# Green Leaf Aquariums new Co2 Diffuser



## Jeff5614

The prices are posted on the site.

http://www.greenleafaquariums.com/co2-diffusers.html


----------



## happi

Jeff5614 said:


> The prices are posted on the site.
> 
> http://www.greenleafaquariums.com/co2-diffusers.html



how did i miss that, lol.


----------



## happi

do i need anything else to install in order to make this diffuser work. does this work same way as glass diffuser.


----------



## bsmith

happi said:


> do i need anything else to install in order to make this diffuser work. does this work same way as glass diffuser.


Same way. What is your working pressure on your regulator (output pressure form the regulator)?


----------



## Julii Cory

It works better than a glass diffuser, and because they operate at a higher pressure, you need to use CO2 tubing with it. I was using ADA soft gray tubing with mine and it kept popping all the time. It worked great once I used CO2 tubing.

E


----------



## happi

bsmith said:


> Same way. What is your working pressure on your regulator (output pressure form the regulator)?



not sure because i broke one of the gauge and the other one shows about 900psi. i guess i have broken the low pressure gauge.


----------



## happi

Julii Cory said:


> It works better than a glass diffuser, and because they operate at a higher pressure, you need to use CO2 tubing with it. I was using ADA soft gray tubing with mine and it kept popping all the time. It worked great once I used CO2 tubing.
> 
> E



how do we compare this with the rex style reactor. does this diffuse more co2 in less time and which one should i get for my 50g tank, i don't want to order the wrong one. 

if it puts more than 30ppm of co2 in my 50g in less than 1-2 hours then i guess it will work very well.


----------



## machinehead26

I just got one of these diffuser and it is simply the best diffuser I've ever used.


----------



## Green Leaf Aquariums

I would not compare this to a reactor in any way, except for the fact they both get co2 into the tank.

One of the key advantages here are the savings in co2 gas. You can now use 50% less bubble counts on your regulator. This is a huge improvement over any reactor or glass diffuser. 

For your 50g, I would use a 60mm diffuser. 


Regards,
Orlando


----------



## Julii Cory

I don't know anything about reactors, I've never used one.

If you are getting your diffuser from GLA, Orlando can answer all your questions and more.

All I can say is that you will be happy with your purchase.

E


----------



## bsmith

happi said:


> not sure because i broke one of the gauge and the other one shows about 900psi. i guess i have broken the low pressure gauge.


Yes that is the important one you no longer have the use of. You can order one online for under $10.


----------



## Reginald2

Do you clean these the same way as a glass diffuser? How long does it take for it to get clogged up?


----------



## HypnoticAquatic

Green Leaf Aquariums said:


> I would not compare this to a reactor in any way, except for the fact they both get co2 into the tank.
> 
> One of the key advantages here are the savings in co2 gas. You can now use 50% less bubble counts on your regulator. This is a huge improvement over any reactor or glass diffuser.
> 
> For your 50g, I would use a 60mm diffuser.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Orlando


i dont know how u can get better than having a reactor because they should be 100% solubility unless im missing something this just looks like a much more efficient ceramic diffuser. i will be trying one out but im still wondering how its better than something that can diffuse with 100% efficiency


----------



## mostman

I'm using one of these on my new 55G. They really are amazing. I have the inline version - by the time the water leaves the outflow, there is very little evidence of the CO2 - just a very fine mist of super super micro bubbles. I've been able to reduce my bps by about 25 percent coming from a RS reactor. I think I can dial back even more - I'm still experimenting.


----------



## happi

HypnoticAquatic said:


> i dont know how u can get better than having a reactor because they should be 100% solubility unless im missing something this just looks like a much more efficient ceramic diffuser. i will be trying one out but im still wondering how its better than something that can diffuse with 100% efficiency



i think it will reduce the BPS requirement, right now am running 6-8bps in the reactor to get the job done. hopefully this diffuser will use less as mentioned in this post. if i do end up buying it then i will post the results.


----------



## happi

bsmith said:


> Yes that is the important one you no longer have the use of. You can order one online for under $10.


if you could post the link then that would be nice, because i haven't seen any under $10, but do i really need to have this?


----------



## happi

Green Leaf Aquariums said:


> I would not compare this to a reactor in any way, except for the fact they both get co2 into the tank.
> 
> One of the key advantages here are the savings in co2 gas. You can now use 50% less bubble counts on your regulator. This is a huge improvement over any reactor or glass diffuser.
> 
> For your 50g, I would use a 60mm diffuser.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Orlando


is there any reason you said go with the 60mm, 65mm is just couple dollar more and i always want something that will work best, i have seen that 65mm will work well for the 120g+ tanks. is it ok to use 65mm in 50g? the only thing could happen is more co2 if i go with this.


----------



## mostman

happi said:


> i think it will reduce the BPS requirement, right now am running 6-8bps in the reactor to get the job done. hopefully this diffuser will use less as mentioned in this post. if i do end up buying it then i will post the results.


If you get one - scale your bps WAY back to start. Orlando isn't joking when he says these things are efficient. Play it safe and then increase slowly. I went from 5 down to 1 and brought it back up to about 3.5 or so. I think 3 will be where I end up. 3.5 seems a tad yellow.


----------



## mcubed45

how is this saving you co2? 

bubble counters do NOT take into account line pressure. if you double your working pressure, each bubble now contains TWICE the amount of co2 (based on mass, which is what REALLY counts). if you were running at 4bps at 15 psi and went to 2bps at 30 psi you are using the SAME AMOUNT of CO2. 

physics ftw!

lol slick marketing though.

for useful data, please post an initial bps/psi and a new bps/psi that achieve the same drop checker color. then we can really analzye how much more efficient these are. i wouldn't doubt these are more efficient that traditional glass/ceramic diffusers but claiming that co2 consumption is halved b/c your bps was halved is false and misleading.


----------



## MrMoneybags

i think it looks awesome...smoky mist bubbles
i see a whole heapa fish being gassed

wish I was setting up another tank then I might consider one...but my reactor works good enough for me for now


----------



## mostman

mcubed45 said:


> how is this saving you co2?
> 
> bubble counters do NOT take into account line pressure. if you double your working pressure, each bubble now contains TWICE the amount of co2 (based on mass, which is what REALLY counts). if you were running at 4bps at 15 psi and went to 2bps at 30 psi you are using the SAME AMOUNT of CO2.
> 
> physics ftw!
> 
> lol slick marketing though.


I didn't increase my pressure. I was at 35psi 5bps on my reactor. I'm at 35psi 3.5bps on this diffuser. My CO2 ppm is HIGHER now than it was before - and I'm using less CO2.


----------



## mcubed45

mostman said:


> I didn't increase my pressure. I was at 35psi 5bps on my reactor. I'm at 35psi 3.5bps on this diffuser. My CO2 ppm is HIGHER now than it was before - and I'm using less CO2.


cool.

now that's useful info. obviously not the 50% reduction they're claiming.

most people have a working pressure well below 30psi (closer to 15psi) so it's important that they understand that when switching to one of these, the dramatic decrease in the bps needed doesn't equate directly to co2 saved. there's more math involved.


----------



## HypnoticAquatic

mostman said:


> I didn't increase my pressure. I was at 35psi 5bps on my reactor. I'm at 35psi 3.5bps on this diffuser. My CO2 ppm is HIGHER now than it was before - and I'm using less CO2.


 yes as its a much finner micron it will give u more smaller bubbles but it doesnt make you use less co2 when a reactor is 100% effecient period think about it if ur at 100% how can u make it better? its like comparing apples and oranges imo. yes this will do a much much better job of making more surface area for the co² to diffuse into the water but thats it nothing else to reduce your ammount of co² being used by your plants. unless im missing something?


----------



## mcubed45

HypnoticAquatic said:


> yes as its a much finner micron it will give u more smaller bubbles but it doesnt make you use less co2 when a reactor is 100% effecient period think about it if ur at 100% how can u make it better? its like comparing apples and oranges imo. yes this will do a much much better job of making more surface area for the co² to diffuse into the water but thats it nothing else to reduce your ammount of co² being used by your plants. unless im missing something?


nope, it isn't better than a reactor. this is why their video doesn't show the top of the tank where bubbles still escape to the surface.

advertising 50% co2 usage is very misleading and false. cutting your bps in half is not the same as using 50% less co2.

while i'm sure these are more efficient that cheapo glass/ceramics, the cost of upgrading your lines, fittings, etc. probably does not justify the marginal increase in efficiency if you've already got regular diffusers. 

it's a neat product, just nowhere near as revolutionary as they claim.


----------



## FDNY911

I Don't know much about Co2, but isn't 3.5 bps less Co2 than 5bps? Wouldn't that be saving you more Co2?? If the lesser amount of BPS is working as well as the higher isn't that more efficient thus saving Co2? Not trying to start anything just asking honestly.

How ever you guys keep saying its misleading and false without actually trying the product yourself, isn't that misleading and false if you have no actual scientific proof?


----------



## HypnoticAquatic

FDNY911 said:


> I Don't know much about Co2, but isn't 3.5 bps less Co2 than 5bps? Wouldn't that be saving you more Co2?? If the lesser amount of BPS is working as well as the higher isn't that more efficient thus saving Co2? Not trying to start anything just asking honestly.
> 
> How ever you guys keep saying its misleading and false without actually trying the product yourself, isn't that misleading and false if you have no actual scientific proof?


 it is saving co² but only if ur using something that isnt as efficient period, this isnt a 100% efficient when you can see the bubbles some are escaping and yes its probably minute but so is the cost of getting that little bit extra of co². what we are saying is misleading and false is the fact that a reactor that is 100% efficient can not have anything that will lessen the demand for co² to the tank unless your changing the amount of light plant load ext ext and that is MISLEADING period. its science there are laws on how things can and cant perform. i think orlandos stuff is very good im happy with my purchases and his customer service but that statement is MISLEADING to the novice.


----------



## mcubed45

FDNY911 said:


> I Don't know much about Co2, but isn't 3.5 bps less Co2 than 5bps? Wouldn't that be saving you more Co2?? If the lesser amount of BPS is working as well as the higher isn't that more efficient thus saving Co2? Not trying to start anything just asking honestly.
> 
> How ever you guys keep saying its misleading and false without actually trying the product yourself, isn't that misleading and false if you have no actual scientific proof?


their site claims a 50% reduction in co2 usage when compared to regular diffusers. they base this claim on the fact that your necessary bps rate is halved using their product. MOST people use a working pressure in the 10-15 psi ballpark for their diffusers. obviously the 30psi required by the GLA diffusers is quite a bit higher. this makes any bps readings quite irrelevant.

if their diffusers truly cut your co2 consumption in half, then it might be worth upgrading. but for people that are using regular diffusers, the cost of a new diffuser, lines, and fittings will take YEARS to be offset by co2 savings. people will be sorely disappointed when their co2 bottles aren't lasting twice as long after switching. based on posts here and other forums, it seems like quite a few are dropping the cash to "upgrade" their systems without realizing how limited their results will be.

i don't think i need to try their product to prove boyle's law. it's basic physics.

PV=nRT

R & T are fixed so we're only concerned with P,V, & n:

PV=n

GLA is claiming that a 50% reduction in bps (V) equates to a 50% reduction in co2 consumption . this ignores the fact that to achieve this you also probably nearly DOUBLED your pressure (P).


----------



## Greg Stephens

Green Leaf Aquariums said:


> I would not compare this to a reactor in any way, except for the fact they both get co2 into the tank.
> 
> One of the key advantages here are the savings in co2 gas. You can now use 50% less bubble counts on your regulator. This is a huge improvement over any reactor or glass diffuser.
> 
> For your 50g, I would use a 60mm diffuser.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Orlando


This product looks pretty cool.
Aqua Medic had a similar product.
I am interested in your thought's over how this in tank co2 permeable tubing is more efficient than an inline reactor where if running correctly you loose 
no gas or little gas through bubbles or micro bubbles reaching the surface of the tank? 

Very cool design!


----------



## Gatekeeper

If your using a pH regulator, I don't see why a few extra mm of diffuser is going to make that much of a difference. Just up the working pressure a bit more and let the regulator do its job.

So looking at this ceramic diffuser, I just don't understand why its so much different than something you can buy in petco. I understand that its not, and forgive me if I come off a bit cross, but I have a few questions.

You claim 50% savings, I find that a bit arbitrary. What supporting information do you have for such a claim? Someone new to the hobby would be easily roped by the word "savings" and I find it a bit over reached. 

How long do they last? Will they eventually break down in the tank?

Do they require periodic cleaning?

Where are they manufactured and by who?

How firm or rigid is the connection between the diffuser wand and what looks like plastic end caps??


----------



## Seattle_Aquarist

Hi Gatekeeper,

It appears to be manufactured in China by a company called Intense. I found this location in Hong Kong selling them. It can be found marketed on foreign websites as the Intense CO2 Bazooka.

Since the product is ceramic, and it used in the aquarium, I suspect the same issues we see with other ceramic products such as algae and periodic cleaning; hopefully the plastic components can handle bleach or H2O2. Looking forward to the responses to your questions.


----------



## Jeff5614

FWIW, I've been using one of the similar in-tank diffusers that AFA sells in my 75 for a few weeks now. So far I'm as happy, if not happier, with it than the ADA pollen glass it replaced from a performance standpoint. Yes, I'm running a lower bubble count at a higher pressure than with the glass diffuser. I don't know if that means I'm using the same amount of CO2 due to the higher pressure even though at a lower bubble count nor do I really care. What concerns me is how are the plants and fish doing and all are doing well. 

It does put out a much finer mist which seems to me would increase dissolution but what I like the most is that the finer mist is much more easily distributed throughout the tank. Comparing diffusers and reactors is a bit of an apples and oranges comparison. Dissolution of CO2 shouldn't be the big concern with a diffuser. If that's what you're after then use a reactor. With a diffuser your concern should be getting the mist directed throughout the tank so that the tiny CO2 bubbles come into direct contact with the plants.


----------



## bsmith

Bubble rate is bubble rate regardless of working pressure.


----------



## bill321

I am confused as to what folks are saying about a higher working pressure and how it is misleading on using less CO2. 

How does the pressure of the CO2 coming through needle valve have anything to do with the amount of CO2 in the bubble that is created?

Wouldn't the "mass" of the CO2 in that bubble be the same if it were created using 15psi or 30psi? I would think that it would just take less time to create a bubble of CO2 using 30psi but the "amount" of CO2 in the bubble is the same.

And if that is the case....then going from 6bps to 3bps would save on CO2...right? Or am I missing something?

OR...is it that a bubble created using 30psi is twice as big (volume wise) as a bubble created using 15psi? If that is the case....then I can see where you wouldn't be saving anything.


I don't know....anybody out there with a degree in physics? 


Bill321


----------



## bsmith

bill321 said:


> I am confused as to what folks are saying about a higher working pressure and how it is misleading on using less CO2.
> 
> How does the pressure of the CO2 coming through needle valve have anything to do with the amount of CO2 in the bubble that is created?
> 
> Wouldn't the "mass" of the CO2 in that bubble be the same if it were created using 15psi or 30psi? I would think that it would just take less time to create a bubble of CO2 using 30psi but the "amount" of CO2 in the bubble is the same.
> 
> And if that is the case....then going from 6bps to 3bps would save on CO2...right? Or am I missing something?
> 
> OR...is it that a bubble created using 30psi is twice as big (volume wise) as a bubble created using 15psi? If that is the case....then I can see where you wouldn't be saving anything.
> 
> 
> I don't know....anybody out there with a degree in physics?
> 
> 
> Bill321


No physics degree but like said before, bubble rate us bubble rate.


----------



## ozanter

This kinda looks like the new archea diffuser that was introduced in AFA last month.


----------



## mostman

These conversations about reduced rate are missing my point from my post earlier. My working pressure is unchanged. I have turned DOWN my CO2 rate. My CO2 ppm is higher than before. Ive been measuring it not only with the drop checker - but against a ph/kh chart. I'm using less CO2 for better results. That, to me, would indicate that this diffuser is at least as efficient and likely more so, than my RS reactor.


----------



## Gatekeeper

Correction to my post, Bsmith is correct in saying bubble rate is the controlling factor which is established by the needle valve (or whatever you fancy techy people are using these days).

The working pressure is only what is set from the main regulator coming off the tank. I have had to adjust this many times before to get a better (or stable) delivery to my needle valve.  


That said, I still stand by all my other points and questions. Thanks for some of the answers Seattle.


----------



## Gatekeeper

mostman said:


> These conversations about reduced rate are missing my point from my post earlier. My working pressure is unchanged. I have turned DOWN my CO2 rate. My CO2 ppm is higher than before. Ive been measuring it not only with the drop checker - but against a ph/kh chart. I'm using less CO2 for better results. That, to me, would indicate that this diffuser is at least as efficient and likely more so, than my RS reactor.


Good to hear.


----------



## mcubed45

bsmith said:


> Bubble rate is bubble rate regardless of working pressure.


No it's not. Physics does not work that way.

PV=nRT

for a given mass of gas, pressure and volume are inversely related.

in other words, when you double you pressure, the same quantity of CO2 now takes up HALF as much space. this translates to HALF as many bubbles.

Using 4 bubbles of CO2 at 15 psi is THE SAME as using 2 bubbles of CO2 at 30 psi.

think about it. do you buy CO2 based on weight (which correlates to mass) or by volume? If I offered to trade you 1000 cubic feet of CO2 for your tiny little 10lb cylinder, you'd look pretty silly if you didn't find out what psi I was talking about. a room full of CO2 at atmospheric pressure has wayyyyyy less CO2 than a tiny pressurized tank. 

can someone with a basic understanding of physics and chemistry please chime in?


----------



## bsmith

I have been thinking about that since my initial posts. My first thought was that since the fluid in my dc didn't become half the volume it was at twice the working pressure then why would bubbles be any different. Then I remembers that fluids don't behave like gasses at varying pressures (you cannot compress water). 

I'm going to have to agree with your assumption. Now we need someone who knows about fluid dynamics. Anyone?


----------



## mcubed45

bill321 said:


> I am confused as to what folks are saying about a higher working pressure and how it is misleading on using less CO2.
> 
> How does the pressure of the CO2 coming through needle valve have anything to do with the amount of CO2 in the bubble that is created?
> 
> Wouldn't the "mass" of the CO2 in that bubble be the same if it were created using 15psi or 30psi? I would think that it would just take less time to create a bubble of CO2 using 30psi but the "amount" of CO2 in the bubble is the same.
> 
> And if that is the case....then going from 6bps to 3bps would save on CO2...right? Or am I missing something?
> 
> OR...is it that a bubble created using 30psi is twice as big (volume wise) as a bubble created using 15psi? If that is the case....then I can see where you wouldn't be saving anything.
> 
> 
> I don't know....anybody out there with a degree in physics?
> 
> 
> Bill321


mm it's the other way around. a 1lb bubble at 30 psi takes up half as much SPACE as a 1lb bubble at 15 psi. since we're talking about same size bubbles in the bubble counter, think of it as a 1lb bubble at 30 psi vs two 0.5 lb bubbles at 15 psi. they're the same even though two bubbles LOOKS like more. going from 2 bubbles at 15 psi to 1 bubble at 30 psi makes people think they're saving co2, but they're using the same amount. the thing we really care about is the mass or weight of co2 used. volume doesn't tell us too much.

when your pressure increases, the gas becomes more dense. think of it as more gas is shoved into the same space because of the high pressure. those bubbles at at 30 psi are twice as potent as those bubbles at 15 psi.

bubble counters are only useful for giving you a reference for your specific system as you titrate up or down. they do not give you an accurate idea of co2 consumption by any means. the only way to measure your co2 consumption is to weigh your bottle using a precise balance or scale at intervals over time.

**NOTE**
this discussion is only about bubbles in the BUBBLE COUNTER. i'm not referring at all to bubble size or the quantity of bubbles leaving the diffuser. i'm not sure if that's where some of the confusion is coming from.


----------



## mcubed45

bsmith said:


> I have been thinking about that since my initial posts. My first thought was that since the fluid in my dc didn't become half the volume it was at twice the working pressure then why would bubbles be any different. Then I remembers that fluids don't behave like gasses at varying pressures (you cannot compress water).
> 
> I'm going to have to agree with your assumption. Now we need someone who knows about fluid dynamics. Anyone?


it took me awhile to figure out what was bugging me about GLA's statements about co2 consumption too. for most people it makes perfect sense that bubble rate would correlate to co2 consumption. i'm just curious whether GLA overlooked this fact or is intentionally distorting information for marketing. i've posted on their forums to see how they respond.


----------



## happi

Jeff5614 said:


> FWIW, I've been using one of the similar in-tank diffusers that AFA sells in my 75 for a few weeks now. So far I'm as happy, if not happier, with it than the ADA pollen glass it replaced from a performance standpoint. Yes, I'm running a lower bubble count at a higher pressure than with the glass diffuser. I don't know if that means I'm using the same amount of CO2 due to the higher pressure even though at a lower bubble count nor do I really care. What concerns me is how are the plants and fish doing and all are doing well.
> 
> It does put out a much finer mist which seems to me would increase dissolution but what I like the most is that the finer mist is much more easily distributed throughout the tank. Comparing diffusers and reactors is a bit of an apples and oranges comparison. Dissolution of CO2 shouldn't be the big concern with a diffuser. If that's what you're after then use a reactor. With a diffuser your concern should be getting the mist directed throughout the tank so that the tiny CO2 bubbles come into direct contact with the plants.


+1 on your post

i also think that mist type co2 could get to the plants easily and it will go all over the place in the tank.


----------



## photogdude

you people just made my head explode


----------



## herns

There are some HK sellers in Ebay that sells almost the same product with much lesser price. I just cant tell the difference.


----------



## Reginald2

This is an interesting thread. I'm not wholly convinced that everyone runs at 10-15 psi though. I know that Orlando sells regulators, I'm not sure what they come in dialed in as/what he recommends for a working psi. It seems that matter was completely settled even though people were saying that it was not their case based on experience.

I would really like to know how these things hold up over time and bleaching. The video makes it look like one of those limewood diffusers (or whatever they are, the wood ones). I've always thought they were awesome and wished they would last longer. I'm about to set up a larger tank (40 gallons) and am working through how I want to inject co2. I haven't really decided, but this thread has been an interesting read.


----------



## Captivate05

mcubed45 said:


> mm it's the other way around. a 1lb bubble at 30 psi takes up half as much SPACE as a 1lb bubble at 15 psi. since we're talking about same size bubbles in the bubble counter, think of it as a 1lb bubble at 30 psi vs two 0.5 lb bubbles at 15 psi. they're the same even though two bubbles LOOKS like more. going from 2 bubbles at 15 psi to 1 bubble at 30 psi makes people think they're saving co2, but they're using the same amount. the thing we really care about is the mass or weight of co2 used. volume doesn't tell us too much.
> 
> when your pressure increases, the gas becomes more dense. think of it as more gas is shoved into the same space because of the high pressure. those bubbles at at 30 psi are twice as potent as those bubbles at 15 psi.
> 
> bubble counters are only useful for giving you a reference for your specific system as you titrate up or down. they do not give you an accurate idea of co2 consumption by any means. the only way to measure your co2 consumption is to weigh your bottle using a precise balance or scale at intervals over time.
> 
> **NOTE**
> this discussion is only about bubbles in the BUBBLE COUNTER. i'm not referring at all to bubble size or the quantity of bubbles leaving the diffuser. i'm not sure if that's where some of the confusion is coming from.


Thank you for spelling this out!

There is no way you can reverse physics in this application. You can't dissolve more co2 than you're injecting into the tank.


----------



## MrMoneybags

Seattle_Aquarist said:


> It appears to be manufactured in China by a company called Intense. I found this location in Hong Kong selling them. It can be found marketed on foreign websites as the Intense CO2 Bazooka.





herns said:


> There are some HK sellers in Ebay that sells almost the same product with much lesser price. I just cant tell the difference.


shhhhhutuuuuuuup!!:icon_wink
you can "generally" find/buy a lot of the products under a different name, China direct for like 1/5 of the price >_<
/troll

i didnt think this discussion was that complicated

and I dont think he is lying...it would seem to me that he is relating the performance of this "ultra-fine" diffuser to the standard diffuser

there should be a significant increase in dissolution efficiency of these "specialty" diffusers to the standard (read crap) glass/ceramic diffusers because of the exponential increase in surface area

...he specifically said he wasnt gonna compare this to a reactor (which I prefer because I dont like misting, and I prefer an equipment-free tank) so I respect that

each method of diffusing CO2 has its + and -'s just weigh them and decide for yourself


----------



## ukamikazu

Hi everybody. I just answered this on another forum and that information hasn't bled over hear yet so I'll just paste my response from there.

If I may, the equation pV=nRT is merely an expression of the Ideal Gas Law where p is the absolute pressure of the gas; V is the volume; n is the amount of substance; R is the Regnault constant (8.314472 J·K−1·mol−1), better known as universal gas constant; and T is the absolute temperature. While true and relevant, it based on the ideal behavior of an ideal gas it neglects both molecular size and intermolecular attractions, the ideal gas law is most accurate for monatomic gases at high temperatures and low pressures. This is not our application.

What you have misinterpreted is that 30 PSI describes the pressure of the gas in the regulator only (for this example think force, like voltage. Work with me here...) The objective being smaller bubbles requires more force (PSI like voltage) because we are forcing them through a smaller aperture or diffuser (circuit). Now, those bubbles can only form, exit and remain the size that they are because when they exit into the water, they must be at the same pressure of the water (like resistance). This is an example of both Boyle's law and the combined gas law at work, mostly Boyle's. 

Also, the gas is leaving through a vary narrow opening, the needle valve and air hose which itself must contend with the water pressure at the other end, but the point is it is moving but only because it has a high "voltage" or the 30 PSI required to operate it and make the tiny bubbles, but is limited by its own movement through the hose and needle valve, the "amperage" of our "circuit" though ultimately exiting the diffuser at the same pressure of the water in the aquarium which it must. The trick here, is the gas is *moving and exiting* the system. Boyle's law unfortunately only gives us a look at a closed system for sake of illustration, but it is close in this instance and I don't feel like going off on too long of a tangent on gas physics to get the rest. All of this can be googled easily.

What's happened is some of you misapplied the incorrect principle. Also, unless one has somehow lowered the density of water you will ultimately use less CO2 because you're merely changing force (PSI) to drive the process not the density of the gas itself which is leaving the system from the regulator and cannot be at any higher density or pressure than what the volume of the aquarium water dictates depending on the depth of the diffuser in the aquarium.

So, yes you are using less CO2. PSI is only a description of the force required to push the same amount of gas through the line and into the diffuser and finally out to the water column.

To also quote my colleague Fergy1 as a response to that post on another forum:


fergy1 said:


> Ah, and therein is probably where the efficiency is being seen...it's taking a higher pressure to drive the gas through the ceramic. As it comes through the ceramic, it's "expanding" to twice the volume of gas once it encounters the same relative pressure in the water as the conventional diffuser, and so requires less gas in the long run to achieve the same CO2 volume in the water.


Additionally Fergy reminds us:


fergy1 said:


> Wait, I think I/we missed one other important point here. The new diffusers require higher pressure because they have a smaller pore size, meaning for the given volume of gas, the bubbles are smaller, meaning there is more surface area for the same volume. That's probably the most important part of all of this, because it means more CO2 is dissolved into the water.


Fergy is brilliant with more elegant, concise summations than I am. But yes it is all physics, but you have to apply the correct theorems and laws to get at the correct answer :wink:.

I hope that clarifies things for everyone.

Key googlable terms: Boyle's Law, Combined Gas Law, Pressure, Ideal Gas Law

...yes, I know I partially plagiarized because someone else said it better but I do recall enough of my high school science to piece this out correctly and apply it directly.


----------



## odie

All I can say I agree it makes sense.....*but my head exploded*!!!


----------



## Clare12345

Hooray for heads exploding! I love that. Thanks for the great info! I learned something!


----------



## Reginald2

So, the line would hold some pressure, but it wouldn't be whatever the pressure is at the regulator? I think I got confused because of nitrogen charts (I'm a diver), where Atmospheres double the air you're sucking. I guess it makes sense though that the CO2 is leaving the system and the pressure would vary. If these diffuser require more pressure to get through the system, it stands to reason the lines are operating under greater pressure, but without measuring it... Also, I'm used to these calculations with gasses that you can pressurize the crap out of without them liquifying. I don't really know how that affects CO2 at lower pressure

The lines are pressurized though, due to the resistance of the diffuser. I've popped a line off before and been greeted with a squirt from the bubble counter. I don't think I follow the electricity analogy, because voltage is supply not force. I think I get what your driving at though.


----------



## ukamikazu

Reginald2 said:


> So, the line would hold some pressure, but it wouldn't be whatever the pressure is at the regulator? I think I got confused because of nitrogen charts (I'm a diver), where Atmospheres double the air you're sucking. I guess it makes sense though that the CO2 is leaving the system and the pressure would vary. If these diffuser require more pressure to get through the system, it stands to reason the lines are operating under greater pressure, but without measuring it... Also, I'm used to these calculations with gasses that you can pressurize the crap out of without them liquifying. I don't really know how that affects CO2 at lower pressure
> 
> The lines are pressurized though, due to the resistance of the diffuser. I've popped a line off before and been greeted with a squirt from the bubble counter. I don't think I follow the electricity analogy, because voltage is supply not force. I think I get what your driving at though.


That's actually very good right there and illustrates why I bolded the words moving and exiting. You can only change a gas's density if you change the volume of its container and/or change its temperature dramatically. If the gas is exiting a system that isn't pressurized equally everywhere, the gas will not be uniformly denser. Think CO2 in the air versus CO2 in a cylinder. 

In your diving rig, you have equipment that keeps the line supplying you your air pressurized at virtually all points except for a small portion in your mouthpiece or diving mask, this is where it changes density such that it isn't over inflating your lungs but you aren't asphyxiating either nor being crushed by the ocean depths. I'm not a diver so I'm reaching here, forgive me for that :icon_redf. 

The only point in our CO2 systems where there is an increase in density is in that small portion of the regulator under the diaphragm, but because it isn't everywhere at all points pressurized equally the net increase in density of the gas is virtually zero and the water pressure at the end of the journey is not sufficient to increase it either. 

I used voltage because it relates somewhat similarly and a few aspects of gas physics do resemble a few other aspects of electricity, though those are few and a bit of a stretch but you get the idea. Voltage more akin to the throughput required to drive a current or 30 PSI being required to drive the less dense CO2 (once it leaves through the regulator and needle valve) through the tubing and out the tiny pores of the diffuser. The water would represent the resistance, our bubble counter telling us the current or amperage.


----------



## mcubed45

My reply at APE:

look at the delivery of natural gas to consumers. flow meters are never based strictly on volume. they are typically mass based, or volume based and factor in temperature and PRESSURE. these systems are also in constant flow like our CO2 systems, and line pressure is VERY relevant. we are obviously not talking about a closed system, but for all intents and purposes we ARE talking about a system in STEADY STATE. bubble counters are basically very, very simple volumetric flow meters and subject to the same caveats as any volumetric gas flow meter. if you're willing to buy your natural gas based strictly on volume, i've got a lovely bridge in brooklyn i'd like to sell you.

we are not concerned with the pressure of the gas leaving the diffuser or the force imposed by the aquarium water. we're concerned with the pressure in the line as it flows through the bubble counter. this pressure is necessarily higher when using GLA's new diffusers.

nothing in the real world is as simple as something like the ideal gas law, but it illustrates the important relation between pressure and volume of gases.


----------



## mcubed45

FYI on APE i've been given a warning by Orlando for questioning GLA's claims and my posts were removed from the discussion of the new diffiusers. can't really blame him since he has no other means of recourse.

Ukamikazu, i look forward to your reply as you seem to have a solid scientific background. Orlando clearly has no idea what we're talking about.


----------



## happi

once i receive this diffuser i will post the results here. i will make sure that i don't change the PSI, i will compare the difference between RS reactor vs this one.


----------



## Green Leaf Aquariums

mcubed45 said:


> FYI on APE i've been given a warning by Orlando for questioning GLA's claims and my posts were removed from the discussion of the new diffiusers. can't really blame him since he has no other means of recourse.
> 
> Ukamikazu, i look forward to your reply as you seem to have a solid scientific background. Orlando clearly has no idea what we're talking about.



I have no scientific back ground, never claimed to either. I represent the folks who speak in a language we all can understand with having anybody's head explode. 
*
Because this guy has a working pressure of 50psi he has to refill twice as much? You have got to be kidding me here right?*










Your post were simply moved to your own thread, not removed My suspicion is you have no idea what your trying to say. Hence your tone.. Have a Happy New year!


----------



## odie

Orlando well said and you will be seeing an order from me shortly for the larger inline that we talked about via email.


----------



## mcubed45

*Orlando:* please stop and just let me, Ukamikazu and Fergy talk. You've already moved my posts far away from your advertising thread so you can stop worrying about our discussion hurting your sales. I don't want to have to explain all the physics to you. Every post you make is an argument based on faulty misconceptions. Most people wouldn't try to argue about something they don't understand and would instead spend their time trying to learn more before speaking. I understand you have vested interest in your business/products, but it's obvious you are not open to hear what I have to say. You clearly have no desire to learn more about gas physics so I'm done trying to teach you. 

----------------------------------------------------------------

*Ukamikazu*: I think the main thing we disagree on is the pressure in the line when the system is active and in constant flow. I agree with the fact that the setting on the low pressure gauge may not accurately reflect the pressure in the line at the bubble counter. Rather, the regulator works by setting a max cutoff. When the line reaches a pressure above the setting, the diaphragm rises and cuts off the flow. What happens when the pressure is below the set pressure is a bit less clear. My thinking is the poppet valve works more as a regular flow valve as the knob is turned and spring tension increases. Therefore unless you have sufficient resistance in your system, your line pressure isn't really increasing that much, it's mostly flow. I think this is what you were trying to get at when talking about the force of the aquarium water etc. You can only apply as much force/psi as can be returned. And you're right that there is definitely a pressure gradient as you move further down the line, but bubble counters are typically pretty close the regulator (if not built into it) so the drop from low-pressure gauge to bubble counter can't be THAT much.

But the thing that's important to remember is that diffusers have a MINIMUM working pressure. Below this pressure they simply do not work. The line pressurizes to the psi set at the regulator and flow is then cut off. The system sits in stasis. Once the regulator setting is increased to achieve the diffuser's minimum working pressure, the line further pressurizes, and flow commences. However, it _is_ difficult to predict how the pressure in the line changes as the adjustment knob on the regulator is turned and further opens the poppet valve. I would imagine as you further raise your psi above the minimum working pressure, you see a steeper and steeper pressure gradient and a very minimal effect on gas compression. This is why people running high pressures and regular diffusers don't need to worry too much about how their bubble counter readings are affected.

But it's clear by GLA's own statements these new diffusers have a higher minimum working pressure. And while there are probably differences between the minimum starting pressure and minimum working pressure (as evidenced by the need to "kick start" some diffusers), I think it's pretty safe to conclude that the minimum working pressure of GLA's new diffusers is higher than regular ones. This necessitates that the density of CO2 flowing through a bubble counter on a system using a regular diffusers is not the same as that of a system using GLA's new diffusers.


----------



## barbarossa4122

Interesting!


----------



## chad320

barbarossa4122 said:


> Interesting!


What is? I fail to see the point in a revolving conversation, taking one persons statements and rewording them to sound more detailed and intelligent. Or how they apply at all to the simplicity of a planted tank.


----------



## barbarossa4122

chad320 said:


> What is? I fail to see the point in a revolving conversation, taking one persons statements and rewording them to sound more detailed and intelligent. Or how they apply at all to the simplicity of a planted tank.


Hi chad320,

You are right and that, I find interesting.


----------



## chad320

barbarossa4122 said:


> Hi chad320,
> 
> You are right and that, I find interesting.


You, good sir, are right


----------



## hbosman

Since I don't know much about the science of gas under pressure, I find it interesting as well. It's ashame it's being discussed on a more "personal" manner though.


----------



## sajata

Forgetting the bps issue, a back of the envolope assesment makes me belive that the new is more efficent because of the size of the bubbels. I have never been able to get my standard difusers to atomize the co2 100% where 100% of the co2 goes into solution. Some gets to the surface as gas and then into the atmosphere. So any amount of co2 that gets lost to the atmosphere is waste. If that waste can be eliminated then the efficiency goes up. I am working on devising an.experiment as to demonstrate the efficiency of the new difuser one mine arrives.

Sent from my DROIDX


----------



## ukamikazu

Let's take a break for a few days and enjoy the holidays and the new year. These threads will always be here awaiting us. 

I am pleased though, you have all enjoyed the show thus far. 

Cube and I can continue our discussion perhaps in another place or time, even framing it in a brand new thread first as a Q&A between us and you the spectators and then from there as a gentlemanly debate after that or at least as reasonably and gentlemanly as the Internet and its interesting affects on human psyche will allow :smile:.

We should table this leg of the discussion and let happi's thread return to normal, I think.


----------



## chad320

Great discussion with too many negative overtones to make it a great thread. I agree with a new thread. All interested parties can post there.


----------



## mcubed45

ukamikazu said:


> Let's take a break for a few days and enjoy the holidays and the new year. These threads will always be here awaiting us.
> 
> I am pleased though, you have all enjoyed the show thus far.
> 
> Cube and I can continue our discussion perhaps in another place or time, even framing it in a brand new thread first as a Q&A between us and you the spectators and then from there as a gentlemanly debate after that or at least as reasonably and gentlemanly as the Internet and its interesting affects on human psyche will allow :smile:.
> 
> We should table this leg of the discussion and let bsmith's thread return to normal, I think.


/argreed

looking forward to talkin with you elsewhere


----------



## mcubed45

oh btw anyone interested in trying to get them to work with a DIY system? i'm not sure what a typical soda bottle cap is rated to handle. If it works with DIY it could greatly expand the usefulness of DIY. less yeast with similar saturation means longer run times and less bottle changes.


----------



## sajata

Ok as for the diy co2 question looks like the burst pressure of a soda bottle is 20 atmospheres or approximately 20*15=300psi. Here is avery cool article on how much co2 is in a soda bottle 
http://www.science-house.org/CO2/activities/co2/soda.html
Turns out .5 kg of co2 in a small soda bottle. I have seen this thread several times here but the real question is how much pressure could you generate with diy co2.




Sent from my DROIDX


----------



## mcubed45

sajata said:


> Ok as for the diy co2 question looks like the burst pressure of a soda bottle is 20 atmospheres or approximately 20*15=300psi. Here is avery cool article on how much co2 is in a soda bottle
> http://www.science-house.org/CO2/activities/co2/soda.html
> Turns out .5 kg of co2 in a small soda bottle. I have seen this thread several times here but the real question is how much pressure could you generate with diy co2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX


The issue has never been pressure generation, it's strictly about what your seals can handle. The only DIY systems which cannot operate a regular ceramic diffuser are leaky ones. People repeatedly argue anecdotally about how their perfectly sealed system failed to work, but it comes down to physics.

Yeast do not care what's at the end of the line. They also are not affected by changes in gas pressure. They produce CO2 (until they get too drunk and die) and it has to go somewhere. Either pressure increases until the minimum working pressure of the diffuser is reached, or the system starts to leak somewhere. 

The only barriers to using GLA's diffusers would be what your seals can handle. Since everything downstream from the bottle would be identical to a pressurized system, we're only concerned with the seals on the yeast bottle and the optional crap catching bottle.


----------



## sajata

So it sounds like it would work given the right plumbing. Yeast can generate it, bottle can take it, so as james bond said in quantum of solice "check your seals,you have a leak"

Sent from my DROIDX


----------



## mcubed45

sajata said:


> So it sounds like it would work given the right plumbing. Yeast can generate it, bottle can take it, so as james bond said in quantum of solice "check your seals,you have a leak"
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX


yep pretty much. 

it will prolly make more of a mess if you blow a seal tho


----------



## happi

i did not know that my thread would cause some arguments, but i did learn about the co2 PSI, which i did not know before, so i tried and increase the psi and co2 seems to work much better at low BPS rate.


----------



## Reginald2

I've diy'ed with glass diffusers before. If the seals are solid, you're good to go. I would suggest a liberal application of one way valves though, otherwise when you unscrew the bottles a lot of pressure gets released. I imagine some of the pressure from the diy gets dissolved back into the yeast/sugar mixture. I think that's how they carbonate beer.


----------



## mcubed45

happi said:


> i did not know that my thread would cause some arguments, but i did learn about the co2 PSI, which i did not know before, so i tried and increase the psi and co2 seems to work much better at low BPS rate.


sorry for the thread jack

i'll start a separate more coherent thread once i've straightened out some of the details with some physics/engineering guys. or maybe i'll talk to my anesthesia friends. they play with gases a lot. hehe



Reginald2 said:


> I've diy'ed with glass diffusers before. If the seals are solid, you're good to go. I would suggest a liberal application of one way valves though, otherwise when you unscrew the bottles a lot of pressure gets released. I imagine some of the pressure from the diy gets dissolved back into the yeast/sugar mixture. I think that's how they carbonate beer.


prolly a good idea also. it's also important to realize that it'll prolly take quite a bit longer for the system to first startup since a much higher working pressure is required. with standard diffusers it usually takes at least a couple hours. probably double that with GLA's new diffusers.


----------



## hgfx

mostman said:


> I didn't increase my pressure. I was at 35psi 5bps on my reactor. I'm at 35psi 3.5bps on this diffuser. My CO2 ppm is HIGHER now than it was before - and I'm using less CO2.


Am I missing something here?...

"In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not."
-- Lawrence Peter Berra


----------



## happi

ok i finally got the diffuser today, you got admit that its way better than glass diffuser, i was surprised by the size though, i was hoping that it would be big. anyway the diffuser create misty smoky co2 and am still testing it to see how much it will diffuse in the water.


----------



## mostman

hgfx said:


> Am I missing something here?...
> 
> "In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not."
> -- Lawrence Peter Berra


Lol. Exactly my point. I made it twice. And, still, the thread went on and on....

Let's see how things work out for Happi. My guess - he will be using less CO2


----------



## rich815

happi said:


> ok i finally got the diffuser today, you got admit that its way better than glass diffuser, i was surprised by the size though, i was hoping that it would be big. anyway the diffuser create misty smoky co2 and am still testing it to see how much it will diffuse in the water.


Pls report back in a couple of weeks, I've heard the ultra fine-ness of the mist starts to fade....


----------



## happi

rich815 said:


> Pls report back in a couple of weeks, I've heard the ultra fine-ness of the mist starts to fade....


i agree but we will see what happen in couple of weeks and then after i soak it in bleach to see if the mist is still the same.


----------



## mcubed45

mostman said:


> Lol. Exactly my point. I made it twice. And, still, the thread went on and on....
> 
> Let's see how things work out for Happi. My guess - he will be using less CO2


no one ever claimed the diffusers don't use less CO2 - just that less BPS doesn't translate into less CO2 consumption without factoring in line pressure and other aspects. it's hard to simplify the physics involved for everyone to understand. 

but the bottom line is that gas consumption cannot be measured strictly by volume. roud:

PM if you have questions. might be awhile before I have time to do a thorough writeup.

In the mean time, some easy reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_meter
http://www.dhinstruments.com/prod1/pdfs/app_notes/3406353_massFlow_app.pdf


----------



## Reginald2

happi said:


> i agree but we will see what happen in couple of weeks and then after i soak it in bleach to see if the mist is still the same.


I'm looking forward to your report. You could probably get away with making a review thread, so people could find it easier later.

...also pics


----------



## happi

Reginald2 said:


> I'm looking forward to your report. You could probably get away with making a review thread, so people could find it easier later.
> 
> ...also pics



yes i will make a new review thread, i just barely got the diffuser and its still under test, so far the difference i seen in one day is that drop checker shows lime green without fish being gasped, currently running at 1.5-2.0 BPS. 

again i still got allot more testing to do. i think the drop checker is lying this time.


----------



## oldpunk78

rich815 said:


> Pls report back in a couple of weeks, I've heard the ultra fine-ness of the mist starts to fade....


i'm sorry if i missed it somewhere but are you discussing the gla model or the ebay model? 

the gla model has only been available to us for a couple of weeks now and i don't understand how there could be reports of the fineness of the mist fading with time.


----------



## jkcrewsn

At the risk of alienating myself with the gla folks, I will put in my two cents. 

I bought a new Up Aqua inline diffuser from someone from the SnS section that was the 12/16 size. I also bought the gla inline diffuser (16/22 size) that showed up yesterday. I paid 23.00 shipped for the one from the member and 38.99 from gla plus 7.55 shipping/handling.

Aside from the hose barb size they are exactly the same thing. I mean exact. I expected the one for the 16/22 size hose to be bigger, but it is the same size as the one for the 12/16 hose. 

They are made by the same company, they have the same sticker on them. They are exactly the same. You can get the Up Aqua 16/22 from a Hong Kong seller on ebay for 17.00 plus 10.00 shipping.

I have nothing against gla, in fact I buy my dry fertilizers from them. However, I would have bought the one from ebay for less had I known they were the same item. 

I will say they are much better than the glass diffuser, the CO2 mist is just that, a super fine mist. It also keeps the tank "cleaner" with it being in-line. And I'm not even going to get into how much more or less CO2 I am using! I think they are a great diffuser. I hadn't heard about the mist getting "less fine", but I guess I will find out if that is the case.


----------



## barbarossa4122

Green Leaf Aquariums said:


> I have no scientific back ground, never claimed to either. I represent the folks who speak in a language we all can understand with having anybody's head explode.
> *
> Because this guy has a working pressure of 50psi he has to refill twice as much? You have got to be kidding me here right?*
> 
> Your post were simply moved to your own thread, not removed My suspicion is you have no idea what your trying to say. Hence your tone.. Have a Happy New year!


I ordered 3 last night and I am positive they will do what GLA claims they will. 
I'll report back with results.


----------



## herns

jkcrewsn said:


> They are made by the same company, they have the same sticker on them. They are exactly the same. You can get the Up Aqua 16/22 from a Hong Kong seller on ebay for 17.00 plus 10.00 shipping.
> 
> I have nothing against gla, in fact I buy my dry fertilizers from them. However, I would have bought the one from ebay for less had I known they were the same item.


How much working pressure do you have for this type of CO2 diffuser?
PM sent requesting Ebay link.


----------



## oldpunk78

jkcrewsn said:


> At the risk of alienating myself with the gla folks, I will put in my two cents.
> 
> I bought a new Up Aqua inline diffuser from someone from the SnS section that was the 12/16 size. I also bought the gla inline diffuser (16/22 size) that showed up yesterday. I paid 23.00 shipped for the one from the member and 38.99 from gla plus 7.55 shipping/handling.
> 
> Aside from the hose barb size they are exactly the same thing. I mean exact. I expected the one for the 16/22 size hose to be bigger, but it is the same size as the one for the 12/16 hose.
> 
> They are made by the same company, they have the same sticker on them. They are exactly the same. You can get the Up Aqua 16/22 from a Hong Kong seller on ebay for 17.00 plus 10.00 shipping.
> 
> I have nothing against gla, in fact I buy my dry fertilizers from them. However, I would have bought the one from ebay for less had I known they were the same item.
> 
> I will say they are much better than the glass diffuser, the CO2 mist is just that, a super fine mist. It also keeps the tank "cleaner" with it being in-line. And I'm not even going to get into how much more or less CO2 I am using! I think they are a great diffuser. I hadn't heard about the mist getting "less fine", but I guess I will find out if that is the case.


see post #68

New Atomic co2 diffuser! - Page 7 - APE - Aquatic Plant Enthusiasts | A Planted Aquarium Community


----------



## jkcrewsn

I didn't change my regulator settings. Not sure how the in-line model differs from the in-tank version as far as pressure settings go. Mine works fine with the same pressure I ran the glass diffusers at. It looks like it's 40psi. I'm still fiddling with the bubble rate to find the right setting on the needle valve.


----------



## jkcrewsn

oldpunk78 said:


> see post #68
> 
> New Atomic co2 diffuser! - Page 7 - APE - Aquatic Plant Enthusiasts | A Planted Aquarium Community


-Shrug- Not here to argue about it. If he says it's different, I take his word for it. They did come with the same sticker and the same suction cup clip.....maybe GLA specced a different stone inside...I don't know. I guess I will see if there is any difference in the long run between the Up Aqua and GLA's, since I have both running. Right now they both seem to work the same.


----------



## herns

There is also an in-tank version in ebay that looks like the one GLA carries. I'll keep an eye on reviews for both in-line and in-tank CO2 diffusers from GLA.


----------



## Sluwp

Green Leaf Aquariums said:


> I have no scientific back ground, never claimed to either. I represent the folks who speak in a language we all can understand with having anybody's head explode.
> *
> Because this guy has a working pressure of 50psi he has to refill twice as much? You have got to be kidding me here right?*


GLA I used to really appreciate your posts but I've to say that you really disappointed me on that one by acting with such a bad faith.

mcubed never said or implied that having twice the working pressure means that your CO2 will deplete twice faster... Did you read his posts ? 

What he said is perfectly true by the way, it doesn't mean those CO2 diffusers are bad or good so I don't get why you're over reacting like that instead of clarifying some points.


----------



## Jeff5614

Sluwp said:


> GLA I used to really appreciate your posts but I've to say that you really disappointed me on that one by acting with such a bad faith.
> 
> mcubed never said or implied that having twice the working pressure means that your CO2 will deplete twice faster... Did you read his posts ?
> 
> What he said is perfectly true by the way, it doesn't mean those CO2 diffusers are bad or good so I don't get why you're over reacting like that instead of clarifying some points.


Nothing like a good get to know you first post, lol.


----------



## ukamikazu

My head hurts, now :frown:.


----------



## barbarossa4122

Sluwp said:


> GLA I used to really appreciate your posts but I've to say that you really disappointed me on that one by acting with such a bad faith.
> 
> mcubed never said or implied that having twice the working pressure means that your CO2 will deplete twice faster... Did you read his posts ?
> 
> What he said is perfectly true by the way, it doesn't mean those CO2 diffusers are bad or good so I don't get why you're over reacting like that instead of clarifying some points.


Hi,

Some of us like and appreciate the work GLA is doing to help folks in this hobby. Also their products and costumer service are second to none, imo.


----------



## FDNY911

Jeff5614 said:


> Nothing like a good get to know you first post, lol.


Not for nothing Jeff but this debate or what ever you want to call it, with some people saying a few nasty comments, went on for a bit without Orlando responding until I believe he felt, it got out of hand. So to say he over reacted is a little bit over the top. He didn't insult anyone, as a matter of fact some people have been kind of rude in the manner they went about trying to prove him wrong on his claims of this particular product. If you disagree with him or his products thats one thing but to bad mouth people, if you ask me, thats over reacting.


----------



## odie

FDNY911 said:


> Not for nothing Jeff but this debate or what ever you want to call it, with some people saying a few nasty comments, went on for a bit without Orlando responding until I believe he felt, it got out of hand. So to say he over reacted is a little bit over the top. He didn't insult anyone, as a matter of fact some people have been kind of rude in the manner they went about trying to prove him wrong on his claims of this particular product. If you disagree with him or his products thats one thing but to bad mouth people, if you ask me, thats over reacting.


Yes I couldn't agree more!


----------



## mcubed45

FDNY911 said:


> Not for nothing Jeff but this debate or what ever you want to call it, with some people saying a few nasty comments, went on for a bit without Orlando responding until I believe he felt, it got out of hand. So to say he over reacted is a little bit over the top. He didn't insult anyone, as a matter of fact some people have been kind of rude in the manner they went about trying to prove him wrong on his claims of this particular product. If you disagree with him or his products thats one thing but to bad mouth people, if you ask me, thats over reacting.


Oh the nastiness from BOTH sides was over at APE. Only a couple excerpts got reposted here. It was a pretty cyclical argument of physics vs anecodotal experiences. But Orlando deleted the thread and banned me & my IP. 

What's more interesting is that he also removed the statements I was objecting to from GLA's website. The rewrite is subtle but it no longer claims that going from 5-6 bps to 1-2 bps equates to 50% less CO2 usage. So that settles that.


----------



## Zareth

mcubed45 said:


> Oh the nastiness from BOTH sides was over at APE. Only a couple excerpts got reposted here. It was a pretty cyclical argument of physics vs * anecodotal experiences*. But Orlando deleted the thread and banned me & my IP.
> 
> *What's more interesting is that he also removed the statements I was objecting to from GLA's website.* The rewrite is subtle but it no longer claims that going from 5-6 bps to 1-2 bps equates to 50% less CO2 usage. So that settles that.


Okay so you win, you don't need to point it out to the world. Unless of course you're that kind of person. 
I read the last 3 pages of this thread and you either made anecdotal statements yourself, or back pedaled when your Wikipedia plagiarism wouldn't prove you right. If anything you said made sense it was because the person you were arguing with said it before you and you managed to make it sound like that was your point, and then you want to get on here and call him out for changing the very thing you were arguing for? 
Bravo.

Anyway. I guess I'll go ahead and show the forum where you try to find food for your feud. 
Mcubed on a physics forum


----------



## mcubed45

Zareth said:


> Anyway. I guess I'll go ahead and show the forum where you try to find food for your feud.
> Mcubed on a physics forum


People had questions so I consulted the experts. What's wrong with that? 

The wikipedia citations were used b/c the language is a lot simpler and usually more accessible for the average person. I could cite my engineering texts but I doubt it'd make much sense to anyone.

The discussion wasn't getting anywhere here and on APE b/c of the lack of a scientific background of many posters. I invited Ukamikazu to participate in the discussion at Physics Forums so we could talk about the physics without having to deal with all the drama here. He raised some valid points that I tried to address. My original statement still holds. If anyone would care to participate in the discussion at Physics Forums they're more than welcome. It's hard to have a serious discussion when one side has a vested interest in the outcome. 

Personally, I could care less if I was wrong because that means I learned something new about gas physics. I _do_ care that people have correct information though. Misinformation is a serious pet peeve of mine. I realize that makes me come off as a [email protected] a lot of the time though. My apologies.


----------



## Sluwp

barbarossa4122 said:


> Hi,
> 
> Some of us like and appreciate the work GLA is doing to help folks in this hobby. Also their products and costumer service are second to none, imo.


I totally agree, and that's especially why his post disappointed me, this is not the kind of answer I'm used to with GLA. 



> Not for nothing Jeff but this debate or what ever you want to call it, with some people saying a few nasty comments, went on for a bit without Orlando responding until I believe he felt, it got out of hand. So to say he over reacted is a little bit over the top. He didn't insult anyone, as a matter of fact some people have been kind of rude in the manner they went about trying to prove him wrong on his claims of this particular product. If you disagree with him or his products thats one thing but to bad mouth people, if you ask me, thats over reacting.


Mcubed raised a very valid point that many people aren't aware off. That's the goal of a forum, to share and learn things. 
So wondering if GLA thought about that fact in their claims is a relevant question. Mcubed even said that these diffusers are probably better than others since the bubbles are finer, so we can't say he's an angry customer trying to ruin GLA business or whatever.. 

In the other hand GLA is the one that tried to make mcubed look like a clown by implying he said some stupid things he never said, that's not what I call an honest behavior. Deleting or moving his posts from the official product thread isn't a nice things neither, considering GLA didn't post any real answer to Mcubed's questions. 

Last thing, the messages from some members clearly show that they lack some scientific background (like saying bps is bps). The problem is that some are taking things too personally. I don't get why, hopefully not everyone has a physic degree otherwise this world would be boring.


----------



## MrMoneybags

...all of this nastiness and name calling was so unneeded and STILL didnt definitively answer the question in the end...all either of you have done (GLA included) is make enemies out of the other for no real benefit

my understanding of this is that the pressure would be constant throughout the line-->diffuser (meaning there is a terminal/activation pressure needed to make a diffuser work, if the pressure dropped throughout the line, the diffuser would stop and the line would have to be repressurized to reach that activation point again [which may actually be happening but its so fast that its negligible])

if P1 (10psi)< P2 (30psi) and P=nRT/V (tho Im not sure CO2 is an ideal gas, but i "think" all gases behave like ideal gases)

bubble sizes (volumes) dont change, R and T are constants...so n (the mols of CO2 in each bubble) must increase to accommodate the increased working pressure of P2
so...turning down the bubble count means nothing as youre applying fewer, higher concentrated bubbles of CO2
...BUT because the surface area increases significantly, so youre applying it ina more effective manner
hence....LESS CO2 consumption is needed for the same results

the result: YOURE BOTH RIGHT!
(I hate when people cant see that)


but in all honesty...how long will it take to _really_ save money for a gas that is relatively cheap to begin with? like I said before...if I was setting up a new tank...Id consider it...but since I have a system that works well

thanks, but no thanks


----------



## Gatekeeper

All points have been made I believe and we can let the readers decide at this point. I am leaving all statements made at this point.

Lets just keep it civil folks. Debate is good, especially for new materials on the market. I for one will give this a try when I set up a new tank.


----------



## UDGags

> tho Im not sure CO2 is an ideal gas, but i "think" all gases behave like ideal gases)


No, it is not and most gases are not ideal.


----------



## Sluwp

MrMoneybags said:


> ...all of this nastiness and name calling was so unneeded and STILL didnt definitively answer the question in the end...all either of you have done (GLA included) is make enemies out of the other for no real benefit
> 
> my understanding of this is that the pressure would be constant throughout the line-->diffuser (meaning there is a terminal/activation pressure needed to make a diffuser work, if the pressure dropped throughout the line, the diffuser would stop and the line would have to be repressurized to reach that activation point again [which may actually be happening but its so fast that its negligible])
> 
> if P1 (10psi)< P2 (30psi) and P=nRT/V (tho Im not sure CO2 is an ideal gas, but i "think" all gases behave like ideal gases)
> 
> bubble sizes (volumes) dont change, R and T are constants...so n (the mols of CO2 in each bubble) must increase to accommodate the increased working pressure of P2
> so...turning down the bubble count means nothing as youre applying fewer, higher concentrated bubbles of CO2
> ...BUT because the surface area increases significantly, so youre applying it ina more effective manner
> hence....LESS CO2 consumption is needed for the same results
> 
> but in all honesty...how long will it take to _really_ save money for a gas that is relatively cheap to begin with? like I said before...if I was setting up a new tank...Id consider it...but since I have a system that works well
> 
> thanks, but no thanks


That's exactly what Mcubed said and I'm glad to see someone else confirming that. I think Mcubed decided to post in this thread because he felt some people (and maybe including GLA) believed that a 50% bps decrease means a 50% decrease of the CO2 consumption as well, without taking in account the increased working pressure needed for that diffuser. We can't blame those people because it sounds logic to assume that a bubble is a bubble even it's actually not true. So he made a very interesting point. 

What really surprised me is the way GLA answered especially since Mcubed always said in his posts that it didn't mean those diffusers wouldn't use less CO2 or would be bad. 



UDGags said:


> No, it is not and most gases are not ideal.


Ideal gas is more about a thermodynamic model which is kind of true for a lot of gases in specific conditions than a real gas. It's all about approximation. What really matters is that in this particular scenario where we are talking about CO2 at low pressure and at normal temperature PV=nRT is perfectly applicable/usable.


----------



## Jim Miller

UDGags said:


> No, it is not and most gases are not ideal.


In what way does CO2 at 300K and nominally 1bar depart from PV=nRT?

regards

jim


----------



## sewingalot

Last opportunity we are going to give you here, folks. Not everyone will agree 100% of the time and let's let it at that. Keep it impersonal, and stay on topic of the diffuser or whatever you physics guys are discussing.


----------



## NJAquaBarren

How about those that own one just report their results over time.


----------



## chad320

Now im irritated. I read all of that, deciphered the physics and name calling without taking sides to go" Dang sweety, did you know a bubble can contain more gas if its under higher pressure?" Genius boys, absolutely genius.


----------



## Jim Miller

I actually like the idea that the extra working pressure is used to provide a finer mist. 30psi shouldn't be a problem from a tubing standpoint and if the mist is fine enough removes the need for mechanical devices to chop the co2 stream.

I'm ordering one to play with.

jim


----------



## oldpunk78

i have a silly question.

you can't pressurize water, right? what about bubble counting fluid?

anyway, if you have a pressurized line with gas passing through water in the middle of that line won't the bubble be in a non-pressurized state as it passed through the water? wouldn't that make the line pressure irrelevant to bubbles as they pass through the area of the line in which they counted?

sorry guys, i'm no physicist and i was just wondering...


----------



## MrMoneybags

you can pressurize water...ever heard of pressure washers 

you cant compress it...so the pressure from the regulator to the needle valve to the bubble counter to the diffuser is all constant...the water doesnt take less space at a higher pressure tho because it is incompressible


----------



## oldpunk78

MrMoneybags said:


> you can pressurize water...ever heard of pressure washers
> 
> you cant compress it...so the pressure from the regulator to the needle valve to the bubble counter to the diffuser is all constant...the water doesnt take less space at a higher pressure tho because it is incompressible


oh, you know what i meant...

i was just trying to understand the argument here. thanks for the clarification. :icon_smil


----------



## Zareth

There is plenty of air in water and air is compressible. I don't even know what bubble counter fluid is though.









Shouldnt the bubble expand as it rises? the pressure being supplied by the liquid decreases as depth decreases. Is pressure identical on both sides of the bubble counter? The only thing creating pressure post bubble counter is the diffuser. I don't get the logic that more pressure before the bubble counter creates a more compressed bubble either. Shouldn't the only pressure on the bubble be from the liquid in the counter? All of the resistance in this system is created by the bubble counter, the depth of the diffuser, and the resistance of the diffuser membrane. Without all of those things the pressure would be created by the size of the tubing, but it would be less and it would all flow out of the tube very quickly.
Where does the co2 gauge measure pressure from?


----------



## MrMoneybags

what? if you can compress water (because theres dissolved air in it)...you have just single handedly revolutionized the modern world...and I want in!!

bubble counter fluid is typically glycerin...tho I use water in mine

also...the depth of water in a bubble counter is only an inch or two...so any additional pressure from that depth is negligible, so the bubble wouldnt expand as it rises (and the pressure from the tank is several magnitudes higher so the water depth pressure is negligible anyway)

the pressure before and after a bubble counter is the same...and the water has the same pressure tho it cant be compressed (so the same volume)
the bubble would experience the same pressure regardless of where it is in the tubing

youre misunderstanding the argument of more pressure means more mols of CO2...its not the bubble counter, its at the regulator to the needle valve

its 2 separate situations...situation one is 15psi...situation two is 30psi...the size of the bubbles stay the same but at the higher pressure...it has a higher "concentration" of CO2 (more molecules in the same volume)

a CO2 gage measures teh pressure in the tank...and the "allowable" pressure that the regulator allows (not measured) to pass by (i believe regulators are spring loaded and a screw) so its using a spring constant to determine the "allowable" pressure


----------



## Reginald2

The bubble probably does expand as it rises. As the molecules spread apart. You would probably need a much larger bubble counter to see it though. About every thirty three feet of water the pressure increases by one atmosphere. So the zero psi, that we are experiencing now (unless of your in Denver, lol) becomes about 15 psi.

The pressure at the bubble in the counter should be whatever pressure is needed to push past the diffuser, because that is where the pressure is being released. Now, if that number is constant, what it is,and how to measure it are all well beyond me. Along with the intricacies of needle valves and volumes of gasses under various pressures.

I don't think this will be settled until someone gets a very large CO2 proof bag and blows it up and then weighs it, at least once, with every diffuser known to man. Also, whoever does that should make a thirty foot tall bubble counter preferably of the steam punk/mad scientist variety.

I'm afraid, until that occurs, we may have to rely on anecdotal evidence from other hobbyist like we usually do. *chuckles and lights pipe*


----------



## Sluwp

MrMoneybags said:


> a CO2 gage measures teh pressure in the tank...and the "allowable" pressure that the regulator allows (not measured) to pass by (i believe regulators are spring loaded and a screw) so its using a spring constant to determine the "allowable" pressure


I'm not 100% sure about that but you're maybe true that's why someone made a valid point earlier by saying the pressure gauge is probably inaccurate if you have a working pressure way higher than the "back pressure" (like opening the regulator with no diffuser).
But in our scenario there is clearly a minimum pressure threshold to start diffusing so the pressure at the regulator will be very similar to the pressure in the CO2 line.


----------



## bsmith

Reginald2 said:


> The bubble probably does expand as it rises. As the molecules spread apart. You would probably need a much larger bubble counter to see it though. About every thirty three feet of water the pressure increases by one atmosphere. So the zero psi, that we are experiencing now (unless of your in Denver, lol) becomes about 15 psi.
> 
> The pressure at the bubble in the counter should be whatever pressure is needed to push past the diffuser, because that is where the pressure is being released. Now, if that number is constant, what it is,and how to measure it are all well beyond me. Along with the intricacies of needle valves and volumes of gasses under various pressures.
> 
> I don't think this will be settled until someone gets a very large CO2 proof bag and blows it up and then weighs it, at least once, with every diffuser known to man. Also, whoever does that should make a thirty foot tall bubble counter preferably of the steam punk/mad scientist variety.
> 
> I'm afraid, until that occurs, we may have to rely on anecdotal evidence from other hobbyist like we usually do. *chuckles and lights pipe*


I was under the impression that atmospheric pressure at sea level was 14.7psi (1 bar). And the higher you went up the less pressure there would be. Unless I mistook the Denver analogy?


----------



## Gatekeeper

bsmith said:


> I was under the impression that atmospheric pressure at sea level was 14.7psi (1 bar). And the higher you went up the less pressure there would be. Unless I mistook the Denver analogy?


That is correct. (or also converted to 33.9' of water column which is the maximum vaccum before water vapor at I think 68 degrees F, neglecting losses)


----------



## The Plantman

mcubed45 said:


> their site claims a 50% reduction in co2 usage when compared to regular diffusers. they base this claim on the fact that your necessary bps rate is halved using their product. MOST people use a working pressure in the 10-15 psi ballpark for their diffusers. obviously the 30psi required by the GLA diffusers is quite a bit higher. this makes any bps readings quite irrelevant.
> 
> if their diffusers truly cut your co2 consumption in half, then it might be worth upgrading. but for people that are using regular diffusers, the cost of a new diffuser, lines, and fittings will take YEARS to be offset by co2 savings. people will be sorely disappointed when their co2 bottles aren't lasting twice as long after switching. based on posts here and other forums, it seems like quite a few are dropping the cash to "upgrade" their systems without realizing how limited their results will be.
> 
> i don't think i need to try their product to prove boyle's law. it's basic physics.
> 
> PV=nRT
> 
> R & T are fixed so we're only concerned with P,V, & n:
> 
> PV=n
> 
> GLA is claiming that a 50% reduction in bps (V) equates to a 50% reduction in co2 consumption . this ignores the fact that to achieve this you also probably nearly DOUBLED your pressure (P).





Guys, the working pressure (10-30psi) has nothing to do with bubble counts or bubble densities! Working pressure is only showing you how much pressure there is “behind” the needle valve, not what is in your bubble counters or lines leading to the tank/reactor/diffuser. When using a reactor the pressure after the needle valve is very low, just low enough to push against your filters “inline” water pressure (very low). But when you use a glass diffuser the pressure to push Co2 “gas” through that, is much higher, I think it’s in the 5-8psi range for regular glass diffusers. I assume this because GLA suggests 10psi working pressure so it’s got to be less then that. Regular glass diffusers will make it seem that your bubble counts are lower compared to a Rexx style reactor, because it takes more inline pressure to push the gas through a glass diffuser then a reactor, so the amount of actual gas per bubble is higher making it “look” like you’re using less but your really using the same amount or more because you lose more to the surface then when using a reactor. There new diffuser pressurizes your lines after the needle valve even more. It’s a visual “trick”. Shame on them!

My large Rexx style reactor has nearly 100% diffusion; almost nothing comes out of my filter exhaust. There is no why a glass diffuser can be more efficient then that!


----------



## The Plantman

bill321 said:


> I am confused as to what folks are saying about a higher working pressure and how it is misleading on using less CO2.
> 
> How does the pressure of the CO2 coming through needle valve have anything to do with the amount of CO2 in the bubble that is created?
> 
> Wouldn't the "mass" of the CO2 in that bubble be the same if it were created using 15psi or 30psi? I would think that it would just take less time to create a bubble of CO2 using 30psi but the "amount" of CO2 in the bubble is the same.
> 
> And if that is the case....then going from 6bps to 3bps would save on CO2...right? Or am I missing something?
> 
> OR...is it that a bubble created using 30psi is twice as big (volume wise) as a bubble created using 15psi? If that is the case....then I can see where you wouldn't be saving anything.
> 
> 
> I don't know....anybody out there with a degree in physics?
> 
> 
> Bill321


 
The bubble rate goes down because the pressure in your “lines” after the needle valve goes up when using a glass diffuser. It has nothing to do with regulator working pressure.


----------



## The Plantman

hgfx said:


> Am I missing something here?...
> 
> "In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not."
> -- Lawrence Peter Berra


 
Yes, 

It only looks like your using less because it takes more pressure inline to run a glass diffuser then it does a reactor and even more for there new one. Forget about the working regulator pressure. It's the inline pressure that is effected with glass diffusers not pre needle valve pressure.


----------



## hbosman

So, bottom line, to figure out if there truly is any savings in CO2 gas, you have to compare how long it takes to empty the cylinder compared to before. My guess would be that the difference would be measured in a dollar or two per cylinder. Since the cost of the newer diffusers is considerably higher, you might not recoup the cost difference since you will probably be replacing them at least once a year.

Asthetics would be the difference in my opinion, smaller bubbles might look better to you than bigger bubbles. I used to use the Boyu inline diffuser. I used it for a year without ever having to clean it. I am now using the UpAqua inline diffuser. It cost twice as much, is it more efficient in gas usage? Probably not. I will be able to tell at the end of the month because that's how long it takes me to empty the paintball sized tank (20 OZ). The smaller bubbles do look better in my opinion and it is much quieter than the Boyu, needle wheel or PVC reactor.

I would imagine that people will be satisified with the GLA for asthetic reasons but not efficiency.


----------



## talontsiawd

Please post back your opinions to anyone who has purchased this. I have wanted to go inline for awhile but don't have room for a large reactor. I definitely do not want to go with a cheap Chinese product that has the potential to leak and drain my tank, nor do I want to spend around $100 for a glass one that I will never see. Please speak on the quality as well as how you like it. I could care less about the physics, I just want to know how you like it as I may decide to buy one soon if people are happy.


----------



## rich815

talontsiawd said:


> Please post back your opinions to anyone who has purchased this. *I have wanted to go inline for awhile* but don't have room for a large reactor. I definitely do not want to go with a cheap Chinese product that has the potential to leak and drain my tank, nor do I want to spend around $100 for a glass one that I will never see. Please speak on the quality as well as how you like it. I could care less about the physics, I just want to know how you like it as I may decide to buy one soon if people are happy.


The one being discussed is not an *inline* diffuser.


----------



## talontsiawd

rich815 said:


> The one being discussed is not an *inline* diffuser.


Well, they have 2 versions, in tank and inline on the site. I am interested in the inline personally I would like some opinions on it.


----------



## rich815

talontsiawd said:


> Well, they have 2 versions, in tank and inline on the site. I am interested in the inline personally I would like some opinions on it.


Got it. Did not see that in the link from the OP.

FYI, I've been using this one for more than a year on two of my tanks. Works great, never needed to clean, no leaks. I have no association with the seller: big auction site item #250479713615

(oh, and maybe I missed it but are the ones discussed in this thread NOT made in china?)


----------



## talontsiawd

rich815 said:


> (oh, and maybe I missed it but are the ones discussed in this thread NOT made in china?)


Thanks for the info.

I don't know if these are made in China but I said "cheap Chinese made". I am not anti-Chinese made products, I will not buy cheaply made crap that just usually happens to be made in China. Many high quality things are made in China, including things I use professionally, but to 1st world country specs.


----------



## rich815

talontsiawd said:


> Well, they have 2 versions, in tank and inline on the site. I am interested in the inline personally I would like some opinions on it.


Ah, I see the one you mean now. Those, or ones that look identical anyway (called UP CO2 Atomizer) have been discussed at length here:

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/equipment/90992-new-inline-diffuser-market.html


----------



## oldpunk78

talontsiawd said:


> Please post back your opinions to anyone who has purchased this. I have wanted to go inline for awhile but don't have room for a large reactor. I definitely do not want to go with a cheap Chinese product that has the potential to leak and drain my tank, nor do I want to spend around $100 for a glass one that I will never see. Please speak on the quality as well as how you like it. I could care less about the physics, I just want to know how you like it as I may decide to buy one soon if people are happy.


I 've got one(the gla in-line version). It works as advertised. I am quite happy with it. I'm also not worried about it. When was the last time you heard anyone complain about buying something from gla?


----------



## Hyzer

I was persuaded by the GLA video and sick of hearing the chhh...chhh...chhh from my mini elite. The efficiency of the regular glass diffusers I've seen did not impress me either. So, I bought myself a late Christmas present- 60mm Atomic CO2 Diffuser.

It was waiting for me when I got home from work today (ordered Monday morning). It feels solid to the touch, not jenky. I switched out my regular silicone tubing for CO2 tubing and bumped up working pressure on my regulator to 30 psi. After soaking the diffuser, I connected it, turned on my solenoid, waited a few minutes, then witnessed my new favorite CO2 diffusion method.

The bubbles are so small that a majority flow with the current rather than shoot to the surface. It looks exactly like the GLA video. After letting it run for a bit, I noticed that the bubble count which seemed to produce the optimal "fog" was about 2 bps. But, like I said, it was my first day with the new diffuser and I have it placed in the front of the tank (not it's final spot).

I'm not very concerned with saving a few dollars in CO2 per year. What I am concerned about is the health of my tank. I will say that this method produced more pearling within a few hours than my previous setup, which was an airstone inside the sponge inside the intake of a mini filter, aimed at the outlet of another powerhead. Oh, and silence is golden.

Two enthusiastic thumbs up.


----------



## AdamP.

I have been using a wooden airstone for my in-tank CO2 diffusion in my 20 gallon. The bubbles are very fine and it gets the job done....


----------



## A Hill

Hopefully I can sum everything up pretty simply especially for everyone who doesn't like physics. 

Basically using a higher pressure diffuser you should be getting a finer mist resulting in better diffusion. At the same time you are using about the same CO2 volume or a little bit less because you are having higher efficiency ( at a very negligible difference). If you are watching this just by bubble counting this is not an accurate way to track because now these bubbles are completely different than before because they should have more CO2 in them; at the end of the day this does not make a significant difference because what should be more important is the finer mist providing better diffusion and because of this you will turn the co2 down some.

(This is also assuming nothing leaks between the CO2 tank and the Aquarium water. It is also assuming that these bubbles actually are that much finer than what you were using before.)

But for all of our practical purposes you generally shouldn't see much of a difference, maybe having a bit more co2 savings, but if you're using a 5-20lb tank it isn't very cost effective and is all personal preference. 

Oh, and as for this with DIY CO2 I think you may not be able to use this type of CO2 diffuser as it should be ideally used but it may work to some extent. The one potential problem is that the bottle will bleed of excess pressure after the seal is broken through the threading and I'm not sure how much pressure this takes. I know this from personal experience that it will bleed all excess at a certain point out, but I did not measure the pressure needed for this to happen (because we were doing a chemistry experiment on endothermic and exothermic reactions to see if we could build up enough to rupture the Soda Bottle and we could but had to COMPLETELY seal it with silicone. (I really don't recommend you trying this at home any time soon, it is extremely dangerous and this experiment was supervised and whatnot)) 

If you want someone else to post a bunch of boring physics stuffs I'll go over it with my dad who happens to have studied nuclear physics and knows a thing or two (more than me and most) as well about all this fun stuff :hihi: I warn you, as you've already seen, it is head ache inducing. 

If you really are concerned about 100% inline diffusion as everyone else has already stated, this is the wrong method for you.

-Andrew
PS. I hate co2 
PPS. I figured I should state (since emotions are a bit high and this thread is a direct discussion on a specific GLA product) I don't care that it is GLA or China or whatever who makes the diffuser. I don't ever plan to sell anything in this area, this is just advise from a fellow hobbyist. I use the ADA CO2 advanced system with an ADA diffuser on my Mini M and as long as I have CO2 in the water I'm happy enough (KISS).


----------



## Reginald2

bsmith said:


> I was under the impression that atmospheric pressure at sea level was 14.7psi (1 bar). And the higher you went up the less pressure there would be. Unless I mistook the Denver analogy?



I was also implying that Denver wouldn't be the same as sea level (or really where most people are). I can see where you mistook what I said, because it was unclear and poorly expressed. I also mistook zero atmosphere for one atmosphere. I guess I was thinking that we were all living in a vacuum. 

So, it's a good thing I was wrong or... *que music* we'd all be dead by now.


----------



## Sluwp

The Plantman said:


> Guys, the working pressure (10-30psi) has nothing to do with bubble counts or bubble densities! Working pressure is only showing you how much pressure there is “behind” the needle valve, not what is in your bubble counters or lines leading to the tank/reactor/diffuser. When using a reactor the pressure after the needle valve is very low, just low enough to push against your filters “inline” water pressure (very low). But when you use a glass diffuser the pressure to push Co2 “gas” through that, is much higher, I think it’s in the 5-8psi range for regular glass diffusers. I assume this because GLA suggests 10psi working pressure so it’s got to be less then that. Regular glass diffusers will make it seem that your bubble counts are lower compared to a Rexx style reactor, because it takes more inline pressure to push the gas through a glass diffuser then a reactor, so the amount of actual gas per bubble is higher making it “look” like you’re using less but your really using the same amount or more because you lose more to the surface then when using a reactor. There new diffuser pressurizes your lines after the needle valve even more. It’s a visual “trick”. Shame on them!
> 
> My large Rexx style reactor has nearly 100% diffusion; almost nothing comes out of my filter exhaust. There is no why a glass diffuser can be more efficient then that!


Your post is so contradictory. Working pressure has something to do with bubble density if the pressure along the tubing is equal to the working pressure. It's at least kind of true with this diffuser since it clearly has a kick in pressure, a minimum pressure you need to reach if you want the CO2 to go through the diffuser. 

For the other part I agree with you, like I agree with A hill who did a pretty good conclusion.

I'd love to see how these diffusers compete with the ones sold on ebay, especially with the Aqua Up CO2 Atomizer which looks exactly the same.


----------



## The Plantman

Sluwp said:


> if the pressure along the tubing is equal to the working pressure.


In this situation no Co2 would be released from the needle valve.


----------



## A Hill

Sluwp said:


> For the other part I agree with you, like I agree with A hill who did a pretty good conclusion.


Thanks, I over simplified it a bit looking back on it now. You should use a bit less CO2 for sure if it is really a higher pressure and finer mist resulting in more efficient diffusion and resulting in longer time between refilling your tank. With that said the main positive (if the two statements are indeed true compared to what you have already been using) is that it is a longer time between refillings. The cost savings is negligible and that is what I was specifically talking about the whole time in my last post. 

I double checked everything briefly discussing this with my dad and he agreed with me. As long as the bubble counter is under pressure (which is a bit of an assumption since there are not two pressure meters in the co2 line (before and after Bubble counter) all the talk of atmospheres and everything is really pointless because regardless of what it is it will be the same for each individual before and after the system would be changed unless you move somewhere else. 

The best way to really see what the difference is (suggestion of my dad's) is to get a graduated cylinder, or beaker, or even just a cup and flip it over and let the co2 diffuser fill that up for x ammount of time. Then use the previous diffuser. Then you would very easily know the volume of CO2 you are using with each one. 

With that said, if you want to start discussing the physics of the actual diffuser with those bubbles... my head might explode too :hihi: that gets REALLY complicated. Also, I think that the flat diffuser is still best because bubbles can not roll around it. After reviewing the video the main issue I have is that all the bottom bubbles will meet up and make larger bubbles and this is basically impossible to keep from happening ever because there will always be a spot that bubbles are rolling up over the diffuser so the glass diffusers (in my opinion) are probably still a better bet overall. So if this higher pressure really is better, using this ceramic disk, in a traditional glass diffuser is better. 


Lastly, remember that people like Orlando and myself and plenty of others when bringing in products to sell do charge more than we buy them for. That is how we are able to make money and continue doing so. What you are really paying for is the convenience of buying one, and it coming from somewhere domestically from someone who really speaks your style of english. All the diffuser is is a cheap piece of plastic with a pretty good ceramic stone it seems. Wholesale from the maker they're probably only $1 but you need to buy in volume (hundreds or thousands), then someone passes a smaller volume to Orlando, so he pays more (probably 10x or more of wholesale, plus shipping to US). Then you buy one or two, so you pay MUCH more, but also have great customer service and other things that come along with it. These have been in existence for years but haven't been brought to this market. If you wanted to do put the time in you can find things like this all over the world being produced (mostly in asia though) but customs and international stuffs are a real pain in the ass. So please try to understand this and if you would rather do your shopping another way go for it. I think the AZ Gardens to Orlando's GLA comparison is absolutely insane and unwarranted. If you don't wish to purchase from him don't, but don't say he is a scammer (what azg is more or less) with over two dozen complaints to the business bureau of AZ.

So lets all calm down a bit, we're really just talking about some simple physics and plastic and water; the cost and advertising remarks really don't belong.

-Andrew
PS. As you all probably already know, I have no affiliation with GLA or anything and as of right now I'm not selling much of anything. I'm just trying to have some clarity for everyone and get this discussion worth something with information opposed to name calling and cyclical arguments so that people who really just want the information that they can understand will understand.


----------



## feral13

Got mine in today to replace a glass diffuser.

I didn't buy the inline model because I didn't want to start cutting into my filter tubing just yet. 

I use to have a DIY reactor, but it would leak or knock and I found it just as easy and efficient to run the CO2 through the canister filter (though it would still knock).

The glass diffuser worked for about a week but I guess the seal broke and I could have gotten finer bubbles from a 50-cent airstone. I also got that knocking again because I run it under the filter intake.

I had some concerns setting mine up. I didn't know about the 30psi requirement and my aquariumplants.com gauge doesn't have a reading that high. I cranked it up to where the 30 might be and everything seemed to work fine.

Again, under the filter intake, 90% of the mist is going up the intake and nothing is coming out. Thats the same as a reactor. 

The other 10% of the mist (and oddly the finest of the bubbles) gets caught by the current and gets stuck to the plants (no complaints there).

Still the same outcome...CO2 in the tank. However, I feel this will allow me the finer-tune things. Maybe the visual just makes me feel more confident...not sure.

It cost about the same as the glass diffuser I bought and it looks like it will last longer. Time will tell...


----------



## herns

Looking forward for some user reviews for inline and in tank diffusers of GLA.


----------



## Hyzer

herns said:


> Looking forward for some user reviews for inline and in tank diffusers of GLA.


Seems the reviews in this thread have been positive, including my own.


----------



## happi

i had it over 1 week now and drop checker gets yellow greenish most of the time, right now am running at 2bps and so far it is working very well.


----------



## barbarossa4122

herns said:


> Looking forward for some user reviews for inline and in tank diffusers of GLA.


My 55mm( 30g) and 60mm (55g) work perfect. They are run by a Concoa 212 and a dual manifold at 20psi working pressure. Oh, 3bps for both tanks.


----------



## herns

Hyzer said:


> Seems the reviews in this thread have been positive, including my own.


I presume this is the inline diffuser not the in tank ones? yes?


----------



## barbarossa4122

Mine are in tank ones.


----------



## HypnoticAquatic

i got one from ebay 13bucks shipped and it works great, i would say go with the largest one u can because it gives i more surface area, thus make the finest bubbles u can have unless u really crank up the co2 then they dont stay as small as they could. thing works great though for $13 cant beat that period.


----------



## SleepyOwl

Does the pressure have to be exactly 30 psi, or will about 28 do it? I can't adjust mine. At least, I don't think I can.

*edited.... never mind. I see barbarossa has his at 20psi. Maybe I will try one out.


----------



## barbarossa4122

SleepyOwl said:


> Does the pressure have to be exactly 30 psi, or will about 28 do it? I can't adjust mine. At least, I don't think I can.


I run 2 GLA atomic co2 diffusers with 20psi working pressure.


----------



## SleepyOwl

barbarossa4122 said:


> I run 2 GLA atomic co2 diffusers with 20psi working pressure.


Thanks, I caught that just after I posted.  

So is the inline ones that need high pressure than?


----------



## herns

HypnoticAquatic said:


> i got one from ebay 13bucks shipped and it works great, i would say go with the largest one u can because it gives i more surface area, thus make the finest bubbles u can have unless u really crank up the co2 then they dont stay as small as they could. thing works great though for $13 cant beat that period.


Did you get the In tank one? What is the working pressure you have?


----------



## HypnoticAquatic

the min is around 25ish to have a nice flow i need more than normal bigger tank superhigh light and a bit of agitation but ive had it all the way to almost 60psi and no problems(gotta test it out). makes me want to try a tank with just a few coralias and a diffuser. u-barn was the seller took a couple weeks from hongkong but worth it imo.


----------



## barbarossa4122

SleepyOwl said:


> Thanks, I caught that just after I posted.
> 
> So is the inline ones that need high pressure than?


I don't know but, I think they will work with 15 or 20 psi. You can ask Orlando at greenleafaquarium forum (aquaticplantenthusiasts.com)


----------



## barbarossa4122

I think the Ebay ones need 25 or more psi.


----------



## herns

I'm still undecided whether to get an inline or the intank diffuser. Intank ones needed cleaning but like to see that CO2 mist inside. 

Does anyone have inline diffuser installed in the intake tube?


----------



## barbarossa4122

herns said:


> Did you get the In tank one? What is the working pressure you have?


I tried 3 of these and they do not work good at 15-20psi. The ones from GLA do.


----------



## inkslinger

barbarossa4122 said:


> I tried 3 of these and they do not work good at 15-20psi. The ones from GLA do.



What size did you get? I'm think of getting the largest one he has for my 60x18x24 tank. Has any one use one on a large tank yet and if so how's it working?


----------



## barbarossa4122

inkslinger said:


> What size did you get? I'm think of getting the largest one he has for my 60x18x24 tank. Has any one use one on a large tank yet and if so how's it working?


The biggest size. They work at about 30% capacity at 20psi on my set up and I have no clue why since the GLA ones work perfect at 20psi. That's how I blew the PRV on my Victor 453b, bump up the working pressure to 38psi to see if the darn diffusers work. They did for about 5 min until the prv blew.


----------



## HypnoticAquatic

barbarossa4122 said:


> I tried 3 of these and they do not work good at 15-20psi. The ones from GLA do.


have u already tried gla's ones or just going by what they said?


----------



## barbarossa4122

HypnoticAquatic said:


> have u already tried gla's ones or just going by what they said?


I did and they work perfect. As far as saving co2, I don't know yet, since I just started co2 5 days ago.


----------



## HypnoticAquatic

did u get a better/ smaller bubbles from the gla one vs the ebay? or about the same


----------



## barbarossa4122

HypnoticAquatic said:


> did u get a better/ smaller bubbles from the gla one vs the ebay? or about the same


Better/smaller mist from GLA.


----------



## HypnoticAquatic

could u show pics of both? with the same flow rate? that would be very helpfull to someone looking at these


----------



## barbarossa4122

HypnoticAquatic said:


> could u show pics of both? with the same flow rate? that would be very helpfull to someone looking at these


I could but, co2 it's off now. Tomorrow OK? Do you think you can see how they work just from the pics ? Maybe a video is better but, I don't know how to post a video here.


----------



## barbarossa4122

HypnoticAquatic said:


> could u show pics of both? with the same flow rate? that would be very helpfull to someone looking at these


If you mean the same bps on both, no. The set up were I use the HK diffuser can only get 0.3-0.4 bps so far until I get a new GLA diffuser.


----------



## HypnoticAquatic

idk if i missed something why cant they have the same bubblerate?


----------



## barbarossa4122

HypnoticAquatic said:


> idk if i missed something why cant they have the same bubblerate?


I am trying to find this out for the last 5 days. I am using a Victor 253A at 28psi working pressure and that's all the bps I can get with this diffuser. But, when I used a GLA 55mm diffuser from my other co2 set up it worked perfect. My conclusion so far is that is the diffuser's fault. Btw, on my other set up I have a Concoa regulator and I am able to run two GLA diffusers at 20psi. Go figure


----------



## HypnoticAquatic

sounds odd does it do that with higher psi? mine does work at 20 but doesnt put out enough to get my lvls to where i want at that pressure cause of how small of a micron the holes are needs more psi.


----------



## barbarossa4122

HypnoticAquatic said:


> sounds odd does it do that with higher psi? mine does work at 20 but doesnt put out enough to get my lvls to where i want at that pressure cause of how small of a micron the holes are needs more psi.


Yes, is very odd and annoying. I guess I'll have to wait for the GLA one and see what happens. Btw, I checked for leaks many many times............no leaks.


----------



## HypnoticAquatic

i would try and clean it idk sounds blocked did u get it from ebay to? if so wondering it was the same person i got mine from


----------



## barbarossa4122

HypnoticAquatic said:


> i would try and clean it idk sounds blocked did u get it from ebay to? if so wondering it was the same person i got mine from


I have 3 new ones and none of them work properly. But, hey it does not mean they will not work for you.


----------



## barbarossa4122

How can I clean them ?

Edit:
I am soaking them in a 50/50 bleach.


----------



## herns

barbarossa4122 said:


> How can I clean them ?
> 
> Edit:
> I am soaking them in a 50/50 bleach.



How often do you clean them?


----------



## barbarossa4122

herns said:


> How often do you clean them?


I am soaking the new HK ones hopping I can get them to work better.


----------



## Jim Miller

Bleach and H2O2 are both powerful oxidizer but I would prefer H2O2 since there is no need to rinse afterwards. 3% stuff from the grocery or drug store would be fine.

have fun

jim


----------



## Hyzer

herns said:


> I presume this is the inline diffuser not the in tank ones? yes?


I have a 60mm in tank diffuser at about 32 psi. I have it under a powerhead, mostly out of sight in the back corner. Almost all of the bubbles swirl around behind the powerhead then get sucked in to the intake. Using the powerhead is unnecessary, but I already had it set up to deal with a dead spot. I may move the diffuser because I'm not sure the pooling on the underside of the powerhead is a good thing.

Make sure you want a mist of CO2 throughout your tank. I went this route because it was a better fit for my setup, when I could actually do without the tiny bubbles everywhere. But, that's just me.


----------



## herns

Hyzer said:


> I have a 60mm in tank diffuser at about 32 psi. I have it under a powerhead, mostly out of sight in the back corner. Almost all of the bubbles swirl around behind the powerhead then get sucked in to the intake. Using the powerhead is unnecessary, but I already had it set up to deal with a dead spot. I may move the diffuser because I'm not sure the pooling on the underside of the powerhead is a good thing.
> 
> Make sure you want a mist of CO2 throughout your tank. I went this route because it was a better fit for my setup, when I could actually do without the tiny bubbles everywhere. But, that's just me.


Do you know how often the diffuser needs cleaning?


----------



## Hyzer

herns said:


> Do you know how often the diffuser needs cleaning?


Nope, only had it about a week. I'd guess that it isn't much different than a regular glass/ceramic diffuser. However, the bottom of the diffuser won't get direct light, so algae may not be as big a factor.


----------



## herns

AdamP. said:


> I have been using a wooden airstone for my in-tank CO2 diffusion in my 20 gallon. The bubbles are very fine and it gets the job done....


I have currently a glass diffuser with Hagen Mini Elite filter just on top of it. This filter sucks fine mist below its bottom intake. CO2 then gets another chop by its impeller and spray very fine mist all over the tank. Plants pearl within 1 hour at 3 bps.


----------



## barbarossa4122

Thanks Jim. I used bleach in the absence of h2o2. No change, they still don't work good.


----------



## barbarossa4122

Hyzer said:


> I have a 60mm in tank diffuser at about 32 psi. I have it under a powerhead, mostly out of sight in the back corner. Almost all of the bubbles swirl around behind the powerhead then get sucked in to the intake. Using the powerhead is unnecessary, but I already had it set up to deal with a dead spot. I may move the diffuser because I'm not sure the pooling on the underside of the powerhead is a good thing.
> 
> Make sure you want a mist of CO2 throughout your tank. I went this route because it was a better fit for my setup, when I could actually do without the tiny bubbles everywhere. But, that's just me.


That is exactly how my GLAs work at 20psi. Thank for sharing Hyzer. I feel better now


----------



## feral13

I am still having problems getting mine tuned.

However, I believe its more to do with my regulator and tubing than the diffuser. The diffuser works, I just cant find a setting between off and CO2 Nuke Fest.

My aquraiumplantc.com regulator only goes to 15psi on the working pressure gauge, but you can open it up more (just cant tell how much). I start on the low side because I am not at home when my lights kick on. However, when I get home, I only have the smallest bit of CO2 coming out the diffuser. Ill then crank it up till there is a steady flow and BAM! Im cranking it back down in no time.

Ill be at home this weekend. Hopefully Ill be able to find that sweet spot.


----------



## barbarossa4122

Pics of GLA and Hong Kong diffusers at wok:

*55mm GLA diffuser(20psi-Concoa reg):*










*60mm GLA diffuser(20psi-Concoa reg)*:










*HK diffuser(28psi-Victor reg). You can see this is not working properly:*



















I believe the reason for getting only 0.3-0.4 bps is that the HK diffuser is not good(the last two pics). And, out of three HK diffusers this is the one that "works" best.


----------



## barbarossa4122

feral13 said:


> I am still having problems getting mine tuned.
> 
> However, I believe its more to do with my regulator and tubing than the diffuser. The diffuser works, I just cant find a setting between off and CO2 Nuke Fest.
> 
> My aquraiumplantc.com regulator only goes to 15psi on the working pressure gauge, but you can open it up more (just cant tell how much). I start on the low side because I am not at home when my lights kick on. However, when I get home, I only have the smallest bit of CO2 coming out the diffuser. Ill then crank it up till there is a steady flow and BAM! Im cranking it back down in no time.
> 
> Ill be at home this weekend. Hopefully Ill be able to find that sweet spot.


Hi,

Are you using the GLA ones ?


----------



## feral13

barbarossa4122 said:


> hi,
> 
> are you using the gla ones ?


gla


----------



## barbarossa4122

feral13 said:


> gla


Thanks feral13.


----------



## hbosman

feral13 said:


> I am still having problems getting mine tuned.
> 
> However, I believe its more to do with my regulator and tubing than the diffuser. The diffuser works, I just cant find a setting between off and CO2 Nuke Fest.
> 
> My aquraiumplantc.com regulator only goes to 15psi on the working pressure gauge, but you can open it up more (just cant tell how much). I start on the low side because I am not at home when my lights kick on. However, when I get home, I only have the smallest bit of CO2 coming out the diffuser. Ill then crank it up till there is a steady flow and BAM! Im cranking it back down in no time.
> 
> Ill be at home this weekend. Hopefully Ill be able to find that sweet spot.


Sounds like you have a leak somewhere. I had that symptom. I would adjust the needvalve until the flow was where I wanted it and if I would turn off the solenoid and then turn it back on, the flow was just a few bubbles. I found the leak at a loose needlevalve connection. Once, I tightened up the connection, the CO2 bubble rate was rock solid.


----------



## HypnoticAquatic

i still think there is something else going on with barbs diffuser, for a side by side test we need the same regulator to not be touched on flow/bubble rate or psi or the results will not be conclusive. my diffuser works just like the gla one only thing i like better is the bazooka has 2 cups vs one


----------



## barbarossa4122

HypnoticAquatic said:


> i still think there is something else going on with barbs diffuser, for a side by side test we need the same regulator to not be touched on flow/bubble rate or psi or the results will not be conclusive. my diffuser works just like the gla one only thing i like better is the bazooka has 2 cups vs one


I did that and the HK diffuser is not working for me. I'll bump up the psi as soon as I get my Victor 453 back. It's been fixed to work up to 60psi and has the prv replaced. I'll update.


----------



## HypnoticAquatic

the psi only matters to get it started but what bubble rate are u doing on ur gla one? i would have to assume with a slow 1-2 bubble a sec that is what were seeing in the pic, what type of size increase does it get with say 4bps ?


----------



## barbarossa4122

I am doing 2.5 bps. I did not try 4 bps. My DCs turn yellowish green in about 3-4 hrs. Can you try 4bps in your tank ?


----------



## HypnoticAquatic

yes i do get a size increase in bubbles when i get over 3-4bps but i dont have a gla one to compair or to see how much the bazooka one will do also


----------



## barbarossa4122

HypnoticAquatic said:


> yes i do get a size increase in bubbles when i get over 3-4bps but i dont have a gla one to compair or to see how much the bazooka one will do also


My co2 is off for today but, I'll do it tomorrow.


----------



## FDNY911

I have my GLA Primo set at 32 PSI with about 3-5 bps going through the GLA Atomic Inline. I get a lot of misting through the eheim spray bar. I'm not noticing any changes in my DC though, how long does that take? It's been 1.5 hours. This is my first Co2 set up lol.


----------



## barbarossa4122

FDNY911 said:


> I have my GLA Primo set at 32 PSI with about 3-5 bps going through the GLA Atomic Inline. I get a lot of misting through the eheim spray bar. I'm not noticing any changes in my DC though, how long does that take? It's been 1.5 hours. This is my first Co2 set up lol.


I have the same diffusers and it takes about 4 hrs to get lime green and 6 hrs to get yellowish green color.


----------



## FDNY911

So should I only run the 3.5 bps for 4 hours and then lower it or shut it off once it gets yellow? I'm not sure how long I'll be running the co2 yet. Today was just a trial run.


----------



## barbarossa4122

I run it at a constant 3 bps on both the 55g and the 30g for eight hrs sharp. Btw, I am new at this also, one week experience only.


----------



## FDNY911

Lighting is 8 as well? 

I just looked at the DC and the very top of it seems to be a little green.

I think I can raise the BPS up a little bit because the fish all look normal. maybe tomorrow tho. I am going to do 8 hrs straight as well.


----------



## barbarossa4122

FDNY911 said:


> Lighting is 8 as well?
> 
> I just looked at the DC and the very top of it seems to be a little green.
> 
> I think I can raise the BPS up a little bit because the fish all look normal. maybe tomorrow tho. I am going to do 8 hrs straight as well.


Yes, you are doing good, the top starts to change first. My lights are on the same timer with the co2. Light out-co2 out. What DC do you have ?


----------



## FDNY911

GLAs Waterplant. What about you?

I'm going to set up the timer from 12-7 pm.


----------



## barbarossa4122

FDNY911 said:


> GLAs Waterplant. What about you?
> 
> I'm going to set up the timer from 12-7 pm.


Same and I like them. I also have the glass fancy ones but , it's harder to see the color. Water plant DCs are real good.


----------



## Shawnts106

I just recieved my Up-Aqua 16/22mm inline Atomizer...
Anyone have any data on this ?

it came with no instructions...
And do I need some kind of pressure resistant CO2 line? or ... what?


----------



## jkcrewsn

deleted


----------



## Rescue Ranger

Shawnts106 said:


> I just recieved my Up-Aqua 16/22mm inline Atomizer...
> Anyone have any data on this ?
> 
> it came with no instructions...
> And do I need some kind of pressure resistant CO2 line? or ... what?


I have the same question about the tubing. I have a ton of this tubing:

http://www.bigalsonline.com/Fish_Ae...uxe-Airline-Tubing_9621249_82.html?tc=default

I'm assuming it won't work? Orlando said it wouldn't.. but I can't find another place to buy the tubing he says will work without spending $15 on 10' of it


----------



## hubble13

I use regular air line tubing with my UP atomizer (not silicone) and it seems to work fine. I have some CO2 tubing held in reserve just in case.


----------



## barbarossa4122

hubble13 said:


> I use regular air line tubing with my UP atomizer (not silicone) and it seems to work fine. I have some CO2 tubing held in reserve just in case.


Hi hubble13,

What's your working pressure ? Thanks.


----------



## hubble13

I have an Aquatek regulator that has a fixed working pressure of 30psi. when I first installed my atomizer leaks were a concern so I tested it every day for a week, every ting is fine. I'm not sure because I'm a beginner to, but i think the concern with air line tubing is that the co2 can cause erosion making it yellow and crack


----------



## barbarossa4122

Ok, thanks a lot hubble13.


----------



## Rescue Ranger

Sounds like i'll just give it a go when everything comes in for my Co2 system and use the tubing I have. I guess I'll order some Co2 tubing that is a bit less expensive. Ebay... here I come..


----------



## Rescue Ranger

Looks like this:
10 ft CO2 Proof Tubing, 1/8" ID x 3/16" OD, Clear PVC, 44 PSI Tubing (from eBay.. can't hotlink)

Will do the same as this:
http://www.greenleafaquariums.com/co2-resistant-tubing/clear-co2-tubing.html

Am i right?


----------



## herns

thread bump.


----------



## MoparMuscl

I picked up two of the Atomic 12/16 inline diffusers for my 105 gallon tank. In the past, I used an Eheim 1103 needle wheel for CO2 diffusion. It worked good, but it was loud when the bubbles got 'smashed' by the pump. I thought it made nice small CO2 bubbles until I got the new Atomic diffuser. Right now I am only able to run one of the two diffusers (I cracked the outlet of one of my Eheim 2217's installing this). However, with just one diffuser my entire tank is saturated with CO2! The bubbles are 1/3 of the size of what the needle wheel pump would make. They are so small I can't hardly see them. I can't wait to get my second 2217 going again to get the second diffuser working. Great product! 

I am not convinced it is a 100% different product than the Up-Aqua stuff sold elsewhere because they even share the same exact sticker. However, it works GREAT and I didn't have to wait 2-3 weeks for shipping from Hong Kong or China. I figure that if there are any problems that GLA will take care of them as well.


----------



## hbosman

MoparMuscl said:


> I picked up two of the Atomic 12/16 inline diffusers for my 105 gallon tank. In the past, I used an Eheim 1103 needle wheel for CO2 diffusion. It worked good, but it was loud when the bubbles got 'smashed' by the pump. I thought it made nice small CO2 bubbles until I got the new Atomic diffuser. Right now I am only able to run one of the two diffusers (I cracked the outlet of one of my Eheim 2217's installing this). However, with just one diffuser my entire tank is saturated with CO2! The bubbles are 1/3 of the size of what the needle wheel pump would make. They are so small I can't hardly see them. I can't wait to get my second 2217 going again to get the second diffuser working. Great product!
> 
> I am not convinced it is a 100% different product than the Up-Aqua stuff sold elsewhere because they even share the same exact sticker. However, it works GREAT and I didn't have to wait 2-3 weeks for shipping from Hong Kong or China. I figure that if there are any problems that GLA will take care of them as well.


The UpAqua can be sourced from an Ebay store based in Brooklyn NY now, good store and customer service. But, you won't get the support you get from GLA.


----------



## herns

Hyzer said:


> I have a 60mm in tank diffuser at about 32 psi. I have it under a powerhead, mostly out of sight in the back corner. Almost all of the bubbles swirl around behind the powerhead then get sucked in to the intake. Using the powerhead is unnecessary, but I already had it set up to deal with a dead spot. I may move the diffuser because I'm not sure the pooling on the underside of the powerhead is a good thing.
> 
> Make sure you want a mist of CO2 throughout your tank. I went this route because it was a better fit for my setup, when I could actually do without the tiny bubbles everywhere. But, that's just me.


 


How long does it stays inside the tank before you need to clean them?


----------



## feral13

Mine has been going for 3 weeks now and no signs of clogging.

The Aquariumplants.com regulator is a pain to use with it. If you planning on using this defuser, get a different CO2 kit. CO2 tubbing is also a must. You are not going to sneak by with regular tubing.


----------



## jrman83

feral13 said:


> The Aquariumplants.com regulator is a pain to use with it. If you planning on using this defuser, get a different CO2 kit. CO2 tubbing is also a must. You are not going to sneak by with regular tubing.


I don't have a problem with mine. I just cranked the pressure up as high as it would go.


----------



## Indignation

I'm curious if anyone who has previously owned an up aqua diffuser has tried one of these new GLA models. I get that these have a different diffuser membrane, but I'm wondering if it's worth the $20 price difference.


----------



## herns

> Mine has been going for 3 weeks now and no signs of clogging.


Are you using GLA's in tank diffuser?




> CO2 tubbing is also a must. You are not going to sneak by with regular tubing.


A regular tubing I think is only for air stones. I use Clippard CO2 clear tubing.


----------



## feral13

Yup, I use the GLA


----------



## barbarossa4122

Indignation said:


> I'm curious if anyone who has previously owned an up aqua diffuser has tried one of these new GLA models. I get that these have a different diffuser membrane, but I'm wondering if it's worth the $20 price difference.


The GLA ones work better, imo. I tried both and the GLA ones are more effective.


----------



## Indignation

barbarossa4122 said:


> The GLA ones work better, imo. I tried both and the GLA ones are more effective.


Thanks for the reply, one question - 
Did you try the inline version, or the in tank diffusers?


----------



## barbarossa4122

In tank ones.


----------



## jrman83

I have the inline versions and they work great. Running one on an Eheim 2075 and the other on a model 2080.


----------



## happi

i cleaned mine with bleach after one month and it had some algae on it, but even with the algae on it, it was still diffusing same kind of bubbles as day one.


----------



## Jeffww

bsmith said:


> Bubble rate is bubble rate regardless of working pressure.


The moles of gas per unit of volume is dependent on pressure. Assuming every bubble is the same volume. Yes, you could be in fact using _more _gas with this diffuser.


----------



## herns

I've never tried the Inline and the In-tank diffuser. I would go for the in-tank one from GLA. If I have an option to get the in line ones, I would go for an ebay seller. I think they are the same and much cheaper.


----------



## EvolutionZ

a friend of mine bought a 55mm in-tank diffuser from hongkong goldfish street and under the name intense aquarium.. think another guy posted a link in page 2... it cost only $15SGD(roughly 12USD?) and it works very well.. i noticed the words embedded on the suction cups is similar to the ones from GLA.. 



















just to show a comparison, the below pic is a pic with 6 - 7 BPS running with a cheapo $4 glass diffuser.









and this is using the intense co2 bazooka atomizer.









as for co2 saving anot, im not too concerned.. what im happy is that, the bubbles are much more finer and diffused much more better around the tank compared to a normal glass diffuser.. i have been using for only a week though...


----------



## barbarossa4122

Yeah, but I am not in Singapore and I would like my diffusers to arrive 2-3 days after I order them. So, the GLA ones did the trick.


----------



## barbarossa4122

> as for co2 saving anot, im not too concerned.. what im happy is that, the bubbles are much more finer and diffused much more better around the tank compared to a normal glass diffuser.. i have been using for only a week though...


I am using them for a month now........still going strong.


----------



## Gookis

Considering the assistance that I've received from Orlando time and time at strange hours of the day (not business hours) and Orlando sending extra O rings (free) when I was struggling with hooking up my Co2...I choose to support GLA. roud:roud:roud: Prices are reasonable and service is stellar. 

Matt


----------



## barbarossa4122

Gookis said:


> Considering the assistance that I've received from Orlando time and time at strange hours of the day (not business hours) and Orlando sending extra O rings (free) when I was struggling with hooking up my Co2...I choose to support GLA. roud:roud:roud: Prices are reasonable and service is stellar.
> 
> Matt


Same here. O did help me a lot even on Sundays so I do my best to be a little loyal. Same with Justin from RM.


----------



## plantbrain

If you use higher psi, in these 15-20 ranges, you will need some good thick tubing for the pressure difference vs say a needle wheel which pushed a measly 1psi.

Cleaning the diffuser often will also help, monthly etc to keep the nice fine mist going, Tilex works well.

Rinse a few times, then dechlorinate, then return.
Tygon tubing is thicker and can handle the higher pressures.


----------



## barbarossa4122

plantbrain said:


> If you use higher psi, in these 15-20 ranges, you will need some good thick tubing for the pressure difference vs say a needle wheel which pushed a measly 1psi.
> 
> Cleaning the diffuser often will also help, monthly etc to keep the nice fine mist going, Tilex works well.
> 
> Rinse a few times, then dechlorinate, then return.
> Tygon tubing is thicker and can handle the higher pressures.


Hi Tom,

Thanks for the advice on how and with what to clean them. I bought 20' of the Tygon Lab 1/8" ID x 1/4" OD with a 1/16" wall thickness from usplastic.com


----------



## DiscusLoverJeff

Can you use Silicone Tubing for this type of diffuser?

http://www.fosterandsmithaquatics.com/product/prod_display.cfm?c=3578+3669+6127&pcatid=6127

I noticed that on the Tygon tubing, it says "max psi is 9" does this effect the 30 psi required for their diffusers?

http://www.coleparmer.com/1/1/43469-tygon-silicone-tubing-1-8-id-x-1-4-od-50-ft-pack.html


----------



## feral13

I found out the reason I was having problems. Seems I had a leak in a check valve. From what I understand the aquariumplants.com regulator has a built-in check valve, so I just removed it from the equation.

I still don't know what my pressure is at, but it is much more stable now.


----------



## barbarossa4122

DiscusLoverJeff said:


> Can you use Silicone Tubing for this type of diffuser?
> 
> http://www.fosterandsmithaquatics.com/product/prod_display.cfm?c=3578+3669+6127&pcatid=6127
> 
> I noticed that on the Tygon tubing, it says "max psi is 9" does this effect the 30 psi required for their diffusers?
> 
> http://www.coleparmer.com/1/1/43469-tygon-silicone-tubing-1-8-id-x-1-4-od-50-ft-pack.html


Yes, you can use Tygon tubing from usplastics. Your Tygon link is for silicon tubing.

"Working pressure - 43 PSI @ 73° F."
http://www.usplastic.com/catalog/item.aspx?itemid=38587&catid=864


----------



## EvolutionZ

im not too sure if im using a co2 tubing, but i bought it from the same shop i bought my co2 + solenoid though.. it seems to work fine.


----------



## herns

> a friend of mine bought a 55mm in-tank diffuser from hongkong goldfish street


I know this seller in [Ebay Link Removed] They sell good quality CO2 diffuser. When I first bought my co2 glass diffuser from them I found out that bubbles are finer than some HK and Malaysia sellers. 

I bought from them 5 ceramic glass diffusers total.


----------



## herns

EvolutionZ said:


> a friend of mine bought a 55mm in-tank diffuser from hongkong goldfish street and under the name intense aquarium.. think another guy posted a link in page 2... it cost only $15SGD(roughly 12USD?) and it works very well.. i noticed the words embedded on the suction cups is similar to the ones from GLA..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> just to show a comparison, the below pic is a pic with 6 - 7 BPS running with a cheapo $4 glass diffuser.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and this is using the intense co2 bazooka atomizer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> as for co2 saving anot, im not too concerned.. what im happy is that, the bubbles are much more finer and diffused much more better around the tank compared to a normal glass diffuser.. i have been using for only a week though...


 
To some who PM me for link,
find this diffuser here:

aquastore.com.hk


----------



## jjonesrjc

Does anyone know what size would be acceptable to a 55 gallon tank?


----------



## barbarossa4122

jjonesrjc said:


> Does anyone know what size would be acceptable to a 55 gallon tank?


I have a 60mm in my 55g. It works great.


----------



## herns

For those who PM me, here's the inline CO2 diffuser sold in HK

http://aquastore.com.hk/details.php?productid=1294


----------



## jjonesrjc

barbarossa4122 said:


> I have a 60mm in my 55g. It works great.


Just out of curiosity what is the difference in sizes just more surface area for the bubbles to breakdown. Also off topic does co2 grade pipping connect to standard aquarium attachments?


----------



## barbarossa4122

jjonesrjc said:


> Just out of curiosity what is the difference in sizes just more surface area for the bubbles to breakdown.


Yeah, a 60mm is bigger than say, a 45mm.



> Also off topic does co2 grade pipping connect to standard aquarium attachments?


Do you mean co2 tubbing ?


----------



## jjonesrjc

I understand the sizing difference didn't know what the difference in diffusion would be based on the size of the tube. Yes I meant tubing sorry wrong wording came out.


----------



## barbarossa4122

jjonesrjc said:


> I understand the sizing difference didn't know what the difference in diffusion would be based on the size of the tube. Yes I meant tubing sorry wrong wording came out.


I use GLA co2 tubbing and recently I bought the Tygon Lab 1/8" ID x 1/4" OD with a 1/16" wall thickness tubbing from usplastic.com.


----------



## jjonesrjc

barbarossa4122 said:


> I use GLA co2 tubbing and recently I bought the Tygon Lab 1/8" ID x 1/4" OD with a 1/16" wall thickness tubbing from usplastic.com.



Is the GLA co2 tubing standard size tubing or is it larger to meet the connection from a dyi paintball co2 regulator?


----------



## KyleA

jkcrewsn:

Can you comment on the differences between the Up Aqua and GLA inline diffusers? I bought the Up Aqua some time ago(before GLA sold theirs) and just recently set it up. I have a GLA CO2 system, use their CO2 tubing and am impressed with the quality of their products. I just wanted to know if you see the GLA unit as being better and worth upgrading to or should I keep the Up Aqua one? It seems to be working fine btw.


----------



## barbarossa4122

jjonesrjc said:


> Is the GLA co2 tubing standard size tubing or is it larger to meet the connection from a dyi paintball co2 regulator?


I am not familiar with the paint ball system. Shoot Orlando (GLA'boss) a Q and I an sure he'll help you. 
http://www.aquaticplantenthusiasts.com/co2/


----------



## EvolutionZ

hey guys, someone told me that this GLA diffuser need high pressure to push through and thus, will do damage to the regulator, and since the pressure is high, the co2 output will not be consistent.. is this true?


----------



## barbarossa4122

EvolutionZ said:


> hey guys, someone told me that this GLA diffuser need high pressure to push through and thus, will do damage to the regulator, and since the pressure is high, the co2 output will not be consistent.. is this true?


My Victor 253a is feeding 2 tanks at 25 psi (30g and 55g) using GLA in tank diffusers. The diffusers work great for me at this psi. Btw, I also had a Concoa 212 feeding these 2 tanks at 20 psi with no problems. I guess, I can set the working pressure to 30-35 psi but, it's not need it.


----------



## EvolutionZ

barbarossa4122 said:


> My Victor 253a is feeding 2 tanks at 25 psi (30g and 55g) using GLA in tank diffusers. The diffusers work great for me at this psi. Btw, I also had a Concoa 212 feeding these 2 tanks at 20 psi with no problems. I guess, I can set the working pressure to 30-35 psi but, it's not need it.


hmm.. ok.. i noticed my taiwan branded solenoid regulator remains the same 30 psi regardless of using the GLA diffuser or cheapo glass diffuser..


----------



## barbarossa4122

EvolutionZ said:


> hmm.. ok.. i noticed my taiwan branded solenoid regulator remains the same 30 psi regardless of using the GLA diffuser or cheapo glass diffuser..


But, it works right ?


----------



## EvolutionZ

barbarossa4122 said:


> But, it works right ?


yup it works.. but i wonder if it will spoil or damage the regulator in long term.. and wonder if the output being in-consistent being true..


----------



## barbarossa4122

EvolutionZ said:


> yup it works.. but i wonder if it will spoil or damage the regulator in long term.. and wonder if the output being in-consistent being true..


In my case the output is being consistent. You have to make sure not to get any mineral oil or glycerine inside the diffusers. If you do, the diffuser is Kaput.


----------



## EvolutionZ

barbarossa4122 said:


> In my case the output is being consistent. You have to make sure not to get any mineral oil or glycerine inside the diffusers. If you do, the diffuser is Kaput.


hmm.. ok thanks. :icon_wink


----------



## barbarossa4122

You bet


----------



## bsmith

Did you guys who are questioning the difference between the eBay and GLA diffusers look at the thread over at APE where a member put quite a few pics of both up? If you take one minute and look at them you can see with out a doubt that the GLA diffuser puts out quite a bit smaller/more fine bubbles and also is more consistent out of the stone. Meaning there aren't spots where the co2 comes out of because of a lack of consistency in the density of the stone.


----------



## barbarossa4122

bsmith said:


> Did you guys who are questioning the difference between the eBay and GLA diffusers look at the thread over at APE where a member put quite a few pics of both up? If you take one minute and look at them you can see with out a doubt that the GLA diffuser puts out quite a bit smaller/more fine bubbles and also is more consistent out of the stone. Meaning there aren't spots where the co2 comes out of because of a lack of consistency in the density of the stone.


Hi,

I did post those pics and it's a huge difference between the HK one and GLA ones. Post # 388
http://www.aquaticplantenthusiasts.com/co2/3399-new-atomic-co2-diffuser-39.html


55mm GLA diffuser(20psi-Concoa reg):









60mm GLA diffuser(20psi-Concoa reg):









HK diffuser(28psi-Victor reg). You can see this is not working properly:


----------



## bsmith

barbarossa4122 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I did post those pics and it's a huge difference between the HK one and GLA ones. Post # 388
> http://www.aquaticplantenthusiasts.com/co2/3399-new-atomic-co2-diffuser-39.html
> 
> 
> 55mm GLA diffuser(20psi-Concoa reg):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 60mm GLA diffuser(20psi-Concoa reg):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HK diffuser(28psi-Victor reg). You can see this is not working properly:


I was thinking it was you, nice work!

It seems that some people just cant get it through their heads that there most certainly is a difference in the stone even though they look quite similar. I have been having correspondence with Orlando and from that I can also tell you that the GLA diffuser is better and the stone is of a higher quality than the HK diffuser. 

So how about we put the question of them being different to bed. The ARE different. 

Now, if you want to argue if in your opinion the price increase justifies the higher more consistant performance that is fine. 

But please, this horse is dead.


----------



## barbarossa4122

Thanks bsmith. Yes, they are different. Case closed like you said.


----------



## Indignation

bsmith;1290390
It seems that some people just cant get it through their heads that there most certainly is a difference in the stone even though they look quite similar. I have been having correspondence with Orlando and from that I can also tell you that the GLA diffuser is better and the stone is of a higher quality than the HK diffuser.
[/QUOTE said:


> That picture is a little misleading. According to barbarossa, he didn't pre-soak the HK diffuser (which I was told to do by AFA), and was limited by a 28 psi pressure. I also believe he was having problems with his reg. at the time of the photo.
> 
> Heres a photo of my HK diffuser, running at 35 psi. The bubbles are more coarse than when i first got it. When it was clean, the bubbles were identical to the GLA photos.
> It has been running continuously for over 2 months without cleaning. It sits directly under 2xT5HO lights, and previous attempts with glass diffusers in the same location clogged within a week.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To claim that the debate is dead after seeing a set of photos from a single user seems a little rash. There is a video of the HK diffuser earlier in this thread that also show great performance.
> 
> I have a hard time buying that several different chinese R&D factories came up with similar products with similar performance but with different materials at the same time. And if it is a different material, the performance is close enough to warrant an open debate.
> 
> And to be clear, I'm not knocking Orlando, or GLA. In fact, the regulator running this diffuser is a GLA custom build. I like Orlando, I like GLA. I will continue to support them and recommend them. But I don't believe liking a company is reason to not have a honest, open discussion about similar products, especially when there is a large price difference.


----------



## barbarossa4122

Hi Indignation,

I did not pre soak any of the diffusers. Yeah, I was limited to 28 psi but, the GLA diffusers work at only 20 psi as I stated above each pic. Maybe my HK diffusers are "lemons".......who knows. Btw, I tried the HK ones again this time using a brand new Air Products regulator. Even at 38 psi it did not work like the one in your pic. I am not arguing and really don't care what diffusers I use as long as they work. They work for you, that's good enough for me. I was not that lucky.  I tell you what, I can send you one HK diffuser and you can try it. And if it works, you can keep it.


----------



## sajata

Dead? This horse is so dead it has been reincarnated as a thread about health care reform...

Sent from my DROIDX


----------



## EvolutionZ

That picture looks very similar to a GLA replica diffuser i bought in singapore..

This is the packing only cost $5.50SGD..









and this is what happen after almost 2 hours in water.. only VERY slight bubbles were pushed out..









so i went back to the LFS and was told that i need to soak the diffuser so that the air will be purged out.. But end up he still changed a new one for me.. so i went back, soaked it over night and the whole of the next morning.. end up still didn't work.


----------



## barbarossa4122

Hi EvolutionZ,

I think some of them are just "lemons". The interesting thing is that the 3 GLA ones I have work perfect. The HK ones (also 3) do not.


----------



## Indignation

Huh, i guess I just got lucky... I've also bought 3, and all work perfectly. AFA is supposedly switching over to the HK style in their tanks, wonder if there is some trick they know that we don't.


----------



## HypnoticAquatic

i have to agree with indignation that one set of pics cant be justified to say these are junk. when compairing these they should be done by someone unbias on the same system with the same bps psi ext ext have a result thats has no vairables. my cheap diffuser works just like indig's pics so really its not a a dead horse. i think we still need to have more input from many different people rather than just a few that it got "lemons", every product ever made will enevitably make a lemon look at cars electronics ext ext. thats why when comparing things u need to get the broadest spectrum of results to be able to have a more defined result imo.


----------



## bsmith

I wonder why there have been so many reports of the eBay diffusers not working as advertised yet there is not a single complaint from anyone using the GLA diffusers? 

Between the above, the comparo pics, corresponding with Orlando and the fact that it's very easy to see that the stones are different I'm certain that the extra money is well spent.


----------



## herns

bsmith said:


> I wonder why there have been so many reports of the eBay diffusers not working as advertised yet there is not a single complaint from anyone using the GLA diffusers?


Some works. some dont. It's a matter of buying directly from a HK seller not from Ebay.


----------



## bsmith

herns said:


> Some works. some dont. It's a matter of buying directly from a HK seller not from Ebay.


Are you agreeing with me? If not I'm not sure what your trying to say. 

I use eBay diffuser as a broad term to describe all of the HK/cheaper priced diffusers. 

What I was pointing out in my last post is that there are more than a few reports of the cheaper/eBay/HK diffusers not working well when brand new. If they were the same as the GLA it stands to reason that people would be reporting a similar percentage of failures from the GLA diffusers. But they are not. 

Wonder why that is? Pretty self explanatory to me.


----------



## HypnoticAquatic

obviously they are not the same, thats pretty self explanitory execpt for the bazooka ones havent heard anything back on them. there are 3 diffusers that im talkin about the one in the pic the bazooka and gla's, ive only heard of a hand full of people stating that the ones in the pic were "lemons" but without some real testing by a unbias person or group its really irrelevent on comparing these just from a pic as i can favor the outcome as easy as the next person. you could just turn down the psi or flow or have it on a different regulator that might not be able to function properly and have the results favor for your product its that simple. so the only ones u could compair to gla is the bazooka and i havent heard any neg feedback on them.


----------



## Indignation

bsmith said:


> Are you agreeing with me? If not I'm not sure what your trying to say.
> 
> I use eBay diffuser as a broad term to describe all of the HK/cheaper priced diffusers.
> 
> What I was pointing out in my last post is that there are more than a few reports of the cheaper/eBay/HK diffusers not working well when brand new. If they were the same as the GLA it stands to reason that people would be reporting a similar percentage of failures from the GLA diffusers. But they are not.
> 
> Wonder why that is? Pretty self explanatory to me.


Just throwing this out there... but maybe because it's a new product, and we're dealing with a fairly small set of users so far? Don't delude yourself, the GLA diffusers weren't hand-crafted in an artisan's shop in Vermont. All of these, GLA and HK, are coming out a chinese factory. 

I'm not sold one way or the other, and I'm definitely not trying to "sell" the HK diffusers. I'm looking forward to ordering and trying out one of O's diffusers to compare personally, and I still think it's too soon to say one product is better. We need to remember these products have only been on the (US) market for two months.

Why are you so against this thread continuing? If you're convinced the GLA diffuser is the bee's knees, more power to you, I don't think anyone is trying to talk you out of it. Though I don't understand why your personal opinion precludes having an ongoing discussion about different options.


----------



## barbarossa4122

HypnoticAquatic said:


> i have to agree with indignation that one set of pics cant be justified to say these are junk. when compairing these they should be done by someone unbias on the same system with the same bps psi ext ext have a result thats has no vairables. my cheap diffuser works just like indig's pics so really its not a a dead horse. i think we still need to have more input from many different people rather than just a few that it got "lemons", every product ever made will enevitably make a lemon look at cars electronics ext ext. thats why when comparing things u need to get the broadest spectrum of results to be able to have a more defined result imo.


 I did not criticized the HK diffusers, just pointed out how they performed for me at 20, 28 and 38 psi working pressure. I got lemons and that's it. And I, do not think I am biased since I do not work for GLA or any aquarium products company. In fact the only stuff I bought from GLA for my 2 co2 set ups are the diffusers, the bubble counters and 1 DC. I had 7 new cars in my life so far and only one was a lemon..........a 1986 Lincoln Town Car  No argument here, my HK difussers just did not work FOR ME.


----------



## EvolutionZ

not trying to start some flame war or what with my pics.. even my intense bazooka atomizer(GLA-like or might even be the same with GLA ones) is from HK goldfish street...


----------



## EvolutionZ

This is a video of my intense bazooka 55mm atomizer at work.. at 4 - 5 bps.. do note that my tank have pretty good flow so those micro bubbles are moving around...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b36wNOIm1tg


----------



## barbarossa4122

EvolutionZ said:


> This is a video of my intense bazooka 55mm atomizer at work.. at 4 - 5 bps.. do note that my tank have pretty good flow so those micro bubbles are moving around...
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b36wNOIm1tg


Works just like mine. What size is your tank EvolutionZ ?


----------



## EvolutionZ

tank size is 4x2x2, 100gallon.. my friend tried to find the 65mm size for me but they only have stock for 55mm version.. but seems like its working very welll.. my drop checker is showing a good light green.


----------



## HypnoticAquatic

im not saying u do work for them but earlier u did say that you would prefer to buy from gla over hk so that would lead to a biased opinion as its a preference cuase you have had good experiences previously thats all i was saying. i still think its better to get more results from as many users as possible good and bad to have the best general view on performance of these products. i spent a pretty penny on my set up from orlando but im in no way for or against him, hes got good products and some of the best customer service ive seen. i just would like to see a very controlled testing of these products so we all can have a great understanding of the difference of each one. i think were all just curious to see how these do in the long run vs each other. i do have to say it has been nice having a debate stay civil so we can continue this research


----------



## barbarossa4122

EvolutionZ said:


> tank size is 4x2x2, 100gallon.. my friend tried to find the 65mm size for me but they only have stock for 55mm version.. but seems like its working very welll.. my drop checker is showing a good light green.


Yeah, it looks like it's working very well. I have the 60mm in my 55g at 2.5 bps.


----------



## barbarossa4122

HypnoticAquatic said:


> im not saying u do work for them but earlier u did say that you would prefer to buy from gla over hk so that would lead to a biased opinion as its a preference cuase you have had good experiences previously thats all i was saying. i still think its better to get more results from as many users as possible good and bad to have the best general view on performance of these products. i spent a pretty penny on my set up from orlando but im in no way for or against him, hes got good products and some of the best customer service ive seen. i just would like to see a very controlled testing of these products so we all can have a great understanding of the difference of each one. i think were all just curious to see how these do in the long run vs each other. i do have to say it has been nice having a debate stay civil so we can continue this research


No problem It's true, I do prefer GLA b/c it's fast shipping and if a product it's defective I send it right back to Orlando. Of course we need to be civil and share info.


----------



## bsmith

Saying that I or anyone claiming these are different is an easy way to discredit anything we might say. I have no affiliation with GLA and have purchased products elsewhere in the past from another source because I found it cheaper. Which is your argument here. Cheaper for the same thing. Please don't confuse my point of view as a biased unclear opinion that is strictly based on emotion. You would be mistaken. 

The pics comparing the inline (what I'm taking about getting) over at APE clearly show that the diffusion stone is different between the two. Plain as day.


----------



## barbarossa4122

> The pics comparing the inline (what I'm taking about getting) over at APE clearly show that the diffusion stone is different between the two. Plain as day.


I don't know if this matters or not how the diffusers perform but yes, the stone is different.


----------



## bsmith

barbarossa4122 said:


> I don't know if this matters or not how the diffusers perform but yes, the stone is different.


You and I both know that common sense says it could make a huge difference.


----------



## barbarossa4122

bsmith said:


> You and I both know that common sense says it could make a huge difference.


Yeah.


----------



## HypnoticAquatic

bsmith my argument is u can not have a conclusive test from one single test period. to do a test you need to be able to control all variables which wasnt done on the pic thats my point so it can play a huge roll on the outcome of the result. we obviously know the hk diffuser and the gla is a different stone just from looking at it, what we dont know is if there is a differece in the gla and the bazooka. and we have been talkin about the intank ones as in the picture.


----------



## herns

Indignation said:


> Just throwing this out there... but maybe because it's a new product, and we're dealing with a fairly small set of users so far? Don't delude yourself, the GLA diffusers weren't hand-crafted in an artisan's shop in Vermont. All of these, GLA and HK, are coming out a chinese factory.
> 
> I'm not sold one way or the other, and I'm definitely not trying to "sell" the HK diffusers. I'm looking forward to ordering and trying out one of O's diffusers to compare personally, and I still think it's too soon to say one product is better. We need to remember these products have only been on the (US) market for two months.
> 
> Why are you so against this thread continuing? If you're convinced the GLA diffuser is the bee's knees, more power to you, I don't think anyone is trying to talk you out of it. Though I don't understand why your personal opinion precludes having an ongoing discussion about different options.



I agree with this input.


----------



## EvolutionZ

I wonder will protein oil on the top layer of tank spoil a atomizer? my 55mm atomizer couldn't work after i took it out to bleach.. it probably had some contact with the protein oil when i took it out.. according to barbarossa4122, any mineral oil or glycerine will spoil the atomizer.. the only oil i could think of is protein oil on top of my tank..

Right now the atomizer is badly clogged and hardly any bubbles can be seen pushing out.. i changed to my glass diffuser and it worked fine.. so i guess my atomizer is kaput.


----------



## EvolutionZ

Strangely, it worked again the next day.. and continue running for a few days already.. weird...


----------



## takadi

This isn't 100 percent, but imagine putting this inside a reactor. You could increase your ppm exponentially


----------



## mordalphus

My upaqua inline diffuser which looks exactly like the GLA one works perfect and has since the day i installed it. It's really incredible, my tank is like a bottle of club soda, hah


----------



## bsmith

Again there is no dilution. It's simple math. The sane proportion of people would be reporting problems with the GLA diffuser as they would with the HK ones if they were the same. But they don't. It doesn't get any more simple than that.


----------



## Capsaicin_MFK

mordalphus said:


> My upaqua inline diffuser which looks exactly like the GLA one works perfect and has since the day i installed it. It's really incredible, my tank is like a bottle of club soda, hah


Got my inline atomizer hooked up a couple days ago and I love it. I wanted an inline reactor but I didn't want something bulky and this thing solved that dilemma.


----------



## NyteBlade

Has anyone converted from a glass diffuser to the intank or inline model and can share some experiences?

I'm thinking about upgrading to one of the inline ones hooked up to my filter. Does it matter if the thing is before or after an inline heater on an outtake? Is it efficient enough to warrant an upgrade? Is there any aesthetic value to the whole fog thing with the intank thing vs. the inline reactor?


----------



## dhavoc

besides its efficiency, with the inline model, you basically never clean it. its in the dark of your cabinet so algae/microbial growth is minimal. you also cant clean the co2 side of the diffuser, at least mine cant be cleaned. i have the inline up-aqua (or whatever chinese branded version of it) from ebay and have been using the same one with no cleaning for over a year. i use it on the outflow of a 2217 thats there specifically for co2 and biological filtration on my 120g (2026, eheim ball powerhead and magnum hot filter do the mechanical filtration). its pretty cheap and hidden away out of sight, and best of all i dont have to clean the damn thing every month like i used to with a glass diffuser. just ordered a few of the cheapo in tank models to test as well for smaller tanks.


----------



## Gunplameister

I though id give my review

I ordered and received my GLA diffuser along with their inline pressure line bubble counter/check valve earlier this week and finnaly got set up last nite. 
I really cant tell a diferance between output of GLA and the Archaea i got from AFA other than i like the color of GLA better as the clear parts of the AFA one tend to catch my eye.

My only complaint isnt even with the diffuser its with the counter/check valve, it doesnt check very well as i had system off while i was at work and it siphoned back a good 12" into the tubing towards regulator and now i have to tear apart and purge.

theres my 2 cents


----------



## g01ngog

So I bought one(atomic co2 diffuser that is) and hooked it up... Aaand nothing comes out, I've switched back to my cheapo glass diffuser until I figure out what's wrong.


----------



## bsmith

So how many HK diffusers is that are not working properly out of the box is that compared to I think not a single GLA diffuser that is not working correctly?


----------



## davesnothere

I am at the point of deciding which way to go - reactor, inline diffuser or in tank. Since I never used pressurized Co2 before, I am clueless as to what works the best. The difference in price of building a reactor, or buying one of the atomizers, inline or in tank is not that big. 

Going through the posts I noticed some people love the bubbles / mist the atomizers create vs. people hating exactly the same. Question for the reactor users, does Co2 get completely dissolved and you do not see any bubbles ? 

Please let me know, I am at a point of purchasing all the parts.

Thanks


----------



## damenblankenship

I'm still learning about co2 so forgive me if I'm not up to par, but couldnt you get the same result from a simple air stone?


----------



## Gunplameister

damenblankenship said:


> I'm still learning about co2 so forgive me if I'm not up to par, but couldnt you get the same result from a simple air stone?


The problem with using regular airstone is the pores are so big that just like using air it creates big bubbles and goes right to the top. less time in the water means less co2 abosorbed into water.


----------



## takadi

Simple airstones are good for yeast or other DIY systems though


----------



## mcubed45

bsmith said:


> So how many HK diffusers is that are not working properly out of the box is that compared to I think not a single GLA diffuser that is not working correctly?


http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/equipment/130946-gla-atomic-co2-diffuser-3.html#post1329680

even GLA's stock isn't defect free. i'm curious if the distributor actually has different levels of quality stock that they offer to the various vendors at different price points.


----------



## bsmith

You get my point though. If they were the EXACT same the failure rate should be identical. 

As far as the differing levels of manufacturing quality, I would certainly expect so. That may be the only difference between the two. The diffuser stone.


----------



## mcubed45

bsmith said:


> You get my point though. If they were the EXACT same the failure rate should be identical.
> 
> As far as the differing levels of manufacturing quality, I would certainly expect so. That may be the only difference between the two. The diffuser stone.


ya. it's not uncommon for manufacturers to have A-stock and B-stock. but if that's the case it'd make more sense for GLA to just disclose this and explain that the premium price tag they charge is for a higher quality stock. makes more sense than trying to claim the ones from other vendors are a completely different product.


----------



## barbarossa4122

What's the point ? You need a good diffuser and great costumer service you buy from a good online place that you know it has a good reputation. I bought 6 from GLA and they all work great. I bought 4 from HK and none is working.


----------



## mcubed45

barbarossa4122 said:


> What's the point ? You need a good diffuser and great costumer service you buy from a good online place that you know it has a good reputation. I bought 6 from GLA and they all work great. I bought 4 from HK and none is working.


i've had no trouble with the customer service from the overseas dealers (aqmagic, u-barn, etc) in getting refunds or issues resolved. it just takes a little longer for the shipping. if i can get an identical product at a significantly lower cost from overseas, that's where my money's going. if there is a clear difference in the quality of the product, the price difference may be justified. anecdotal argmuents or observations like "the stone is different colored!!" don't carry as much weight.

some people are willing to pay a premium for someone to hold their hand & answer questions every step of the way. there's nothing wrong with that. but some people are more concerned about the bottom line and there's nothing wrong with that as well.


----------



## bsmith

mcubed45 said:


> ya. it's not uncommon for manufacturers to have A-stock and B-stock. but if that's the case it'd make more sense for GLA to just disclose this and explain that the premium price tag they charge is for a higher quality stock. makes more sense than trying to claim the ones from other vendors are a completely different product.


Orlando has told me that the diffuser disk is in fact different.


----------



## barbarossa4122

mcubed45;1330044
some people are willing to pay a premium for someone to hold their hand & answer questions every step of the way. there's nothing wrong with that. but some people are more concerned about the bottom line and there's nothing wrong with that as well.[/QUOTE said:


> Yep. We are all different.


----------



## mcubed45

bsmith said:


> Orlando has told me that the diffuser disk is in fact different.


so the manufacturer offers a choice of different grade ceramics for their housings?


----------



## bsmith

And the fact that it is a higher quality piece makes the bottom line end up being how much you really want to mess with the down time of a broken/un-usable diffuser too. I will choose the more expensive option if that correlates to less hassle, every time.


----------



## dhavoc

i tried the cheap route (evilbay), and now have 4 useless paperweights, and a 5th still in the pkg (dont want to waste time trying it out). 3 didnt diffuse more than a single tiny stream of large bubbles, and one leaked at the end caps where the stones are glued to the plastic. its not the regulator (tried them on Rex Grigg, millwaukee, azoo) or the psi (tried it at 30, 40 and even 50). gave up and bought some from GLA and all work as advertised. yes they cost alot more but hey, at least they work (in my experience anyway). plus i like the smaller physical diameter of the GLA one as well.



bsmith said:


> And the fact that it is a higher quality piece makes the bottom line end up being how much you really want to mess with the down time of a broken/un-usable diffuser too. I will choose the more expensive option if that correlates to less hassle, every time.


----------



## etbarry

+1 for the gla diffusers. got one and love it.


----------



## tuffgong

Anybody using one of these on a DIY yeast setup?


----------



## Scruff

tuffgong said:


> Anybody using one of these on a DIY yeast setup?


I don't think that's possible as the diffusers require ~30 psi to work.


----------



## tuffgong

Yeah, I saw that. I figured somebody around here would have tried it by now.


----------



## oscarsx

I've been using this diffuser for about a week now, I'm very happy with the results. The bubbles coming out are tiny.. takes them forever to reach the top, It' really neat.

I have the 60mm for my 55 gal.


----------



## mcubed45

tuffgong said:


> Anybody using one of these on a DIY yeast setup?





Scruff said:


> I don't think that's possible as the diffusers require ~30 psi to work.


the only reason it wouldn't work is if you have a leak. yeast don't go dormant or stop producing co2 when pressure increases.


----------



## JCoxRocks

FYI... some folks (myself included) have been having some issues with this diffuser...

gla-atomic-diffuser-not-working-properly

J


----------



## zenche

^ what kind of issues? curious


----------



## btimmer92

Issues like the bubbles are not very small at all, and the product is basically just hyped up lol (yes, other people, meaning ME)
The thread I posted says the bubbles are small, and the flow is the problem. Well, after using it, the bubbles have gotten bigger. Maybe it is just me, it works as well as a glass diffuser, but it costs $30 after shipping. Im just sayin'


----------



## galabar

mcubed45 said:


> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> *Ukamikazu*: I think the main thing we disagree on is the pressure in the line when the system is active and in constant flow. I agree with the fact that the setting on the low pressure gauge may not accurately reflect the pressure in the line at the bubble counter. Rather, the regulator works by setting a max cutoff. When the line reaches a pressure above the setting, the diaphragm rises and cuts off the flow. What happens when the pressure is below the set pressure is a bit less clear. My thinking is the poppet valve works more as a regular flow valve as the knob is turned and spring tension increases. Therefore unless you have sufficient resistance in your system, your line pressure isn't really increasing that much, it's mostly flow. I think this is what you were trying to get at when talking about the force of the aquarium water etc. You can only apply as much force/psi as can be returned. And you're right that there is definitely a pressure gradient as you move further down the line, but bubble counters are typically pretty close the regulator (if not built into it) so the drop from low-pressure gauge to bubble counter can't be THAT much.
> 
> But the thing that's important to remember is that diffusers have a MINIMUM working pressure. Below this pressure they simply do not work. The line pressurizes to the psi set at the regulator and flow is then cut off. The system sits in stasis. Once the regulator setting is increased to achieve the diffuser's minimum working pressure, the line further pressurizes, and flow commences. However, it _is_ difficult to predict how the pressure in the line changes as the adjustment knob on the regulator is turned and further opens the poppet valve. I would imagine as you further raise your psi above the minimum working pressure, you see a steeper and steeper pressure gradient and a very minimal effect on gas compression. This is why people running high pressures and regular diffusers don't need to worry too much about how their bubble counter readings are affected.
> 
> But it's clear by GLA's own statements these new diffusers have a higher minimum working pressure. And while there are probably differences between the minimum starting pressure and minimum working pressure (as evidenced by the need to "kick start" some diffusers), I think it's pretty safe to conclude that the minimum working pressure of GLA's new diffusers is higher than regular ones. This necessitates that the density of CO2 flowing through a bubble counter on a system using a regular diffusers is not the same as that of a system using GLA's new diffusers.


Sorry to necro-post, but from my experiments:

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/equipment/171915-bubble-not-bubble.html

you seem to be correct. The pressure in the CO2 line is held fairly constant because of the atomizer (needle valve in my experiment). You can see this with in-line gauges before and after the bubble counter.

Indeed, the CO2 is more dense within the line before the atomizer.


----------



## mcubed45

galabar said:


> Sorry to necro-post, but from my experiments:
> 
> http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/equipment/171915-bubble-not-bubble.html
> 
> you seem to be correct. The pressure in the CO2 line is held fairly constant because of the atomizer (needle valve in my experiment). You can see this with in-line gauges before and after the bubble counter.
> 
> Indeed, the CO2 is more dense within the line before the atomizer.



a couple other members with engineering/science backgrounds finally posted and confirmed what i'd been arguing all along and everyone finally stopped. 


that's awesome that you took the time to run an experiment! thanks for sharing!


----------

