After Dec 15th or so.

Regards,
Tom Barr

I'm extremely intrigued by this concept, and stifling the urge to start fabricating one. There really should be a simple gold standard testing method for Co2.

I wonder just exactly how many confused arguments could be resolved by an accurate resolution of Co2 ? I'd hate to turn everyone into statisticians, but lame hypothesis tend to breed more contempt than success. Standardized data would be very useful derrived from an international format. How would one assemble such a data base ??? Prof M

I would be happy if we could just do without those who have 75 ppm of CO2 in the tank, so they know they have enough. What is bothering me is that all of the recommendations for using 10 ppm or 20 ppm or 30 ppm are based on using very, very inaccurate measuring methods. So, the folk knowledge that 30 ppm, for example, is the goal to shoot for, may be worthless - maybe that number should really be 50 ppm or 20 ppm. Today, someone posted that they had 28 to 32 ppm (as I recall). I just sighed, and went on to the next post. I really doubt that we will ever achieve better than a +/-5 ppm accuracy, and that won't be easy to achieve. Generally there is a theoretical calculation behind recommendations - like, a calculation using XYZ theory, that shows that a certain species of fish run into respiratory distress at 51.97 ppm of CO2. I don't recall seeing any such theoretical number.

No Water Quality target is within range if the reference point is skewed. I use multiple references to try to confirm the result, but they usually confirm something else is skewed. LOL. I shy away from instrumentation because too many people rely on it without verifying it. I've done it myself, and will likely do it again ?

There are really a multitude of symptoms directly related to poor Co2. People fret over lighting, and nutrients, and that's all very well, but plants simply cannot grow without Co2. When you continue to see efforts and reactions bouncing all over the place one would have to wonder exactly how stable the Co2 or its distribution are.

This is WHY EI works so well. Instead of chasing the symptoms you blanket dose and water change, and it works great. You really can't do that with Co2, so eventually you WILL have to reckon an accurate method to verify the results.

Your's and Tom's post on KH, and PH reference are tremendously significant and yet since the original posts I've read at least 50 more that might easily benefit from knowing just exactly how much Co2 they are actually applying. All the while quick and at the ready to decipher any hypothesis for lighting, nutrients or nutrient potential, but Bye God they know their Co2 ppm ! I'm not buying it. Not that I don't believe them. I just don't believe there is a reliable method or standard for testing, and certainly not for the AVG. hobbiest. Whether you use a drop checker or PH controller you still need a stable reference or it's no different than handing car keys to a blind man...Well meaning, but pointless, and Ill Conceived. Mi Dos Centavos, Prof M

Last week I took a trip to Tap Plastics, where I bought a 1" dia, 1/16" wall thickness acrylic tube, to go with my existing 5/8", 1/16" wall acrylic tube, and some acrylic disks - 1", 1/2", 5/8" diameter, plus a tube of medium viscosity acrylic cement. Then I spent about 4 hours, using only hand tools plus a cordless drill to make a couple of DIY drip checkers. The first one should be the fastest reacting one:



The second one should be the easiest to read the color on. I used white fingernail polish to paint the inside of the air gap tube which becomes the background for the fluid in the bulb.



I loaded them and added them to the tank to see how their reaction times vary and if they leak.


After two hours all three of the devices have the same color. The one with the white background was the slowest to get started with the color change, by a half hour or so, but once they were all changing color, both of the DIY ones ended up with the green color at about 2 hours. Now, I'm not sure what affects the response time of these, but I am sure that both of these DIY designs work well.

I'll have a pH probe version soon.
I may stop by Weds and get the parts etc.

Regards,
Tom Barr

Nice work, Well Done ! Prof M

Still can't believe a Vigorous young fella like you just got lapped by Vaughn ?

Twice ! LOL.

He's making a drop checker, I'm making a large X section area pH version, another animal, but Vaughn's original idea with the KH reference works great.
And that's all his, not mine.

I want to see the response time differences which needs to be faster.

Regards,
Tom Barr

I can fabricate it in a heartbeat, but don't presently have the time to nit pick the details of the design. I'm still working on venturis, orifice sizes, and reactors. The concept seems simple enough, but a little more thought might produce better results. Prof M