Reply With Quote
In line diffuser, Boyu has a cheap one. This goes directly into the pipe of your canister.
Any equipment to inject CO2 into the tank without using diffusers?
Hi fellows, may I know if there is any equipment to inject CO2 into a tank without using pipes & submersible diffusers? Currently, my backup plan is to find some way to connect the CO2 tubing directly to the inflow pipe of my canister filter to get the gas diffused by the whacking from the canister's impeller.
Are there other methods?
In line diffuser, Boyu has a cheap one. This goes directly into the pipe of your canister.
Reactor also works. Same working manner as in line diffuser
Re: Any equipment to inject CO2 into the tank without using diffusers?
Exhibit AOriginally Posted by Navanod
Exhibit B
Exhibit C
Exhibit D
Exhibit E
Exhibit F
Qn1a: May I know the difference between Exhibit A verus Exhibit B?
Qn1b: So am I actually looking for A or B?
Qn2: And Exhibits C to E are actually the ones that I'm not looking for right, i.e. smilar to the usual glass ones that is placed in the tank (water)?
Qn3: What's Exhibit F for?
1. Old model us new model. newer model have double diffuser. need higher PSI to drive it also.
2. A and B both are inline.
3. C, D,E are all diffusers, but E is modeled after GLA's bazooka model... using 1 right now... able to diffuse extremely fine bubbles.. better then the bubbles from my boyu inline...
4. Reactor, in essence, holding the bubbles in contact with water longer... Absorption is Surface area and Time in contact with water.
If a diffuser is producing finer bubbles, more surface area in contact with water. The longer the water is in contact with water the more it is being absorbed....
Learning the hardway, not the highway.
Photo Blog - impervious-endeavors.blogspot.com
Semi-Active currently
"if he cant be bothered to take the time to write his question properly, why should I take the time to answer him."
Looks like Raliiart really did his homework
felix just about answered you
Does anyone know whether depth has any effect on water/gaseuos exchange?
In other words, will gases eg carbon dioxide, oxygen, dissolve more easily deep in the water surface, or at the water surface? I've been losing sleep mulling over this for a long time, lol.
LIFE IS UNBEARABLE WITHOUT A FISH TANK!!!
deeper mean longer time for the CO2 bubble stay in the water. However, if you are referring to the water pressure due to the depth, I have no idea. Does it really matter? Typical tank depth is only 45cm, minus 5cm for substrate and maybe another 5cm for water level, you left with 35cm of depth to play around. Not sure if that will make much different in CO2 solubility.
That is exactly what I am driving at. As far as I know, maximum solubility of gases can only occur at the water surface, which is the air/water interface where minimal water pressure exists.
Under water, with submerged gases or submerged air being compressed by pressure all round, I reckon solubility will possibly be affected. Thus, I would prefer the 'reacting' or dissolving and diffusion to be at surface level and then the resultant gas-rich water be brought downward by the water current.
Can I knock your head?Does anyone know whether depth has any effect on water/gaseuos exchange?
In other words, will gases eg carbon dioxide, oxygen, dissolve more easily deep in the water surface, or at the water surface? I've been losing sleep mulling over this for a long time, lol.
Some details are still a good to know but no point thinking overly hard.
Learning the hardway, not the highway.
Photo Blog - impervious-endeavors.blogspot.com
Semi-Active currently
"if he cant be bothered to take the time to write his question properly, why should I take the time to answer him."
Must be encourage learning, once you have the answer let us know
Do remember that we are talking about aquarium. 100 meter deep maybe but couple of cm may not be significant.
Though a 'couple of cms' may not mean much, considering that gases may only be effectively dissolved in water under zero pressure conditions, it may be a significant factor to consider, or discover. Furthermore, it is widely recognised that surface agitation has become such an everyday item in the thoughts of the aquatic world.
I believe I have hinted at the answer when I sing praises for the pratice of upping the water level of my HOFs till they are at the level of the 'lip'. My conclusion is that simply by doing that, I have made my fish very 'happy' and active.
Do remember that we are talking about aquarium. 100 meter deep maybe but couple of cm may not be significant.
True that but i think that retention of the water's gaseous content would be less at the water's surface. So while you maximize solubility, it also allows for gaseous exchange and consequently, the loss of co2.
In any case, I believe this is just a technical discussion. The relative shallowness of the aquarium renders any pressure differences negligible
Though a 'couple of cms' may not mean much, considering that gases may only be effectively dissolved in water under zero pressure conditions, it may be a significant factor to consider, or discover. Furthermore, it is widely recognised that surface agitation has become such an everyday item in the thoughts of the aquatic world. But the gas-enriched water must be conveyed and dispersed to the bottom of the tank by a current, which will always be present if the intake tube of a HOF is lengthened for deeper reach.
I believe I have hinted at the answer when I was singing praises for the practice of upping the water level to the 'lip' of my HOFs'. My conclusion is that simply by doing that, I have made my fish very 'happy' and active by way of increased oxygenation.
Do remember that we are talking about aquarium. 100 meter deep maybe but couple of cm may not be significant.
Loss of C02 at the surface is due to the fact that the c02-enriched water is expelled by the upward motion of the rising current which carries the enriched water. But if the C02-enriched water is conveyed back down to the rest of the tank before they are lost to the atmosphere by means of a created current, such loss can be minimised.
http://animals.howstuffworks.com/pet...equipment5.htm
A quick search yielded the above
In any case to find the exact correlation between water depth, current movement, and rate of gaseous exchange is too scientific for me to delve into
I think everyone is entitled to their own opinions. If releasing co2 at the surface and having it borne by a downflowing current works for you, then it's awesome (:
By the same token, one can also say that the process of tank cycling is also 'too scientific' for many, lol.
No no I didn't say for everyone. I just said, for me. To each his own. I've my own views on the matter and I don't wish to debate on this topic any further (:
I may have the answer, gas is more soluble at higher pressure.
The prove is "deep sea diver". Deep sea diver need raise slowly to the surface. The reason because nitrogen dissolve in the blood is higher at higher pressure. If the diver returns to the surface too fast, the nitrogen forms bubbles in the blood as it less soluble due to a decrease in pressure. The nitrogen bubbles can cause great pain and possibly death.
http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/174temppres.html
Excellent information which completely debunks all misconceptions. Very useful.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks