Yes, well unfortunately, the author has confused non-CO2 methods with CO2 methods which will only cause further confusion, therefore the article has somewhat limited usefulness. The most useful data is the caution regarding the light intensity limitation. I suppose it's a victory that he isn't bashing NO3 or PO4, so that's all goodness.
Barr's non-CO2 method involves the non addition of any form of CO2 enrichment. That's what "non" means. Excel/Easycarbo is a form of CO2 enrichment therefore this blog is not valid for non-CO2. Liquid carbon addition is simply a "degree" of CO2 injection. It adds less CO2 than DIY or pressurized cylinder but much more CO2 than non-CO2 addition. It's important that folks realize and understand this fundamental principle.
The only possible way a plant can assimilate carbon is by way of CO2. No other form of carbon is valid. The only way you can assimilate carbon is in the form of carbohydrates, so you can eat rice or a potato or a crisp, but you cannot eat a charcoal briquette right? Well some plants have a mechanism that converts the liquid carbon product to CO2 internally. This converted CO2 is then sent to the CO2 processing areas just as if it was uptaken by external CO2 gas. I get the feeling that most people view liquid carbon as some sort of magical elixir with no thought of the basics of why it works. So here is a clue: Liquid carbon = CO2.
He has also merged and confused the dosing schemes. Look at his example where he advocates the addition of Seachem Equilibrium, even when using a trace element mix. In the non-CO2 method Equilibrium can be used in lieu of traces. If carbon is being added Equilibrium is redundant unless one is using pure RO water. Furthermore, in the non-CO2 method dosing is only necessary once or twice a month, not multiple times per week. The article would only be true to it's title if the title were changed to "Planted Tank CO2 Enrichment Using Excel Only"
Allow me to rant for a few seconds...Note how Greg Watson's image is pasted all over that page. This gives the illusion that Greg has actually endorsed the data in the blog, or heaven forbid, that he actually wrote it. Greg was the administrator of The Barr Report when it first started so this deceivingly gives the impression of legitimacy. Closer examination reveals that there is a strong possibility that Greg has nothing to do with the article and that it was "assembled" by someone named W. St.Cyr. Can you see now why I despise The Matrix?...rant over.
Barr's non-CO2 method involves the deletion of water changes. If carbon is enriched via the various liquid carbon products then you need to do water changes. This is a huge point. The blog owner has therefore completely confused the issue and is interweaving one technique with another, and in so doing has obliterated the nuances and objectives of each technique. This is a truly disturbing cock-up, because we assume that he actually read the Barr report. So evidently he didn't read the report himself and must have been programmed with this "information" via either hypnosis or Vulcan Mind Meld. "Stumble" adequately describes that blog.