Well, problem is, folks don't test and see for themselves.
If I tell you or anyone to try it out, it's a high probablity that you will see something signficant. Stuff that's somewhat inconclusive, I don't bother unless I can see something significant myself.

If not, we can look elsewhere, simply because you do not see it(eg ask 5 folks what happened at the scene of a crime for example- > 5 different stories, all true of course!), does not mean the next time you might come with a different idea about it.

The other good thing when I ask folks to try something out, then we can rule one thing out that might be causing issues(perhaps).

Folks carry on and on ad nauesum over test this, test that without giving a second thought to whether or not the test kit they are using is valid within the range they are measuring or if all the work will even answer their original question.

I ask folks to question such things and then they say I come off as some sort of nag/hack/troll/Crazy etc.

"How can say something that's totally against every known sets of advice?"

Easily.

Then you can draw conclusions once you have seen the observations and propose methods to test to see if the idea is right or not.
Otherwise you ain't got much to go on other than what other folks have said.

Which, as the crime scene suggest, is quite different depending on who was asked.

Still, we might be able to come to some agreements and work from there.


Regards,
Tom Barr

I just wanted to give you all an update:
I have replaced the 2nd external reactor and have added a Rio RVT pump,this is a wonderful pump ,excellent for this application, it needs no modification what so ever.
After a couple of hours of working I noticed something that surprized me ,the micro bubbles are really small I should say perfect size,the spray bar has no problems distributing them around the 6' long tank.
I wish there was a way to measure the o2 level with no equipment but it looks like all plants are pearling much much faster than before.
Over all I am pleased with replacing my two external reactors to two co2 mist reactors.I should have done it sooner.

I ran the sytem with an advanced venturi injector, and needle wheel pump for 1 week. Water was dispersed evenly using a Sea Swirl wave generator (Awkward looking but the greatest thing since sliced bread when it comes to plants) !!!

I was burning through Co2 at warp speed, and Dissolved levels of Co2 actually dropped 5 to 10 ppm. Plant growth WAS lovely with well balanced growth, and extraordinary color, and texture. BUT !!! The actual mass of growth was unspectacular, and the misting in the tank was IMHO excessive detracting from the display. I have accomplished as much with 100% dissolved Co2. Perhaps not quite as nice, but too close to really appreciate the difference, and expense. One thing I did note was a conspicuous clarity and lower tannins, but this was likely due to degassing, and skimming ?

I am discontinueing the experiment, and will now attempt an even distribution of Both dissolved Co2, and Misting for another week or two.

Hi.
So in your opinion I should try to achieve some level of dissolved co2 as well?if that's the case I'll wait a week or so to see if I have to deal with some algae problem due to lack of dissolved co2,than I'll think of finding a solution.
Thanks for your reply.
KEN>

Your results ARE also Important ! This is only 1 experiment utilizing different components, and methods. The concept may very well be correct, but my method may be flawed. The more people who actually determine their own results the more data there is to work with. I have already tried both Dissolved and Mist. I would have liked to continue the misting experiment, but 5 pounds of Co2 was my limit on this application. The cost is excessive, and to that end the method of distribution is inefficient, and fatally flawed. No Joy ...

One important issue of misting must be: how well these micro bubbles are dispersed.I did not mention that in this 6 foot long tank I have two filters ,plus 6 power heads/pumps that are strategically placed in-the tank so the bubbles don't get a chance to freely go to the surface ,the spray bars as well keep these bubbles floating in the middle of the tank going from left all the way to the right an constantly circulating.My point is this(circulation by means of power head) could really effect the outcome of the experiment.

I actually use both methods inline. I built a typical DIY external reactor (PVC with Bioballs) run inline with my XP3out line and I modified the output nozzle. From the nozzle it goes to my AC301 intake and mists out. Perhaps this is overkill but I wanted the benefits of dissolved and mist C02 and my plants are a lush green, reds are brilliant, and the growth is terrific. I suppose I could eliminate the external reactor but this has worked out well for me. I drop check and keep my C02 around 33ppm. I may up this to 40ppm, not sure if I need to. Plants look nice, grow well, and no algae growth with no stress to the fish.

BTW my tank is a 90g, only 4 ft, so I'm not sure how well this would work on a 6 footer.

ziggy.

The advantage, as I see it, of Tom's internal venturi reactor is that it does both the misting and the dissolving of CO2 into the water. The venturi loop chops up bubbles of CO2 into a mist, which is swirled out of the bottom. But, the main part of the CO2 just tumbles around in the reactor tube, getting dissolved. The mist is not as extreme as a mist-only system, but it does work its way around the tank. I think I prefer the less soda water appearance with the lesser mist.

thats pretty much the same result as my system. Most of it gets dissolved in the reactor crashing into the dozen or so bioballs in there, and then what doesn't dissolved gets smashed by the PW impeller. The bubbles that do spray out are so fine by that point that there are barely seen unless your nose is pushed up against the glass, which I find myself doing time to time

I wanted a system that was easy to maintain, using equipment I already had, and effective. The materials for the reactor was a little over $3 at home depot so it was cheap too!

ziggy

I'm reasonably certain they enjoy a bit of both, and yes Tom's little reactor works very well to this affect. A gaseous interface is 10,000 times more efficient, but they are aquatic plants and did evolve to that enviorment. 100% mist is highly inefficient from a monetary POV, but I speculate that the diversity in distribution also stimulates receptors and increases vitality of tissues. There is absolutely no way to deny the differences in size, color, and texture when using mist, but growth itself may begin to wain by comparrison.

Whether Tom's augmentation of the waste gas is Serendipity or Genious the distribution of Co2 is almost perfect. I suppose a person could adjust the balance of distribution by changing the height of the purge port, but that would seem to depend on the individuals needs. Overall it's a remarkable little device for any amount of money. After that we're merely splitting hairs. It gets the job done !

I can over engineer Anything !!!