• 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

Have I got a enought flow?

Krishs Bettas

Member
Joined
10 May 2009
Messages
422
My filter is a Fulval U3 which is 600 l per hour
and I have a powerhead which also gives 600 l per hour,
will this been enought to evenly spread the co2 around the tank?

My tank size is 60 x 30 x 35
It's a about 63 litres.
 
The only way to tell whether the distribution of Co2 is sufficent is by put a DC within the tank - check colouration - then move the DC around to test for change in colouration.

Regards
PAul.
 
Flyfisherman said:
The only way to tell whether the distribution of Co2 is sufficent is by put a DC within the tank - check colouration - then move the DC around to test for change in colouration.

Regards
PAul.

what's a DC? thank you
 
Flyfisherman said:
The only way to tell whether the distribution of Co2 is sufficent is by put a DC within the tank - check colouration - then move the DC around to test for change in colouration.

Regards
PAul.
Actually this doesn't really tell you much. The only real way to tell whether the distribution of CO2 is sufficient is to look at your plants. If they are suffering CO2 starvation it will be obvious because the plant will either suffer varying degrees of structural failure, or, varying degrees of CO2 related algae - and it won't matter one iota what the dropchecker says. The dropchecker is a very useful frame of reference, and we always suggest it's proper use, however the data that the dropchecker returns to you can only ever be ratified and corroborated by the data being returned to you by your own eyeballs observing the plants themselves. This is such a basic, yet profound principle that folks are still having difficulty coming to grips with because it's too obvious. It's kind of like...a trick question.

If your dropchecker is green and you observe a plant disintegrating, is turning brown, translucent, has holes, has thread/hair algae, has BBA or sometimes staghorn and even GSA, then the conclusion you should draw 99.99% of the time is that there is a problem with CO2or flow, and it absolutely doesn't matter where it's mounted. Always look at you plants and trust what they tell you before looking at your dropchecker. The worst words ever uttered by a hobbyist go something like this:
"I know my CO2 must be good because my dropchecker is lime green".
That is the equivalent of blind faith in a test kit and it can lead you astray.

Cheers,
 
ceg4048 said:
Flyfisherman said:
The only way to tell whether the distribution of Co2 is sufficent is by put a DC within the tank - check colouration - then move the DC around to test for change in colouration.

Regards
PAul.
Actually this doesn't really tell you much. The only real way to tell whether the distribution of CO2 is sufficient is to look at your plants. If they are suffering CO2 starvation it will be obvious because the plant will either suffer varying degrees of structural failure, or, varying degrees of CO2 related algae - and it won't matter one iota what the dropchecker says. The dropchecker is a very useful frame of reference, and we always suggest it's proper use, however the data that the dropchecker returns to you can only ever be ratified and corroborated by the data being returned to you by your own eyeballs observing the plants themselves. This is such a basic, yet profound principle that folks are still having difficulty coming to grips with because it's too obvious. It's kind of like...a trick question.

If your dropchecker is green and you observe a plant disintegrating, is turning brown, translucent, has holes, has thread/hair algae, has BBA or sometimes staghorn and even GSA, then the conclusion you should draw 99.99% of the time is that there is a problem with CO2or flow, and it absolutely doesn't matter where it's mounted. Always look at you plants and trust what they tell you before looking at your dropchecker. The worst words ever uttered by a hobbyist go something like this:
"I know my CO2 must be good because my dropchecker is lime green".
That is the equivalent of blind faith in a test kit and it can lead you astray.

Cheers,

I take it from the above response - it have a pop at me today is it - an article is written regarding Dc by yourself and then in the above statement it states Actually this doesn't really tell you much - so whats the point in having it.

Paul.
 
Mate, lighten up a bit. I have neither the energy, nor time for pops. I look always to clarify what I perceive to be misconceptions, and to keep people from falling into mental traps. The data in the DC article is valid. There is no contradiction there. The data in the article clarifies what steps should be taken to use a DC effectively. Many people don't even know what a DC is, or what information it conveys. The DC can only go so far though, and it's actually not that accurate, but it's the best we have if we don't want to spend £1000 on a CO2 probe. If we're going to avoid spending £1000 and if we are forced to use a mule instead of a thoroughbred then we need to know how to get the best out of that mule.

The explanation given above is meant to remind everyone that you have to ride the mule. Don't let the mule ride you. It's meant as a generic, and a pre-emptive caution and so if anyone thinks it may apply to them then maybe it does, and maybe there's a need to refocus. It applied to me at one time, so I had to discover the path leading back to reality.

Even if you set up the DC and using it properly, and move it around or whatever gymnastics you want to do, at the heart, it's still just a test kit and it cannot tell you everything there is to know about CO2 in your tank. If you see something in the tank that is CO2 related (and I defined those things for you) don't let yourself be mesmerized by the DC, and don't trust the DC so much that you run off on a tangent trying to fix something else when your eyeballs are clearly telling you that you still have a CO2 problem. That concept, therefore, is perhaps the next level of awareness we should aspire to. Lets say then that the DC article offers only a basic level of awareness.

Cheers,
 
Back
Top