# DIY In-Line Micro-bubbler



## scolley

For those of you following Tom Barr's recent contributions in this thread, or this one, there are a lot of interesting developments being discussed around injecting very small bubbles into a tank. Circulation of those bubbles is important. If done right, there are claims that this provides great increases in plant growth and health, even beyond the provision of 30ppm of dissolved CO2.

There are multiple methods suggested for accomplishing this. I am particularly interested in _ways to accomplish this in-line_. If possible, by modifications to a standard in-line CO2 reactor.

This diagram is a simple pic of a typical setup. I left off fine details on the reactor itself, for there are many varieties out there. I suppose the important things to note about the reactor is that water entering the top, CO2 is entering near the top, and water with dissolved CO2 is exiting the bottom to return to the tank.









In this next diagram, I've tried to show how this might be modified to also add micro-bubbles into the tank.









This assumes the creation of another in-line piece, with a ceramic disc or other micro bubbler, injecting bubbles into the flow of water back to the tank. This is connected to a new port on the top of the CO2 reactor, that would provide pressurized CO2 from the excess gas in the top of that chamber.

I realize upon posting this that at least 2 things are missing from this diagram. First, a check valve in the CO2 line between the reactor and "bubble chamber", to keep liquid out of that line. Second, the bubble chamber needs some kind of port to allow maintenance to the bubbler, whether cleaning or replacement.

The two threads I mentioned previously have a lot of discussion around whether these bubbles will be dissolved as they move through the water, instead of circulating around the tank. The current discussion is around whether that process of dissolving is significantly retarded once the water hits around 30ppm CO2. I'm hoping that's the case, or this will not work at all.

Will this work? Is there a better way? I welcome your thoughts and feedback. 

Thanks.


----------



## Bayleo

If the argument holds, this would definitely be a good way to suppliment the typical pressurized setup. The only design issue I can see regards the "port" that you mentioned. Asside from splitting the line before it got back to the tank and putting valves on either side of the bubble chamber apparatus I cannot see an easy way to do this...

I know it's hard to draw in MS Paint, but you may want to angle the reactor so that the extra, undissolved CO2 can find the way out in the easiest manner possible (CO2 outlet as close to the top as possible).

Someone needs to test this to determine how much pressure really builds up in our in-line reactors, just to see if they get a good number of micro bubbles coming from their outlet. This still leaves the question of whether or not the bubbles are CO2, but that can be answered elsewhere.


----------



## jgc

You are attempt to burp the gas build up in your reactor into a second chamber. Problem I see is there is no presure gradient between the two, nothing is forcing the bubbles to move from the the first chamber to the second, plus any diffuser disk will require pressure to operate.

As a stop gap measure, why don't you just operate the first reactor ups down?


----------



## Bert H

Steve, what would prevent water, instead of gas, from exiting via the second port? You assume there will always be a gas pocket built up there otherwise, how would the gas exit via that port? I am not sure that assumption will hold water, to use a bad pun.

Seems to me, the ideal situation is to place a diffuser on line with the return tank flow. But even that way, I wonder how quickly the tiny bubbles would dissolve in the water returning to the tank.


----------



## scolley

Thanks for the feedback. Let me try to make combined answers here...

Pressure - There seems to be some valid concern over pressure, or lack thereof, to drive the bubbler. While it might not be enough, I thought the gas leaving the CO2 bubble counter was pressurized, pressure builds up in the CO2 line to the reactor, and once excess gas builds up in the reactor, that gas should be pressurized too. Which means pressurized gas going to the microbubbler. 

I neglected to show the typical check valve in the line between the CO2 tanks and the reactor. On mine, the line between the check-valve and the reactor always fills with water when no CO2 is being released. But when it starts, the CO2 drives the water out of the line. And that implies some level of pressure.

Please someone tell me if this is not true.

Water in the line to the microbubbler - That's the check valve I was mentioning. I _think _ that a check valve would keep water out of some of the line, and gas pressure (when the CO2 was back on) would flush the rest. But it could be that 2nd port (gas outflow) needs to be in the top of the reactor for that to work. Which BTW, achieves the same effect as tilting the reactor I believe.

Upside down reactor - unfortunately that will just get bubbles in the tank, not the 100-500 micron tiny variety Tom Barr has indicated is required. That takes an impeller to chop bigger bubbles up, or a diffuser that makes tiny, tiny bubbles as I'm showing here.

Other alternatives - I could just put a "T" on the line coming out of the CO2 tank, and drive the microbubbler with that. Bu then that would require some valves in both lines to balance the CO2 pressure appropriately between both lines after the "T". I was hoping to avoid that complication.

Thanks for your thoughts. If this can be worked out, it could be cool.


----------



## Bayleo

You could always split the CO2 line before the reactor, and just have the bubble chamber operating as a second reactor.

**n/m, you posted while I was typing Scolley**


----------



## scolley

Yeah, so you posted before I wrote the "other alternatives" option.

That could well be the best way to do it. But then it would require a valve on either one (or both) of the "reactors". I'm kinda hesitant to get into pressure balance or co2 flow contention issues between the two devices.

But it would allow me to hook something up without drilling a hole in my reactor.

Anyone have any idea about pressure, or flow, contention between the two devices if I just put a "Y" off my CO2 tank that went to both of them?


----------



## jgc

not sure if my thought about the "upside down" reactor made it to my post. Mostly just saying that why don't you remove the first chamber and just run all your co2 through the diffuser disk in the second chamber.

A lot will disolve but what remains should still be pretty small bubbles


----------



## scolley

jgc - Oh, hmmm. That's a thought! Thanks!

So just lose the regular diffuser? And let the "microbubbler" do it all for me.

Tom Barr's contention is that bubbles dissolving gets a lot harder as you approach and exceed 30ppm. If that's true (but still being argued about in another thread) then just using the microbubbler would hopefully spew dissolving bubbles until the tank hits 30ppm, then they should stop being absorbed so easily and start spreading the "oh so desirable" little micro bubbles.

Got to go think about that one. Thanks!


----------



## jhoetzl

OK, I have been thinking about ways to accomplish this without another powerhead, pump or other inline device...

With that, I thought of something that might work, and, eliminate the external chamber entirely, and not add any more powerheads/pumps.










I wonder how much pressure is exerted on the end cap on my spraybar and how fine a bubble I can get to occur inside the spray bar...

Hmmmm, might give it a shot over the weekend.


----------



## Bayleo

That's good thinkin' -- just flipping a normal in-line reactor with a diffuser in it upside-down (i.e. water flowing up towards the tank) you might even be able to control the amount of "micro-bubbles" you get by tilting the reactor a bit, or having it vertical, depending on the thickness of the pvc/et cetera you used to build it.

I think it would be critical to have it enter the reactor just before it went up into the tank though, to ensure that some of the bubbles stuck around. Seems like it would work best with something like a lily pipe as opposed to spray-bars, et al.

That still leaves the issue of diffuser maintainence though...

You could build something along this line, with a chamber wide enough for a good-sized diffuser disk, and a removable lid of some sort with valves to shut when you need to remove the lid and clean the diffuser.


----------



## scolley

jhoetzl - Nice diagrams! And I'm happy for people to use this thread to figure out how to do this without in-line devices. But I've got zero interest in that personally. I want ALL that stuff out of my tank...

Bayleo - what you are showing in your pic is pretty much what I was talking about with the "microbubbler". Just a container with an in, an out, a maintenance port, and a place to take CO2 in that goes into a micro bubble creating device. And not just any airstone will do apparently. The bubble size appears to be 100-500 nanometers, which is much smaller than most airstones can accommodate.

But, I ordered a few of these  a couple of days ago - and should arrive in a couple of days.

And I'm assembling something to accommodate it now. So I bought one of these...








The right angle opening is screw threaded and will be the maintenace port. And slip fittings will go in the big holes at either end to hook up to the water hoses. The big problem is the port for the CO2. 


But any airline connector I could find was not long enough, so I had to drill an inset in the exterior like so...











So with a connector it looks like this...











And for an inside view, you can see that there was almost not enough connector showing to get a good airline connection within the PVC. So I got the Dremmel out (gotta love those Dremmels roud: ) and sanded out a little depression on the inside. So there is hopefully just enough connector poking through to get a good connection.











What I had not thought about, until this thread, was that this might just be all I need - replacing my in-line diffuser.

Can't wait to see how this turns out!


----------



## Momotaro

What is to stop the CO2 bubbles from immediately rising to the water's surface once they exit the spraybar?

Seems to me you'd need a pretty strong current to prevent the gas bubbles from rising up as they exit the output.

Mike


----------



## scolley

Momotaro said:


> What is to stop the CO2 bubbles from immediately rising to the water's surface once they exit the spraybar?
> 
> Seems to me you'd need a pretty strong current to prevent the gas bubbles from rising up as they exit the output.
> 
> Mike


Good question. I'm given to understand that when bubbles are small enough, the upward force they get is exceeded by their tendency to flow with the current.

But that's just what I've surmised from reading the other threads. I, for d*mn sure don't know, and would love to be told what will happen.

I can say this, with all the other discussion in the other of Tom B's threads about Amano's configurations, and where he puts diffusers and whatnot, it is clear that people think the micro bubbles are going to be blown around the tank and not just rapidly rising to the surface. So, I'm assuming the same.

But frankly, I don't know. That's why I started this thread... to get such questions discussed. Thanks for asking!


----------



## jgc

once you have it connected and burped - post pics roud: 

The hope is that the bubbles that reach the tank will be small enough to have minimal bouancy and will rise pretty slowly.

Just my thoughts - place the T on it's side. Input on the side, diffuser on the bottom, exhaust out the top. Or not. If you use threaded fittings you can always change it - and not as if cost all that much to change even if it is all glued up.


----------



## scolley

Wow. Good idea. Too bad the only threaded fitting is on the side. So that is absolutely the maintenance port. But if the T were on it's side, as you suggest, that would still allow the stone to be in the maintenance leg of the T, with bubbles rising into the flow...

But honestly I'm inclined not to do that because the interior of the device is maybe 2" in diameter, so water will not be moving quickly through it. In the configuration suggested above, there could be CO2 actually accumulating at the top of the T - not getting pulled into the current because the current is to slow, and the bubble buoyancy is too low.

For that reason I'm inclined to have the water flowing in the bottom and exiting the top. The limited, but real, buoyancy of the bubbles should take them all out the top, without micro bubbles clustering to become just plain old bubbles.

But hey, I'm just guessing. Thanks for the suggestion!


----------



## Oqsy

with my current spraybar/powerhead setup, the small bubbles do indeed ride the current for a LONG time. the only bubbles i've directly observed hitting the surface were from pearling. i like both the spraybar with diffuser inside and T connector with diffuser inside approaches. now lets see some beta testing  by the way, steve, if you have a few extra diffusers coming your way, i'd be happy to trade something for one  I found some glandulosa growing nearby, but it's emmersed. it's yours if you don't mind transitioning it in your tank.

Oqsy


----------



## BlueRam

I am going to pay for this, but you might be able to hook a difusior under a bulkhead. You will need a decrative element to cover the cloud of bubbles. Something like this maybe:

http://www.bigalsonline.com/catalog/product.xml?product_id=20209&category_id=1655&pcid1=1695

For the kids:
http://www.bigalsonline.com/catalog/product.xml?product_id=28725;category_id=1655;pcid1=1695;pcid2=


----------



## scolley

Whoaa Osqy - I'm not loosing my diffuser that quickly! Sorry. I also use it as the spot that my fert injection rigs are hooked into. So even if this _does _ work, I've got to re-rig new injection ports. I could hook some on to this, but I'm all out of the little micro-ball valves. But if this works I might have something extra in a month or two...

But I'd love some glandulosa. I can't find it anywhere else. Are you _sure _ that's what it is?


Blueram! Man, you contribute so much around here, I suppose it is to be expected that every once in a while you pull a boner! I was actually _looking forward_ to clicking that link - thinking that you've found something cool!

Well, I guess in a way it is cool. I'm just not quite cool enough to pull off putting that in my tank! :wink: 

BTW - SpongeBob is not _just _ for kids. Apparently a large portion (around 25%) of SpongeBob viewers are adult males.


----------



## unirdna

Nice brainstorming thread you have here, Steve.

Couple of thoughts.

First off, your original idea can work, but won't so long as the 2nd chamber is below the first. Fluids flow from high pressure to low, and since the 2nd chamber has more head pressure, the air would surely stay in the 1st. Raise that 2nd chamber higher than the 1st.

Second thought pertains to your later idea of the PVC T-fitting. I have no experience with the diffusers you ordered from aquatic eco. I imagine they have very tiny pores. IME, diffusers clog quickly enough when used as directed in a tank. I suspect they will clog much more quickly in an inline system. Think of all the gunk that gets caught on the bio balls in reactors (for those who think they are useful ).


----------



## scolley

unirdna said:


> First off, your original idea can work, but won't so long as the 2nd chamber is below the first. Fluids flow from high pressure to low, and since the 2nd chamber has more head pressure, the air would surely stay in the 1st. Raise that 2nd chamber higher than the 1st.


Now you see? That's why I post this stuff... Every time I think I've figured out some simple little thing, someone comes along and shows me why I'm wrong before I waste a bunch of time! Thanks Ted - Great suggestion! I love this forum!



unirdna said:


> IME, diffusers clog quickly enough when used as directed in a tank. I suspect they will clog much more quickly in an inline system. Think of all the gunk that gets caught on the bio balls in reactors (for those who think they are useful ).


Tiny pores is assumed. It is spec'd for 100-500 micron bubbles, same size as the expensive stones Tom was recommending.

Yeah, I was worried about the maintenance. I was hoping that the pressure of bubbles blowing out would keep things from sticking, and the stuff gunking it up would be from the CO2 itself, not things in the water blasting past it, or the grundu growth you get inside of tubing.

It's an issue. I don't have an answer, other than periodic maintenance. And that I anticipated this when I ordered, and ordered three of them (they're cheap). I figure three gives me just enough time to decide whether it's worth the trouble. :wink: 

Thanks for the advice. Solid once again. roud:


----------



## co2

The moment Tom started talking about the micro bubbles I have been thinking about how to do it inline. Funny to see how similar the thought patterns are.


----------



## Bayleo

Would seem to me that as long as you give the water a direct path and keep the diffuser out of the direct flow (e.g. my crappy MS paint diagram) it won't get too gunked up in that regard.


----------



## scolley

Yeah, thanks. That is a good point about your diagram that I over looked - keeping the diffuser out of the flow. I'll have to chew on that a while, because my current plan will not accommodate that.

But also as I tried to explain in my reply to unirdna, I'm not entirely convinced it will matter though.


----------



## scolley

OK, I've been reading Ted's other thread, and it really, really looks like these micro-bubbles aren't CO2. In all likelihood they are oxygen or nitrogen. If that's true, it won't do a bit of good to hook this contraption up to a CO2 source, because all of the CO2 micro-bubbles will get dissolved in a heartbeat in that turbulent flow.

But Tom Barr still seems to be onto something. Here's one possibility of what is really going on:

Tom's powered venturi reactor is indeed dissolving CO2 into his tank. But the observed micro-bubbles aren't CO2, they're O2. When the plants start expiring the O2, the water gets quickly saturated with O2 at 12 ppm (so pearling will start soon). That means the the O2 bubbles that are being created by Tom's stop being absorbed and start being blown visibly around the tank. Well, it just happens to be at the point of O2 saturation, so what do we observe at the same time? Pearling!

Then the good part starts. Tom is seeing massive pearling and great growth. Why? Maybe these O2 bubbles are somehow disturbing this boundary layer around the plant leaves, and enabling greater CO2 assimilation in the process. So that has the effect of great growth, which in turn creates massive pearling. And BTW the massive pearling could be enhanced by the fact that the little venturi reactor keeps the water constantly saturated with O2.​
I am no scientist. But from what I've been reading, the above seems plausible.

If so, I'm not hooking my micro-bubbler up to my CO2, I'm hooking it up to an air pump!


----------



## jhoetzl

OK, so back to the drawing board I went...and after seeing the T you have, I thought there must be another way of getting those bubbles into the output line.

If you look at this picture you will notice that the venturi is attached to a small powerhead.
That venturi is removable. 

That said, if you could T off some of an output to pass through the venturi, with some adapters here and there and a bit of silicon, that stream of bubbles be passing into the output. no disc, no stone and tiny bubbles (in my wine...)
I wonder if someone makes other sizes of venturis similar to that one.

BTW, the bubbles in that picture are supplied from a small airpump.
That rig is running in one of my tanks with the output "blowing" towards the outlet of my HOB filter. I know it isn't identical to the other methods, but want to satisfy my own curiousity on this matter.
I will post some updated pictures this weekend. 
So far, I haven't really noticed a massive difference in growth, all other params being equal. 

We shall see...


----------



## scolley

jhoetzl said:


> OK, so back to the drawing board I went...and after seeing the T you have, I thought there must be another way of getting those bubbles into the output line.
> 
> If you look at this picture you will notice that the venturi is attached to a small powerhead.
> That venturi is removable.
> 
> That said, if you could T off some of an output to pass through the venturi, with some adapters here and there and a bit of silicon, that stream of bubbles be passing into the output. no disc, no stone and tiny bubbles (in my wine...)


Yeah, that's one of the first things I started tinkering with on paper. But I realized that while that would be a nice way to inject bubbles, it wouldn't address the apparent need to produce _really tiny _ bubbles - 500 to 100 nanometers.

Thanks though. And let us know if you get any benefits from the rig. roud:


----------



## scolley

OK - all my stuff came in yesterday. The air stones look like air stones. But they just barely will not fit in my T. And as was previously pointed out, the stone would be in the flow, so it's time to go back to the drawing board anyway.

And I did not mention, while I was purchasing the air stones, because I was afraid they would not work out (the gunk problem) I bought one of the ceramic disk diffusers from AquaticEcoSystems in that same order. And guess what!!! It arrived with the stones, and it turns our to be one of the Azoo's everyone is claiming is the cat's meow in ceramic discs!

So, maybe I'll rig something to put that in-line instead, since my current efforts have turned to naught. (I seem to have a penchant for that. :icon_frow ).

I'll post pics after I get it rigged.

And BTW, if it turns out that the mystery micro bubbles Tom Barr is blowing around turn out to be 02, I'll just be hooking the rig up to an air pump.


----------



## scolley

Well, I played with the Sweetwater Fine-pore diffusers, or whatever they are called from AquaticEcoSystems. IMO they are crap.

I hooked them up to an air pump to observe the bubbles. And I'm willing to say that many of the bubbles are tiny. Real tiny. But the vast majority of bubbles coming off those things look no different than what you can buy at the LFS. What a waste of money!

And just in case all these micro-bubbles turn out to be O2, rather than CO2, I attached the Azoo ceramic diffuser up to the same air pump. It couldn't generate enough pressure to generate a single bubble. Not one.

So I suppose one of those "deep water" air pumps is in order. Or a CO2 line that can throw a few bar pressure at the problem.

And I got some Big A** PVC from HD today to accommodate the Azoo. I'll post pics when I get it assembled.


----------



## scolley

Before I started assembling today, I went in to figure out just where this big thing would go. And there was no good place for it, given it's size, and the amount of stuff that already inhabits my stand.

So I decided not to assemble this yet. Not that assembly is such a big deal - a fun DIY project that would take an hour or two. But I'm not going to start ripping up the plumbing in my stand until the benefits of something like this is more clear.

The jury seems to be out on the benefits of Tom's device (vs. normal diffusers that is). And there are still questions around what these micro-bubbles are. And what benefit they bring, if any.

So I'm going to follow other threads and see what the community decides. Then, if appropriate, I'll build the in-line micro-bubbler. But please feel free to use this thread to hash issues out about doing this, or something similar. roud:


----------



## bigstick120

scolley said:


> And just in case all these micro-bubbles turn out to be O2, rather than CO2, I attached the Azoo ceramic diffuser up to the same air pump. It couldn't generate enough pressure to generate a single bubble. Not one.



Thanks for answering my question if these would work with DIY CO2, I was going to try it on my 29 gallon. Although it may build up enough pressure to power it but, not real sure


----------



## stcyrwm

bigstick120 said:


> Thanks for answering my question if these would work with DIY CO2, I was going to try it on my 29 gallon. Although it may build up enough pressure to power it but, not real sure


It'll do it but my bottle was expanded like it was ready to blow when I used it.


----------



## Marc

*I may have found what you guys are looking for...*

I found this on a site few days ago, its a CO2 Injector!


----------



## scolley

Yeah, good catch marc! You found it here, I'll wager.

As a matter of fact, I've got one that I'm not using. Maybe I need to look at it. When I bought my 1st (and best) peristaltic pump from those guys, they sold me one of these as the fert injector to put on the end of the pump. I don't use it anymore because I finally figured out a better, smaller, more efficient way to introduce micro-pumped ferts into my in-line flow. So it's just sitting in a box now.

But I always kind of figured that it would have to be pretty lame as a CO2 injector. My assumption was that if it could let viscous micro ferts through, any gas bubbles it created must be pretty large... nothing like the mist you would really want.

But it is just sitting in a box. I need to go check it out...

Thanks for the post!


----------



## unirdna

scolley said:


> But I always kind of figured that it would have to be pretty lame as a CO2 injector. My assumption was that if it could let viscous micro ferts through, any gas bubbles it created must be pretty large... nothing like the mist you would really want.


As quickly as CO2 dissolves into water, I would wager that such a device would work nicely, so long as it was placed early in the return line circuit. If I had one of these, I would not hesitate to use it. It may not be quite as efficient as a reactor, but I'll bet you the difference isn't significant, and certainly beats putting unsightly equipment in the tank. And if you angled your spraybar downward, I doubt you'd lose much, if any CO2 gas bubbles to the atmosphere. By the time they reached the spraybar, they would already be gone or quite small. Try it. I'll bet you will be surprised at how well this can work. 

Ted


----------



## scolley

Ted - you might not have caught this thread from the beginning. It's not about finding a reactor replacement. It's about finding something in-line that will create those mystical and controversial Barr microbubbles of CO2 to go shooting around the tank.

And the thread itself presumes, I guess, that ultimately there might be agreement that the mechanism is as Tom described - very small CO2 bubbles circulating around the tank (in contact with plants) causing accelerated growth.

I've not pursued this much further as that premise still seems very much in question for multiple reasons. But I'm not trying to start that debate here...

So the question is not "can this be a reactor replacement?" It is "can it generate those really, really tiny bubbles?" I'll hook it up to an air pump before I go cutting up my plumbing on a lark. I suspect the bubbles coming out of this thing will be anything but the 100-500 micron tiny variety Tom Barr has indicated is required.


----------



## scolley

I hooked it up to an air pump and stuck it under water. Huge bubbles.

So I unscrewed one of the threaded slip fittings that had been mounted on the ends to look inside. It appears that the little diffuser thing on top had been hacked off to accommodate the thick fert fluid. Now it's just a little tube poking into a big tube. So needless to say it blows really big bubbles. So mine is no good as a microbubbler.

And it also means that I bought that rig for almost $30 when I could have paid $3-5 for something like what switched to later instead, as in this picture...









They do the exact same thing... doesn't say much for the people that sold it to me, but it makes me look pretty stupid too. :icon_redf 


But that still doesn't mean that one that still had all the pieces in it wouldn't work as a micro-bubbler. But we won't be finding out from me.


----------



## unirdna

Ahh. In that case, I have nothing to offer :hihi:.

Don't beat yourself up for the 30 bones. We all have that box (or likely boxes) of "good intentions" in our basement . I'd need a wide-angle lens to show you my "collection".


----------



## jgc

one of the better nurseries I sometimes go to has a lot of those little fittings. It can probably be replace for $1-3 and givin another test - though that might just be throwing good money after bad.

I have a ton of mister heads (not atomizer)- I can try to hook one up to an air pump and give you a report - but will not be arround much again till next week.


----------



## scolley

jgc said:


> I have a ton of mister heads (not atomizer)- I can try to hook one up to an air pump and give you a report - but will not be arround much again till next week.


That would be cool. Thanks. I, for one, would be very interested in the results. This isn't getting solved fast, so waiting a week is no big deal. roud: 

I've got all the pieces necessary to build an in-line microbubbler right now... ceramic diffuser parts, giant PVC fittings to hold it, all the couplings and glue. But I'm in no hurry to build it because at the moment I'm not nearly convinced that Tom's premise is correct. I'm sure something is going on, but it remains to be determined if it is microbubbles being blown around the tank that is making the difference.

I don't recall seeing anyone posting about growth improvements that did not radically alter their water flow, or use a venturi in a diffuser/reactor. So IMO it may not _just_ be about blowing more tiny CO2 bubbles around. And that's all this thread is trying to build. 

So I'm not going to go hacking up my plumbing until I see a more proof of the premise. I'm tired of messing with my tank's plumbing...


----------



## Loser

jhoetzl said:


> OK, I have been thinking about ways to accomplish this without another powerhead, pump or other inline device...
> 
> With that, I thought of something that might work, and, eliminate the external chamber entirely, and not add any more powerheads/pumps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder how much pressure is exerted on the end cap on my spraybar and how fine a bubble I can get to occur inside the spray bar...
> 
> Hmmmm, might give it a shot over the weekend.



i have this same spray bar coming out of an eheim aquaball internal filter. co2 is injected at the bottom of the filter, chopped up by the impeller and spit into the spray bar. i like this spra bar because it a little bigger than most and you can aim each section independantly. what is happening in mine is that some of the co2 is spit into the tank as tiny bubbles and cruise around while some are collected in the spray bar and agitated by the current, so long and short is that it works like a two part reactor without any extra junk under or in the tank. i will try and get some "action" photo's over the weekend and post em up.


----------



## AlexPerez

I did try tom's idea and
Here is the basics of what I did and the results. 

Before:
I have a lily pipe on each end of the tank(75G).
each lily pipe driven by one XP3. 
I was using an inline CO2 DIY reactor on one of the XP3
and a Hydor heater on the other one.
sms122 contoller meassuring ph, but not controlling.
ph was steady at about ~5.4, CO2 of at night.

After:
I got 2 Azoo diffuser disc and placed one on each side of the tank
and adjusted their position to be in front of the lily pipes flow (ugly).
I switched the flow of CO2 from the inline reactor to the diffuser discs.
hooked up the controller back and adjusted it to keep ph at ~5.4.

The flow was the same before and after. did not change the lily pipes position. In a short time there was lot of bubbles being blown all over the tank. In about 2 hours I did notice pearling pick up a lot and the controller did stop the CO2 at ~5.3 (Not sure if the pearling increase was due to to the drop in ph - Hence the CO2 ppm was increased or due to the micro bubbles being blown all over the tank).

Over the next 2 days I would see the pearling start a lot sooner than before.
and the overall pearling in the tank was much greater.
Then on the 3rd day no more pearling. After 2 days of little to no pearling
and a heavy increase in algae I thought, heck this method sucks.
But found that the ph probe was off by one full ph. it was reading ~5.3
and the actuall ph was at ~6.3 (measured by a brand new calibrated Hanna meter). 

So for the short 2 days it did look like it helped. But I would like to see if
it will have an effect on plant growth and not just the increase in pearling.
Once I get eveything back in shape. I will repeat what I did before and see what results I get.


----------



## Loser

AlexPerez said:


> So for the short 2 days it did look like it helped. But I would like to see if
> it will have an effect on plant growth and not just the increase in pearling.
> Once I get eveything back in shape. I will repeat what I did before and see what results I get.


how are you dosing ferts in this tank? w/c etc..... since setting up like this with the co2 bubbles cruising the tank not only have i seen a HUGE increase in pearling but pretty big increase in growth rate as well. i went from 3rd day prune to every other day and the clippings i am taking to the pet store are a bit bigger to boot. i do e/i on this tank


----------



## AlexPerez

I'm doisng a lean EI, cause of the ADA substrate.
Did you notice a drop in the ph? when you implemented the
TMB (Tom's micro bubbles :icon_bigg ).


----------



## Loser

very slight drop yes. went from 6.5 to 6.3


----------



## scolley

AlexPerez said:


> ...for the short 2 days it did look like it helped. But I would like to see if
> it will have an effect on plant growth and not just the increase in pearling.
> Once I get everything back in shape. I will repeat what I did before and see what results I get.


Alex, IMO this sort of well documented before/after introduction of CO2 microbubbles is the only sort of evidence that is meaningful.

I'm happy that other people are sticking new things in their tanks to try it, but without:

1) a clear before/after picture
2) clear evidence that NOTHING changed except the introduction of CO2 microbubbles

any discussion without these to critical points is a complete and total waste of time IMO.

I would really appreciate your documentation of your efforts, but would STRONGLY encourage you to change NOTHING other than introducing the CO2 microbubbles next time. Don't fiddle with the SMS 122. Keep all conditions the same in the before/after scenarios EXCEPT the introduction of the bubble.

Then, and only then IMO, do we have a solid basis for comparison of results.


BTW - this stuff is really basic kid-stuff as far a testing protocols are concerned, and I've seen little evidence to date that anyone has observed them. Wake up folks. It you want to prove something, do it right - change one thing at a time and document it - everything else is just heresay.


----------



## g8wayg8r

100-500 micron - so youre talkin' about half to one-tenth mm. I've got an Azoo diffuser that makes bubbles a little bigger than that. The stream of bubbles rises and is recirculated throughout the tank by the current from the spray bar. Many of the bubbles are in that size range - barely visiable to the eye. Why not just put the diffuser in the tank and let the tank currents do the job?


----------



## whitepine

My first heavily planted tank(46 g) with co2 in it had a modified ugf that I ran a airstone into the uptube. I replace the up tube with a large gravel vac and bio balls to try and disolve the co2 bubbles. I also used a power head on the end to draw more water through the system. It's kind of funny, but I always had tiny little bubbles floating around my tank. I was constatly trimming Hygrophila, Lysimachia nummularia and every other month I would pull out a giant rubin sword. I didn't mind the little bubble, but the system would sometimes burb... which drove me nuts. So I swapped it out for a xp2 and set up a inline reactor. I notice that the little bubbles went away... and my plant growth seemed to slow down a little... but I just thought it had to do with taking a few days to get everything changed over. My plants use to pearl pretty good. With the "new" inline co2 reactor, I didn't see as much pearling.... so I upped the wpg and changed over to cf from od flourecents…. Story continues….

I would definitely say that the micro bubles work! 

Now how to put the micro bubble back into my tank?


----------



## scolley

g8wayg8r said:


> Many of the bubbles are in that size range - barely visible to the eye. Why not just put the diffuser in the tank and let the tank currents do the job?


I think you could do just that! Apparently AlexPerez did that, but he also changed how he controlled his CO2, so this initial and test conditions were not consistent, calling any results into question.

IMO to understand if this really works, something like what you've suggested needs to be done. But in doing so, you've got to be careful of a few things...

1) You have not changed the current in your tank in any significant way.
2) You are not also increasing the measured CO2 ppm. Before/after CO2 ppm must remain the same.​
If current and CO2 ppm remain constant, in a situation where you have introduced these microbubble, then you have a valid test. Everything else, IMO, is just speculation. Some of it can be very good, really indicative information. But it falls short of being proof if all before/after conditions don't remain constant, except for the presence of bubbles.

I've got a diffuser myself that I could but under my lily pipe, but I'm fighting a minor algae battle at the moment, so I find myself messing with my ferts a good bit, and that would invalidate any test results.


----------



## scolley

whitepine said:


> Now how to put the micro bubble back into my tank?


You believe you have evidence that they work. roud: That's good. Based on my comments in my last post, I hope you will understand why I see that as evidence, but not proof. But hey, if that's good enough for you, well I hope you _can _ get those bubbles back in the tank! :wink: 

You can either go to one of Tom Barr's threads where he talks about his reactors that go into the tank. Or you can put a ceramic diffuser into your tank somewhere in a strong current. Or you can follow this thread to see if someone comes up with a good in-line answer.

I've already got an in-line solution that I'm ready to build, but I'd rather wait until I see that clear proof that this works.


----------



## Georgiadawgger

scolley said:


> I think you could do just that! Apparently AlexPerez did that, but he also changed how he controlled his CO2, so this initial and test conditions were not consistent, calling any results into question.
> 
> IMO to understand if this really works, something like what you've suggested needs to be done. But in doing so, you've got to be careful of a few things...
> 
> 1) You have not changed the current in your tank in any significant way.
> 2) You are not also increasing the measured CO2 ppm. Before/after CO2 ppm must remain the same.​
> If current and CO2 ppm remain constant, in a situation where you have introduced these microbubble, then you have a valid test. Everything else, IMO, is just speculation. Some of it can be very good, really indicative information. But it falls short of being proof if all before/after conditions don't remain constant, except for the presence of bubbles.
> 
> I've got a diffuser myself that I could but under my lily pipe, but I'm fighting a minor algae battle at the moment, so I find myself messing with my ferts a good bit, and that would invalidate any test results.



Basically, what Steve is saying...in order to control for any other possible variables, ALL other parameters must remain the same...the only change being the external reactor vs the diffuser. The dependent variable being the pH measured with reactor versus diffuser the independent variables. That's how Tom had his N=7 in his latest article. I suppose he ran a t-test and found a "significant" difference in pH (co2 level). Temperature, bubble count, ferts, etc must all remain the same. Augh...its too early to be thinking about the scientific method...


----------



## Georgiadawgger

Validation (no such thing as proof in science)...this is what it would take...which I'm not sure if Tom did with his tanks...but it would remove any outside variables. 

A good sample size (n of 7 for EACH variable or so like what Tom set up). Total of 14 tanks. Although you can run 7 with one treatment and 7 with another at different times, there are questions about the statistical validity unless the are run at the same time under the same conditions. 

Same amount of substrate. Same size tank. Same amount of water. Same bubble count. Same source water (tap). Same (per gram measurement) of ferts. Same species of plants. Same lighting (type, photoperiod, etc).

The plants. One species (to make it easy). Measure the length of each stem...try to visually match each stem to the same height...morphological similarities (no abnormalities and each stem should have the same thickness, number of nodes, etc). 

Run the experiment. 

Data: 

pH measured at whatever time intervals you want...Tom mentioned pH drop within an hour for the mist...about 3 hours for his reactor. A morning/evening pH measurement would be fine...simple ANOVA would be fine...time, pH and diffuser vs reactor. 

growth rate of plants after 1 week...2 weeks...each stem must be measured...painstakingly. Length, number of nodes, a caliper to measure thickness of stems, root length, etc. Take the means and run a t-test. 

Take all that and you can have a well designed study to determine if the mist is a better way or not. Remember there is no proving in science...only validation of hypotheses...enough validation, then it may become theory (which skirts the term "proving").


----------



## scolley

'dawgger - I appreciate the perspective of a someone that understands (and I assume professionally engages in) correct use of scientific protocols and terminology. Unfortunately it is highly unlikely that this forum is going to conduct any experiment that could stand up to review by the scientific community. But we can begin to use a bit of common sense:

_It's not a good test if you change any conditions other than the introduction of CO2 micro-bubbles. That includes light, ferts, water flow, CO2 levels, and I'm sure more.​_You are also making a good point that would bring us a lot closer to "valid" results, and that's measurement, or at least documentation, of before and after conditions. I assume that includes pearling rate and plant growth rates. Actual measurement may be impractical for this audience. But documentation is not.

I assume, for instance that a good set of photographs would suffice. If the test was two weeks, ideally we would get a set of 4 photographs, each taken a the same time of day, of the same part of the test tank:

1 week before any change was made.
7 days later, 1 day before any change is made. 
the first day after the change
then 7 days later.​
That would give an indication of growth pearling rates for initial and with micro-bubbles". 

It's not "proof", and possibly not what the scientific community might accept as adequate documentation. But I suspect it would be good enough for this community.

IMO it would be a world beyond any "proof" we've seen to date, from anyone.


----------



## Georgiadawgger

scolley said:


> 'dawgger - I appreciate the perspective of a someone that understands (and I assume professionally engages in) correct use of scientific protocols and terminology. Unfortunately it is highly unlikely that this forum is going to conduct any experiment that could stand up to review by the scientific community. But we can begin to use a bit of common sense:
> 
> _It's not a good test if you change any conditions other than the introduction of CO2 micro-bubbles. That includes light, ferts, water flow, CO2 levels, and I'm sure more.​_You are also making a good point that would bring us a lot closer to "valid" results, and that's measurement, or at least documentation, of before and after conditions. I assume that includes pearling rate and plant growth rates. Actual measurement may be impractical for this audience. But documentation is not.
> 
> I assume, for instance that a good set of photographs would suffice. If the test was two weeks, ideally we would get a set of 4 photographs, each taken a the same time of day, of the same part of the test tank:
> 
> 1 week before any change was made.
> 7 days later, 1 day before any change is made.
> the first day after the change
> then 7 days later.​
> That would give an indication of growth pearling rates for initial and with micro-bubbles".
> 
> It's not "proof", and possibly not what the scientific community might accept as adequate documentation. But I suspect it would be good enough for this community.
> 
> IMO it would be a world beyond any "proof" we've seen to date, from anyone.



Yeah, I know I went overboard...but I suppose to "appease" some of the other hardcore lab rats that frequent this forum (not to name names), a protocol like this would help...if they want to continue to argue one way or the other, and if they have the time, equipment and funding to set up a good study, and all the talk with no action from them, then I suppose this would provide good evidence. 

Hehe, for our sakes, all it would take is someone to report back with growth rate etc...photos IMO might be a bit misleading, but if the photos well document growth rate, then a picture can show more than words . Pearling...hummm kind of arbitrary on that..I suppose with the mist factor it may be hard to measure in a controlled way?? 

I may consider a small test of this myself over Christmas time when I have some spare time at home. I think I can put a brass splitter with an extra needle valve and switch my gas from reactor to a disk with a turn on the valve...same bubble rate, same tank, etc...but an N of 1!!???


----------



## scolley

Georgiadawgger said:


> I think I can put a brass splitter with an extra needle valve and switch my gas from reactor to a disk with a turn on the valve...same bubble rate, same tank, etc...but an N of 1!!???


If you have a pH controller with a solenoid you shouldn't necessarily have to do all that.

Just let the disk drive the CO2 down to the same level that the reactor used to. If it can... that might have to be tested first.


----------



## Georgiadawgger

scolley said:


> If you have a pH controller with a solenoid you shouldn't necessarily have to do all that.
> 
> Just let the disk drive the CO2 down to the same level that the reactor used to. If it can... that might have to be tested first.


hehe...got rid of the controller...I've had the simple setup for a while now


----------



## scolley

Then by all means go for it! roud: And report back. It will be nice to have a good clean test. And you should  get photos.

Sorry, when everyone hopes to find more growth and pearling, I'm personally skeptical on personal estimates. The human eye tends to see what it hopes and expects to see.


----------



## plantbrain

Oh heck, you guys are still haggling over this? Crap or get off the pot.

The main premise that I have was basically hitting plants with gas bubbles, mist, biog bubbles, whatever. Not other ways to dissolve the gas nor use reactors, unless the reactors produced a mist.

So the gas delivery, the gas physically coming into contact with the plants in GAS form is the idea. 

Use the tank and the plants as the "reactor".

The aqueous form of CO2 can be measured, but there will be a little variation for many. It's difficult to tease apart what fraction is dissolved vs gas as the bubbles float around. You cannot label it.

So the simple solution you are left with: measure the ppm of CO2 and try and keep the ppm CO2 the same or close and then switch the method of dispersal. Measure the O2 levels near the end and the middle of the day and note plant growth/health, pearling, overall tank health.

Rate the plant's pearling or growth.

It really *does not matter even if the CO2 ppm in the water is the same*, if the CO2 ppm is higher w/o mist than w/the mist, and you have higher O2 levels in the mist tank............then you absolutely know it's due to the mist and the CO2 gas hitting the plants. 

So the design has more flexibilty if you think about it and take safe assumptions. It's less work also fiddling with getting the right precise same 
CO2 ppm. All you need is close or a little higher CO2ppm in the non mist tank and a lower O2 level to make the case. 

Each little bubble is packet of CO2, and is dissolving as well, the area immediately around the bubble will have higher CO2 ppm than the area farther away also. Each bubble is a discrete packet.

Also, some folks said the bubbles have gas diffuse into them rapidly.
Well, how come all that excess gas does not degas so fast out of the tank also? Because gas diffuses very slowly from air(a gas BTW) to liquid, the same thing occurs with the bubbles, it's not that rapid. High CO2 bubbles will dissolve pretty quick but the gases in the water are not moving that fast into the a micro bubble. The bubble will dissolve, just like an air bubble does.
Otherwise those bubbles would keep getting larger and larger till they have enough bouyancy to hit the surface and break through the water tension.
That whole idea never sat right with me. 

Still, simply try it and stop wondering and then take a good look at the plants, the pearling and the overall health. You can see the difference, more than most any other thing you can do.

You are not out of anything in doing so either, a limewood stone: 2$.
Positioning the spray bar: free.

Watch and think for 2-3 weeks and decide.
It's very simple. Answering why is entertaining but the above gives you more flexibility and addresses the issue.

I have 20-40% more O2 using it, better plant growth etc. 
It's unobtrusive, it's cheap, it's effective, it produces more pearling than any other method.



Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## scolley

No "haggling" here Tom. Just looking for a little corroboration.

If all I had to do way hang a stone under a spray bar, I'd give it a whack in a heartbeat!:thumbsup: But for my particular situation, that's not the case. I've got to get involved in CO2 manifolds, building some form of in-line bubble creation (because I've got a personal hang up about equipment in a tank) and more. So before I go ripping out all my plumbing (I only have one display tank) and build new hardware (I'm only a hobbyist, not a pro) it would be nice to see one other person here (at Plantedtank.net) agree that it works.

I hope that seems reasonable. And quite frankly, nothing would make me happier than to find out that it does indeed work, because it would be quite a nice advance in our ability to create healthy, thriving planted tanks, and in the joy of the hobby in general IMO.


----------



## mr hyde

I just found these micro bubbler threads today and have spent the last few hours reading through all of them. The discussions got pretty in-depth scientific there for awhile. I was expecting/hoping that everyone involved with all the effort they put into the discussion were going to try the experiment and post their findings. I'm really surprised nobody tried it, only a couple people mentioned trying it and had good results.


----------



## unirdna

I did try it. I placed a glass diffuser in front of a power head. I never posted, because frankly, I'm wearing out. And if there wasn't any interest, I wasn't going to continue extending my hand, just to have it slapped. I imagine Tom feels this same way often, but he seems to have a thicker skin than I.

Anyway, here are my results.

Tank details:
Low light (60w over a 50g tank)
Plant species: Valisneria and S. subulata.

Results:
No mist bubbles held in suspension. The CO2 bubbles were blown by the powerhead and completely dissolved. I have my own opinion as to why this happened (in my particular tank). I chose a low light, low 02-producing tank on purpose. The results I got were the results I expected.


----------



## scolley

unirdna said:


> Results:
> No mist bubbles held in suspension. The CO2 bubbles were blown by the powerhead and completely dissolved. I have my own opinion as to why this happened (in my particular tank). I chose a low light, low 02-producing tank on purpose. The results I got were the results I expected.


OK, not being a scientist, I'm gonna really get a kick out of this...

1) I'm not going to worry about why the bubbles dissolved. You have a great thread on this Ted, and there has been MUCH discussion on the topic. Instead, as someone to thick to understand the scientific underpinnings of this discussion, I'd rather focus on THE RESULTS.

2) "I got the results I expected." OK, what was that? Inquiring minds want to know!​
BTW - I've received more that one PM on this tonight. Some of you have good reasons for not posting that I respect (honest :wink: ) But IMO some of you have had experiences worth sharing. If you think that's you... whether you PM'ed me or not... let's hear it. I would really like to know if this is real, before I go buying stuff, building more DIY crap, and modifying my plumbing.

Thanks.


----------



## niko

I'm resurrecting this thread because I believe my observations may be useful:

*Fact 1:*
If you place the end of the CO2 tubing in the powerhead suction the result is a lot of fine bubbles coming out of the powerhead. Fine yes, but not too fine.

*Fact 2:*
If you take a 1/4" piece of chopstick (from a Chinese restaurant) and jam in in the end of the CO2 tubing you will get bubbles that are finer than any air stone found in a LFS and bigger than the bubbles produced by say a Dupla diffuser.

*Fact 3:*
If you take the CO2 tubing with the chopstick in the end and place it in the powerhead suction the result is a huge number of extremely fine mist-like bubbles coming out of the powerhead.

Of course one can easily replace the chopstick with a ceramic gas bubbler, a small size fritted glass disk, or an actual diffuser. Even a small powerhead tends to suck free floating bubbles very well, even sideways.

*Actual observations:*
I have the set up with the powerhead/chopstick in 2 tanks now and in one of them there is the problem of too many fine bubbles. The tank is a 55 and about 1/3 of it is full of these fine bubbles floating everywhere. The plants end up covered with them and sparkle like some sort of Christmas decorations. You cannot see the bubbles from 4 ft. away because they are tiny, but still - the sight is not exactly beautiful. Still - the CO2 is surely available as micro bubbles.

*Idea for an in-line reactor:*
So from all that I started to think that a good, if not great, in-line reactor could be built by using a canister with a powerhead inside. The idea is that the powerhead will move the water only inside the reactor. The flow in and the flow out of the reactor will not be affected by the powerhead - they will be whatever the canister filter produces. Basically the powerhead will stir the heck out of the water in the canister, chopping up bubbles, and re-chopping them over and over until they either get disolved or find their way out of the outflow.

Without a doubt some micro bubbles will find their way out of the reactor. Maybe the bubble rate could be dramatically reduced because the efficiency of the diffuser/powerhead combo seems immense. Also the powerhead flow could be regulated to where very few bubbles end up undisolved.

*Conclusion, (about time...)*
If someone cares to experiment with that I'd be glad to see pictures. I will try it for sure some day soon, all parts come up to about $25.

--Nikolay


----------



## BOTIA

Hey Guys
I have a rivertank built for hillstream loaches, I call it the lazy mans tank.
This is the setup essentially a great example of the theories of the "bubble" gowth boosting.
This is a rivertank basic setup.








I have modified mine by only using one very strong 369gph powerhead driving a diy spray bar instead of two powerheads. There are also 2 AC 200's hobs' on it.
Anyhow under my spray bay I have mounted to it a bubble wand.
This tank is about 72' btw. I only have 1 25 watt powerglo 13hrs daily, no ferts, no co2.
I have cabomba that grows like weeds in it. Normally cabomba needs some decent light which this tank does not.
I pulled a 6ft cabomba piece last week. My java ferns do ok, java moss does great. I also have some rotala indica, hygro agustafolia which grow very slow.
Anyhow this tan is basically a jacuzzi for loaches. I'm guessing all the bubbles just as you are summizing keep the nutrients generated by fish food and waste so completely distributed is part of the reason the cabomba grows so darn fast. Also the high turnover keeps my co2 up to ambient all the time....
Here's is a pic of it.


----------



## scolley

niko said:


> *Idea for an in-line reactor:*
> So from all that I started to think that a good, if not great, in-line reactor could be built by using a canister with a powerhead inside. The idea is that the powerhead will move the water only inside the reactor. The flow in and the flow out of the reactor will not be affected by the powerhead - they will be whatever the canister filter produces. Basically the powerhead will stir the heck out of the water in the canister, chopping up bubbles, and re-chopping them over and over until they either get disolved or find their way out of the outflow.
> 
> Without a doubt some micro bubbles will find their way out of the reactor. Maybe the bubble rate could be dramatically reduced because the efficiency of the diffuser/powerhead combo seems immense.


Nikolay - I appreciate the post, but you might be missing the point. This idea is not just to find a new in-line way to dissolve CO2 - reactors do that wonderfully well now.

That point is to find an in-line way to inject those microbubbles. It sounds like you are hoping to get them all dissolved. Am i missing something here?




BOTIA said:


> I'm guessing all the bubbles just as you are summizing keep the nutrients generated by fish food and waste so completely distributed is part of the reason the cabomba grows so darn fast.


Hey pal! - haven't heard from you in a while...

Looks like a great river tank you've got there.:thumbsup: But I'm not clear on the bubbles. Are you injecting CO2, or air, bubbles with that wand? If it is air, you could be making a point that just plain old bubbles promote growth. Is that the point?


----------



## BOTIA

Hiya Scolley
Been busy with back surgery this year and then catch up$$ at work.
Yes I am only injecting air. The air pump I am using is oddball hagen called the force 1 with adjustable output from 300-3000cc's. The hillstream loaches need highly oxgenated water because their hemoglobin has evolved to hold less O2.
I recently bought a Rio RVT 800 powerhead for my 70 gallon. I put a valve on the air venturi input. I have it just barely sucking air. It makes some seriuoisly small bubble that way. My fish love it and it seems my plants are enjoying the extra current, and bubbles.
The impellor on these powerheads was designed specifically for protein skimmers it is bizarre the each little paddle is hinged to somehow make very small bubbles.
TTYL
Botia


----------



## scolley

Sorry to hear about all the trouble BOTIA. I hope things are on the mend, and getting back to normal.:smile: 

So I assume your success with your plants in the highly oxygenated, highly bubbled, tank is an indicator that the micro-bubble effect could be the bubbles themselves vs. a benefit from specifically being CO2 bubbles.

That's a topic that has raged, I believe, in unirdna's thread on this subject. It appears to be an unanswered question... the exact composition required for micro-bubbles to have a benefit. Glad to see pure air works for you!


----------



## IUnknown

I'm going to try the Mazzi injectors eventually on Tom's recommendation. I'm using a glass Lillie so it would sit inline right before the glass outlet. Have to play around to get it to look nice with a ball valve and tee's, etc. Picture this verticle before the outlet,













> Anybody know how much these things would slow down
> an Eheim?


With the ball valve you would control how much it slowed down the filter. how much would it take to get a stream of mist, need to experiment.


----------



## scolley

I look forward to seeing your results IUnknown. I've got a Kent venturi laying around if you need if for your test... Is that the same thing as a Mazzi injector?


----------



## Betowess

Yeah Iunknown. So this is where you moved that Mazzi thread. I'm curious to know your results, type of filter running it and cost of the Mazzii too! Its pretty interesting all the venturi/diffusion setups coming out of the woodwork of late.


----------



## plantbrain

IUnknown said:


> I'm going to try the Mazzi injectors eventually on Tom's recommendation. I'm using a glass Lillie so it would sit inline right before the glass outlet. Have to play around to get it to look nice with a ball valve and tee's, etc. Picture this verticle before the outlet,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With the ball valve you would control how much it slowed down the filter. how much would it take to get a stream of mist, need to experiment.



I have two on the Behemoth' tank and I'm dang glad I did, they work better for the CO2 than any other method.

Why?
The spray bar return evenly adds the mist all along the back
Even if the water is degassed, the mist cranks it right back in there
4ft depth, the mist pretty much gets dissolved by the time it makes it's way to the surface.
Active flow+ mist
Totally mainteance free for the most part and out of the aquarium
The only down side is the loss of flow, mazzi's require a fair amount of pressure.

That's how they strip the gas into such small fine bubbles.
The mazzi's rip the gas into a broth in the tank now, and we have less CO2 issues.

This works much better than the beetle 50's do or the CO2 reactors I used in the sump.

The tank is an experiment, but the CO2 system had 3 methods to chose from the venuri mist worked the best.

They run 55-75$ depending on the sizing, the better ones are the mazzi's.
If you have an over size canister for your tank, or a sump and good sized return pump, this is a neat method that to date, no one has suggested nor used besides myself from what I can gather.

In public aquaria, we use venturis all the time for many things and for protein skimmers in the hobby in marine systems.

But seldom, if ever, for CO2.
Pearling and CO2 uptake can be dramatic if you have high light.

While some have added diffuers inside reactor tubes, not a bad idea, the simpler method is the in line venturis.


regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## plantbrain

scolley said:


> I look forward to seeing your results IUnknown. I've got a Kent venturi laying around if you need if for your test... Is that the same thing as a Mazzi injector?


No, the mazzi are much better and cost 3-4x as much.
A large power head in a sump and then feed the froth to the return pump will do the trick without reduction in flow, you'll need a 400-600gph powerhead.

The venturis are generally for the larger tanks, I think the Kent might work okay, they are 3/8".

I have one somewhere but have not found it, I'm messing more with the tank at hand now and seeing what happens there etc.


Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## scolley

plantbrain said:


> No, the mazzi are much better and cost 3-4x as much.
> A large power head in a sump and then feed the froth to the return pump will do the trick without reduction in flow, you'll need a 400-600gph powerhead.
> 
> The venturis are generally for the larger tanks, I think the Kent might work okay, they are 3/8".
> 
> I have one somewhere but have not found it, I'm messing more with the tank at hand now and seeing what happens there etc.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Tom Barr


Thanks Tom. If you find out the kents work, please post it.

I started this thread with the intent of taking one of your microbubbling ceramic diffusers and putting it in-line, hoping to keep equipment out of the tank. I've bought all the parts, and it's ready to assemble. But the PVC tubing that is big enough to have a diffuser in it is so honking big that I've hesitated to finish this off. Not to mention concerns that the bubbles will just be absorbed as they whip around tubing on their way back to the tank.

Something like a mazzi or an kent venturi - closer to the outflow - would be _much _nicer.


----------



## IUnknown

I'm picking up the parts this afternoon Scolley. I'll take pictures and let you know how it goes.


----------



## scolley

IUnknown said:


> I'm picking up the parts this afternoon Scolley. I'll take pictures and let you know how it goes.


roud: Thanks! _"Inquiring minds want to know..."_


----------



## rey

I, too, would like to know...


----------



## IUnknown

Got my order in today, but ended getting some fittings that wouldn't work. This is the updated parts list, but I would hold off until I get them in, just in case.

This is for 5/8" tubing (16/22mm eheim). If you have a smaller canister filter (12/16mm) you would need the 0705T.028 (5/8" to 1/2" reducer).
0710T.028 5/8"elbow (2) $.88
6030.010 1/2" Mazzi injector $22.05
5041N0.05 1/2" Ball Valve
1435.005 1/2" Female hose adapter (2)
0700T.195 1/2" Male hose adapter (2)

I'm going to see how much of this stuff you can get at a hardware store. I usually order from ryah herco, but I'm not sure if they are a wholesaler only? I just put a company name down and say "verbal" when they ask for a PO number.


----------



## scolley

IUnknown said:


> I usually order from ryah herco, but I'm not sure if they are a wholesaler only? I just put a company name down and say "verbal" when they ask for a PO number.


Thanks for that tip! Gotta try that! I believe Herco sells those great "sphincter" valves!


----------



## esarkipato

Just a quick point from a relative noob in CO2....

it seems that there are problems with inline reactors being not long enough. The complaint is as follows:


no one in particular said:


> my inline co2 reactor/diffuser is not dissolving the co2 all the way, and I'm getting lots of small bubbles coming out of my spraybar


And the response usually follows:


smart said:


> You need a longer reactor. The longer it is, the more dissolution occurs.


Anyone see the irony? If you just build a shorter inline reactor......shouldn't you end up with microbubbles that haven't dissolved all the way?

Please punch me in the arm if this is blatantly false! :icon_roll


----------



## Hoppy

Generally people who use reactors are looking for high efficiency in dissolving CO2 into the water, while people using CO2 mist don't care about efficiency, only about plant growth. So, what is a deficiency to a reactor user is an attribute to a mister.


----------



## scolley

esarkipato said:


> If you just build a shorter inline reactor......shouldn't you end up with microbubbles that haven't dissolved all the way?
> 
> Please punch me in the arm if this is blatantly false! :icon_roll


It's a funny point Ernie. But, I'm not sure if the bubbles produced by a bad reactor will be small enough to satisfy the tiny size requirements Tom Barr indicates is needed. I know that when I accidental blast too much CO2 into my reactor (requiring a stupidly high CO2 rate) the bubbles I get out are rather large. They are certainly big enough to immediately float to the surface - which is definately not small enough - they gotta remain suspended in the water long enough to travel around the tank.


----------



## plantbrain

You want the size of bubbles to be at least as small as good diffuser stone.
So something need to produce that and not have them recolalesce back together. Rather, keep them at that small size.

The venturi method is great for higher flow rates for CO2 mist and gets stuff out of the tank, it is also a small simple extremely low mainteance device.
The more flow driven through a small pipe diameter, the better the mist production and dispersion.
More technically: the dispersion of a gas in a liquid is enhanced by the use of an adjustable conical mixer to control the flow of a gas/liquid mixture to a venturi device used to accelerate the mixture to a high velocity with subsequent deacceleration to slower velocity to produce sonic shock waves in the mixture. 

It's used extensively in remediation, aqua culture etc.

Venturi Aeration: Innovative Technologies in Liquids Treatment. "Remediation" Page.

EPA NE: CEIT ITI - Venturi Aeration, Inc.

General idea:

Venturi effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## rey

Do you think the waterbed fill kit/Python device would work?


----------



## Hoppy

The waterbed jet pump really isn't a venturi. It just uses the venturi effect to get a small drop in pressure so it sucks in a liquid. What Tom described is a real venturi, with a much bigger change in flow passage diameter, so the throat pressure in the venturi is substantially lower than the entry and exit pressure. But, as he has said, it takes a lot more water pressure to drive flow thru the venturi - more than a canister filter return line generates. It seems to me that the canister filters provide just a bit more head than is needed to lift the water back up over the tank rim, with little left to operate a venturi. Some powerheads do generate significant pressure, so I can visualize using a small venturi in the water with a powerhead circulating water thru it.


----------



## rey

I used to use a waterbed device to drive a skimmer on my old reef years ago - seemed to make fine bubbles BUT, salt water is denser...
You're right about thrust on canisters. I'm going to try that old "jet pump" on a powerhead if I can find it.


----------



## IUnknown

OK forgot to mention the TEE's on the last post,
1401.005 1/2" insert tee

Got all the parts in, going to test it out this weekend. Doesn't look very pretty.


----------



## plantbrain

Is that the cheapy Kent Marine Venturi?
I'm curious to see if they work well enough.

You can add external pumps to drive more flow through the venturis also, Those Supreme pumps can work doing that etc and are about the price of a power head etc.


Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## Clone

Is that going to hang off the back of the tank or is it going under the stand? I am very interested in your results. I have just about all the the material on hand to make one of those with half inch PVC. All I need is the venturi.


----------



## IUnknown

OK, I really like how the Mazzi injector worked out. The tank gets showered with Co2. I'm scrapping the ball valve design, and like Tom recommended, adding another pump inline to my canister filter output. This setup will look cleaner, all you'll see is the Injector "Y" into the outlet pipe.

The ball valve cut too much flow from the canister. If anyone has any ideas on what kind of pump to select, let me know. Maybe like an eheim 1048 (80 gph @ 3' $50). Or a mag drive (160 gph @ 3', $40) to match my canister flow rate (eheim 2224, 184 gph). What effect does restricting the output on the pump have? 

IUnknown - Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting


----------



## scolley

IUnknown said:


> OK, I really like how the Mazzi injector worked out.


Is that a Mazzi? It looks just like a Kent venture?

And I look forward to your new design. But don't worry about choking down the pump - at least not an Eheim 1048. I've got an Eheim 1048 boosting the drain on my tank, choking that 600L/h flow down to about 25 L/h. Now I dont' have any long term tests, but I've been using it in this capacity several hours a day for a few months. It doen't make excess noise, and clearly has not burned out.


----------



## IUnknown

Lot's of info on venturi's on reef central. From what I've read the Kent Marine venturi's offer more flow.

DIY Venturi


----------



## Hoppy

That is an interesting DIY project. Personally I would rather use a reamer of some kind to avoid the stepped diameter changes, which introduce a lot of turbulence. I may try this idea soon.


----------



## scolley

IUnknown said:


> Lot's of info on venturi's on reef central. From what I've read the Kent Marine venturi's offer more flow.


I'm curious not because of the flow, but because of questions around the bubble size. Or maybe with venturi's that's two different aspects of the same thing. I don't know. I'm no engineer.

And I'm too lazy to go look up the exact size, but Tom made a pretty clear point about the bubble size required for this to work. So I guess at the end of the day...

If this is not a mazzi, but a kent, why does Tom think it needs to be a mazzi? Bubble size? Assumed poor flow?

Tom?


----------



## plantbrain

They are the best in terms of bubble size.
But they are geared for high volumes of air, not low volumes like our needs.

The venturis on the behemoth tank work wonderfully.
Plant growth is excellent.

I think what can be done is to reduce the orifice size of the venturi itself.

I also have a drawing I did to show a micro bubbler loop idea that will work as well.

I'm a little hesitent to show such designs and talk about this stuff.

So with that in mind, I do have a family full of lawyers
I have field a patent pending and notorized the design today actually.
I can still use this against copy cats and with the venturi on the original version of the internal.

I have no issue with hobby folks DIY ing the designs, what I have issues with and I will go after folks, is the commericial sale of such designs.

I have a loop design for this and an auto degassing external reactor that's very cool.

I'll post the designs on my site later next week.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## Fishysan

What about using a semi-closed loop with a powerful pump to drive the venturi?

Think of a pump feeding itself with the venturi inline using larger diameter PVC tubing and have your canister filter out going into this, and then flowing to the tank..

The higher pressure pump will allow the mazzi to run full blast, and you flow water through it's little white water storm.. 

Infact, you might not need a venturi at all if the pump you use has a fine impeller, it will shear the CO2 bubbles if you add them to the pump intake in the semi-closed loop.

The big pump would feed itself, and you are adding more water to it from the canister filter, thus forcing it out on the other end back into the tank.

Not sure if this makes sense. If it doesn't I can draw a diagram tomorrow when I get a chance. 

Cheers.


----------



## plantbrain

That is basically what the venturi loop does on my old internal reactor design.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## Betowess

I'm pretty sure its a Mazzi, according to the thread, Steve. 

BTW, how far across your tank in inches is the main mist flowing Greg. Great job breaking new ground here, "_because inquiring minds want to know_"


----------



## IUnknown

Yeah, the venturi's are definitely the way to go. The mist reaches the end (24"). The problem was getting the mist circulated through the tank.

The glassblowing equipment is arriving in a couple of weeks. I want to 
do the venturi's in glass and eventually offer them for sale. How does 
it work with patents. Is it up to the seller to verify that they are 
not infringing on anyone's intellectual property? Or do you just sell 
stuff until someone bugs you? I looked into the cost, and it was $1000 
to get all the paperwork filed for a patent. I'm not interested in 
meeting your family Tom


----------



## IUnknown

OK, so I tested things out and I made a mistake by sizing the pump at the same flow rate as the canister filter. Mazzei's website states that the pressure difference needs to be at least 20%. So I returned the pump and replaced it for one that will do 600gph to hopefully create the difference in pressure. Now the other question I have, if the booster pump is doing 600gph and the filter is doing 200gph, would I place the intake for the booster pump on the outlet of the canister filter (like my diagram on the previous page) or on the intake of the canister filter? I guess I can test both options, keep the outlet flows separate, and see which method keeps the flow to both pumps stable.

Also the other mistake I made was that I put the injector right below the lillie pipe. Maybe I need to put it right after the pump like on Mazzei's diagram,

Mazzei Injector Corp. - Selecting an Injector


----------



## niko

I don't like diffusers because they waste a lot of CO2. Using a powerhead with the CO2 injected in it results in CO2 savings of at least 50% compared to a diffuser. But you have to have a powerhead in the tank - not too great of a design. 

The injector is an interesting solution but is the booster pump is a must? What about using a canister that has a much greater flow than the tank volume?

Also as far as I know some pumps are made to work against pressure some are not. The ones that are not made to work with restricted pressure will just drop the flow out to some very low number. The pumps made to work with pressure will keep the flow about the same. But from what I've seen the pressure pumps come only in big flow numbers - hardly applicable for a 30 or even 50 gal. tank.

What brand pump did you get? 

I think it will be better to place the booster pump before the canister. That way any possible restriction of the inflow (through the canister) will not force the booster pump struggle to get enough fluid running.

--Nikolay


----------



## IUnknown

Niko, I've used a Co2 reactor for years. The only reason I'm testing this out is because of the whole barr misting debate. I'm still testing to see if my growth rates improve, but I've at least noticed increased pearling with my plants near the diffuser. Wether the pearling is helping with growth, I'll know in two more weeks (my rotala was averaging 3 weeks after a trim). If Co2 on the plant leaves helps them grow better, then I'm not worried about waste.

The booster pump is probably not the only way to go. There is a ton of information on protien skimmers, and I've been reading a lot. There are pumps that have special impellers that break up the bubbles. I don't know if you would get a bubble that is small enough. The smaller the bubble, the less surface area, and the more time it takes for the bubble to diffuse, and therefore can get Co2 moved all over the tank.

I think you are right about the pump. I'm going to try out this pump next,
SystemCooling.com

I've sent the following to Mazzei's engineering support for some help,



> I am trying to design an in line Co2 injection system for an aquarium. I am currently using model #287 with a eheim pump (2.2 PSI). I have not had any luck and I think I need a higher pressure pump. I am thinking about using the pump listed in this article which provides 4.8 PSI of pressure.
> SystemCooling.com
> Maybe I need to select a bigger injector for it to work? I can use either 1/2" or 3/4" sizes. Would I be better off with your model #784?
> Does a bigger injector require more pressure difference to work? The Co2 that I am injecting is under pressure, and I am looking for a really fine mist. I assumed that the 3/16" would give me the smallest bubbles, but I am not real sure about how venturi's work. I would like to write an article on my results, so any help would help.


----------



## plantbrain

I do not think there's much debate if you use a dissolved O2 meter and measure the CO2 as well dissolved in solution.

Ther CO2 ppms where less, yet I had higher O2 levels in the test tank.
The control tank had more dissolved CO2, by about 5ppm or so.

I chose to add more to the control tank with good reason/s.
This makes it a safer assumption to answer the question and even slants it towards an unfair side to the dissolved control side.
The other reason is inaccuracy in the CO2 ppm readings.
Whether being off +/- 1-2 ppm would make a difference is another question, but this way, I place the error in a safer place, on the dissolved control tank.

If my measurements are off on the control or the experimental tank, then it's skewed to the control tank.

This is better than having them equal if the difference of growth is really that much more significant.

The control tank had 35 ppm, I used RO reconstiuted 80% water changes 2x and ADA soil. Ran things for 48 hours.

O2 in the experimental tank consistently had 20-50% higher O2 levels at the end of the day.

O2 is the standard for aquatic photosynthetic production.
It's not pearling or other bubbles, it's pure plant production, or growth.

Even if you do not have an O2 meter, you can see the differences in plant growth itself.

Try it for a week.
Then see.

As far as what is precisely occuring, that is open to debate still. 
But as far as does it work better, I think it's pretty clear and many that have tried it in a correct fashion have reported as such.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## IUnknown

Round four of testing. So I received the PC pump and computer adapter and wired it up. The pump creates a lot of pressure, but what I noticed is that the venturi has to have very little pressure on the outlet side (so it has to be up high close to the outlet return). I got it to work finally, but not as well as my initial test using the canister filter. The mist seems like it might be too fine, so I am going with the 584-C model that the mazzei engineer recommended. I'll post another update next week.



> This pump is below our testing point of 5 psi of inlet pressure. Depending on you backpressure, which I'm assuming is low if you have the 287 working at 2 psi inlet pressure, you could possibly use a 584. Because this is below our testing points I can not tell you where exactly this will work but somewhere around 400 l/hr at 200-250 mbar is my assumption. You can get this model in either 3/4" (584) or 1/2" (584-C). If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.


----------



## scolley

I just want to jump in here and say thanks for the rigor around which you are approaching this problem IUnknown. IMO this hobby is crawling with crappy, anecdotal, and non-quantified, or repeatable, information. This level or rigor in understanding and qualifying a problem, helps set the bar for what should be done in our hobby. 

Thank you.

I very much look forward to your results.


----------



## IUnknown

No problem Steve. That inline pH probe you see in the picture is one of my favorite DIY projects. I would have never figured that out if you hadn't done the legwork to source all the parts, so thank you.

I also went ahead and ordered the Euroreef needle wheel stuff. I figure if the bubbles are small enough with the needle wheels, people in general would use them more compared to a venturi. The models I found,

Sedra 3500

Oceanrunner 2700

Genx gx2400 (went with this one) 450 gpm @ 3', $40.


----------



## dipan

Wow, just found this thread. I think I'm officially addicted to this hobby now. I've got so many plans swirling around in my head that I dream about this stuff now. Thanks guys. 

Now when I get around to redoing the tank (contaminated Eco Complete), I hope to finally get some of these ideas into motion and finally get some results (plant growth). I'm still waiting for a first pearling 

Any updates on these ideas? Needle wheel or venturi setups?


----------



## IUnknown

I wasn't to happy with the needlewheel's that I tried out. The bubble size was too big. But from what I've read on reef central, there is a lot of new stuff coming out that could work. So I'm back to the venturi's for now.

I got the injector in the mail that the engineer recommended. The new venturi worked out a lot better. I didn't even need the booster pump. I am just running the venturi in-line with the eheim filter. The hole in the venturi is probably about 1/4" diameter (I don't understand how that much water can flow through?). I was testing the venturi out with the ball valve setup like before, and even with the ball valve fully open I seemed to be getting just as much flow as when the water was only going through the venturi (so I guess the fitting loss on the venturi is equivalent to two 90 degree turns?). I played around with the booster pump, but it seemed like more trouble than it was worth and gave up. I'll update on things next week.

6030.021 | 0584-C GRPP | LQD INJ 1/2" MT BLK GRPP | $34.50


----------



## scolley

Hey, that looks cool. But does it work?

Not the flow - sounds like you've got that down. But what about the creation of the "micro bubbles"? Of the size Tom indicated is required?

And if so, any chance you've observed a difference in your growth?


----------



## IUnknown

The microbubbles are the right size. They swirl around the tank since they are soo tiny. Imagine a spray botle and the mist that it creats, that would be the size of the bubbles. The one drawback is the output has a higher pressure than normal, so you have to be careful to watch out for leaks. I wonder how it would work for a bigger tank. Maybe use the ball valve setup from before, so you can adjust the flow.


----------



## dipan

IUnknown said:


> I wasn't to happy with the needlewheel's that I tried out. The bubble size was too big. But from what I've read on reef central, there is a lot of new stuff coming out that could work. So I'm back to the venturi's for now.
> 
> I got the injector in the mail that the engineer recommended. The new venturi worked out a lot better. I didn't even need the booster pump. I am just running the venturi in-line with the eheim filter. The hole in the venturi is probably about 1/4" diameter (I don't understand how that much water can flow through?). I was testing the venturi out with the ball valve setup like before, and even with the ball valve fully open I seemed to be getting just as much flow as when the water was only going through the venturi (so I guess the fitting loss on the venturi is equivalent to two 90 degree turns?). I played around with the booster pump, but it seemed like more trouble than it was worth and gave up. I'll update on things next week.


So how much do you think flow has dropped because of the venturi? The pump in your ?canister Eheim can't be putting out the same volume, right? Are you still getting adequate filtration?


----------



## IUnknown

Yeah, hard to tell. Visually (pulling the flow out of the water) looks the same. But I would only know for sure with a flow meter. I don't know how the flow would be the same with that kind of restriction in place, but I don't know anything about fluid mechanics. Does the increase in backpressure force more water through the small venturi?


----------



## Hoppy

A good venturi doesn't cause much pressure drop. The pressure is low at the venturi throat, but rises back to near the inlet pressure at the outlet. So, I suspect you have reduced the filter flow, but not nearly as much as if you had just put a 1/4 inch orifice in the water line.


----------



## IUnknown

I had the venturi hooked up with the booster pump and the eheim running at the same time and the Co2 tubing collapsed because it was sucking so much. With just the eheim filter it is just the right amount of flow. I'm surprised people haven't got more excited about the venturis. So far it's my favorite solution between reactors and glass diffusers. I'm going to work with the engineer at mazzie and get recommendations for different eheim models/ flow rates. The size of the mist doesn't distract and you don't have to ever clean it like a glass diffuser.


----------



## dipan

IUnknown said:


> I had the venturi hooked up with the booster pump and the eheim running at the same time and the Co2 tubing collapsed because it was sucking so much. With just the eheim filter it is just the right amount of flow. I'm surprised people haven't got more excited about the venturis. So far it's my favorite solution between reactors and glass diffusers. I'm going to work with the engineer at mazzie and get recommendations for different eheim models/ flow rates. The size of the mist doesn't distract and you don't have to ever clean it like a glass diffuser.


Maybe people are waiting to see if the mist ideas pans out. I'm not doubting it, but I'm sure many don't want to redo their entire plumbing system without a larger consensus. I'm in the thinking stages for a larger tank and I'm going to plan on two parallel means of CO2 injection. Both will have ball valves in front of them so I can decide on one, the other, or different amounts of each. Venturi on one side and conventional inline reactor on the other. I just hope that I will have enough overall water flow with all that stuff inline. I don't really have all that much space for two canisters.


----------



## Just40Fun

OK, gonna try the mazzei injector and micro-bubbler. This is what I am thinking of doing.










Question:

1. would the mag9.5 with 3/4" pipe be 'strong' enough without using additional pump?
2. for 3/4" pipe, which mazzei injector should I use?
3. the return spray bar will be routed to the back and bottom of the tank, is that ideal?

Do you all see anything that I am missing here?

thanks for helping.


----------



## plantbrain

You should oput a loop around the venturi with a ball valve to regulate flow through the loop for CO2, that way excess return water can by pass the venturi and still have ample flow to the tank idependent of the CO2 system.
The return pump should have enough pressure to drive both.

There is a rather simple test method to determine if the CO2 mist works in theory or not:

Use a DO meter and a KH ref tip on a pH probe.

With mist measure the CO2 and measure the O2.
Without mist, add the same CO2 and measure the O2.

If the O2 is higher, that is assumed to be due solely to the gas effect of the mist, although some may argue that's due to disturbance of the boundary layers from the gas bubbles floating, although that's a bit more unlikely as we can add high current to disrupt the layers as well to rule that out.

Folks are not going to be able to test this unless they have accurate CO2 methods and a DO meter. Few do, but on the more practical end, you can see the growth difference and pearlign differences, the hardest plants are pearling and growing fast afterwards.

That's a good reason as well as simply not having to clean glassware and having less gunk /junk in the tank.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## Just40Fun

Thanks Tom for helping. I have read the whole thread and your other threads regarding the micro bubblers, and I am sold on the idea. Plumbing and piping wise, it is actually cleaner and easier than a reactor. 

I have changed the drawing to have a ball valve and and loop, is this what you were talking about?










I have also make a variation on the spray bar:










Does it merit the addition complication? The tank is 6ft and 24" deep.


----------



## madman280

I'm curious about a few things related to the venturi and injecting micro bubbles.
1. In the venturi, what is the configuration, size and number of holes where the CO2 enters into the water flow.

2. What is the physical effect that's chopping the CO2 into such a small bubbles. I'm assuming the venturi effect isn't being used suck or draw the gas since one would assume its from a pressurized tank with a regulator, bubble counter and check valves.

3. This all seems like a very complicated way to do something very simple. I'm sure all of the plumbing and extra components can be simplified using a different method.

This whole discussion of atomizing the gas into the water is very similar to the things done to atomized fuel into air in an automotive engine. I have some nice clean virgin injectors. They're made of stainless steel. High pressure through a very small orfice in a controlled manner. Or if there are concerns of using automotive components and possible contamination or noise. How about a very small orfice-about the size of the bubbles you're trying to produce and a Clippard mouse valve. (Something I've elluded to previously when suggesting an automated aquarium system)


----------



## Just40Fun

anyone tried the kent venturi? Looks very similiar to the Mazzei at 1/3 the cost.
http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/diy/21735-diy-line-micro-bubbler-8.html
Kent Marine Black Turbo Venturi - 3/4in - Marine Depot - Marine and Reef Aquarium Super Store


----------



## Just40Fun

No one has used the Kent venturi? Looks like I shall be the 'pioneer' in using Kent venturi as CO2 micro bubbler?


----------



## IUnknown

I used the Kent Venturi. I was going to look at my notes tonight to 
remember exactly what I did not like about it. The orifice if I 
remember is bigger then the mazzei, so it requires less pressure differential 
to work. But the hole for the Co2 port is much bigger, so the bubble 
size is not really mist and is distracting to the aquascape. Also the 
fitting loss was not good on the Kent Venturi, where as with the Mazzei, 
it's not noticable.

Go with the 0584-C. What's the size of the eheim tubing? I always get mixed up with the fittings, which are listed as 1/2" but fit on 3/4" tubing. The one thing about pumps is that you want to look for pumps with a lot of head pressure. So you are going to be the guinie pig to see if the pump works. Running it inline with a canister filter is good because those pumps are engineered for a lot of head pressure to get the water through the media.

Some things I learned from troubleshooting. The Mazzei wants to be as close to the outlet as you can. It works on pressure differential, so If you have it right after the pump, you still have the weight of the water (head) creating pressure on the output, so you don't get the pressure differential. Even when you've got it setup correctly, it is barely noticable. You could easily think it is not working, when in fact there is a fine mist comming out. The Co2 line takes time to prime, so you have to be patient for the Co2 to reach the venturi.

The bypass loop that Tom suggested would be used more to regulate the amount of mist (assuming that the pressure differential was very different and you had a lot of room to play with). In reality, with that setup you are going to be struggling to get the backpressure from the pump high enough to get it to work, so the ball valve is not going to do much. The way that the Venturi is designed, it does not restrict the flow. I would guess that the fitting loss from the two 90 elbows (from a bypass type setup) would be equivalent to the Mazzei injector itself. I never tried that model injector on the hobby pumps, so I have no idea how they will work with the venturi. But I think the eheim canister pumps have more head pressure, and mine venturi works just barely. Will getting a pump with more flow help? I don't know how flow and head pressure relate.

I look through my notes tonight and see what else I can recommend.

1. In the venturi, what is the configuration, size and number of holes 
where the CO2 enters into the water flow.

The Co2 inlet is configured parallel to the waterflow (good diagrams on 
the Mazzei website). The inlet that I am using is 3/16" I believe and 
is just one hole (there is a built in check valve on the injector 
b.t.w.)

2. What is the physical effect that's chopping the CO2 into such a 
small bubbles. I'm assuming the venturi effect isn't being used suck or 
draw the gas since one would assume its from a pressurized tank with a 
regulator, bubble counter and check valves.

Wikipedia has good information on the physics behind venturi's. 
Depending on how much pressure differential you have the Co2 is either being sucked into the stream or pushed and being atomized. My Co2 tubing 
was collapsing when I had both the canister filter and booster pump 
running. I guess you would be better off with rigid Co2 tubing in this 
case.

3. This all seems like a very complicated way to do something very 
simple. I'm sure all of the plumbing and extra components can be 
simplified using a different method.

Complicated because the sizing guidelines haven't been figure out yet. 
Plumbing wise there are less components involved than a reactor. It's 
just the venturi and two fittings. Not much DIY involved.


----------



## Just40Fun

Hi IUNKNOWN for helping. After reading your posting, 

1. I have decided to use mazzei instead of the Kent. Guess I have to find a good price on mazzei.

2. I am have a sump and use a MagDrive 9.5 (950gph, max 14' head) as the return pump, from the sump to the top of the tank is about 4.5ft, plus four 90 deg elbows (another 4 ft head?) I should have a flow of 500gph. I also have a big cabinet/hood on top of the tank so I am planning to place the CO2, uv, Mazzei on top of the so the mazzei would be pretty close to the outlet. (see drawing)

3. Reef tank folks use magDrive 9.5 for their Mazzei in skimmer setup, so I am hoping that my pump would work.

4. All the pipes are 3/4", think I should use a 3/4" mazzei or I can use a reducer to use a 1/2" injector but leave the rest of the 'system' in 3/4"?

5. With this set up, I have a lot less piping more space next to the sump. Having all the stuff on top also makes it easier to reach/read etc.,


----------



## IUnknown

Are you using tubing or rigid pipe? Looks like the 584 comes in either 1/2" or 3/4" so same thing either way (same performance table). If you get the injector from ryan herco, make sure you ask for standard shipping, they tend to automatically send it two day UPS and shippings ends up expensive. I would email the engineer at mazzei. See if there is any other model that he recommends for your flow rate and head.

MAZZEI INJECTORS POLYPRO - Ryan Herco Products Catalog

From this looks like the equivalent length for four 90's is 6'?


----------



## plantbrain

That flow configuration will work very well/ideally.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## daveenedy

IUnknown...

So it looks like you've had this system up and running for a month or so now.. Any observations? How are your plants doing? I don't know if you have fish or other living creatures, but if you do.. How are they reacting?

Thanks! :icon_wink 

dave


----------



## Just40Fun

IUnknown said:


> Are you using tubing or rigid pipe? Looks like the 584 comes in either 1/2" or 3/4" so same thing either way (same performance table). If you get the injector from ryan herco, make sure you ask for standard shipping, they tend to automatically send it two day UPS and shippings ends up expensive. I would email the engineer at mazzei. See if there is any other model that he recommends for your flow rate and head.
> 
> MAZZEI INJECTORS POLYPRO - Ryan Herco Products Catalog
> 
> From this looks like the equivalent length for four 90's is 6'?


I would be using rigid pipe, I have emailed Mazzei about my requirement and ask for their help to pick the right model. I am thinking if using 1/2" after the "T" > mazzei > spray bar and leave the rest 3/4"... 

Four 90 deg = 6', plus the 4.5' head, = 10.5' plus the check valve ....... magdrive 9.5 has a max head of 14'. at 10ft, I am down to about 300gph


----------



## IUnknown

Dave,
It's been working great. No problems. I'm going to have an open house in a couple of months, so maybe I can get some other people interested. I'd like to eventually get a table setup so that people can figure out how to size the venturi's to a pump. My tank is a 20 gallon, so I am curious to how the micro bubbles disperse in a bigger tank.

I currently can't compare my plants because I've been messing around with things to try to deal with a GDA problem I have. I've got less light duration and the pendant is higher up, so can't compare growth rates. The thing that got me started on all of this was that I started using a glass diffuser instead of my reactor recently. The plants next to the diffuser pearled like crazy.

Just40Fun,
The 3/4" might be easier if you end up going with the 584C model. The main body of the venturi is the same, you can just get it in two different sized fittings.


----------



## Just40Fun

Thanks IUnkown, I am thinking of using 3/4" if I dont need a by pass, or 1/2" if I end up doing a by pass (as per my drawing). Leaning towards not using a by-pass just to eliminate the "T" and one less 90 deg elbow. With all the elbows and the 4'5" head, I am only getting less than 400gph. The tank is 180g plus the sump which is 20g.


----------



## Just40Fun

plantbrain said:


> That flow configuration will work very well/ideally.
> 
> Regards,
> Tom Barr


Actually my design wouldn't work at all according to my email exchange with engineer at Mazzei:



> Because this is such a low head pump, the lift loss, piping losses, and the possible backpressure created by the spray bar, we do not have an injector that will work in this application. Typically the 784 would match up with this pump but with no pressure loss between the injector and pump and with only 2-3 ft of backpressure from a water column.


----------



## Just40Fun

Yet another update from the engineer at Mazzei:



> I think that if you replaced the 9.5 with Mag Drive 18 and passed all the flow through the injector and did not split the flow, the system will work.


----------



## IUnknown

Yeah, at that point it just becomes a cost issue. If your in the mood to experiment, go for it.


----------



## crazy loaches

What if you used the minimum sized pipe on the inlet side between the pump and the venturi, then switched to a much larger diameter pip on the outlet side.... shouldnt that creat a significant pressure difference? I am interested in these venturis, I'll be setting up a larger tank soon (240G) and looking for the best setup for co2. The tank has 2 overflows so I assume I am going to be running two return pumps and would also probably run two inline reacotrs/venturis/whatever so I get more equal co2 fertilization, plus with a single hook up the buble counter would probably be unreadable so I figure 2 needles, 2 bubles, and just have to decide on what kind of diffusion method. I originally thought just to buble the co2 under the return pumps, but now it sounds like this venturi is the way to go, but I am confused since the earlier posts say its the way to go, then the later posts say it wont work?


----------



## IUnknown

Its just still under experimentation. I think it works in some cases better than others. It's a cost vs. benefits in some situations. Already having a filter means you only have to invest in the venturi, so it's a good deal. Buying a separate pump might not be worth it in certain situations.

A little update on the venturi. I've noticed that the bubbles may be too small. I was having better success with the glass diffuser in terms of plant pearling. I might setup the 1/4" Mazzei injector Co2 line to get a bigger bubble size. Maybe the smaller bubbles are being absorbed faster? Need to get things to disperse around the tank better, and under the leaves, so I can get that champaign effect out of the plants.


----------



## crazy loaches

I am a bit confused, Tom speaks of these venturis like the best thing since sliced bread, but yet we are still 'experimenting' trying to get them to work at all? Do they work or not? Are they just really finicky? I need to start buying my materials asap, am wondeirng if this Mazzei thing is the way to go or not. I'll probably be buying the pumps tomorrow, as I havent yet decided for sure on which ones. But at this point it will either be a pair of Quiet one 4000's or a pair of Ocean Runner 3500's. Either should be in the neighborhood of 500-600 gph in my setup (times 2). BTW they will be plumbed seperately, and will have a venturi or reactor inline on both. If it makes any differnence there will be a high amount of co2, as this will be a 240G tank. 

On a kinda seperate note, if one were to use the co2 mist method, adn it was comming through spray bars, what would be the best way to setup the spraybar? If the spraybar was in a normal configuration, top rear pointing at front center or front bottom, would the mist be able to travel downward from the top of the tank or would it be to bouyant and not get down were you need it? (I am trying to figure out how I want to run my spraybars).


----------



## IUnknown

I think at this point, I'm the only person using Venturi's for Co2 
injection (other than reef tanks and Tom's 1600 gallon tank). They work, 
it's just that we need to create schedules showing which models work 
with different flow rates/ head pressures. We need to develope sizing 
criterias for selection of the Venturi's.

I would think the rotation of the water from top to bottom in the front 
would be best, seems like more of the bubbles would get dispursed and 
cover more. The bubble size I'm at right now float all over the tank 
(no boyancy). I think even with the glass diffusser sized bubbles, there 
is enough turnover in the tank (5-7X) to overcome the boyancy of the 
bubbles.

DIY In-Line Micro-bubbler - Page 2 - Aquatic Plant Central


----------



## rey

So, do you think the 584-C would work OK in line from my Eheim 2217, near the top of the return, on my 50 gal?


----------



## IUnknown

I looked around for max head info on that filter with no luck. I contacted eheim, but probably wont get an answer. If anyone has pump curves for common external filters, please post them or send them to me. I'd like to make a list to send to the engineer over at Mazzie. Any kind of information you can find list it. here are (I'm guessing) average values for other eheim pumps? Model 2224 is 185 gph, 4.9 ft of head. 2217 is 264 gph, no head pressure. I would guess so, if the flow rate is higher?

Eheim Filters - Professional II and III Canister Aquarium Filters


----------



## crazy loaches

Here is what I just ordered, two Quiet One 4,000's, each will probably have its own return line at am looking at putting a venturi inline with both.










I am guessing I will be around a 6' head though this is my first time setting up a sump and a pump, its just a guess. Thats without any restriction from the venturi or any other inline parts.


----------



## rey

Eheim 2217 is rated at 1000litres/hr, which is around 250 gal./hr, max head is 2.3 metres or about 7 ft. Thanks for your efforts!
Regards


----------



## IUnknown

Rey,
Send that info to Mazzei tech support, double check that the 584C would work. I'm going to be ordering the 1/4" barb to try to get bigger bubbles out of the venturi.


----------



## kzr750r1

Subscribed. Thanks for the info Greg.


----------



## scolley

*Hey... these things are really in-line!*

You know, when I started this thread it was in an interest in finding a way to duplicate Tom Barr's apparently great results with "micro bubbles" of CO2, but doing it in-line vs. using equipment in the tank. And clearly lots of good work has happened in that space! Thank you IUnknown!

I'm chiming back in now because I'm in the process of laying out the plumbing of a new tank, in a new stand. And this issue brings to mind one the the things that really burns my b*tt about traditional reactors... the need to bring water into the bottom of a long vertical tube. That's a major problem in most of out stands, where we have limited top to bottom space, and a canister filter that takes water in the top, and spits it back out the top. So to accommodate a CO2 reactor many of us have to make our plumbing do a 90 degree turn straight down (a bad thing) only to go into a reactor going straight up, and then possibly turn 90 degrees again for a horizontal run (another bad thing).

But these venturis look like they make that whole problem go away. They are purely in-line - which ever direction in-line is going in your tank! Wow! That, in and of itself, may be justification for dumping reactors in favor of venturis.


----------



## g8wayg8r

I know this is a little off topic but I've read a lot about ways to get microbubble. I would NEVER discourage someone from making anything DIY. That's most of the fun of the hobby. Plus, you learn a thing or two. No telling, someone could come up with a really wonderful discovery. There's a point, however, where I had to draw the line because I don't believe I have the gpm and space under my tank for much additional hardware for a 29-gallon tank. I also had to take a break and actually do other things around the house  . I took the easy way and bought a small PlantGuild reactor. I've got it mounted a few inches above the substrate and I bubble in about 1 bubble a second or so into the chamber, which is usually half to 2/5 full with gas. I've removed the sponge since it served no practical purpose (IMHO) and I get microbubbles to beat the band. My tank is full of them and I have no trouble getting my pH to 6.2 and keeping it there. 

I may have a larger tank one day and I sure would consider a Mazzei. Until that time, I make due with what I have and keep track of the progress using venturi.


----------



## Yzmxer99

*Nano style*

I want commend this thread for it ingenuity, especially with the Mazzei. Its facinating and I can't wait to see how it pans out, especially with Scolley's new tank sitting in the wings. 

However, I do want to chime in with my own 2 cents. For nano kids, people on limited budgets, or even limited engineering knowledge a K.I.S.S. type inline micro misting theory might be a nice addition to the discussion. 

Adhearing to barr's theory of misting, the goal is to get a bunch of Co2 "packets" flying around the tank and as g8wayg8r put it, there are a bunch of ways to accomplish this. The challenge lies in putting this inline with a canisters output. Thus saving the impeller damage from cavitation and saving space. 

With respect to the venturis, I feel that they have an efficiency driven purpose. As a tank gets larger, there must be a high quantity of bubbles. Thus the mist produced must be finer to produce more bubbles per volume of H2O. In other words, the more bubbles per volume of water, the higher chance that that "packet" of Co2 will be delivered to a plant.

In smaller tank applications, the need for a super fine mist breaks down. The volume of water is decreased and the possible surface area for inline diffusion increases relative to that of the water volume. More importantly, in smaller tanks, flow is more consistant due to the higher flow rate and lower volume/area. The higher flow keeps the Co2 mist flowing horizontal, increasing the chances of each packet reaching a target plant. This reduces the need for efficient Co2 micro misting and increasing diffusion time. I theorize that quality of the mist can be substituted for quatity with the Co2 "packets" in the case of the smaller tank.

Efficency can take a back seat with smaller tanks. Instead of 1 billion Co2 bubbles per oz of Co2, 1 million would do just fine in the smaller tank. Mind you the mist "packets" will be larger, but the effect would be the same with regards to plant growth.

A simple limewood diffusor placed in line is an example of a nice K.I.S.S. solution for the small tank. The misting is fine enough to be efficient, without the expense and complexity of a mazzi system.

Now, I do not know where the cut off for a simple limewood-diffusor-inline setup being adaquate is. But I would say that in my Mini-s (approx 2.5g) this system works great and would probably venture to say that it would work past 10g. 

Well, time for me to step down from the soap box and prepare for the back lash. lol Feel free to chime in with your own theories, emperical evidence, or critisim


----------



## unirdna

Mr. CC.

Welcome to the forum! I'm sure you'll find the folks around here to be quite friendly. We don't even strike back at lonely, desperate trolls. Glad you are here.

Ted


----------



## Mr.CC

srry. my friend was type garbage, this was not my fault and i am srry if any of u found this disturbing


----------



## crazy loaches

Yzmxer99 said:


> As a tank gets larger, there must be a high quantity of bubbles. Thus the mist produced must be finer to produce more bubbles per volume of H2O. In other words, the more bubbles per volume of water, the higher chance that that "packet" of Co2 will be delivered to a plant.


Yzmxer - I think your thinking might be reversed - at least went thinking about it in my head. In a larger tank the mist doesnt need to be finer really. There needs to be a higher volume of co2 flowing in meaning also more mist but the mist size shouldnt change. Actually, on a larger tank the mist size could probably increase, as there is probably more volume of water it passes through before coming into contact with plants, the bubbles will probably shrink as they are passing through the tubing and then in the greater volume of tank.

I would think on a small tank the mist needs to be more fine, as if the mist is very large it will come to the surface much quicker.

Another way to think about it. There should be an ideal mist size that plants can extract some gaseous co2 (not sure if this was defined in the thread yet or not - its been a while since I read it through). We also want a certain amount of co2 to dissolve so our dissolved levels are good enough, 30ppm for example. These are both 'end results'. What sets the mist size coming out of the diffuser would depend on some factors like the turbulence of water and how long it takes to come out of the diffuser to get to the plants. In that amount of time co2 is dissolving and theoretically the mist is shrinking.

I havent figured out for sure if I am going to be misting co2 in the tank I'm setting up, but will be using an inline micro bubbler - probably ahead of the return pumps so their impellers will help chop up the bubbles. Will have probably 8 foot of tubing though until they hit the spraybars so not sure if it will dissolve or be some mist left. Wont know I guess until a trial run. If I have any problems with noise this way I'll instead run them inline after the return pumps. Due to the cost of the Mazzei's I am trying the simple rena micro bubbler first. I wouldnt have any problems upgrading if needed, just experimenting to see if its really needed.


----------



## Yzmxer99

My original start of my crazy ramblings was to say that the justification for a mazzi on a small tank isn't there at the cost. It's ok for me to be less efficient and burn more co2 because, relative to big tanks that run higher bubble counts, the loss is negligible. 

I was originally proposing more so a theory that larger tanks need a finer mist for efficiency and removing mist size from the equation. Lets say for example that 1 bubble of co2 is diffused into 10 bubbles in a 10 gallon tank. In theory, you would have 1 bubble per gallon of water. Now if that same 1 bubble gets diffused into 100 bubbles, its 10 bubbles/gallon swirling around trying to find a plant. Therefore, you are right, the bubble/gallon count could be up'd by flowing more Co2.

However, there was one part that I failed to mention. With my tank, as I increase the bubble count of the Co2, the mist "overloads" the outflow into the tank and produces a big bubble (equal to that in the bubble counter) every second or so. I can stop this by doing one of two things, turning up the flow from the canister or decreasing the bubble count. This big bubble is possibly the result of curves in my tubing or there being to many bubbles/gallon flowing through the output tube, but this is mildly errelavent because we all have curves and want the max bubbles/gallon flowing out of the output. (This is one of the limitations of the inline system). But, this shows there is an relation between flow of H2O and Co2 for creating that "ideal" mist. And thus a limit to the amount of total Co2 that can be diffused into the line. Smaller tanks have lower bubble counts, less amount to diffuse inline. With larger tanks, more Co2 must be diffused inline. Flow through the output tends to be maxed on larger tanks and the bubble count already high. The only way to up the bubble/gallon count is, therefore, to diffuse a higher quantity of smaller bubbles.

But this just got a little interesting for me,

*crazy loaches* - You bring up a good point with the greater volume of Co2 flowing in. An increase in Co2 at the same misting bubble size would increase the bubbles/gallon. Plus, I had not really considered the size of the bubble vs. the vertical rise rate. (This is probably one of the benefits when Barr locates the spray bar at the bottom of the tank.) In those respects, I think your right. 

-


crazy loaches said:


> There should be an ideal mist size that plants can extract some gaseous co2 (not sure if this was defined in the thread yet or not - its been a while since I read it through).


I think that this statement brings up an interesting debate. I didn't see an ideal mist size defined either and don't know if it could be. The bubbles are so dang small, to small to measure lol. 

So which is more important, the mist bubble size or the amount of bubbles/gallon? 

*crazy loaches* - I think you did get my "original" reason for the post that got lost in my ramblings:biggrin: . I'm glad your starting with the simple and going from there.


----------



## scolley

*Got my solution!*

I'm kind of overdue for posting a conclusion to my efforts in this space.

In short, I started this thread lookin for a way to create Tom Barr's "micro bubbles" in-line, vs. the typical in/near the tank reactor methods. A lot of people have contributed wonderful thought to this problem. Thank you.

And over the last few months a lot of work has gone into the use of mazzei venturis to accomplish this. As far as I know, Tom Barr started it, and it has been further explored by other forum members, most notably IUnknown.

In my new tank (about 2 months old) I decided to give the mazzei venturi a whirl. My biggest reasons were:

1) it's small - doesn't add too much bulk to the other in-line plumbing
2) it does not require water coming in the bottom and out the top, as any other gizmo that I thought of required. It could be mounted horizontally, and that was imporant to my plumbing design.

I've set it up, as you can see below.










It works LIKE A CHARM. It'll spew out microbubbles like nobodies business. But I wound up adjusting it (the flow) so that it no longer spews those bubbles, but appears to completely disolve the CO2 instead. I found that the bubbles were unsightly to my eyes - tonnes of tiny bubbles everywhere. To me, they obscured the beauty of the tank, and I decided that I did not want "micro bubbles" regardless of their potential benefit to my plants. I'm not doing this to maximize plant growth. I'm doing this to create something that is pleasing for me to look at.

I wish I could remember where I bought the ventui, but I got it for about $30. I'm sure a good Google will turn up places to buy these things for less than the prices at AquaticEcoSystems. 

It works GREAT for me, but IMO that's because I knew exactly what the pressure and flow rate in my lines was. So I was able to match my needs to the exact model Mazzei. You should try to do the same if you get one.

Since I've found my "solution", please don't let that stop posting here. There is nothing I would love more than to see discussions of other ways to accomplish in-line microbubbles continue here!

Thanks for the help. And good luck with your dreaming up other ways to skin this cat!


----------



## plantbrain

scolley said:


> You know, when I started this thread it was in an interest in finding a way to duplicate Tom Barr's apparently great results with "micro bubbles" of CO2, but doing it in-line vs. using equipment in the tank.


But that guy is crazy:icon_mrgr 
How can you trust him?

The real issue is you need higher flows, you lose some head/flow etc.
The benefits: less crap in the tank and mimics the effect of disc in the tank. 
No need to clean algae covered glassware. I hate that.

I've been monitoring the ventris on a 1600 ngallon tank for some time now, it works really really well.

I have two 180 gallon tanks coming up and a 375 gallon. These will have the mazzi's with a loop. I personally like bubbles in the tank, the mist effect looks cool and I know the CO2 is working with a quick glance.

I'm over sizing the pumps anyway and with a by pass loop, it will not reduce the head pressure too much or add too much clutter down below.

I'll have about 1900 gph running through the tank with the venturis, so I'm not low on flow through for the CO2.

The Cal Lab's in line disc works well also after using it for 3 months. 

All in all, the venturi notion have helped me and the CO2 needs, I'm suprised you folks have really gone with this idea. Most folks howl and whine when I suggest something

haha


Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## plantbrain

Regarding the coalescence of microbubbles into larger bubbles: that's generally a bad thing.

As far as a preferred buble size, I've always held, smaller, the better.
More surface area. 

The idea that mist helps is pretty well founded, the mist is sticky and has bouyancy, this can "clean" algae off your plants, breaks the boundary layers around the leaves at the microscale, it might not be anything to do at all with the various phases of CO2, but the effect is pretty signifigant sitting at around 20-40% higher O2 levels vs a control(the same tank the following day- this slants the data towards the follwoing day control as more plant biomass is present through the extra day's growth, thus more O2 can be produced, however, I've recorded many examples where the O2 is markedly higher the day before using the mist, the CO2 was measured using a hybrid pH/membrane KH ref probe).

20-40% more growth is pretty significant.

By using the loop by pass and ball valve, you can adjust to suit as far as the bubbles, one cleint does not like bubbles, but I do.

For aesthetics, you can always adjust it back for a photo shoot also or an open house etc.

Scolly, you have gone wild with the plumbing:bounce: 
Plumb wild.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## plantbrain

IUnknown said:


> I think at this point, I'm the only person using Venturi's for Co2
> injection (other than reef tanks and Tom's 1600 gallon tank). They work,
> it's just that we need to create schedules showing which models work
> with different flow rates/ head pressures. We need to develope sizing
> criterias for selection of the Venturi's.


True, that would be great.

I've found sizing the pump instead works better until that happens.
For folks with filters, the by pass like Scolley has is ideal, sump users can really play around with various sized powerheads etc.

I recently acquired a needle wheel powerhead from a skimmer.
These do a similar thing but........they do not reduce the flow rates much, I think these are a good idea for a smaller tank with a sump etc or simply place the entire powerhead into the tank.
I've seen several adaptation from Europe and Aisa that use this same approach.

As far as smaller tank sizes not needing the finer mist, yes, that's very true.

Another thing: harder and/or saltier water will have stronger ionic tension and produce smaller mist. Think of the aeration you see in salt water/marine systems.

Harder African Rift tanks also work well for this.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## scolley

plantbrain said:


> I personally like bubbles in the tank, the mist effect looks cool and I know the CO2 is working with a quick glance.


An indeed it seems to be a personal preference thing. I prefer not - now that I can do it - but many people apparently do like the bubbles, from posts I've seen.

But you've making another great point here Tom, adjusting venturi flow so that you can see the flow would be a great way to confirm you CO2 was working properly. Since I don't have the bubbles, I'm stuck in that same old - monitor pH, monitor KH, calculate CO2 - periodic testing. It's a PITA actually.

So having bubbles has another benefit besides improved growth. Never thought of that. Thanks! And thanks for telling us about that Mazzei's in the first place! roud: 

PS - That plumbing looks excessive, but it works GREAT! And YOU have to share some of the credit/blame Tom! I know the design is somewhat unique, but in the help that you provided me, the greatest help I got was something you might not realize... you clearly demonstrated a knowledge - and willingness - to set up a tank RIGHT. That alone was the affirmation I needed to make the hard decision to go with a "no compromises" design. Thanks for the help Tom. And the inspiration!


----------



## plantbrain

scolley said:


> An indeed it seems to be a personal preference thing. I prefer not - now that I can do it - but many people apparently do like the bubbles, from posts I've seen.
> 
> But you've making another great point here Tom, adjusting venturi flow so that you can see the flow would be a great way to confirm you CO2 was working properly. Since I don't have the bubbles, I'm stuck in that same old - monitor pH, monitor KH, calculate CO2 - periodic testing. It's a PITA actually.


Yes, I noticed this about 15 years ago with several DIY reactors that used the venturi loop to mist. If I saw lots of mist about 2-5 hours into the light cycle, if I saw mad pearling from the Riccia, I knew things where going well.

I did not even need to bother to test the pH.
Plants where the test kit as was the micro bubbles.

Most can look at a tank and see the mad pearling and know that the CO2 is adequate. You can also measure it with a O2 meter.

Still, ADA and many other folks do not bother to test the CO2, they add enough to get the pearling, then that's it.

Amano complains about excess pearling in the photo shoots.

Why?
Because all all the *nuke powered photo lighting* he uses!
That makes the plants pearl a lot more and folks think it's due to the high light he uses on the tanks.



> So having bubbles has another benefit besides improved growth. Never thought of that. Thanks! And thanks for telling us about that Mazzei's in the first place! roud:


Well, I think when you approach an unknown, you really should look at all options, and then give a fair analysis and trial, try to make sure you master each method fully.

Then test and then see how the longer term practical application works.
Few do this in the hobby:thumbsdow Those that do, are much better at approaches and get a lot more things right.

You do not bring new things to the hobby without risk, work, challenging the same old hings, by following others or conformity.
Some ideas catch on, some do not, some catch on many years later.



> PS - That plumbing looks excessive, but it works GREAT! And YOU have to share some of the credit/blame Tom!


Oh I have my mosters. They are as bad as any. I'm redoing a 400 gallon Reef tank the next two weeks. 
I know it works good as long as you can add enough ball valves etc and set it up to back flush canister filters etc during water changes etc.



> I know the design is somewhat unique, but in the help that you provided me, the greatest help I got was something you might not realize... you clearly demonstrated a knowledge - and willingness - to set up a tank RIGHT. That alone was the affirmation I needed to make the hard decision to go with a "no compromises" design. Thanks for the help Tom. And the inspiration!


That's a key aspect to achieving a *goal*.
Scape, the filter, the engineering, the lighting, the fish selection, the cost, the maintenance, etc.

We get so many folks giving all sorts of advice but often the advice is bias, it does not address the poster's goals. It addresses what the folks giving the advice know and have had success and failures with. If they failed with PPS, or with a non CO2 tank, or a venturi they will be more inclined to try something else, but that *does not imply* that the venturi, that PPS, or that a non CO2 method is flawed, bad, etc. Often times such methods may not meet the goals of the user, rather than the method or design itself being the issue/s. We fail, not the designs, after all, we design them! 

Generally, many folks do not even have a clear idea of what their goals are.
I think a clear focus there will make things far more satisfactory.

I do this for clients, for tanks, lakes, ponds, natural systems, agricultural systems and finally for myself:bounce: 

I think a well engineered system is a thing of awe and beauty. The person designed it and spent many hours of labor, just like a scape. It deserves no less respect and perhaps more.

Like the Engineering; scaping, fish selection/health/care, methods for ferts/lighting are all goals and should be approached with similar passion.

Not everyone will be good at all things though. But we can at least try to learn more in each area.

I hate water changes
I hate bad CO2
I hate cleaning filters
I hate scapes that take too much work to keep up
I hate cleaning glassware.......
I hate big bulky Reactors and the plumbing options.
I hate the inconsistency of other CO2 methods.
etc

Then you make a list of things you like and want........

Then see what's available that matches the list of trade offs/benefits and criteria you want.

Test, try etc.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## plantbrain

BTW, the idea of using venturis to dissolve CO2 is hardly my idea, I just used it from aquaculture when I was considering adding O2 gas with various methods and reef applications.

Same deal with EI, DIY reactors etc, virtually every method I have suggested. I just took an idea from one place and applied elsewhere.
Even PO4 additions, farmer have done it for thousand's of years, I just promoted it is all. Steve Dixon was the one who initially tested it to see that it was high PO4 and no algae.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## original kuhli

Could venturi's be used to deliver ferts to a tank? After all, that is their design purpose right? I'm thinking, put it on a sidetrack just like the CO2 one, and use the ball valve to adjust the dosing rate. If necessary you could use a different stock rate in your fertilizer reservoirs to get in the correct range.

The only real downside to this is that it would be dependant upon your flow rates in your system in general, if a pump slowed, so too would your fert delivery. Possibly the use of a booster pump could assist in keeping rates constant... 

Any thoughts?


----------



## plantbrain

If you had a solenoid and or a dosing pump, they could be injected if total dissolved liquids.

Dosing pumps add ferts where ever you want.
A venturi would just prevent backflow when operational, you'd still need a check valve to prevent back flows when the powerheads/pumps are off.

The suction power of a venturi is variable, I do not think it's consistent enough to apply like you may be thinking.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## original kuhli

Makes sense...was a thought...thanks Tom. I was thinking of a pump free way to draw them into the system. Using a very dilute solution of fert would reduce precipitation and minimize the impact of variable flow rates. 

However, that wouldn't address any general slowdowns in the flow going through the venturi.


----------



## plantbrain

Just use an IV dripper then.
Pump free.
Clock timers and basket dumpers work well also.

I decided not to worry about automating the dosing.
Why?
I do not automate the feeding of the fish, dosing the plants daily is no hassle either.

I dose a bit more when I leave for the weekend etc, but dealing with variation in CO2, etc, tha's much more hassle.

My water changes are automated(semi, I just turn a vlave to drain the tank, turn anohter to fill, all hard plumbed into the wall).

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------

