first, why not just blast it directly in the tank where the majority of it dissolves anyway and whatever is left can directly touch the plants?

Another thing to consider; Lets say there's a 1 point drop using an atomizer. That 1 point drop only represents the dissolved co2. It doesnt count all the pure mist bubbles because those are not dissolved. 

So it's probably better for livestock too, because the water they are "breathing" doesnt have such a high concentration of co2?? Seems logical.

Something else that surprised me, it seems to take less co2 now with the atomizer to reach a certain PH drop than it did with a reactor. Im still hitting a 1.3 or so drop - with less bps, on top of which is all that pure co2 floating around (and some lost at the surface).

It seems like it'd be taking a lot more co2 now for the same PH drop since not all of it is dissolved in the water. I would've bet money on it. But that doesnt appear to be the case.

I dont have a flow meter on the 50 gal so cant say how much more or less co2 its using. I'll know for sure about that when I do the two 75s


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

burr740 said:


> Guess this includes me since Edward screencapped my facebook post up there. :icon_eek:


Yes it does and, fortunately, you both have the experience and observational skills so that we can't just ignore it as if it were nonsense.

No question about all those points making intuitive sense but, as we know, it doesn’t always work that way. Although I’ll watch, with interest, further development on this (is it on your journal?), the haze added to the tank was noticeable vs. my move to a reactor. I don’t mind spending another $10/per year on the extra CO2, although I can’t recall my bubble rate well enough, when I used the atomizer, to compare to my current reactor use.

I’d like to go over some points where I see problems with the assumptions. Maybe valid, maybe not. All of the following questions are rhetorical, unless someone actually knows.

- As we know, comparing aspects of terrestrial plants to aquatic plants is fraught with disconnects. Are aquatic plants designed to take CO2 more efficiently when dissolved whereas terrestrial are designed to be ‘sloppy’ since they are bathed in 400ppm? Can immersed plants really grab the bubbles and suck them in?

- I assume that both your reactor and in-line diffuser water was/is coming into your tank from the filter return. Could it be that the gph return is higher with the diffuser since the reactor has choke points? If so, then the return water is being more heavily circulated in the tank using the diffuser. Would that be enough to significantly affect saturation on all leaf surfaces?

- As far as pH drop / bps efficiency is concerned. Could it be that the mist is concentrated in the upper regions of the tank (it floats) and dissolves at a higher concentration there so the upper leaves are, therefore, getting a higher dose? Have you noticed the same response between plants that stay in the lower regions vs. those that extend to the top? Would you see a difference in pH between water in the upper region vs. lower?

To bad our hobby isn’t large enough to draw legitimate studies on these things.


----------



## Xiaozhuang (Feb 15, 2012)

burr740 said:


> Guess this includes me since Edward screencapped my facebook post up there. :icon_eek:
> 
> Im not sure how passive diffusion is related since plants are not contacting pure co2, which is what I was talking about. With passive diffusion the co2 is fully dissolved. Edward will have to explain what he meant by that.
> 
> ...



I didn't read the rest of the thread, but if you want information on CO2 mist contact & effectiveness, its in one of the Barr reports... where the experiment shows demonstrably that plants can utilize CO2 mist, and in a manner that allows the plant greater access to CO2 than what is dissolved in the water column


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

Xiaozhuang said:


> I didn't read the rest of the thread, but if you want information on CO2 mist contact & effectiveness, its in one of the Barr reports... where the experiment shows demonstrably that plants can utilize CO2 mist, and in a manner that allows the plant greater access to CO2 than what is dissolved in the water column


Then I guess the decision comes down to the trade-off between water clarity and CO2 expense.


----------



## OVT (Nov 29, 2011)

@Edward 's is a passive reactor, it is not connected to filter / pump.
To add to @Deanna 's points and co2 consumption aside, in the end, there are 2 permutations of dissolution and 2 timing periods:

1. fully disolved co2 (active and passive reactors)
2. some disolved co2 and some bubbles (in line atomizers, in tank diffusers)

A. 24 x 7
B. around lights on

Which, in total, gives us only 4 operating modes.

Therefore, I personally have 2 core questions:

i. Is there a cost to plants to react to changing levels of co2 (24x7 vs at lights on)
ii. Are aquatic plants more efficient in extracting carbon from gaseous co2 or from dissolved co2

I have my guesses, but I can be rehabilitated.

This is interesting, from Google search:


----------



## ipkiss (Aug 9, 2011)

Greggz said:


> ... I would be willing to try an in tank diffuser, but the thing that turns me off is they need to be cleaned or replaced. So as they clog, does that change the amount of CO2 being delivered gradually over time?


This.. is what I'm worried about. I'll wait patiently while Burr tests the waters for us


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

Deanna said:


> Y
> - As we know, comparing aspects of terrestrial plants to aquatic plants is fraught with disconnects. Are aquatic plants designed to take CO2 more efficiently when dissolved whereas terrestrial are designed to be ‘sloppy’ since they are bathed in 400ppm? Can immersed plants really grab the bubbles and suck them in?


Well since aquatic plants are equipped to absorb things through their leaves much better than terrestrial plants, which is the main thing that makes them "aquatic" in the first place, the obvious answer to this question is absolutely.

Why would you think they could not?



Deanna said:


> Y
> - I assume that both your reactor and in-line diffuser water was/is coming into your tank from the filter return. Could it be that the gph return is higher with the diffuser since the reactor has choke points? If so, then the return water is being more heavily circulated in the tank using the diffuser. Would that be enough to significantly affect saturation on all leaf surfaces?


The atomizer has the same two choke points as the reactor, both coming from the hose barbs where the tubing connects. There isnt a noticeable difference in flow from either one.

To this point though, I do believe having strong circulation throughout the tank becomes more important using an atomizer/diffuser. Im not talking about a plants-blowing-sideways current, but rather a high volume laminar flow in all areas



Deanna said:


> Y
> - As far as pH drop / bps efficiency is concerned. Could it be that the mist is concentrated in the upper regions of the tank (it floats) and dissolves at a higher concentration there so the upper leaves are, therefore, getting a higher dose? Have you noticed the same response between plants that stay in the lower regions vs. those that extend to the top? Would you see a difference in pH between water in the upper region vs. lower?


Bubbles float. Actual mist tends to swirl around wherever the current takes it without a lot of buoyancy. Much of it is so small you can barely it. As you said, more like a haze. But if you look close its tiny micro bubbles

Of course there is more of it in the upper regions than down at the very bottom. Depends in large part how the flow is set up. 

But the same can be true with fully dissolved co2 from a reactor. That rich co2 water coming straight out of the pipe may or may not be making its way to the lower regions effectively. 

That's why drop checkers should be placed down low in the tank instead of up high like you see most of them. The upper region is always going to have the highest concentration of co2.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

burr740 said:


> ...
> Think about it; we shoot for 30 or 40 or 50 ppm of co2 dissolved in our aquarium water. That's parts per million. The atmosphere has what, 400 ppm? The mist swirling around from an atomizer is PURE CO2. These mist bubbles come in direct contact with plants, passes over them, bumps into them and often sticks.
> 
> Not sure you'll find any hard evidence to prove it but it makes sense to me that even minimal contact with pure CO2 would constitute a potent dose that's very easy to absorb


I always felt this to be true from my own observations, but the hard evidence of course wasn't there. I think you've communicated this very well as you compare the potency of the "pure" co2 to the atmospheric content, makes sense to me. 

Most focus on co2 efficiency based on ppm, but I always thought there was more to it then that. Hate to keep referring back to ADA, but if they can use a single co2 diffuser on an 180g without even the assistance of a powerhead it's good enough for me. 

At the end of the day all methods work, it's a matter of how far you want to take this, but there is no evidence to me anyway that you can only use reactors in large tank to give the plants sufficient co2.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

houseofcards said:


> Most focus on co2 efficiency based on ppm, but I always thought there was more to it then that. Hate to keep referring back to ADA, but if they can use a single co2 diffuser on an 180g without even the assistance of a powerhead it's good enough for me.


Do you use an in tank CO2 diffuser?

If so, any you recommend?

And how about clogging? Does the CO2 flow rate deteriorate over time? That is, do you need to adjust CO2 flow to keep same relative concentration as it degrades?

And how often do you clean/replace?

I'm willing to give this a try, but not sure yet if it's worth any trouble it might create.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Greggz said:


> Do you use an in tank CO2 diffuser?
> 
> If so, any you recommend?
> 
> ...


Yes, i only use in tank, I have used reactors when I used to setup aquascapes (on the side) for largr setups since they didn't want any equipment showing.

Yes the co2 will deteriorate over time as it gets dirty, usually with some algae growth and yes you might have to increase slightly if it gets very dirty. I usually bleach them once a month or longer. During a water change you could pull the diffuser up above the water line and put some excel in there while you complete the water change. I have found this extends time between cleaning. 

But honestly, just having several diffusers on hand solves any problem since they are so easy to take off/put on. 

For larger tanks you probably want a 2" diffuser, I've always used the Rhinox brand, but I don't see them around for that size anymore. Others have used the JARDLI brand and are happy with the quality and price. Of course you can go ADA but it will cost you. I had a discussion about this with another member who switched to an in-tank diffuser for his 120g.

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/9-equipment/1263786-looking-more-options-co2-diffusion.html


----------



## madcrafted (Dec 23, 2017)

houseofcards said:


> Most focus on co2 efficiency based on ppm, but I always thought there was more to it then that. Hate to keep referring back to ADA, but if they can use a single co2 diffuser on an 180g without even the assistance of a powerhead it's good enough for me.


I feel like it has more to do with circulation more than anything. ADA tanks usually have this part covered with the use of canister filters. The minimal surface agitation (if any) keeps those bubbles in the water column as long as possible. Combine that with proper lily pipe placement for an excellent flow path and the CO2 loss is very minimal. Take the same diffuser and place in a tank with a HOB that flows back to front (unlike Aquaclear) and the dissolution rate is horrible. Most bubbles will immediately rise to the top and enter the atmosphere... not to mention the degassing within the HOB itself followed by a spillway. You get the picture. Terribly inefficient. Flow is king, regardless of method of diffusion.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

houseofcards said:


> For larger tanks you probably want a 2" diffuser, I've always used the Rhinox brand, but I don't see them around for that size anymore. Others have used the JARDLI brand and are happy with the quality and price. Of course you can go ADA but it will cost you. I had a discussion about this with another member who switched to an in-tank diffuser for his 120g.


Thanks Houseofcards, that helps.

I might pick up one of these just to experiment with. Won't go the inline route based on past disaster, but in tank is somewhat intriguing. 

Would be interesting to see if it used more/less CO2 to get same pH drop, and what if any noticeable effect on plants.

Since I am using a pH controller, I have a little more room for error trying something like this, so leaning toward giving it a try.


----------



## Grobbins48 (Oct 16, 2017)

madcrafted said:


> I feel like it has more to do with circulation more than anything. ADA tanks usually have this part covered with the use of canister filters. The minimal surface agitation (if any) keeps those bubbles in the water column as long as possible. Combine that with proper lily pipe placement for an excellent flow path and the CO2 loss is very minimal. Take the same diffuser and place in a tank with a HOB that flows back to front (unlike Aquaclear) and the dissolution rate is horrible. Most bubbles will immediately rise to the top and enter the atmosphere... not to mention the degassing within the HOB itself followed by a spillway. You get the picture. Terribly inefficient. Flow is king, regardless of method of diffusion.


I would agree completely with the HOB ftrr point. When I used one on my 29 gallon with a diffuser, the bubble almost immediately went right to the top. Now with a canister filter and spray bar, I have right to left circular flow across the tank. The diffuser is opposite of the spray bars and the bubbles are more of a mist that barely rises up to the surface. Using less CO2 on the same setup. Plus. The effect looks much cooler IMHO, when bubbles are pushed down and around, rather than right to the surface. 

Side note, today I will move the drop checkers down to near the bottom of the tank and see if there is any noticeable difference.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

burr740 said:


> Well since aquatic plants are equipped to absorb things through their leaves much better than terrestrial plants, which is the main thing that makes them "aquatic" in the first place, the obvious answer to this question is absolutely.
> 
> Why would you think they could not?


I'm not sure it's obvious. My question was around efficiency. I think aquatic plants are designed to take things from the water more efficiently than terrestrial, but I'm not sure about absorbing all things more efficiently. However, as per @Xiaozhuang comments, it seems that T. Barr did affirm that they do as far as CO2 is concerned.



burr740 said:


> The atomizer has the same two choke points as the reactor, both coming from the hose barbs where the tubing connects. There isnt a noticeable difference in flow from either one.


My in-line must be different from yours. It has a straight flow through of the water with no impingement.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

madcrafted said:


> I feel like it has more to do with circulation more than anything. ADA tanks usually have this part covered with the use of canister filters. The minimal surface agitation (if any) keeps those bubbles in the water column as long as possible. Combine that with proper lily pipe placement for an excellent flow path and the CO2 loss is very minimal. Take the same diffuser and place in a tank with a HOB that flows back to front (unlike Aquaclear) and the dissolution rate is horrible. Most bubbles will immediately rise to the top and enter the atmosphere... not to mention the degassing within the HOB itself followed by a spillway. You get the picture. Terribly inefficient. Flow is king, regardless of method of diffusion.


Well, yes, It's all relative to the setup. I was referring to the large ADA tanks so no one really is going to be using an HOB. It's all part of a system. Certainly ADA with the Lily pipes seek to maximize flow, but even in there tanks you could clearly see some of the bubbles going to the surface. BTW your talking to low flow guy. I realize flow is different than GPH, but on my 4 foot tanks were I used an in-tank diffuser I had nothing other than a Eheim 2215 and a simple spray bar to push the co2 bubbles around the tank. The actual turnover was 1x. There was absolutely no deficiency on the other end. I honestly don't think it takes much to push the bubbles around the tank. 

On some of my smaller tanks (20G L) I have in tank diffusers with HOBs and do not have a problem. Might not be as efficient, but again, efficiency to me is over-rated.


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

Deanna said:


> My in-line must be different from yours. It has a straight flow through of the water with no impingement.



Right, mine has a straight flow too. But the built in nipple connections (or hose barbs on the reactor) are smaller than the ID of the hoses. Those are the choke points I was talking about.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

Did some looking around on the CO2 form issue. Found these threads, perhaps including the T. Barr one referenced by @Xiaozhuang:

https://barrreport.com/threads/mist-or-reactor.2306/page-2
https://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/some-silly-questions-about-co2-bubbles.37766/

An interesting thought came form a Hoppy quote:


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. 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.


Maybe a combination would minimize the negatives of each, while maximizing the positives.

Funny how we keep discovering things that have already been discovered. You'd think that things having significant benefit would become common knowledge.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Deanna said:


> Did some looking around on the CO2 form issue. Found these threads, perhaps including the T. Barr one referenced by @Xiaozhuang:
> 
> https://barrreport.com/threads/mist-or-reactor.2306/page-2
> https://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/some-silly-questions-about-co2-bubbles.37766/
> ...


All respect to hobby, but I find NOTHING valid in his observation. What is he saying. Co2 in itself is an algaecide? That's been shown over and over not to be true. Co2 increases photosynthesis which processes more organics thus reducing the food supply for BBA. It doesn't matter where the plant gets it from as long as uptake is increased.


----------



## dukydaf (Dec 27, 2004)

burr740 said:


> So instead of force feeding tons of co2 into a reactor hoping to dissolve it first, why not just blast it directly in the tank where the majority of it dissolves anyway and whatever is left can directly touch the plants?
> 
> Another thing to consider; Lets say there's a 1 point drop using an atomizer. That 1 point drop only represents the dissolved co2. It doesnt count all the pure mist bubbles because those are not dissolved.


This^, you are actually exposing the plants to more CO2 than the 1 drop (CO2 equiv) from the reactor.

If you will notice an improvement it would mean CO2 was the limiting factor before. So some will notice, most people growing(non Co2 limited) plants before are unlikely to see a significant improvement (after you remove the I bought a new thing, so it must be better Bias) 

I don't know what alchemy Edward was speaking about when he was saying CO2 changes when it touches the pipes... Does it turn into gold and we actually sprinkle our plants with gold dust when actively dissolving CO2??? 
@burr740 Did you order the JBL ones? We have them in Europe for some years now... Many units are not good as they produce large bubbles. If you increase the working pressure the rubber fittings around the ceramic burst and allow the CO2 to go inside the hoses. This was my experience with them as well, plenty of other reports, and yes that is after the soaking step. Good thing is that because of this problem I didn't hear of many cracking like others do. 

The upturned cup/jar to increase CO2 CONC. technique is dating back to when the Diy yeast started. Helped increase/regulate the use of whatever small amount were given by the yeast bottles. But then again I guess nobody [emoji769] it so another thing to add to the list of [emoji769] products... PCODS[emoji769] Perpetual CO2 dosing system. You can overdose(fish-wise) CO2 with both this and ceramic diffusers, plenty of examples on many forums...

Both bubble and flow meter will not be comparable between atomizer and reactor because you have different pressures forming in them. The atomizer will no doubt seem as using less because it compresses the gas more( more CO2 molecules in the same volume). Only comparable way at hobby level would be to weigh the CO2 bottle and average -mgCO2/day from 2 or 3 CO2 bottle runs.
@houseofcards there are even studies showing that algae grow faster when CO2 is enriched... Of course they do, photosynthesis and such reality based terms. But let the people dream... They get angry when you burst the bubble... 


Looking forward to see your experience Burr


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

houseofcards said:


> All respect to hobby, but I find NOTHING valid in his observation. What is he saying. Co2 in itself is an algaecide? That's been shown over and over not to be true. Co2 increases photosynthesis which processes more organics thus reducing the food supply for BBA. It doesn't matter where the plant gets it from as long as uptake is increased.


Agreed, but ...he did notice an uptick in BBA. Perhaps he wrongly thought it was due to the CO2 change. However, it is something to be alert to if making the change.


----------



## madcrafted (Dec 23, 2017)

houseofcards said:


> Well, yes, It's all relative to the setup. I was referring to the large ADA tanks so no one really is going to be using an HOB. It's all part of a system. Certainly ADA with the Lily pipes seek to maximize flow, but even in there tanks you could clearly see some of the bubbles going to the surface. BTW your talking to low flow guy. I realize flow is different than GPH, but on my 4 foot tanks were I used an in-tank diffuser I had nothing other than a Eheim 2215 and a simple spray bar to push the co2 bubbles around the tank. The actual turnover was 1x. There was absolutely no deficiency on the other end. I honestly don't think it takes much to push the bubbles around the tank.
> 
> On some of my smaller tanks (20G L) I have in tank diffusers with HOBs and do not have a problem. Might not be as efficient, but again, efficiency to me is over-rated.



Yeah, I see your point. I was referring to the actual flow pattern in this respect, not overall turnover rate. I realize that you're always going to lose some bubbles due to size variation and whatnot and I'm not concerned with maximum efficiency either. Where I see a problem is with shallow tanks where you might not ever reach your targeted 1 to 1.5 drop in pH. I've personally witnessed CO2 just shoot to the top of the water surface with my HOBs and never get to the other side of the tank. The higher the flow rate of gas, the more sizzling I got on the water surface from wasted CO2. I could never get more than a drop of .5 pH regardless of where I positioned diffuser or HOB filter. This to me is a problem that can't be corrected by opening up the needle valve. Maybe adding a powerhead would help in this case. Either way, I still feel like there are exceptions to every tank and the choice of diffusion method will take a backseat to how it's being dispersed throughout the tank. Big bubbles, tiny bubbles, invisible bubbles... that doesn't matter as much as how it is being delivered.

I am curious as to where you place your diffuser in relation to your HOB. A 20 gallon could be considered shallow but not as shallow as my 9.1 gallon long. I wonder if this is the problem. Contact time. Hmm


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

dukydaf said:


> Both bubble and flow meter will not be comparable between atomizer and reactor because you have different pressures forming in them. The atomizer will no doubt seem as using less because it compresses the gas more( more CO2 molecules in the same volume). Only comparable way at hobby level would be to weigh the CO2 bottle and average -mgCO2/day from 2 or 3 CO2 bottle runs.
> 
> Looking forward to see your experience Burr


Yeah I ordered two JBLs from Germany off 3bay, eta 2-4 weeks

What I really liked about them, besides being screwed together, is they offered a 3/4" size, 19/25 mm or whatever it is.

Currently running a common Up Aqua on the 50 gal.

As for flow meters, working pressure and counting bubbles. As you said, the atomizer requires more wp than the reactor, so 10 bps in the bubble counter now, wont be the same as 10 bps before because the working pressure is higher. The bubbles are not equal because the ones under higher pressure are more compressed. 

But the flow meter should remain accurate as far as cc/min regardless of wp. Lets say the flow meter is set to 30 and I turn the working pressure up 10 psi higher, the flow meter will go up too. It works the same way going down. So if you want to keep the flow meter on 30 cc/min you have to readjust it if the wp changes.

In other words 30 cc/min is 30 cc/min, regardless of working pressure. That is the whole point of being able to "meter the flow"


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

@madcrafted

For something like a 20L I'll have the HOB usually on the left or right wall and have the diffuser directly under it, generally close to the substrate. The return is always completely underwater. If it's a nano I sometimes have it on the opposite wall of the tank from the HOB if I can observe the bubbles being pushed into the glass.


----------



## dukydaf (Dec 27, 2004)

burr740 said:


> But the flow meter should remain accurate as far as cc/min regardless of wp. Lets say the flow meter is set to 30 and I turn the working pressure up 10 psi higher, the flow meter will go up too. It works the same way going down. So if you want to keep the flow meter on 30 cc/min you have to readjust it if the wp changes.
> 
> In other words 30 cc/min is 30 cc/min, regardless of working pressure. That is the whole point of being able to "meter the flow"



Okay if you say so. The lab grade ones come with instructions on how to calculate the actual volume depending on the pressure on the output side( not the output of the regulator of course but the actual end of the hose vs ceramic) , but if you say it does not matter... 

Physics was not my favorite subject but think about this 30cc/min means 30 cubic centimeters. Cubic centimeters is a unit of volume. Gases by definition occupy the entire volume available, but the density of molecules changes. What factors influence the density gases... Thermodynamics and stuff. Temperature and pressure. So to inject the same number of molecules, in the same volume you will need the same pressure and temperature. We are interested in the number of molecules injected / min after all. 

Have fun with it and stay skeptical.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

houseofcards said:


> Yes the co2 will deteriorate over time as it gets dirty, usually with some algae growth and yes you might have to increase slightly if it gets very dirty. I usually bleach them once a month or longer. During a water change you could pull the diffuser up above the water line and put some excel in there while you complete the water change. I have found this extends time between cleaning.
> 
> But honestly, just having several diffusers on hand solves any problem since they are so easy to take off/put on.


Have you ever used one of the stainless steel ones? Looks like you unscrew it and just put a new diffuser in place. Seems like it might be less work than managing the cleaning?

And how do you find the look of the tank? Soda pop like bubbles? Sorry for all the questions, just trying to determine what I might be getting into.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Greggz said:


> Have you ever used one of the stainless steel ones? Looks like you unscrew it and just put a new diffuser in place. Seems like it might be less work than managing the cleaning?
> 
> And how do you find the look of the tank? Soda pop like bubbles? Sorry for all the questions, just trying to determine what I might be getting into.


Ask away!!!

I never used the stainless ones, always meant to give them a try. The cleaning is pretty easy, you can literally soak it in bleach/water while you do a water change, but always good to have two so you could have a clean one ready and in case you break one (if you go glass.)

I have never really noticed the soda pop affect. I mean I see the bubbles as they are pushed away from the diffuser, but never really noticed them all over the tank. 

Certainly worth trying it on for size, since the only real investment is the diffuser itself.

Bump:


dukydaf said:


> ..
> @houseofcards there are even studies showing that algae grow faster when CO2 is enriched... Of course they do, photosynthesis and such reality based terms. But let the people dream... They get angry when you burst the bubble...


Yes, there seems to still be a belief by some that you can have virtually no plants in the tank and if you blast or have consistent co2 it will keep algae away without any regard to uptake or reducing organics in the water.


----------



## Xiaozhuang (Feb 15, 2012)

Deanna said:


> Did some looking around on the CO2 form issue. Found these threads, perhaps including the T. Barr one referenced by @*Xiaozhuang*:
> 
> https://barrreport.com/threads/mist-or-reactor.2306/page-2
> https://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/some-silly-questions-about-co2-bubbles.37766/
> ...



No I'm not referring the any forum post. I'm referring to the barr reports themselves (the newsletters) under the subscription section, specifically Volume 1, issue 10.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

Xiaozhuang said:


> No I'm not referring the any forum post. I'm referring to the barr reports themselves (the newsletters) under the subscription section, specifically Volume 1, issue 10.


Thank you. Very interesting reading.

At the time, Barr had no data about what would happen with a combination approach, such as having a 30ppm base from a reactor and then supplementing with x amount from a diffuser. Are you aware of any such studies?

He noticed that bubbles from a diffuser persisted longer toward the end of the day but, oddly, had no explanation. I would think that it was due to the simple increased saturation of CO2 as the day wears on. So, if the bubbles coming into contact with the leaves is where all this synergy exists, I would think that maintaining a given input from a reactor would allow us to quickly keep more diffuser-sourced bubbles from dissolving and, therefore, be available to stick to the leaves. Yes? No?


----------



## Xiaozhuang (Feb 15, 2012)

Deanna said:


> Thank you. Very interesting reading.
> 
> At the time, Barr had no data about what would happen with a combination approach, such as having a 30ppm base from a reactor and then supplementing with x amount from a diffuser. Are you aware of any such studies?
> 
> He noticed that bubbles from a diffuser persisted longer toward the end of the day but, oddly, had no explanation. I would think that it was due to the simple increased saturation of CO2 as the day wears on. So, if the bubbles coming into contact with the leaves is where all this synergy exists, I would think that maintaining a given input from a reactor would allow us to quickly keep more diffuser-sourced bubbles from dissolving and, therefore, be available to stick to the leaves. Yes? No?



I think you are probably right, but I also think it is not hard to hit high saturation rates with diffuser/mist as long as it is fine enough.. using a reactor /mist combi probably gives better overall efficiency, but frankly, CO2 gas is so cheap (if you refill larger cylinders at factories) I think wastage of CO2 gas is a low priority concern. The other interesting element about mist is I think there is a mild flocculation effect - proteins and charged organic waste adhere to micro bubbles and rise to the water surface; so it is best paired with surface skimmer.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

@Xiaozhuang

I don't know if you covered this all ready, but I was curious. In Asia when a beginner is starting up a planted tank is co2 looked upon as a mandatory component to a successful setup or is it more of an optional added piece as it is here for most beginners? 

My gut tells me its looked upon as something more mandatory, which I believe it should be here. No different than looking for the correct light, filter, substrate, etc.


----------



## madcrafted (Dec 23, 2017)

houseofcards said:


> My gut tells me its looked upon as something more mandatory, which I believe it should be here.


In other words, if you ain't running CO2, don't bother asking us for help with your sick ass plants. >


----------



## Xiaozhuang (Feb 15, 2012)

houseofcards said:


> @*Xiaozhuang*
> 
> I don't know if you covered this all ready, but I was curious. In Asia when a beginner is starting up a planted tank is co2 looked upon as a mandatory component to a successful setup or is it more of an optional added piece as it is here for most beginners?
> 
> My gut tells me its looked upon as something more mandatory, which I believe it should be here. No different than looking for the correct light, filter, substrate, etc.



hmm Asia is a very general term because the planted hobby is newer in some countries (China[they have long history of fish keeping, but planted tanks is relatively new]) but very established in others (Japan). More humans live in Asia than outside of it.... 



For hobbyists that specifically want a planted aquarium or aquascape is somewhat established, I think the CO2 line is drawn more clearly - people accept that some plants can be grown without CO2 while others require it. No one/shop actively promotes the low tech method. Aquasoil usage is also almost default. The combination of cheap CO2 equipment and cheap soil, cheap plants, makes planted tanks quite accessible here. I think that there is less philosophizing on what is natural or not, and more focus on what delivers results. People don't mind black box solutions as long as they work. Folks are quick to spot successful examples, and copy them without needing to question everything at a fundamental level - this has both pros and cons of course.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

Xiaozhuang said:


> I think you are probably right, but I also think it is not hard to hit high saturation rates with diffuser/mist as long as it is fine enough.. using a reactor /mist combi probably gives better overall efficiency, but frankly, CO2 gas is so cheap (if you refill larger cylinders at factories) I think wastage of CO2 gas is a low priority concern. The other interesting element about mist is I think there is a mild flocculation effect - proteins and charged organic waste adhere to micro bubbles and rise to the water surface; so it is best paired with surface skimmer.


I was thinking more in terms of aesthetics than cost of CO2. If we could use a reactor to set a base of, say; 30ppm. Would (rhetorically) that significantly reduce mist dissolution, allowing the mist to circulate more and, hopefully, make contact with leaves? If so, perhaps we could minimize the amount of mist, thereby making the tank water clearer, but still achieve that 'kick', from direct CO2 contact, in extra plant performance.

Regarding your flocculation effect idea, have you, or anyone to your knowledge, observed a foaming effect from use of diffusers? I know that I never did. That would be great on a number of fronts: more oxygenation and removal of organics. Maybe increased loss of CO2 but, as you mentioned, who cares about that cost.


----------



## natemcnutty (May 26, 2016)

Deanna said:


> I was thinking more in terms of aesthetics than cost of CO2. If we could use a reactor to set a base of, say; 30ppm. Would (rhetorically) that significantly reduce mist dissolution, allowing the mist to circulate more and, hopefully, make contact with leaves? If so, perhaps we could minimize the amount of mist, thereby making the tank water clearer, but still achieve that 'kick', from direct CO2 contact, in extra plant performance.
> 
> Regarding your flocculation effect idea, have you, or anyone to your knowledge, observed a foaming effect from use of diffusers? I know that I never did. That would be great on a number of fronts: more oxygenation and removal of organics. Maybe increased loss of CO2 but, as you mentioned, who cares about that cost.


Maintaining a higher concentration of dissolved CO2 via a reactor would actually increase the visibility of bubbles from a diffuser as it would not as readily dissolve. 

You'd theoretically be pushing less CO2 through the diffuser since you don't have to cover the amount added by a reactor, but my bet is that it would not be a noticeable difference between what would have dissolved with just a diffuser / atomizer.

Personally, I've moved to an atomizer in two tanks to test the theory of small bubbles attaching to leaves, and while my CO2 output did have to increase by a very small amount, I've noticed quite a difference. I also really like being able to see my flow patterns.

As to the question of the stainless steel diffusers that come apart so you can clean the disc, I have two of them (the anodized aluminum ones) and really like those as well. They aren't as fine of a mist as better quality glass diffusers, but CO2 is cheap while time spent on tank maintenance is not. I'd rather be able to leave the diffuser exactly where I burried it in the substrate and just swap discs every other week for cleaning. Way better than popping the diffuser off the tube and waiting for a bleach soak, rinse, etc.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

natemcnutty said:


> Maintaining a higher concentration of dissolved CO2 via a reactor would actually increase the visibility of bubbles from a diffuser as it would not as readily dissolve.
> 
> You'd theoretically be pushing less CO2 through the diffuser since you don't have to cover the amount added by a reactor, but my bet is that it would not be a noticeable difference between what would have dissolved with just a diffuser / atomizer.


My thoughts, too. That is the the point which lead to my next hope: how much marginal increase, via the diffuser, would be needed to achieve the desired plant effect. The idea being that less 'mist' would be needed given the base from the reactor and, subsequently, clearer water than if using the full mist load from a diffuser.


----------



## natemcnutty (May 26, 2016)

Deanna said:


> My thoughts, too. That is the the point which lead to my next hope: how much marginal increase, via the diffuser, would be needed to achieve the desired plant effect. The idea being that less 'mist' would be needed given the base from the reactor and, subsequently, clearer water than if using the full mist load from a diffuser.


I think noticing the mist is very dependent on how you set things up. You could do an in tank atomizer (bazooka?) with a powerhead nice and low, and you probably wouldn't even be able to see the mist from a normal viewing distance.

For reference, I use the Quanvee M1's (ease of cleaning), and standing more than a foot or so away from the tank, you can only see bubbles as they come out of the rain bar along the whole back of the tank. Once it hits the front glass, you can't see them anymore unless you get much closer.

The bubbles from my diffusers are much more noticeable, especially in my shallow tank where the HOB outflow pushes the CO2 around. In my work tank, same diffuser is on the opposite side of the outflow, and once the bubbles are pushed down and wrap back around, you can barely see them.


----------



## OVT (Nov 29, 2011)

With so many bubbles raising from pearling and substrate and stuck on leaves and the surface, the tank already looks looks like a boiling pot, the co2 coming from a diffuser just gets lost in the mix.

I am now moving in the opposite direction, stopping co2 3 hours before the lights out. With the watter oversutturated with gasses already, I want to see if the last hours of co2 injection provide any benefits. Stopping earlier might also result in a smoother transition between day and nigh levels.


----------



## Jeff5614 (Dec 29, 2005)

natemcnutty said:


> I think noticing the mist is very dependent on how you set things up. You could do an in tank atomizer (bazooka?) with a powerhead nice and low, and you probably wouldn't even be able to see the mist from a normal viewing distance.
> 
> For reference, I use the Quanvee M1's (ease of cleaning), and standing more than a foot or so away from the tank, you can only see bubbles as they come out of the rain bar along the whole back of the tank. Once it hits the front glass, you can't see them anymore unless you get much closer.
> 
> The bubbles from my diffusers are much more noticeable, especially in my shallow tank where the HOB outflow pushes the CO2 around. In my work tank, same diffuser is on the opposite side of the outflow, and once the bubbles are pushed down and wrap back around, you can barely see them.


I'm with you. I'm using an inline atomizer which comes out a lily pipe at the back left corner. I can see very fine bubbles coming out of the pipe, but that's about it. There just aren't a bunch of bubbles, mist or haze in the tank. I also agree with the mention above about flocculation when using a diffuser or atomizer. I think my tank is clearer when using either of those versus a reactor.

As an aside, I've also stopped using drop checkers and pH meters. I understand the concept of balancing CO2 injection with off gassing so that you maintain a stable CO2 level throughout the photoperiod and I think that's fairly easily achievable when filters are maintained regularly so that water movement and surface agitation is consistent. I also disagree with those who use gassing their fish as a way of determining when they've reached a satisfactory CO2 level. If that's what you have to do to have enough CO2 you're doing something wrong, not enough flow or too much light. This is also an area where a diffuser or atomizer has it's advantages, IMO. Since you're adding CO2 bubbles that stick to plant leaves and not trying to dissolve the CO2 in water you, of course, have and need less dissolved CO2. Plant health should be your CO2 indicator, not fish distress, a yellow dropchecker or a certain pH drop. If as much time was spent on developing our scaping skills as is spent on trying to figure the out the most optimal methods of CO2 injection we would all have some very fine tanks and Amano would be very proud. 

Just my two cents  with nothing directed at anyone in particular, just my general thoughts on the topic.


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

Do you even need a check valve with an atomizer?

Hard to imagine any water pushing back through the ceramic since it takes 30 something psi to penetrate


----------



## madcrafted (Dec 23, 2017)

burr740 said:


> Do you even need a check valve with an atomizer?
> 
> Hard to imagine any water pushing back through the ceramic since it takes 30 something psi to penetrate


Yeah, the ceramic will eventually get saturated and allow water to siphon back into the bubble counter. The empty space below ceramic in my glass diffusers stays full of water, it even acts as a bubble counter itself. My BC utilizes a built in check valve, so no worries there.


----------



## madcrafted (Dec 23, 2017)

Deanna said:


> Regarding your flocculation effect idea, have you, or anyone to your knowledge, observed a foaming effect from use of diffusers? I know that I never did.


I can attest to a "frothing" effect when I swapped diffusers from a cheaper glass diffuser to one that had very fine mist (almost fog-like). Reminded me of the results from a heavily aerated batch of compost "tea". It only lasted a week or so. I dealt with it like I would any other surface film... increased surface agitation and partial water changes. No protein skimmers or paper towel tricks.


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

jeff5614 said:


> as an aside, i've also stopped using drop checkers and ph meters. I understand the concept of balancing co2 injection with off gassing so that you maintain a stable co2 level throughout the photoperiod and i think that's fairly easily achievable when filters are maintained regularly so that water movement and surface agitation is consistent. I also disagree with those who use gassing their fish as a way of determining when they've reached a satisfactory co2 level. If that's what you have to do to have enough co2 you're doing something wrong, not enough flow or too much light. This is also an area where a diffuser or atomizer has it's advantages, imo. Since you're adding co2 bubbles that stick to plant leaves and not trying to dissolve the co2 in water you, of course, have and need less dissolved co2. Plant health should be your co2 indicator, not fish distress, a yellow dropchecker or a certain ph drop. If as much time was spent on developing our scaping skills as is spent on trying to figure the out the most optimal methods of co2 injection we would all have some very fine tanks and amano would be very proud.
> 
> Just my two cents  with nothing directed at anyone in particular, just my general thoughts on the topic.


+1 ...


----------



## MCFC (Feb 12, 2017)

Jeff5614 said:


> If as much time was spent on developing our scaping skills as is spent on trying to figure the out the most optimal methods of CO2 injection we would all have some very fine tanks and Amano would be very proud.


What's the point of a nice hardscape if all your plants are dead?


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

madcrafted said:


> In other words, if you ain't running CO2, don't bother asking us for help with your sick ass plants. >


LOL, not much different than one who's plants are sick and doesn't dose anything, there' always a deficiency of co2, it's only a matter of how much and how the particular plant deals with it.


----------



## Jeff5614 (Dec 29, 2005)

MCFC said:


> What's the point of a nice hardscape if all your plants are dead?


At least you would have a nice hardscape, lol. What I was trying to say is that we don't need to dwell on the minutia of CO2 enrichment. Whether it's a reactor, diffuser, atomizer or some combination they all get the job done. I think everyone in this thread is able to grow plants pretty well, although I do understand that some people are very into the science side of things and that's cool. Overall, at least on TPT, more discussion is centered on equipment, ferts, etc. and not as much on scaping and I think the hobby would be well served if we spent more time on learning to scape well. I see a gap in that area when compared to the planted tanks we see from Asia and Europe. Of course I'm sure they have their share of ugly ones also and are too ashamed to show them like I am mine .

Bump:


burr740 said:


> Do you even need a check valve with an atomizer?
> 
> Hard to imagine any water pushing back through the ceramic since it takes 30 something psi to penetrate


Mine fills up with water after the CO2 is off and goes all the way to the check valve which is about six inches from the atomizer.


----------



## Grobbins48 (Oct 16, 2017)

So for what it is worth to the conversation, I do have everything calibrated now with the pH pen. It seems my tank water sitting for a couple days is ~7.8 pH, which seems to line up with the API test kit, both the pH and high range pH tests.

The tank water at 7pm tonight (end of CO2 being on for 8 houra) was 6.1, again the API kit seemed to match. The tank water in the morning before the CO2 turns on is around 7. So it seems my top drop is around 1.7pH, however the daily swing is more like .7 drop. The livestock is doing great, and the plants are pearling like mad all day long.

I did just replace the CO2 cylinder yesterday, so the flow meter was running a bit higher than normal when I checked it today. The reactor definitely had more gas it in than normal, but I now dialed it back to my normal flow rate (~25 cc/min).

Anyway, my main thought and perhaps point/ learning is there are many variables that are playing into pH, KH, CO2 saturation. There are lots of great readings, learning, etc. from this thread, and I am really enjoying it and hope we can keep it going. What more that I am learning, is like many things in life there is not just one right way. My favorite reason is 'it depends'. I feel this applies so much to planted tanks, as it depends on our goals, aspirations, time available, level of knowledge, desire to experiment, etc...


As long as we can all talk about and discuss what things depend on, then we can each come up with the solution that is right for our application at that certain time. Just some added thoughts!


----------



## Immortal1 (Feb 18, 2015)

Curious @Grobbins48 - my pH numbers are similar to yours (7.8 degassed, 7.3 before CO2 starts, 6.6 maximum drop per pH controller).
I know we all talk about a 1ph drop from degassed but I wonder how the fish would react after a few days of getting used to a 1ph "daily" drop? 
Or in other words, set my controller at 6.3 and/or your controller (so to speak) at 6ph. 
For you that would in theory be only 0.1ph lower that where your currently are. For me, it would be 0.3 lower which I think the fish might tolerate. 

Would be curious how many readers here would end up having a 1.0ph daily drop from morning level vs degassed level.


----------



## Grobbins48 (Oct 16, 2017)

Immortal1 said:


> Curious @Grobbins48 - my pH numbers are similar to yours (7.8 degassed, 7.3 before CO2 starts, 6.6 maximum drop per pH controller).
> I know we all talk about a 1ph drop from degassed but I wonder how the fish would react after a few days of getting used to a 1ph "daily" drop?
> Or in other words, set my controller at 6.3 and/or your controller (so to speak) at 6ph.
> For you that would in theory be only 0.1ph lower that where your currently are. For me, it would be 0.3 lower which I think the fish might tolerate.
> ...


That is a good question, and right now I have no idea! Now that the CO2 is full and the pH pen is working, I'll be able to pay closer attention through this week and see where things land. I'll grab some data points these next few days then report back what I find and learn.


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

Mine fully degassed is 7.7-8

Overnight the tank degasses to around 7.4

Peak co2 in the lower 6.3s

Its about 6.5 when the lights come on, peaks a couple hours later and stays there


----------



## Immortal1 (Feb 18, 2015)

Interesting @burr740 - so you are about 1.1pH daily pH drop from an Overnight degassed state.


----------



## OVT (Nov 29, 2011)

We should plot people's results, pH on Y-axis vs time on X-axis and note diffusion methods for each.

In a 17g, I am not liking my "graph". I will take exact numbers, but from overnight at 7.5 takes 2 hours to get to 7.0 at lights on and then another ~7 hours to get to 6.6, which is at my fish tolerance level and still 3 hours before lights out.

My curve above would indicate a) bad circulation + b) heavy co2 uptake during lights on + c) overplanted.

Crossing the 7.0 point twice a day is also of interest. Intuitively, I wish for 6.9 to 6.2 range 24x7. Which brings up the 24x7 injection discussion yet again. Which also leads me to think that the methodology / target drop is different for hard and soft water.


----------



## Grobbins48 (Oct 16, 2017)

OVT said:


> We should plot people's results, pH on Y-axis vs time on X-axis and note diffusion methods for each.


Would people participating in this discussion be interested in plotting this information? I can create and share a google docs spreadsheet where we can enter our information, and then once compiled can create some visualizations of the data. If interested, let me know (either like this post or reply) and I'll share something publicly.

I can capture what I can think of initially, but please feel free to add. Here are my thoughts on what to gather for data points. Let me know if there are things to add/ subtract based on your experience. My thought is that collecting more data up front is easier, and we can always disregard a variable if we want.

Member
pH @ hour
-1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Tank Size
Filtration
Circulation
Skimmer
Outflow pipe
diffusion method
CO2 hours on before lights
Gassed pH
KH
GH


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

Checked my overnight reading this morning, and was surprised that pH is rising to fully degassed value.

I do have heavy surface agitation (spray bars), and when CO2 period ends I run heavy aeration with air stones.

So degassed pH is 7.2, overnight is 7.2, and peak drop is 5.85. 1.35 pH drop. As noted in my journal, any much more than this and fish show signs of stress.


----------



## SingAlongWithTsing (Jun 11, 2015)

Grobbins48 said:


> Would people participating in this discussion be interested in plotting this information? I can create and share a google docs spreadsheet where we can enter our information, and then once compiled can create some visualizations of the data. If interested, let me know (either like this post or reply) and I'll share something publicly.
> 
> I can capture what I can think of initially, but please feel free to add. Here are my thoughts on what to gather for data points. Let me know if there are things to add/ subtract based on your experience. My thought is that collecting more data up front is easier, and we can always disregard a variable if we want.
> 
> ...


Degassed pH is 8.1 ~8.2 depneding on season
kH 9-11 depending on season, gH 14~15

chart is from 8.1 pH, 10 kH, gH 15 at the time
Tank: 72.5" x 18.5" x 24.5" / 135 gallon
Filtration: 48.5" x 15.5" x 17.5" / 55 gallon
Circulation: Imagitarium Powerhead 333 gph iirc, Jebao PP-8 Wavemaker set @ 185 gph, main return Jebao DCP 8000 set @ 845 gph (before accounting for headloss)
Diffusion method: modified cerges reactor (shoved a perrier bottle in the there to get a speece/ozone cone effect)


----------



## Grobbins48 (Oct 16, 2017)

Well I started taking hourly readings today and when the lights went on I noticed the skimmer was not working. It must have clogged from my trim this weekend. I'll keep taking readings and see what effect this had on pH levels, but I'll also do a full cycle of measures tomorrow too.


----------



## OVT (Nov 29, 2011)

Calibrated a $15 pH pen from Amazon and it is still off by 0.2+ in its own reference solution.

I am getting this district feeling that the more attantion I pay to a tank the more roadblocks I run into: atomizer refuses to work, pH shifts unexpectedly, all 3 of my pH pens can't agree, etc. Meanwhile, the neglected tanks are doing just fine.

I get it, the message is clear - don't mess with it.


----------



## OVT (Nov 29, 2011)

On a related subject, I noticed that I get a decent co2 flow from in-tank diffuser after the solenoid shuts down. The flow trickles down to nothing over the next hour. The co2 line is about 4' from needle valve to diffuser. WP is at 30 psi. I'm a bit surprized at the residual amount and pressure.

I think I've seen this before but I'm getting annal lately with every small detail. Am I seeing things?


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

OVT said:


> On a related subject, I noticed that I get a decent co2 flow from in-tank diffuser after the solenoid shuts down. The flow trickles down to nothing over the next hour. The co2 line is about 4' from needle valve to diffuser. WP is at 30 psi. I'm a bit surprized at the residual amount and pressure.
> 
> I think I've seen this before but I'm getting annal lately with every small detail. Am I seeing things?


I see bubbles too.

Yes, there is residual. I never really counted for how long, but it trails off after a while... Big benefit of in-tank is visual is always going to be visual.


----------



## Grobbins48 (Oct 16, 2017)

I get the same residual from my 29 gallon with a ceramic and acrylic neo diffuser. The line is probably about 4' or more, and the residual is around 20-30 min. I run at 40psi and ~15cc/min. 

Side note, tracking pH again today with everything working properly. Might be able to post it tonight. Surface skimmer working properly makes a huge difference!


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

Grobbins48 said:


> I run at 40psi and ~15cc/min.


 What is the lowest measurable flow you can adjust? 
Thanks


----------



## Grobbins48 (Oct 16, 2017)

Edward said:


> What is the lowest measurable flow you can adjust?
> Thanks


I run Dwyer RMA 151 flowmeters, so 5 cc/min is the lowest flow I can measure. 50cc/ min is the highest I can measure on these also.


----------



## KeeperOfASilentWorld (Mar 18, 2017)

Grobbins48 said:


> I run Dwyer RMA 151 flowmeters, so 5 cc/min is the lowest flow I can measure. 50cc/ min is the highest I can measure on these also.


Could you post a link for the flow meter? I have researched it but couldn't know which one to get. Thank you


----------



## Grobbins48 (Oct 16, 2017)

KeeperOfASilentWorld said:


> Could you post a link for the flow meter? I have researched it but couldn't know which one to get. Thank you


Here is Dwyers site. Look for the RMA 151 ssv for most tanks. There are a few threads that talk about flow rates, etc. 

https://www.dwyer-inst.com/Product/Flow/Flowmeters/VariableArea/SeriesRM


Here is a link to one, this is the one I run. I did not purchase from this vendor, I would suggest to shop around. 


http://www.transcat.com/dwyer-instruments-rma-151-ssv-rma-151-ssv


----------



## Grobbins48 (Oct 16, 2017)

My pH drop for today on the 55 with everything working (skimmer and cerges reactor) properly was 1.55 (6.25pH from 7.8 gassed) and daily drop of 1.15 (7.4pH at CO2 on). All is well with the fish, and the plants seem to be doing well, tons of pearling all day long.

The 29 with a ceramic neo diffuser dropped 1.46 from gassed to a pH of 6.34, and a daily drop of 1.2, from a level of 7.54 at CO2 on.

As for my thoughts, I'm going to keep running things as they are and sit back and watch! Well, not completely, I'll mess with the plants, but not the CO2 settings right now!


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

Grobbins48, what is your KH?


----------



## Grobbins48 (Oct 16, 2017)

Edward said:


> Grobbins48, what is your KH?


My KH varies between 6 and 7. Testing just now was 7.


----------

