-
You are viewing the forum as a Guest, please login (you can use your Facebook, Twitter, Google or Microsoft account to login) or register using this link: Log in or Sign Up
A reflection - putting it all into one scape
- Thread starter JoshP12
- Start date
You sure it isn’t more? I’m almost positive it’s more - 10lbs in a week + I’m not sure how much was offgassed.
I’ve run my pH in my tanks (even in startup before) into the 5s (can only guess how low as bromothymol only goes to 6 and my pH probe is consistently wrong - but it is consistent) with no issues and yellow standard drop checker.
There is a maximum dip that co2 can take water … I just can’t remember if it’s 4.5 or what. I’ll have to look it up.
Edit: carbonate equilibrium - 4.3 .. bet I was around there. But who knows right?
Surely way more than that? Does bromothymol blue not go yellow at 6.0 pH? The usual pH/KH charts suggest a CO2 level of 240ppm for 8dKH and 6.0 pH. Chances are the pH was even lower, down to 5.0pH perhaps - the tables don't seem to go that far!
You are correct sir on this one. You can refer to my previous post with dash, parenthesis and the rest. 😇
Paul, you gotta be less cryptic buddy. Lol. Edit: the ++?
I think lots of us have done this with minimal if any Ill effects on fish. And in many cases it’s actually a good call for the overall health I think.
Seeing the arcuata curl - that was something I hadn’t seen before. I had seen plants soften in appearance when easing off the gas, but not to the extent of the latter.
Rotundifolia in particular got “less stiff” when I eased off the gas in the past.
Hi all,
If you limited gas exchange between the tank and the atmosphere (with a tight fitting lid) it would slow the rate of CO2 use, by reducing that gradient.
The rate of out-gassing isn't a linear relationship, it depends on the concentration gradient between the gas exchange surface of the tank water and the atmosphere. As you add more gas proportionally more will be out-gassed because the atmospheric CO2 concentration remains the same.
If you limited gas exchange between the tank and the atmosphere (with a tight fitting lid) it would slow the rate of CO2 use, by reducing that gradient.
Last edited by a moderator:
I’m unconvinced about rubisco adaption myself. And I’ve read lots of papers on it. I’ll find them.
Fick’s law.
I’m with you - it’s the pH not the concentration.
Last edited by a moderator:
John q
Member
Lol, I'll be as impartial as I can..
I think the ugly duckling turned into a beautiful Swan.
The judge has spoken.
Everyone shaving 30 minutes off ramp? You can always put it back if you get the algaes. 🙂
Hi all,
While I was trying to find Fick's Law (problematic when you can't remember what it is called) I came upon an interesting paper that basically uses spectrophotometry and a "drop checker":
<"Measuring the Henry's Law Constant for Carbon Dioxide and Water with UV-visible Absorption Spectroscopy">
cheers Darrel
<"Thank you">. I couldn't remember what it was called earlier, I knew it wasn't <"Henry's Law ">, but I couldn't remember whose it was.
While I was trying to find Fick's Law (problematic when you can't remember what it is called) I came upon an interesting paper that basically uses spectrophotometry and a "drop checker":
<"Measuring the Henry's Law Constant for Carbon Dioxide and Water with UV-visible Absorption Spectroscopy">
cheers Darrel
Last edited by a moderator:
John q
Member
To be honest Josh I've been shaving the co2 ramp time down for a few months ever since I read this post of yours.
Dialling in the CO2 injection Rate and CO2 Profiles
Having said that I have a looooong ramp time (4hr+ to reach 1ph drop) so loosing 30 mins off that is in no way a scientific backing of your theory.
Up to now I haven't seen any major drawbacks from not being bang on 1ph drop exactly when the lights turn on, time will tell I guess.
Last edited:
GreggZ
Member
A couple of issues I think are relevant.
First is you really have no idea what the actual pH drop or CO2 concentration was in the tank. 10 lbs in a week is an insane number, and IMO likely there is leak somewhere. For reference I run through a 10 lb tank about every ten weeks in my 120G. And that is a robust constant stream of CO2.
The second is that it seems some are equating this to proving that moderate CO2 is better. If you were to increase the concentration level of ANYTHING we put it into our tanks in a wildly huge amount I would expect you will see negative effects. Whether that's 1,000 ppm NO3, 50 ppm Fe, or 5 ppm Boron. Let's say we tried those and tank suffered. Would that mean that less NO3, less Fe, and less B is optimum? No it doesn't. Just saying that IMO drawing correlations from massive overdoses doesn't prove or even indicate anything.
If you really wanted to test this theory wait until the tank is stable and then start very slowly and accurately changing CO2 concentrations. I've done this numerous times and for me that answer is always more is better. But that's within a "reasonable" range. I keep fish so I've never kept it at anything more than a 1.5 pH drop. Like most everything else I am sure there is a law of diminishing returns with CO2, but if you really dumped 10 lbs of CO2 into the tank in a week I don't see much relevance as to how much CO2 plants require for peak health.
A quick analogy might be how we use fertilizers for our lawn. Provide a reasonable amount and the lawn is lush and green. Provide too little and lawn is weak and weeds take start taking over. Spill a pile of fertilizer on it and that spot dies quickly. That doesn't mean that less fertilizer is better.
Last edited:
Possibly a difference in definition between individuals, but that to me is the definition of moderate CO2. If its acceptable to livestock then its a reasonable/moderate level of CO2. So moderate CO2 levels probably are better, but mainly because:
Without livestock CO2 can be pushed higher without concern, and there may be benefits to plant growth, though as you say the benefits likely diminish quickly.
The crux of the question being discussed here though is more if there is a ceiling level of CO2 where the plants not only cease to obtain any further benefits, but instead start to incur negative reactions to the CO2 level. Not directly necessary, as mentioned above, but more from 'other' interactions within the aquarium (be those pH levels, carbonic acid concentrations or something else entirely).
@JoshP12's application is an extreme case, and a sample size of 1, so you are right it proves nothing, and we can't draw any real conclusions, but the plant response is interesting none the less.
There’s no leak @GreggZ. I ran through two tanks at that rate - then went to the shop got the same ones refilled and replaced the system and now I haven’t touched the tank.
I also think it’s very clear that it’s species dependent … rotalas didn’t skip a beat - arcuata did.
I no longer feel compelled to run such high levels of co2 anymore, however, to test boundaries. The Macrandra looks the “same” aside from the blip when I undershot co2 and showed the leaves in the photos.
I also think it’s very clear that it’s species dependent … rotalas didn’t skip a beat - arcuata did.
I no longer feel compelled to run such high levels of co2 anymore, however, to test boundaries. The Macrandra looks the “same” aside from the blip when I undershot co2 and showed the leaves in the photos.
Fun!
Shave off an hour? or two? Just do it. LOL-- get the algaes, then claw it back the other way by 10 minutes.
Nice and cloudy FTS:
Cleaned out the filter, added purigen, removed filter floss. Let’s see.
I lifted up some Monte Carlo and the roots were alive. So hoping they take.
If they don’t, I’m saving money and replanting the whole tank with my rotalas 😂 until it establishes and clears up.
Cleaned out the filter, added purigen, removed filter floss. Let’s see.
I lifted up some Monte Carlo and the roots were alive. So hoping they take.
If they don’t, I’m saving money and replanting the whole tank with my rotalas 😂 until it establishes and clears up.
