I recently switched back to diffuser disc(Rhinox brand, Greenleaf Aquarium sells them, or Aquatic magic etc). I left the bubble flow rates the same and simply swapped out the mazzei, closed it off, then placed the diffuser disc into the out flow filter current.
the results are about the same, perhaps too early to tell, but it appears the disc do a little better job.
Trade offs:
1. Have clean them, Tilex works wonders, far better than H2O2/Bleach etc.
2. They are easy to see and make sure they are working correctly.
3. Bubble counter semi built in
4. Cheap and easy to add
5. Another thing in the aquarium, but they look decent and the same as ADA
I think the real issue with good CO2 is more to do with the mist itself and current.
Less to do with the method itself.
I do not think 100% dissolving CO2 into the water is more efficient really (like the case with a CO2 reactor), because most of the CO2 simply degasses anyway before getting to plants etc(maybe 90%).
So whether it's dissolved or in gas phase, really does not matter.
What seems to matter most, current, mixing, and the sticky misty bubbles
As my mixing, current and use of mist are the same for each of the 5 tanks I switched(not just 1 aquarium!), the results are fairly independent and support the conclusions.
This can explain good results from mazzei, disc, needle wheel etc.
The real issues are the above 3 traits it would seem.
So what are the trade offs for the mazzei?
1. Out of the aquarium
2. Looks cool, something new for the planted hobby
3. Easy to control mist sizing
4. Requires high pressure flows- more energy from pump
5. Head flow losses
6. Filter can clog reducing the pressure across the mazzei venturi valve, reducing the efficacy of mist
7. Requires more plumbing and more plumbing skills than a disc
8. Nice for in line systems
9.
Over all, the cost is about 2X less or perhaps even a large factor, than the mazzei method(mazzei vs a Rhinox).
I've used all of these methods successfully, but wanted to see how things compare with several tanks and the flow/current and mist as independent variables and growth/algae presence as the dependent factors.
The plant growth is still excellent, no algae of any sort etc.
I'd like to use a CO2 meter, but that will wait for another day
I'm not advocating either method, I'm interested in each method on it's own merits.
You need to consider the trade offs and think what is something you might like to do and try out yourself.
Regards,
Tom Barr
the results are about the same, perhaps too early to tell, but it appears the disc do a little better job.
Trade offs:
1. Have clean them, Tilex works wonders, far better than H2O2/Bleach etc.
2. They are easy to see and make sure they are working correctly.
3. Bubble counter semi built in
4. Cheap and easy to add
5. Another thing in the aquarium, but they look decent and the same as ADA
I think the real issue with good CO2 is more to do with the mist itself and current.
Less to do with the method itself.
I do not think 100% dissolving CO2 into the water is more efficient really (like the case with a CO2 reactor), because most of the CO2 simply degasses anyway before getting to plants etc(maybe 90%).
So whether it's dissolved or in gas phase, really does not matter.
What seems to matter most, current, mixing, and the sticky misty bubbles
As my mixing, current and use of mist are the same for each of the 5 tanks I switched(not just 1 aquarium!), the results are fairly independent and support the conclusions.
This can explain good results from mazzei, disc, needle wheel etc.
The real issues are the above 3 traits it would seem.
So what are the trade offs for the mazzei?
1. Out of the aquarium
2. Looks cool, something new for the planted hobby
3. Easy to control mist sizing
4. Requires high pressure flows- more energy from pump
5. Head flow losses
6. Filter can clog reducing the pressure across the mazzei venturi valve, reducing the efficacy of mist
7. Requires more plumbing and more plumbing skills than a disc
8. Nice for in line systems
9.
Over all, the cost is about 2X less or perhaps even a large factor, than the mazzei method(mazzei vs a Rhinox).
I've used all of these methods successfully, but wanted to see how things compare with several tanks and the flow/current and mist as independent variables and growth/algae presence as the dependent factors.
The plant growth is still excellent, no algae of any sort etc.
I'd like to use a CO2 meter, but that will wait for another day
I'm not advocating either method, I'm interested in each method on it's own merits.
You need to consider the trade offs and think what is something you might like to do and try out yourself.
Regards,
Tom Barr