• 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
  • You can now follow UKAPS on Instagram.

Inline Diffuser

Manrock

Member
Joined
15 Dec 2007
Messages
225
Just got one of these Up Inline diffusers and I'm wondering if anyone has a 'quick release' type set-up that I could copy? What I've been told is that they can get dirty and clog so I'd like a way to be able to get at it as easily as possible. I might also place it pre-filter so it will need cleaning more often. At the moment I'm thinking of placing it just after the inflow (shepherd's crook) pipe so I don't have to faff about under my cabinet (and below the water-line) and can keep any water spillage due to pipes emptying to a minimum. Any thoughts?

Cheers
 

foxfish

Member
Joined
11 Oct 2009
Messages
4,996
Location
Guernsey
They already have fairly quick release system as standard... no jubilee clips just nuts but, why would you want to fit it before the filter?
The benefit of the mist would be lost, if you want to introduce C02 into the filter then just feed it in without the U:p?
 

Manrock

Member
Thread starter
Joined
15 Dec 2007
Messages
225
The benefit of the mist would be lost

The benefit won't be lost - I don't want the mist in my tank - I want it before then so the CO2 can be fully dissolved by the time it reaches my tank. I currently feed it directly into my U but a finer bubble would be less wasteful and so better on my pocket.


have fairly quick release system as standard... no jubilee clips just nuts

I still see this as a 'bucket and towel' job if placed below the tank. I'm not good with water spills!

Cheers
 

foxfish

Member
Joined
11 Oct 2009
Messages
4,996
Location
Guernsey
The benefit won't be lost - I don't want the mist in my tank - I want it before then so the CO2 can be fully dissolved by the time it reaches my tank. I currently feed it directly into my U but a finer bubble would be less wasteful and so better on my pocket.




I still see this as a 'bucket and towel' job if placed below the tank. I'm not good with water spills!

Cheers
The benefit of the mist will be lost if the mist is not in the tank! My point was if you are going to feed the gas into the filter, why would you want to use an inline atomiser that requires high working pressure & maintenance when you could just feed the gas into the filter without the the atomiser? Just asking...
 

Manrock

Member
Thread starter
Joined
15 Dec 2007
Messages
225
Thanks for the replies guys. I'll put it on the outflow for now.

The benefit of the mist will be lost if the mist is not in the tank!


My point about the 'mist' is that it is CO2 bubbles. If I can see bubbles then the CO2 I have injected has not fully dissolved in the water column. It will flow around the tank for a short period of time (even with good flow distribution) and then escape at the surface the first chance it gets! If it is in contact with the water for longer it will dissolve (more) fully - after all I'm not really interested in the CO2, it's the carbon it carries that the plants want.

My point was if you are going to feed the gas into the filter, why would you want to use an inline atomiser that requires high working pressure & maintenance when you could just feed the gas into the filter without the the atomiser? Just asking...

I put it through the filter to achieve this at the moment but have thought that sending a constant fine mist through rather than one big bubble every second or so would be an even better way of dissolving the CO2 before it gets to my tank. That way all the CO2 should be dissolved into solution, it won't escape so quickly (because it's not in a large bubble form) and my plants can get at it instantly. Just a thought.
You are probably right though foxfish - it may well make no difference whatsoever to the method I'm using right now. I was just thinking that it might be a more efficient method at geting the CO2 into solution and therefore save me money on CO2 bottles, my biggest expense!

Thanks for the replies.
 

foxfish

Member
Joined
11 Oct 2009
Messages
4,996
Location
Guernsey
OK but your theory might not be correct as the micro bubbles that the inline atomiser produces (the mist in the tank) is supposed to be the most efficient method of growing plants!
I understand what you are saying but I really don't believe you would notice any significant saving in C02, the issues I have with the UP devises is not the mist but the high working pressure & maintenance required to get the best out of them...
It is difficult to know exactly how the C02 behaves when it enters the power filter & I cant say for sure that if you atomise the gas before hand, if it would make any difference - personally I doubt it!
How about a reactor?
 

Manrock

Member
Thread starter
Joined
15 Dec 2007
Messages
225
the micro bubbles that the inline atomiser produces (the mist in the tank) is supposed to be the most efficient method of growing plants!
Cheers mate and I agree...getting the CO2 into as fine a mist (small bubbles) as possible is the most efficient method to begin the process of getting the carbon to the plants, but it has to dissolve fully for that to happen. The plants cannot uptake the CO2 you can see as a mist, it's still far to big. The longer they swirl around in your tank, the better the process becomes. I'm just trying to do it in my filter before it even gets to the tank.

It is difficult to know exactly how the C02 behaves when it enters the power filter & I cant say for sure that if you atomise the gas before hand, if it would make any difference - personally I doubt it!
You are probably spot on here, at least for the effort involved. What bar do atomisers need to operate? I got mine as a swap with no instructions. I was running an atomiser stone straight into my filter uptake but found it a pain to keep a steady CO2 level. It seemed to either be fully 'off' or full 'on' with just a tiny increase/decrease in pressure. Will the Up be the same?

Cheers
 

ceg4048

Expert/Global Moderator
UKAPS Team
Joined
11 Jul 2007
Messages
9,598
Location
Chicago, USA
The idea of a mist is that gaseous CO2 is absorbed faster than CO2 dissolved in water. When the small mist bubbles make contact with the leaf they adhere more easily due to surface tension of the water and are absorbed directly. This is not the same as, and does not occur when the bubbles are a larger size.

Again, the visual appeal of mist is an aesthetic issue but the atomizer is more effective with the mist. If your flow and distribution are good however, then this is still OK since the CO2 dissolves more readily and finds it's way to the plants in a more dissolved state. There is no additional effect of it being sent through the pump. This behavior is the same as when the gas is ported through the intake pipe. Since the bubbles are smaller there should be less of a tendency to collect in the filter, so that's a good thing.

Cheers,
 

Manrock

Member
Thread starter
Joined
15 Dec 2007
Messages
225
How about a reactor?
I'm assuming that CO2 reactors dissolve the gas into solution and therefore do not produce a 'mist' of fine bubbles? What method do you use foxfish? I thought I had a plan of action but not so sure now!

the small mist bubbles make contact with the leaf they adhere more easily due to surface tension of the water and are absorbed directly
If you can get it to the leaf!

gaseous CO2 is absorbed faster than CO2 dissolved in water
Is there a benefit in the plant uptaking CO2 quicker in a stable, CO2 saturated environment? What CO2 injection method do you use Ceg?

Cheers
 

viktorlantos

Aquascaper
Joined
25 Oct 2008
Messages
1,598
Location
Budapest, Hungary
Isn't the inline diffuser cause problem if you diffuse the gas directly to the filter? I am not talking about the sealing of the filter as that may be a long term issue or not issue at all, but i am thinking about the injected gas cause oxygen issues in the filter and the bacterial activity heavily affected by that?

This is all about when you running your tank on the edge with high light etc. any experience with that? I know George may use this way and he is on the high light currently. Anyone else?
 

Manrock

Member
Thread starter
Joined
15 Dec 2007
Messages
225
I use a reactor ... It is in my signature link.
That looks like a great bit of kit! I might even be able to follow those instructions. Thanks for that...another idea to toy with:) .

the injected gas cause oxygen issues in the filter and the bacterial activity heavily affected by that?
I've never noticed any problems but my tank is not 'on the edge' - I have medium light, high plant mass, poor mans fert routine + CO2. It might be different with high light and heavy ferts?
 

viktorlantos

Aquascaper
Joined
25 Oct 2008
Messages
1,598
Location
Budapest, Hungary
I've never noticed any problems but my tank is not 'on the edge' - I have medium light, high plant mass, poor mans fert routine + CO2. It might be different with high light and heavy ferts?

Yup there the co2 issue as well as the bio filtration power plays much more in the good result.

Even the decreased filter flow in this case would cause co2 issues when the filter clogs and we're lazy to clean it.
 

ceg4048

Expert/Global Moderator
UKAPS Team
Joined
11 Jul 2007
Messages
9,598
Location
Chicago, USA
Viktor, there is no relationship between CO2 in the filter and Oxygen in the filter. Gasses do not displace each other in the water column. Each gas dissolves into the water at it's own rate based on temperature, pressure and solubility constant.

Cheers,
 
Top