C02 - rate

tjbuege

Lifetime Charter Member
Lifetime Member
Jun 25, 2009
119
0
16
Minnesota, USA
Gerryd;74765 said:
As an example of something earning a frowny face :(

1. I 'observe' that my cories laid eggs on the glass.
2. I 'conclude' as fact that cories need glass to breed :)

Now I feel sorry for all those with acrylic tanks that will never see their cories lay eggs. :D :D

Seriously, though, good thread. I quit counting bubbles when I couldn't count that fast anymore. :)
 

Gerryd

Plant Guru Team
Lifetime Member
Sep 23, 2007
5,623
22
38
South Florida
Matt F.;74814 said:
Just as an example, I do 3-4 bps in my Mini-M (5 gallons).

So, the easy solution for me then is to REPLACE my 220 with a Mini-M? I think I will seek another way:)
 

Gerryd

Plant Guru Team
Lifetime Member
Sep 23, 2007
5,623
22
38
South Florida
shoggoth43;74806 said:
And in all fairness there's likely other issues involved. Such as my recent O ring issue. Not a damned thing wrong and no leak I could find until we pulled off the solenoid coil and used a cup of water. Wouldn't take much of a leak there to dump the tank in a few weeks or faster. So was it the O ring or more CO2 usage that dumped my last next to last tank in 6 weeks? I was just pointing out that it really doesn't take much of anything to cause a variable you didn't account for to throw all the BPS stuff into question.

What happens to that silicon tubing when you aren't running at 10 PSI but are instead up to 25 PSI because of a particularly fine grained diffuser? Still at 10% loss, 20%, more? I don't care about the the CO2 as a function of cost, but if the tank runs out a week or two early when I'm not expecting it, that's a problem. Our CO2 use may not be a global warming crisis, and the cost of the refill might not be all that much, but when the only "local" place I can find is a half hour drive on the highway, now I'm tacking another 10$ on for mileage. It adds up. If I can get that down to "only" 6 times a year or less, that's "only" 35$ a whack after gas for the car. So 6 weeks vs. 8 weeks makes a heck of a difference at that point. Would be less of an issue if the place I got my refills was still only 5 minutes from where I work, and on the way there.

Anyway, I think I rambled off topic enough. Sorry about that.

-
S

S,

Not off topic at all. Thanks much for your input.

1. The environmental impact and cost is not lost on me. While I can afford to refill weekly it is not something I want to do.

2. If say Tom or someone else has a similar sized tank, regardless of diffusion method, and they use such a bubble rate compared to mine, that tells me I am using an inefficient methodology, no? Even if he uses a wet/dry and sump with sealed tower, you mean to tell me that a sealed canister may lost MORE c02? On the surface that appears to make no sense, but I am most likely incorrect.

3. My higher usage may also be exacerbated by:

a. The use of an atomizer and 30 PSI.
b. I am sure my DIY NW is not the most efficient :)

This is a great discussion and very helpful for me, I appreciate all the info and the replies from all.

I will post some pics/video of my bubble rates and OUTPUT so you can see what I am talking about.

It just 'SEEMS' like an awful lot of c02 I am pushing into the tank.....I just want to ensure I have a good working system for diffusion and delivery of the c02. When you see the mist generated by the atomizer, it sure LOOKS like a lot of c02 :)

But, I can see the difference in plant growth since the introduction of the NW, so it must NOT have been enough...

Plants are wierd :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Matt F.

Lifetime Charter Member
Lifetime Member
May 30, 2009
2,319
4
38
California
Gerryd;74818 said:
So, the easy solution for me then is to REPLACE my 220 with a Mini-M? I think I will seek another way:)

Nah, just reiterating that the bubble count argument is out the window (as is common knowledge here). But I used a drop checker with 4dkh to get above 30ppm, which I was aiming for. I then watched the fish. If they gasped, I reduced the amount of CO2. If they were fine after 6-8 hours, I would crank it slowly. I did this with my 55 gallon, and I will use this method with my 60P. The drop checker would put me in the ballpark. The rest would be based off observation and slow adjustment. The bubbel counter then becomes arbitrary. It's only use is to show flow of co2 through the line.
Hope this helps.

Despite having rich co2 levels, I still needed to up the ferts I was adding (even doing EI levels) before I noticed a response in the plants. I doubled EI for a 5 gallon before I saw a boom of healthy growth.

So much plays into it.having enough flow, but not too much is needed to circulate the co2. having enough ferts, the right light, and patience.

I think some of it is intuitive when it comes to adjusting co2 levels.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

shoggoth43

Lifetime Charter Member
Lifetime Member
Jan 15, 2009
1,092
11
38
I am curious on the NW and as to why the atomizer doesn't seem up to the task. I don't recall what is moving the water around in that tank. This is the one with the two eheim cannisters? Any other pumps other than the eheim? Maybe it's not so much the NW as it is that extra little bit of flow. I'll assume the atomizer tubing is something that's not acting like a garden soaker hose for CO2 but that won't affect your BPS into the atomizer, only the amount you're letting out of the tank. OTOH, if the BPS is what's measured coming out of the CO2 tank, then how much is actually making it to the other end and at what pressure?

Have you considered one of the the DIY water filter reactors? This may be more efficient at dissolving the CO2 and require a much lower BPS. This is part of the reason for my biotower experiment as of late. Again, this doesn't really answer any of your questions as it just means you'd have to change something to try it and adds another "hmmmm" to the list of variables.

-
S



Gerryd;74819 said:
S,

Not off topic at all. Thanks much for your input.

1. The environmental impact and cost is not lost on me. While I can afford to refill weekly it is not something I want to do.

2. If say Tom or someone else has a similar sized tank, regardless of diffusion method, and they use such a bubble rate compared to mine, that tells me I am using an inefficient methodology, no? Even if he uses a wet/dry and sump with sealed tower, you mean to tell me that a sealed canister may lost MORE c02? On the surface that appears to make no sense, but I am most likely incorrect.

3. My higher usage may also be exacerbated by:

a. The use of an atomizer and 30 PSI.
b. I am sure my DIY NW is not the most efficient :)

This is a great discussion and very helpful for me, I appreciate all the info and the replies from all.

I will post some pics/video of my bubble rates and OUTPUT so you can see what I am talking about.

It just 'SEEMS' like an awful lot of c02 I am pushing into the tank.....I just want to ensure I have a good working system for diffusion and delivery of the c02. When you see the mist generated by the atomizer, it sure LOOKS like a lot of c02 :)

But, I can see the difference in plant growth since the introduction of the NW, so it must NOT have been enough...

Plants are wierd :)
 

Gerryd

Plant Guru Team
Lifetime Member
Sep 23, 2007
5,623
22
38
South Florida
I am curious on the NW and as to why the atomizer doesn't seem up to the task.

I have the SAME questions and is one of the reasons behind the post. Am I doing something wrong? Is my method inefficient or INSUFFICIENT for the application?

I don't recall what is moving the water around in that tank. This is the one with the two eheim cannisters? Any other pumps other than the eheim? Maybe it's not so much the NW as it is that extra little bit of flow.

I have an MP40 for flow:) The NW certainly helps for flow, no doubt, but the fact that it is flow with c02, that matters more in this case I think.

Eheim outflow has the atomizer mist flowing INTO the vortech. The MP40 then pushes the length of the tank in the center and front of the tank. The other eheim pushes the other way on the back wall to create a nice pattern. I can see mist/c02 bubbles everywhere.

I'll assume the atomizer tubing is something that's not acting like a garden soaker hose for CO2 but that won't affect your BPS into the atomizer, only the amount you're letting out of the tank. OTOH, if the BPS is what's measured coming out of the CO2 tank, then how much is actually making it to the other end and at what pressure?

I will show pics later of the bubble rate going INTO the atomizer and NW respectively. I will show the positioning of the flow, pumps, etc. I would LOVE to see the bubble rates of others with large tanks and great growth, regardless of diffusion method. If they can do it, why can't I??

If Tom, dutchy, and others are using HALF or 25% of my c02 usage, then I have room for improvements, no?

At least that is what I figure.

I am getting more comfortable with MY rate/usage but can't help but want to improve if possible...

Plant growth is certainly not SPECTACULAR :)
 

dutchy

Plant Guru Team
Lifetime Member
Jul 6, 2009
2,280
5
36
63
The Netherlands
If you use a pH controller, bubble rate becomes obsolete. the only thing you have to adjust is that the desired pH level is reached within the hour. The contoller does the rest. I also have no pH swings between morning and evening; it's always the same.

That makes that the bubble rate of my tank is higher compared to continuous use. if I had to make an estimation, around 10 bps.
The flow of both Eheims point diagonally from the rear corners in a 45 degree angle to the front window. I can see the CO2 even being blown against the substrate. The vortech is in lagoon mode to provide alternating flow patterns, but moves no more than 750 gph. My eheims do, because of the inline reactors, no more than 250 gph each, everything together is 1250 gph. So at 6x turnover my tank is kind of low. Anyway there are no problems.

The atomizers seem a good device to me, but bigger bubbles is less efficiency. Also scottward went back to reactors because of that. 100% solution means invisible bubbles. I still wonder what is best for plants. IME 100@ dissolved CO2 is easier.

So are you just blowing CO2 in the tank that YOU can see, or what the plants need?

Probably Tom will have some good arguments, but I have the result right in front of me......
 

Gerryd

Plant Guru Team
Lifetime Member
Sep 23, 2007
5,623
22
38
South Florida
Hi all,

Some very short video of the bubble rates...

This is the rate going to the DIY NW rio 1k pump @ 10-11 PSI:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uQd1B7wI3I

This is the rate after a slight reduction and is the CURRENT rate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5QGnpcFbFE

Here is the OUTPUT of the NW with the last bubble rate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVfdWkTK0nI

And here are two showing the rate to the atomizer @ 25 PSI:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f__Z9Hwio34

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9rl2TRqBj4

You can clearly see the bubble rate is more than dutchy's stated 10 bps or so and way more than 1-5bps for ADA.

I seem to have plenty of flow as all leaves moves and mist is all over????
 
Last edited by a moderator:

tjbuege

Lifetime Charter Member
Lifetime Member
Jun 25, 2009
119
0
16
Minnesota, USA
Gerryd;74851 said:
Here is the OUTPUT of the NW with the last bubble rate:

Hi Gerry,

The output of your NW looks like mine use to. I have my CO2 tubing going into the intake of a MaxiJet powerhead (technically not a needle wheel, but close enough for me). When I first set it up, I had what looks like yours... a pulsing rythmic burst of tiny bubbles. For me, the sound bugged me. That constant pulsing breakup of the large bubbles was too much. So I had a thought, and came up with an idea that seemed to work. Logically (to me at least) if the bubbles going into the propeller of the powerhead were smaller to begin with, there wouldn't be as much sound and they would likely be broken up even smaller. I have my CO2 tubing attached to the intake with a black twist tie, the ones that you find wrapped around power cords shipped with electronics. I took the end of this twist tie, folded it in half and crammed it into the end of the tubing, blocking off most of it, but allowing much smaller bubbles to escape and a more rapid pace. The result was a significant reduction in sound, and much a reduced bubble size. As a matter of fact, the CO2 bubbles are so small, you have to look for them to see them. I think the smaller bubble size also results in more efficient CO2 saturation in the tank. I've seen better plant growth and a faster pH drop prior to lights on.

Does this make sense?
 

dutchy

Plant Guru Team
Lifetime Member
Jul 6, 2009
2,280
5
36
63
The Netherlands
tjbuege;74856 said:
I think the smaller bubble size also results in more efficient CO2 saturation in the tank. I've seen better plant growth and a faster pH drop prior to lights on.

Which also saves CO2.....
 

barbarossa4122

Guru Class Expert
Dec 29, 2009
975
0
16
NYC
Gbark;74747 said:
I too have noticed that every tank has about 3bps listed in ADA magazines and such. My bubble rate is too fast to count, and if i turn it down to the recommended circa 3bps i start to get BBA.

Now i guess that my bubble rate is high as i am not efficiantly dissolving the co2. But i can live with a bit of wastage :D

I too watch my fish, and the SAE's are my early warning system as they lose their colour if the CO2 is on the high side.

Same here. I use to have about 3 bps in my 55g and got in a little trouble with bba. About 2 months ago I raised the bps to "can't" count and everything is fine.
 

nipat

Guru Class Expert
May 23, 2009
665
0
16
Here is an ADA View showing an 120h tank using 4 BPS (or 3.9 to be exact).
Tried counting from 1:10 to 1:20, I got 39 bubbles. :)

[video=youtube;Wfbuddh3Y9s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wfbuddh3Y9s[/video]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Tom Barr

Founder
Staff member
Administrator
Jan 23, 2005
18,699
786
113
I don't think you can count the bps on my 120 gal, nor my 180, nor the 350 gal, and HELL NO on the client's 1600 gallon.
220 gallon cannot be that far off.
 

Matt F.

Lifetime Charter Member
Lifetime Member
May 30, 2009
2,319
4
38
California
I use my bubble counters as more of a diagnostic tool to make sure co2 is going where it should. If the co2 flow looks different, I know there is a problem with the system.
I still think the best way, for me, to "measure" co2 is to watch the plants and fish-find that sweet spot. I don't even use drop checkers anymore. What kind of algae you get is also an indication.
 
Last edited by a moderator: