# Pearling and solenoid questions



## justjason88 (28 Mar 2012)

Hi guys

Had my D-D Complete system set up with my cube for about 4-5 days now. CO2 comes on at 4pm (lights at 6pm) and off at 10pm (lights off at 12pm). The first 2 days were brilliant, straight after filling the tank and the next day i could see lots of CO2 bubbles in between the leaves of plants (i believe this is called pearling?) and the drop checker showed a nice green. I currently have it set to 1 bubble per 5 seconds.

For some reason the last couple of days i've noticed that the plants no longer pearl or if i do see some it's only 1 or 2 bubbles per plant. In fact ive noticed a congregration of lots of bubbles on the surface water instead. I've tried stirring the surface water a number of times to agitate it so the bubbles mix with the tank, but this hasn't worked. I've also raised the lily pipe so the water flowing into the tank hits the surface water and makes it ripple, this also hasn't worked. Any suggestions, or is this normal?

On another note i can see the timer switch on and off during the times stated above and also hear the solenoid click on and off, but outside of the hours i can still see bubbles produced in the bubble counter. During hours of operation it is roughly 1 bubble per 5 seconds, outside of those hours its roughly 1 bubble per 15/16 seconds and it does not stop. Is this normal or is the solenoid not closing properly and leaving a very small gap so bubbles can still be produced? The pressure is set to 1 bar.

Thanks a lot

Jason


----------



## ceg4048 (28 Mar 2012)

justjason88 said:
			
		

> ...The first 2 days were brilliant, straight after filling the tank and the next day i could see lots of CO2 bubbles in between the leaves of plants (i believe this is called pearling?)


No, pearling has to do with the ejection of Oxygen from the plant, NOT CO2. Click and review the following threads regarding this phenomenon.
why have my plants stopped pearling?
My algae is pearling!!



			
				justjason88 said:
			
		

> In fact ive noticed a congregration of lots of bubbles on the surface water instead. I've tried stirring the surface water a number of times to agitate it so the bubbles mix with the tank, but this hasn't worked. I've also raised the lily pipe so the water flowing into the tank hits the surface water and makes it ripple, this also hasn't worked. Any suggestions, or is this normal?


The buildup of bubbles are due to the oily residue being ejected by the plants. This is likely due to poor CO2 and or poor nutrient. Click and review Surface Film



			
				justjason88 said:
			
		

> On another note i can see the timer switch on and off during the times stated above and also hear the solenoid click on and off, but outside of the hours i can still see bubbles produced in the bubble counter. During hours of operation it is roughly 1 bubble per 5 seconds, outside of those hours its roughly 1 bubble per 15/16 seconds and it does not stop. Is this normal or is the solenoid not closing properly and leaving a very small gap so bubbles can still be produced? The pressure is set to 1 bar.


The solenoid probably is leaking, perhaps due to trapped debris which does not allow the valve to close completely.

Cheers,


----------



## justjason88 (29 Mar 2012)

Thank you very much for your help ceg, it's much appreciated. I've read the above threads and also a number of others which were linked in those threads. I think tomorrow i'll try to skim off this film before doing a 50% wc and maybe up the CO2 from 1b per 4 seconds to 3 seconds and see how that goes for a while. I have noticed during tonights wc that the DC was showing a dark green/blue colour instead of light green which i had the first couple of days. I presume the plants have got used to the CO2 levels in the first 2 days and now require more which is why the DC is showing a darker colour?

The substrate is ada amazonia and im dosing 1ml per day of TPN+ so i wouldn't have thought that fertilisers is a problem. I'll see how upping the CO2 goes first before i think about upping the ferts.

Jason


----------



## ceg4048 (29 Mar 2012)

Hi,
    It's really a waste of time doing skimming film from the surace of the water, which is unbelieveably tedious, when you can just do a 99% water change and get rid of it that way. It's also not a good idea to dwaddle with the injection rate unless there are fish in the tank. If there are no fish in the tank then you need to massively increase the CO2 injection rate and get on with it because you are doing a lot of damage by not having enough CO2. Plants have to get used to poor CO2. They have a much easier time getting used to excellent CO2. So each day of inadequate CO2 ruins your chances of success. Treble or quadruple your injection rate get on with finding the correct leve of CO2 for your lighting level. Do massive water changes at least 2-3 times per week because the fats and oils leached out of the plants actually do damage to the plants as well so the trick is to keep the water as clean and oil free as possible and at the same time, as CO2 saturated as possible. You cannot hurt a plant by adding too much CO2, but they always get hurt by not having enough. Your DC should be a light lime green color by the time the lights come on. I'm talking about the inside of the lime, not the outer skin of the lime.

Cheers,


----------



## sWozzAres (29 Mar 2012)

doesn't a 99% WC make your stem plants fall over and break?


----------



## ceg4048 (29 Mar 2012)

No, they fall over, dry out a little, and then grow faster after adding water. If your plants are breaking when they fall over then this might indicate they are unhealthy.

Cheers,


----------



## sWozzAres (29 Mar 2012)

i was only theorising  still, I doubt my fish would like getting stuck in the mud


----------



## ceg4048 (30 Mar 2012)

Yep, that's true, they definitely wouldn't like that at all, but based on the OP's opening remark: 





			
				justjason88 said:
			
		

> Had my D-D Complete system set up with my cube for about 4-5 days now...


 I made an assumption that it was a new setup and that there probably were no fish in the tank. If that's the case, then there really should be no limt to the amount of water change. People read numbers and they get stuck on them for some reason. I notice in this hobby, and especially in the fish-only side of the house that people think they have to limit the amount of water changed in order to "keep their parameters the same" which is total poppycock and is one of the most bizarre mindsets ever. In a high tech tank, the more water you change, and the more often you change it, the better the health of the tank, especially if you have fish. In the EI tutorial I specified a 50%, so people automatically think "Oh well that's the limit". But that's just a number for convenience. Changing 100% is better than changing only 50%, which is better than only changing 25%. In his original EI presentation, Barr specified 50%, so I use 50% just to be consistent with his data.

So if my assumption was incorrect, and if there are fish in the tank, then limit the amount of removed water so that they don't get stuck in the mud. However, generally, when you have any issues in the tank, it usually involves water, and so the best thing is always to remove as much of the water as you can in order to lower, as much as possible, the concentration of whatever toxic phenomenon is present in the tank. 

I see the same mental limitation when people report overdosing the tank with CO2. What to do? Their immediate response is to use air bubbles to off-gas the CO2, which might take an hour, whlie their fish continue to suffer for that hour. It would be so much quicker and kinder to remove all the water and replace it with new water that has less CO2 dissolved in it, and which would be an instant cure for CO2 overdose toxicity.

People really need to free their minds of the shackles that bind their thinking. Here, the OP decided to spend time and effort using newspapers or towels to remove pollution from his water, when it would be so much simpler and better to just empty the tank and refill. Deep in his phsyche, The Matrix has programmed him with a software subroutine (filename: keep_your_parameters_the_same.exe) which makes him averse to large water changes.  

Cheers,


----------



## sWozzAres (30 Mar 2012)

I don't think the idea of keeping your parameters the same came from The Matrix, it came from decades of experiments on algae reproduction that clearly demonstrate the one thing that (probably) all algae have in common is that blooms are a result of change. Therefore consistency should be a powerful weapon in your armoury for battling algae.


----------



## ceg4048 (30 Mar 2012)

The result of changing water? I don't think so.
The result of changing nutrients? Absolutely not.
The result of changing CO2? Definitely.
The result of changing pH? Nope.
The result of changing KH? No way.
The result of changing GH? Impossible.

Also it is highly doubtful that controlled experiments were done or that anything was ever demonstrated. What most likely happened, as it does now, is that someone observes a condition and irrationally attributes the cause to something totally unrelated. then that somehow becomes fact.

Cheers,


----------



## niru (30 Mar 2012)

ceg4048 said:
			
		

> The result of changing water? I don't think so.
> The result of changing nutrients? Absolutely not.
> The result of changing CO2? Definitely.
> The result of changing pH? Nope.
> ...



Mr. Anderson at his usual best


----------



## sWozzAres (30 Mar 2012)

Your right, to an extent. There is very little in the way of "proof", but this doesn't matter and it's not really neccessary. Algae reproduction in general is extremely complex and it's rare to find targetted experiments for the algae that exist in our tanks. However, change seems to be a common factor amongst all algae so in the absence of "evidence", it's just common sense to be consistent in tank parameters.



			
				ceg4048 said:
			
		

> The result of changing water? I don't think so.


Fair enough, but I would suggest it's likely since it changes many parameters instantaneously


			
				ceg4048 said:
			
		

> The result of changing nutrients? Absolutely not.


"Nutrients don't cause algae" but sudden change most certainly can


			
				ceg4048 said:
			
		

> The result of changing CO2? Definitely.


  

Also...
Change in temperature
Change in light quality
Change in light/dark duration
Change in light intensity

M J Dring collated the results of hundreds of carefully controlled experiments back in the 70's that demonstrate just how complex the topic can be...
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...BA#v=onepage&q=m j dring reproduction&f=false



			
				ceg4048 said:
			
		

> Also it is highly doubtful that controlled experiments were done or that anything was ever demonstrated. What most likely happened, as it does now, is that someone observes a condition and irrationally attributes the cause to something totally unrelated. then that somehow becomes fact.
> 
> Cheers,



Human nature but in fairness, I suspect that when someone says "Nitrate causes algae" they don't really mean it as a fact, not in the same way as their date of birth, or name of their mother. It's more of a suggestion, possibility or hypothesis. They don't know and they know they don't know (mostly) so it's an issue with communication and interpretation. A few people on the internet isn't indicative so the receiver of the message is as much to blame for mis-information as is the messenger.


----------



## ceg4048 (30 Mar 2012)

sWozzAres said:
			
		

> There is very little in the way of "proof", but this doesn't matter and it's not really neccessary..


Of course it's necessary and of course it matters. It's very difficult however to prove something, so in science it is more common to try and disprove, and so we "back into" solutions by disproving certain proposals, and in so doing, by process of elimination, we discard the things that prove false. So although it may not be possible to prove that "A causes B", it is much easier to prove that "A does not cause B". It's really very simple. If someone says "nutrients cause algae" All I have to do is to add nutrients. If algae does not occur, and if I can show this consistently, the this disproves that nutrients cause algae. This will not tell me what causes algae, but it will prove that I needn't be afraid of nutrients causing algae. That does matter and it is very necessary. In science, you cannot pick and choose what matters just because the thing that matters happens to be complicated or inconvenient. The problem here, is that in order to prove or disprove you must first have control. You must be able to grow plants algae free. If you cannot maintain an algae free tank then you are completely out of control and none of your proofs or disproofs are valid. My tanks are consistently algae free. Therefore I can add this or subtract that and have better confidence that Event A is (or is not) correlated to Syndrome B. To be in control or to be out of control. That is the question.



			
				sWozzAres said:
			
		

> Algae reproduction in general is extremely complex and it's rare to find targetted experiments for the algae that exist in our tanks. However, change seems to be a common factor amongst all algae so in the absence of "evidence", it's just common sense to be consistent in tank parameters.


I don't think this is common sense at all. It's just another fear, wrapped up in some convenient rhetoric, the rhetoric of failure. In high tech tanks I do massive waterchanges all the time which changes the parameters rapidly and often and I don't get algae. Those who do not change their water tend to get algae. When these people start doing more water changes their algae recedes. That's a pretty good correlation that disproves the theory that changing parameters changing water causes algae. I would suggest that if you are getting algae then you need to look elswhere for cause. What algae are good at is adapting to rapid changes in the environment from a water quality standpoint. Deteriorating water conditions such as dead things or other sources of organic pollution definitely encourages algae. That's why changing the water to reduce the deterioration helps to prevent algae.



			
				sWozzAres said:
			
		

> "Nutrients don't cause algae" but sudden change most certainly can


Nope, I don't buy this either. Again, I do this all the time and this doesn't trigger algae. I mean, if you go from dosing to not dosing then of course you will get algae, but this will be because of a deficiency, not because of change.

Also...


			
				sWozzAres said:
			
		

> Change in temperature


Never triggered a bloom just because of changing temperature. One has to look deeper at the secondary effects of thermal stress as well as the thermal limits.



			
				sWozzAres said:
			
		

> Change in light quality


There is no such thing as light quality for a plant. Photons are photons. Quality is a human emotion. Plants do not care about emotional things.



			
				sWozzAres said:
			
		

> Change in light/dark duration
> Change in light intensity


Again, it depends on the direction of the change. Reducing the intensity of light never triggers an algal bloom. Just the opposite in fact - that's how you reduce algae. Increasing the duration can cause problems, but again, this depends on the intensity.



			
				sWozzAres said:
			
		

> M J Dring collated the results of hundreds of carefully controlled experiments back in the 70's that demonstrate just how complex the topic can be...


That's why we simplify things by having a few general rules of thumb., WPG rule, CO2 rule, flow turnover rule, water change rule, dosing rule. All these complex issues have been addressed. It's the faulty way in which we execute or ignore these rules that causes problems.



			
				sWozzAres said:
			
		

> Human nature but in fairness, I suspect that when someone says "Nitrate causes algae" they don't really mean it as a fact, not in the same way as their date of birth, or name of their mother. It's more of a suggestion, possibility or hypothesis. They don't know and they know they don't know (mostly) so it's an issue with communication and interpretation. A few people on the internet isn't indicative so the receiver of the message is as much to blame for mis-information as is the messenger.


When someone says NO3 causes algae, they mean it. There is absolutely no ambiguity whatsoever. That's why pet shops sell so many NO3 test kits. That's why there are Nitrate filters and Nitrate sponges and Nitrate-be-gone products. And that's why The Matrix is filled with so many Nitrate haters, and that's why there is so much poor plant health and algae caused by Nitrate deficiency. Whoever you want to blame, sender or receiver, the message is pretty darn clear. They are looking at gunsmoke and then blaming the smoke instead of blaming the gun.

Cheers,


----------



## sWozzAres (30 Mar 2012)

ceg mate, we aren't doing science, we are doing fish keeping/plant growing. science isn't neccessary to succeed, sure it helps but when you don't have it, it doesn't have to hinder you. if it works then keep doing it

your obsesssing about proof, cause and effect, then you roll out alot of anecdotal evidence to support your argument, typically "I add tons of nitrate and I don't get algae therefore nitrate doesn't cause algae", hmmm, it's over simplifying, very unscientific and puts you in danger of doing the very thing your so against - misleading people. nitrogen is also an inhibitor for sporogenesis, run out and yes youll get algae on your plants due to deficiency but that depletion might also be the very thing that causes the release of spores that end up growing on your deficient leaves! two things happening not one, complex interaction between complex organisms and an ever changing environment.



			
				ceg4048 said:
			
		

> sWozzAres said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



no photons are not photons. photons resonate at particular frequencies and the plants photoreceptors are sensitive to certain frequency ranges. from the plants perspective the energy absorbed through  Cryptochrome (blue light) produces a very different effect to the energy absorbed through Phytochrome (red light). Essentially, Cryptochrome regulates circadian rythm and Phytochrome allows the plant to perceive seasons. it's oversimplifying and misleading to state that plants dont care!

Anyway I don't want to come across as argumentative, differing points of view make the world go round. I've certainly learnt alot from you so keep it coming   

Cheers


----------



## ceg4048 (31 Mar 2012)

sWozzAres said:
			
		

> ceg mate, we aren't doing science, we are doing fish keeping/plant growing. science isn't neccessary to succeed, sure it helps but when you don't have it, it doesn't have to hinder you. if it works then keep doing it


Well, I didn't say you had to be a scientist. That's a very different argument. Anyone can execute a science, and we are doing so by growing plants and keeping fish - even if we don't want to call it science. You can call it whatever you want, and you can ignore the principles if you want, but that doesn't change the fact that the reasons behind your success or failure can only be attributed to scientific principles, and cannot be attributed to wishing or washing.



			
				sWozzAres said:
			
		

> ..your obsesssing about proof, cause and effect, then you roll out alot of anecdotal evidence to support your argument, typically "I add tons of nitrate and I don't get algae therefore nitrate doesn't cause algae", hmmm, it's over simplifying, very unscientific and puts you in danger of doing the very thing your so against - misleading people...


So you don't think that if if you can demonstrate that a suspected causal factor does not produce the predicted event this does not count as disproving the suspicion? You don't think that counts as a scientific procedure? If not then to what do you attribute the fact that algae is not induced in EI fed tanks?



			
				sWozzAres said:
			
		

> nitrogen is also an inhibitor for sporogenesis, run out and yes youll get algae on your plants due to deficiency but that depletion might also be the very thing that causes the release of spores that end up growing on your deficient leaves! two things happening not one, complex interaction between complex organisms and an ever changing environment.


This sounds like you agree with my argument. Low Nitrogen is definitely a problem. But you need to continue the scenario; So now, due to deficient N there are now more spores living on the leaf. What happens when I now add NO3? Do you think that the adding NO3 will cause those spores to bloom? The answer is NO. The additional N from NO3 will cause the Plant to bloom. The spores do not really care. They are sensing the health of the plant. Adding more N results in better plant health, and so spores have no reason to bloom. 

I think this is what you are missing. The complex web that you are talking about have factors beyond our current comprehension, but in simple terms the problem you are having is that you are focused on eliminating algae. This is what The Matrix teaches us to focus on. And this is why many people fear the addition of nutrients and often look in the direction of poisons, for example. I would suggest that you focus more on getting plants healthier. To tell you the truth I really don't care about all those experiments that study the effects of environmental factors on algae in an isolated Petrie dish. When plants and algae and microorganism are in the tank together, and when we modify the environment by enriching the CO2, we create a completely different dynamic than the one that exists in the Petrie dish. That information concerning isolated algal cells is very good to know, because it provides good baseline information, but ultimately, it becomes irrelevant within the larger context of your tank, because the behavior changes. The presence of plants affects the behavior of algae and the presence of algae affects the behavior of plants. That's why obsessing over cause and effect becomes more important in the tank than the data from the Petrie dish. And that's why anecdotal data is more important than the results published in someone's thesis regarding the behavior of algal cells in the Petrie dish. 

Do all the things that benefit plants. The presence of algae on a plant tells you that you are not doing all the right things for plant health. These are the things that work, and are what you alluded to above. Don't focus on algae. Algal spores will always be in the tank. That can never change. But if we focus on plant health, we will see that algae will typically recede - precisely because in a planted tank, algal spores bloom as a result of poor plant health. Doing massive water changes is fantastic for promoting excellent plant health, and this fact totally overrides, by a huge margin, ANY Petrie dish experiment which shows that a changing water parameter is good for algae. 

Adding huge amounts of NO3/PO4 delivers massive amounts of healthy energy to the plants, which totally overrides ANY isolated experiment describing Nitrogen/Phosphorous assimilation by algae. I don't do anything special to avoid algae. I focus on maximizing all the things that are good for plants while minimizing all the things that are bad for plants. That's why I don't have algae. That's why Tom Barr, George Farmer, Mark Evans don't have algae. All those trapped in The Matrix, keeping parameters the same, afraid of water changes and worried about nutrients are presently scurrying around looking for new and innovative ways to kill their algae.



			
				sWozzAres said:
			
		

> no photons are not photons. photons resonate at particular frequencies and the plants photoreceptors are sensitive to certain frequency ranges. from the plants perspective the energy absorbed through Cryptochrome (blue light) produces a very different effect to the energy absorbed through Phytochrome (red light). Essentially, Cryptochrome regulates circadian rythm and Phytochrome allows the plant to perceive seasons. it's oversimplifying and misleading to state that plants dont care!


Yes, but Frequency is not Quality. The plant has the ability to change blue light in to other colors via photon exchange between pigments. This is an incredible quantum technique called FRET (Fluorescence Resonance Energy Transfer). They therefore do not care what frequency you supply. Quality therefore is another factor to NOT worry about if one is concerned about needing science to succeed. As you so adequately put it, do what works, use any quality you want. This will work.

Cheers,


----------



## sWozzAres (31 Mar 2012)

ceg4048 said:
			
		

> So you don't think that if if you can demonstrate that a suspected causal factor does not produce the predicted event this does not count as disproving the suspicion? You don't think that counts as a scientific procedure? If not then to what do you attribute the fact that algae is not induced in EI fed tanks?





			
				ceg4048 said:
			
		

> I think this is what you are missing. The complex web that you are talking about have factors beyond our current comprehension, but in simple terms the problem you are having is that you are focused on eliminating algae ... I would suggest that you focus more on getting plants healthier.



EI fed tanks aren't all algae free, but the plants are. You yourself have even stated that you get algae on the glass. Replacing 99% of the water is kind of cheating, resetting the tank every week because your scared of algae. Many EI tanks also have plenty of algae eaters, thats not solving the problem, it's hiding from the truth. Personally I don't have algae problems (fingers crossed), not after spending 2 years on UKAPS   I have had minor diatom issues, barely detectable levels of BBA and I once spotted some GSA on the glass, probably down to new setup, mucking about with CO2 and changing ferts respectively. Plants are healthy, I don't use algae eaters, I've not cleaned the glass for nearly 3 months and I don't do EI. I also realize that I don't know why I don't have algae so I am under no illusions that I know what I am doing - maybe it's because I practice consistency


----------



## ceg4048 (1 Apr 2012)

There are lots of reasons to get algae that have nothing to do with EI or the dosing program. This is another thing people are missing. There are plenty of algae which are related to poor execution CO2 for example. Nutrition is only part of the equation. You should have read that by now. That's why we're forever trying get across that EI is not about algae. It's about plant health, and my 99% water change has nothing to do with resetting the tank. I don't care about resetting nutrient levels after the water change I'll add as much or more nutrients that was in the tank before the water change. 

Review the top of the thread and read why I advised the OP to not limit his water change to 50%. I was not advising him to do a 99% change to reset nutrients. That wasn't even an issue at that point in the thread. You are the one who brought up nutrients. My advice was taregeted at getting rid of the organic pollution in the tank. That pollution was becoming obvious from the oily substance on the surface, which has the effect of trapping the bubbles. Again, you have some sort of minset and are focused on nutrient causing algae. The 50% water change prescribed by EI has to do with cleaning the tank, not necessarily resetting anything. 

Having a healthy high energy tank relies on adhering to all the principles of plant husbandry, not just nutrients. All the things that you do combine to produce health or the lack thereof. Here is a textbook example of someone having to completely change their habits viewtopic.php?f=21&t=11779 
Nutrients alone cannot save you from poor discipline or sloppiness, and they also cannot be blamed for problems.



			
				sWozzAres said:
			
		

> Replacing 99% of the water is kind of cheating...


Let me guess, you're a comedian by trade, yes?  Good one.  

Cheers,


----------



## justjason88 (1 Apr 2012)

Ceg thank you for your advice

This is what the tank was doing when i originally created the thread, as you can see the bubbles were getting trapped in the layer.











Since then i've raised the outflow pipe so the surface water moves more, my water changes per day are roughly 70% (i can't siphon lower than the HC really), i've upped the CO2 massively to about 2bps from 1 per 4 seconds and after the WC if there is still any blotches on the surface i just chuck a sheet of paper towel on the surface and remove it. The DC now shows a lighter shade of green than the shade before, it's probably a tad lighter than the shade in the picture in your CO2 tutorial here. After all this i've noticed the surface scum has reduced A LOT but is still present when i go to do a WC so i will persevere.

This is a pic after todays WC, the colour on the DC is dark because of the crap iphone camera.





Thanks again

Jason


----------



## ceg4048 (2 Apr 2012)

Hi Jason,
              Looking better mate. It will take a while for the plants to stop spewing out the gunk. Also make sure that you are dosing after each water change (although is does look like you've got Aquasoil in there, so this might not be as critical). You might also want to play with the outflow pipe placement and diffuser placement. Remember that the lime green color should be there at lights on which means turning the gas on an hour or two before the lights.

Cheers,


----------



## justjason88 (2 Apr 2012)

Brilliant, thanks again

Jason


----------



## cogo (25 Oct 2012)

Ceg,
It's very pleasing to read your posts. I love you EI guys! At last somebody in aquarium hobby knows the scientific methodology and knows what can be prove and how to do this. I agree that there are to much myths which aren't  justified well. I was amazed by this self-contradictory Matrix in the first month of my hobby. But then I read UKAPS and BarrReports.

Cheers,


----------

