Quantitative Airstone Test. an end to the hype

No. Your the kind of guy the gets one idea in his head and can't evaluate and process new information. Sorry if more hands on experience changed my point of view on things. But that's ok. You just keep on keeping on with what your doing. Check out your grow journal 13.9 oz of 2 600's? Yeah dude .32 grams per watt. Your rocking it!!
 
legallyflying said:
No. Your the kind of guy the gets one idea in his head and can't evaluate and process new information.
Click to expand...

You are the ONLY person on this forum who has ever interacted with me that would say that. You're the one who refused to hear my points and address them. Where did you actually tell me any new information that I didn't evaluate or process? Because I see my posts presenting information that YOU refused to evaluate and process.

legallyflying said:
Sorry if more hands on experience changed my point of view on things. But that's ok. You just keep on keeping on with what your doing. Check out your grow journal 13.9 oz of 2 600's? Yeah dude .32 grams per watt. Your rocking it!!
Click to expand...
First grow of my life and I pulled 2 oz per plant. So thanks. :lol: I'm happy considering every problem I ran into, including a blown ballast mid-flower, failing a/c during summer in SoCal, recurring mite infestations from the start, soil acidity issues, etc. A first time grower diagnosing, treating, and curing all those problems, still getting prime quality nugs. My bad for not wanting to veg longer so I would have gotten more yield, I wanted to be smoking it before the year was over. As I have medical problems resulting from my time in the military, I do depend on the medicine's painkilling abilities and didn't want to pay top dollar at shops for hit-or-miss quality. So yes I will keep doing what I'm doing, which doesn't involve shipping back retarded (and retardedly expensive) products that I myself proved would have no benefit prior to their purchase. And if you're going to spout shit from your dicksucker about my skills, why look at the first month of my growing time? How about you take a look at what I'm doing now and what I learned in one grow??


edit: youre really good at deflecting. It wasn't until I moved on from this sillyness that I realized you did an excellent job at redirecting attention towards attacking me personally(again) instead of the subject of the thread, and the reason behind your original shit-talking: I called BS on your theory, you threw a fit and told me I'm an idiot and i'd never learn, then you realized you were wrong, and when I point it out to you and everyone who may want to get something useful from this thread, you just go back to your antics. Learning experience averted.:clap:
 
I was under the impression the gas exchange primarily happened at the surface were the air meets the water so to speak, if this is true its not the bubbles that count, they just facilitate the movement of the solution, thus allowing this surface exchange, any thoughts on that?
 
Rich, that is a common misconception yet you see it time and time again repeated, especially in aquarium forums. Two substances (unless they naturally do not mix--like oil and water) of different concentrations will seek equilibrium with each other. It's about the concentration gradients between the two substances. As air passes through water, the different concentration of oxygen between the surface of the bubble and the water try to equalize and oxygen is transferred to the water. Indeed, if you have a tube deep enough, the bubbles would never make it to the top as all the gas would be absorbed in the water.

Read the wiki link about fine bubble diffusers... http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_aeration

Oxygenation of water by surface disruption occurs because there is increased surface area of the water....the surface area in contact with the air. It's the same thing as a bubble really. This is how aeration works...passage of gas along the surface. By that the surface of the water.. Or the surface of a bubble (which also increases the surface area of the water as it is displaced by the bubble. LOL...I think you get it by now


Undercurrent..you don't actually believe the bubble teaming bullshit do you?

Mike, you feel free to chime in and tell me I'm wrong. No better yet, ask me to devise and experiment and test it in order to prove to you that I am right.
 
My analysis, being a personal use grower, is that fine stones + really good pump with multiple outlets = a great seedling/clone bubbler or rez aerator . The fine stones create more small bubbles, which do a much better job of interfacing with the water/nutes. Is it creating small amounts of H3O or more likely H2O2, dunno, but my rez is pristine, and my seedlings and clones root really fast.
 
The smaller the air bubble, the more slowly it will rise, giving it more time to dissolve in the water.​
A large 20mm bubble has a volume of 4.19 cm3, and a surface area of 12.6 cm2.
You could make 260 small 3mm bubbles from the large bubble. They wouldhave a total surface area of 83.6 cm2. This is 6.6 times the surface of the 20mm bubble. The small bubbles, can theoretically aerate 6.6 times as much water with the same amount of air.
Knowing the importance of air bubble size, the effectiveness of different aerator systems becomes readily apparent!
bubbles.gif
 
richinweed said:
I was under the impression the gas exchange primarily happened at the surface were the air meets the water so to speak, if this is true its not the bubbles that count, they just facilitate the movement of the solution, thus allowing this surface exchange, any thoughts on that?
Click to expand...
You could not be more wrong. ^^^^^^^^
 
Legally, just stop trying bro...a simple read-through of this thread explains everything about you so well, we get it already..You're an ultrasmart scientist who devises an experiment to prove something, then does the exact opposite of what the science proved, then turns into a small child when somebody questions why you're going directly against your own results inexplicably, without ever actually saying anything useful in the process. So believe me, the last thing id do is ask you of all people to do another experiment lol.

woodsmaneh! said:
The smaller the air bubble, the more slowly it will rise, giving it more time to dissolve in the water.​
A large 20mm bubble has a volume of 4.19 cm3, and a surface area of 12.6 cm2.
You could make 260 small 3mm bubbles from the large bubble. They wouldhave a total surface area of 83.6 cm2. This is 6.6 times the surface of the 20mm bubble. The small bubbles, can theoretically aerate 6.6 times as much water with the same amount of air.
Knowing the importance of air bubble size, the effectiveness of different aerator systems becomes readily apparent!
bubbles.gif
Click to expand...

Surface area only changes the speed of dissolution, not the solubility. It's still the same amount of oxygen. So while yes, in theory diffusers may be able to aerate 6.6x as much water in the same amount of time, it's only a matter of seconds for water to get just as oxygenated, and since our air supply is continuous, you're not even seeing any benefit from the main draw of the product.
 
mike91sr said:
Legally, just stop trying bro...a simple read-through of this thread explains everything about you so well, we get it already..You're an ultrasmart scientist who devises an experiment to prove something, then does the exact opposite of what the science proved, then turns into a small child when somebody questions why you're going directly against your own results inexplicably, without ever actually saying anything useful in the process. So believe me, the last thing id do is ask you of all people to do another experiment lol.



Surface area only changes the speed of dissolution, not the solubility. It's still the same amount of oxygen. So while yes, in theory diffusers may be able to aerate 6.6x as much water in the same amount of time, it's only a matter of seconds for water to get just as oxygenated, and since our air supply is continuous, you're not even seeing any benefit from the main draw of the product.
Click to expand...


"Surface area only changes the speed of dissolution, not the solubility. It's still the same amount of oxygen."

The purpose of all this discussion is what puts more DO in the water (blue stone, ceramic, edpm defuser) and what it comes down to is the smaller the bubble the more DO that is transferred to the water. Full stop.

Do you have an issue with that?
 
woodsmaneh! said:
"Surface area only changes the speed of dissolution, not the solubility. It's still the same amount of oxygen."

The purpose of all this discussion is what puts more DO in the water (blue stone, ceramic, edpm defuser) and what it comes down to is the smaller the bubble the more DO that is transferred to the water. Full stop.

Do you have an issue with that?
Click to expand...
I do have an issue with that, as it's not true. I really don't get how you can even try to say that it is. Years of both physics and chemistry have demonstrated and proven it over and overas well as this specific experiment. It is fact, not theory that I'm talking about.
 
Yes it is true and proven by science, physics ect.

Almost all of the oxygen dissolved into the water from an air bubble occurs when the bubble is being formed. Only a negligible amount occurs during the bubbles transit to the surface of the water. This is why an aeration process that makes many small bubbles is better than one that makes fewer larger ones. The breaking up of larger bubbles into smaller ones also repeats this formation and transfer process.

So my point on bubble size above stands.

there are so many hits on it I guess you just forgot to use google??

Now stop calling people names and being rude, go find some science proof to make your point and come back to discuss because we appear to be chasing our tails.

give a fuck meter.gif
 
Google, really? You say its been proven, but as a bio major that has taken substantial amounts of chemistry and admittedly not nearly as much physics, I've read the exact opposite of what you're saying in numerous international subject references and scholastic journals. I asked you to do the same and you still haven't. Google henry's law. Or combined gas law. Pressure and temp can change solubility (amount of solute able to be dissolved into solvent). Surface area can change the rate of solution, and nothing else.

I have yet to be rude to you and legally is the first person ive ever gotten into a retarded internet argument with that was of a personal nature. You and I were in the middle of a technical disagreement when legally chimed in then got pissed that I didn't change my mind for him. I stand by everything I've said, and until somebody presents actual fact from a scholastic source with the evidence to substantiate their claim, I will not tell every internationally recognized chemist that they're wrong. Will you?

We do seem to be chasing our tails. That's why I broke down your most inclusive post and disproved each point one at a time. But instead of getting a response based on the discussion, I got this:
legallyflying said:
This thread is a great example of why I spend little time on this site anymore.
You try to help out but then inevitably you spend your time trying to convince some douche nozzle the realities of the situation. Woodsman is an extremely experienced grower who knows his shit front and back and yet douche #4,567 --Mike91sir feels the need to line by line debate him on the information that in my experience is accurate and correct.
Allow me to summarize the results of the test for those that can't seem to get a grasp on things..


The big take away? don't be a cheap fuck, buy quality gear and check that off the list of things that can go wrong.
Click to expand...

He even said it was in HIS experience. My points are based on the experience of thousands of government-funded scientific studies.

Instead of both of you worrying about telling me to leave to find information that supports your THEORY, why don't you both spend a couple days reading some physics/chemistry references from a library and come back and tell me HOW you can PROVE that I'm wrong. Evidence is the basis for all scientific fact, and neither of you have given me any. Despite the numerous pieces of actual scientific evidence based I've brought into this discussion, I'm still just the asshole who won't shut up, right?
 
And just to get this out of the way since google is such a reliable method of research, here's 3 of my first google hits

http://antoine.frostburg.edu/chem/senese/101/solutions/faq/predicting-DO.shtml First sentence
http://www.colby.edu/chemistry/CH331/O2 Solubility.html Where do you choose which size bubble you have?
http://kamland.lbl.gov/twiki/pub/Main/MuonSpallationTargetMatrix/jpcrd219.pdf page 166

You can find info to support whatever theory you want on the internet. It doesn't mean it's all true. Just look at this website. Don't even leave this thread, you'll find plenty of false info right here.

Edit: Here's one that even goes as far as talking about bubble size:
http://www.fao.org/docrep/X5744E/x5744e0m.htm#2. aeration devices for fish ponds
3.1 Oxygen Absorption and its Devices

In order to minimize oxygen consumption devices are needed which ensure the most perfect absorption of oxygen. The operating principle of these is the same as that of aeration devices, but in order to increase the contact time between the gas and the water some technical modifications are needed.
One is bubbling oxygenation where the oxygen gas comes in contact with the water by breaking into bubbles. The rate of oxygen dilution depends mainly on the depth of the water layer, the length of travel of bubbles in the water body and the rate of oxygen feeding. Higher efficiency can be achieved by decreasing the bubble size, thus the contact time and the contact surface increases. But the decrease of bubble size needs a significant quantity of extra energy, and coagulation of bubbles also can happen.

This says NOTHING about increasing the total amount of oxygen absorption, only the RATE at which it is absorbed. Just to make sure this article doesn't get misinterpreted.
 
I fucking told you he would come back and say nuh uh!!!

Soo classic. Comical. Troll is as troll does. So easy to rattle his cage though. Kind of fun.
 
Hey pet flora. One thing the measuring I completed did prove is that if your only aerating your rez, all you really need is el cheapo stone. BUT if you don't want it to clog, I would pick up an alita stone. If your making a bubble cloner than yeah the more and smaller bubbles would be best, not because of oxygen but because more bubbles popping in the surface would do a better job of keeping your stems wet.
 
It kind of looks like no matter what stone you use. Give the margin of error. They are pretty close to the same. Probably because we are bumping up against the "maximum dissolved oxygen concentration" limit I'm assuming?
http://www.dnr.mo.gov/env/esp/wqm/DOSaturationTable.htm

You can "supersaturate" the water beyond those levels but I don't think you can do so by "normal" means such as air stones/agitation.
 
Gigaah said:
It kind of looks like no matter what stone you use. Give the margin of error. They are pretty close to the same. Probably because we are bumping up against the "maximum dissolved oxygen concentration" limit I'm assuming?
http://www.dnr.mo.gov/env/esp/wqm/DOSaturationTable.htm

You can "supersaturate" the water beyond those levels but I don't think you can do so by "normal" means such as air stones/agitation.
Click to expand...


I don't agree, that's the purpose of this thread is to see what the difference is. With all that has been said I don't know how you can come to that conclusion? All bubbles are not created equal. As temprature has a direct effect on DO the max depends on temp and avalible oxygen. The fact is, too much oxygen can harm plants but you need special equipment as you mentioned.

o2fig1.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top