# Would you want to live with a wood burning stove?



## ray-the-pilot (May 14, 2008)

I’ve probably beaten this subject to death but somehow people keep replying to my posts. So let’s bring it up to the top and start again fresh without all the deeply nested posts.

Here is the story, some people (ie Tom Barr) think that CO2 controllers are useless and some people (ie. Ray-the-pilot) think they are great. 

Now here is the story from RTP. 

When you control the CO2 in your tank with only a bubble counter, this is the same thing as heating your house with a wood burning stove. 

While it is true that people have been heating their homes with wood burning stoves for centuries, there are some problems with wood burning stoves. For one thing it is hard to control the overall temperature of your home. You have to tweek the stove on hot and cold days. Another problem is that there are hot spots and cold spots in your home. This is a result of the nature of this type of system. When you rely on a heat in = heat out method of control you have to expect some places will be hot and some will be cold and you have to expect that on hot days, your house will be too hot and on cold days, your house will be too cold.

So how do people cope with these problems? Well they add a “Temperature Controller” (ie a thermostat) to their heating system. The thermostat goes on when the temperature is too low and goes off when the temperature is too hot. The result is that the temperature changes that occur in your house due to swings in outside temperature are almost non existent and the temperature differences in your home are dramatically reduced. 

Now I realize that a wood burning stove is romantic and yes your pipes will not freeze if you heat your home with a wood burning stove but really do you want to heat your home with one?

Well a bubble counter is exactly the same thing. All it does is add CO2 to your tank. Like the wood burning stove all you can do is increase or decrease the CO2. There are hot spots and cold spots and the CO2 level changes with the activity of the plants and fish. The bubble counter relys on the same primitive technology CO2 in = CO2 out. So how do people cope with this problem?

Now I’d like to think that they would add a CO2 controller to their system but strange as it may seem they say:

1. Tom Barr doesn’t do that.
2. Fish can take it.
3. I don’t have one and everything is fine.
4. You (i.e. RTP) are an idiot

If anyone, including and especially Tom Barr, can say anything different from the above I’d like to hear from them.

One other important point: I‘ve said this before, Tom Barr is a talented and artistic aquarium keeper. I do not mean to imply that he cannot grow plants well. He is a pioneer. What I am saying is that there is a technology available that can revolutionize the aquatic plant growing hobby that needs to be developed.


----------



## Owain (Nov 7, 2008)

*Re: Why live with a wood burning stove?*

I think it's possible to over analyze things. Now I am not a CO2 injection type myself. Although I lean more towards the Walstad natural planted aquarium philosophy than the high tech CO2 injection/nutrient micromanagement style, as I understand it, many people use a simple CO2 bubble count method merely because it works well for them, and they see no need to overcomplicate an already (to my mind) overly complicated system.

I don't think the wood stove analogy fits. With any kind of water circulation system, dispersion of CO2 in a planted tank will be reasonably uniform. If it is not, you'd have far greater problems with respect to uneven heating than you would with uneven CO2 dispersion.

I imagine there is a fairly wide acceptable range for CO2 concentration, so I am not sure that rigid control is even necessary. As long as the concentration is not too high, causing distress to the fish, and not to low, resulting is reduced plant vigor, I think most hobbyists are willing to call that good.

It is possible to regulate CO2 injection with precision, just like it is also possible to do carpentry by measuring with a micrometer and then cutting with a chain saw. The measurement may be precise, but is any real benefit being realized in either instance?


----------



## ray-the-pilot (May 14, 2008)

*Re: Why live with a wood burning stove?*

Actually, there is much more of a difference in CO2 concentration than you would believe. I can quote Tom Barr on that point:

http://www.barrreport.com/co2-aquat...eal-time-data-localized-co2-ppm-readings.html

The reason you don't see much of a difference in aquarium temperature is my point. Your aquarium temperature is controlled by a temperature regulator. Your CO2 is controlled by a wood burning stove.


----------



## jargonchipmunk (Oct 25, 2008)

*Re: Why live with a wood burning stove?*

*I posted this on the other thread, but I figured I'd REpost it here*

The funny thing about this thread is that everyone has agreed with everyone else on the most basic of principals... plants and fish need to be healthy, and each of us has found a way to make that happen. I digress, Ray has actually tried to tell people that their fish aren't healthy when he's never seen them. I guess that'd be the caveat to that. At any rate, aquariums are not nature, they are emulators. Ph does NOT remain constant in nature, save VERY large bodies of water, and we're not dealing with saltwater here, and by and large, not dealing with the African rift lakes either where Ph is pretty darned constant throughout.

If your fish are healthier than Tom Barr's fish, great! If your plants grow a miniscule amount faster than Tom Barr's tanks fantastic! (although I'd really have to see a side-by-side on this one. no, it wouldn't be "scientific" but doubting the harsh reality of what a side-by-side comparison of methods would do is simply admitting defeat.) From everything I've read (I'm a big forum stalker lol) Barr relies the MOST heavily on observation of plant and fish health/growth to find his sweet spot for Co2. This ability comes from all of his experience and scientific testing, so he's used everything from drop checkers to controllers, gas testing devices, and whatever's in between all this to do REAL scientific testing, with a certified "control." Unfortunately, most of us don't have these years of dedicated testing under our belts to go on, so we must rely on some device other than our eyes to KNOW what's going on in the tank. Most people use the drop checker because it's cheaper. Most SMART people use the drop checker as a START and go from there, and end up with a lush (hopefully algaefree) aquarium with happy, breeding, eating, partying-when-you-turn-the-lights-off fish.

I'm not by any means saying Barr's a "god." There's only one of those, but Barr has certainly put in his time where planted tanks are concerned and had MASSIVE success with them on all levels. I can't remember the last time I heard of Ray-the-pilot's Estimative Index fertilizing methods. I've heard of Barr's though. In fact, I use it with great results, as well as some of his advices on Co2 levels from thebarrreport.com forums. Heck, that would be a great place for you to copy and paste this thread. I'd be interested to see both points of view come together. (from a scientific standpoint, not a drama one)

my $0.02

P.S. Tom Barr never touted the use of a controller any more than he touted the use of the drop checkers. His gripe was with reliance on unreliable (or potentially unreliable) equipment rather than actual scientific evidence. You can't claim to have a "control" when calibrating your tests, of you don't have a second aquarium run by the other method sitting directly beside. That said, nothing will ever be completely scientific in an aquarium since we can't tell the fishies to sit still while we test our flow rate 

*Edit* My grandmother used a woodburning stove to great effect when heating her house. I wouldn't be able to because I'm not used to it, but on a cold winter night, she knew exactly how much wood to toss in there to keep her space nice and toasty. Adding a "thermostat" wouldn't do too much for the hot/cold spots in your house, unless you added one for each room. (each different flow area in our aquariums) so your controller needs several probes per aquarium to accurately deal with this issue if you really think you have to have it THAT regulated to make fish and plants happy. Obvisouly, (or at least hopefully) you weren't attempting to make a direct correlation between the two, but the analogy remains the same. Some people have enough experience with their drop checkers to use them as a very reliable starting point, and some people like their controllers. On the last three tanks I set up, (and grew out very nice plants, as well as breeding fish and invertibrates) I didn't use a controller OR a drop checker, so I'm not rooting for either method. I agree that if the controller COULD test the perfect average of the Co2 level in the tank(not just the Ph swings), and adjust flow accordingly, it would be the best tool we had in our arsenal, and in fact might still be the best tool regardless of that small flaw, but (while we're going for inane references that don't really correlate) you're telling people who are perfectly happy with their VCR's that they NEED to switch to a DVD player to make their guests happy. They'll end up with the same movie in the end, and the popcorn will taste just as good.


----------



## ray-the-pilot (May 14, 2008)

*Re: Why live with a wood burning stove?*

May I say that your post falls into all four of the categories previously denoted;

1. Tom Barr doesn't do that.
2. Fish can take it.
3. I don't have one and everything is fine.
4. You (i.e. RTP) are an idiot

Let me ask a simple question. Suppose we set up two houses side by side. In one we have a wood burning stove and in the other we have a modern temperature regulated heating system. As a test we say "Do the pipes freeze in winter." It is obvious that the regulated system is no better than the unregulated system. But despite this rather ridiculous evidence, I wouldn't switch my heating system to a wood burning stove.

Here is the problem with your experiment. Your premise is not falsifyable. What that means is this: yes, plants and fish can grow without a controller so it is impossible to show that something is wrong with an experiment that uses as a test "can plants and fish grow without a controller."

Now here is the test that I have done. 
Start by reducing the CO2 in your tank to 0 by running your tank through 2 photo cycles. Then gradually increase your CO2 by 3-5 ppm per week keeping your tank CO2 uniform. When your fish show a change in behavior that is the maximum level of CO2 for your tank.

Using that test your method fails miserably because you cannot even say what the CO2 is in your tank because it is all over the place even from one spot in your tank to another. This in science is called an "out of control" experiment.

I'm sorry, if you want to do scientifically accurate experiments, you need to have control over the variables. That includes CO2.

BTW while pH in nature can vary quite a lot, CO2 in nature is consistently below 1 ppm. The level of CO2 in most planted tanks is at least 30x normal and some people claim that their CO2 varied by more than 10x per day. That is not very good for fish even if they do live.


----------



## jargonchipmunk (Oct 25, 2008)

*Re: Why live with a wood burning stove?*

who on earth said anything about controllers being bad? I don't do things because Tom Barr or anyone else doesn't do them. I do them because they WORK.

no one is asking you to switch to a drop checker. Not one person has suggested that. However, you're attempting (failing) to discredit everyone who has come before you who proved time and again that methods aside from yours work just as well.

I have nonplanted tanks with some of the same fish in my planted tanks, and guess what.... they are behaviorally identical (aside from the fact that most of these species seem MORE comfortable in my planted tanks, as they have more cover and generally cleaner water, but that's besides the point)

Testing the behavioral changes in a fish that's used to one thing and switching to another thing is rediculous. We're not dealing with statics here. The fish I keep were for the most part bred locally, so have never in their lives seen a river.

Put two tanks side by side and keep the same species of fish in both and denote their behavior. THEN you'll have some sort of scientific experiment. You claim no one else but you has any scientific "control" to their experimentation, but you seem to be the only one who has none yourself. Your findings are based on one tank undergoing changes, instead of two tanks (should actually be three, one having no Co2 addition at all) side by side. Learn scientific theory and practice before attempting to debunk years of other people's work. While we're still using random analogies in an attempt to prove "scientific" studies... Your particular method is saying take an eskimo and move him to texas for the summer and watch how he's uncomfortable, where as you should be watching the eskimo and find yourself a Texan to watch during the summer and see if the eskimo fairs any better during HIS summer than the Texan does during his. We're dealing with live beings here, not lab equipment, and yes they DO get used to the environment they've always lived in (even if it's a Ph swinging planted tank they've been breeding in for three years) It's called adaptation.

P.S. in case you missed it when several people said it before.... most everyone is in agreeance with you. Co2 controllers are nice. They revolve around the same science we're all trying to use in our tanks, and take it a step further to adjust without us being there. I'm one of those people who can't afford one (and after all the tanks I've run, wouldn't want one honestly, because I know how to do it now)

"BTW while pH in nature can vary quite a lot, CO2 in nature is consistently below 1 ppm. The level of CO2 in most planted tanks is at least 30x normal and some people claim that their CO2 varied by more than 10x per day. That is not very good for fish even if they do live."

This claim is based on the fact that Co2 is causing a change in the Ph of the water, so your statement contradicts itself. In nature, the Ph swings due to other factors that aren't in our aquariums (biological breakdown, soil gas release, flooding, etc etc.) whereas in our tanks we have only two Ph fluxtuations which are regulated and timed. Which do you think might be easier for the animals to expect, adapt to, and be comfortable in?

By the way, I am not in the field of thought that 40ppm is "good" for fish. I know this is uncomfortable and fish come first for me. My tanks NEVER get that high. I am also not into growing out a tank in a day, so my light is not at 5wpg either, so I'mnot even in that camp. I sit somewhere in the 3 - 3.5wpg 25ppm camp and if I could teach my fish to talk I'd have them post here instead because I'm thoroughly convinced they're pleased as pie to be living where they are.

*the one thing I believe could be added (maybe it has I don't know if I read every post on the other thread) to your theorum is that if Co2 controllers (I.E. Ph range detecting Solenoids) each came with 4 or 5 probes and did calculations based on all of the spots in the tank then the "thermostat" idea would be plausible. The problem is, it's up to use to attempt to ascertain where the best spot in our aquarium is to guage. Without perfect flow (empty aquarium) we cannot see all of the crevices that get more or less gas and hence, the controller only really helps MOST of the aquarium. not ALL of it, so even your fish have pockets of uncomfortable water in their tanks. Do you notice behavioral changes in your fish based on those flow pockets? (I'm asking seriously, not being smart) As in is there a spot in the tank they always shy away from regardless of its seeming safety?


----------



## houseofcards (Feb 16, 2005)

*Re: Why live with a wood burning stove?*

"Good grief!"


----------



## Manwithnofish (Mar 12, 2008)

*Re: Why live with a wood burning stove?*



ray-the-pilot said:


> Now I'd like to think that they would add a CO2 controller to their system but strange as it may seem they say:
> 
> 1. Tom Barr doesn't do that.
> 2. Fish can take it.
> ...


5. I like my wood stove, because it uses a renewable resource.


----------



## fishyface (Feb 7, 2005)

*Re: Why live with a wood burning stove?*

seems like you don't get any satisfaction with your other 2 treads you started on the same subject so you just start a new one? hhmmm...i hope you get the crowd you've been searching for on this thread. :deadhorse


----------



## freydo (Jan 7, 2006)

*Re: Why live with a wood burning stove?*

i just want to clarify a few things from this post so that others who happen upon it don't become confused with some of ray's comments.



ray-the-pilot said:


> _I've probably beaten this subject to death_


All that's left are hooves.



ray-the-pilot said:


> _When you control the CO2 in your tank with only a bubble counter_


Completely wrong... you control the CO2 in your tank with your regulator and needle valve. The bubble counter does just that, lets you count the bubbles of CO2 being injected into your tank. You actually don't need a bubble counter, it's just a very good visual aid showing how much CO2 is going into your tank at a specific rate.

clear as mud folks? cool. please resume the horse beatings.


----------



## Sunstar (Sep 17, 2008)

*Re: Why live with a wood burning stove?*

I lived with a wood stove heating a good portion of my house for about 13 years. You spread the warmth around with a fan. And it's all peachy.


----------



## SpeedEuphoria (Jul 9, 2008)

*Re: Why live with a wood burning stove?*

RTP, why do you drive a car that is not direct injection?

Why dont you use solar energy to power your house?


----------



## ray-the-pilot (May 14, 2008)

*Re: Why live with a wood burning stove?*

Well you still haven't answered anything.

The question is what is the best level of CO2 in your tank (within 2-3ppm) and what effect does changes from this level have on your fish. I know this because I tested it.

BTW let me explain this again CO2 in nature is less than 1 ppm. What evidence do you have that 30x this with swings as much as 10x are good for your fish.

I've checked and calibrate my equipment and tank and do not believe that those are safe levels.

Actually since you don't have any control over your CO2 you cannot say what is safe except that none of your fish have died yet.

Now here is a really tragic piece of the puzzle. If your fish actually spawn, you have no idea what caused it because you do not know what is going on in your tank.


----------



## ray-the-pilot (May 14, 2008)

*Re: Why live with a wood burning stove?*



Manwithnofish said:


> 5. I like my wood stove, because it uses a renewable resource.


Well I do too thanks for the comment. It is the most logical one I've seen so far.


----------



## ray-the-pilot (May 14, 2008)

*Re: Why live with a wood burning stove?*

No actually the reason I started a new thread was because there were too many nested threads and I couldn't find all the people who made comments.

Unfortunately on this forum, the threads disappear after they get too deep and it is hard to find a new post.


----------



## ray-the-pilot (May 14, 2008)

*Re: Why live with a wood burning stove?*



freydo said:


> i just want to clarify a few things from this post so that others who happen upon it don't become confused with some of ray's comments.
> 
> All that's left are hooves.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure if this is a joke but I will stand corrected. Yes you do set the rate with the needle valve and you use the bubble counter to measure the change. I'm not sure what your point is? This is a CO2 in = CO2 out system. What are you trying to say?


----------



## ray-the-pilot (May 14, 2008)

*Re: Why live with a wood burning stove?*

Hey I did too. Then why is Tom Barr having so much trouble spreading CO2 around his tank?

http://www.barrreport.com/co2-aquati...-readings.html


----------



## helgymatt (Sep 12, 2007)

*Re: Why live with a wood burning stove?*

OK, YOU WIN! CO2 controllers are the best thing ever invented. Keep using yours, and I'll keep using my wood burning stove, because it works wonderfully!

Oh BTW, I have a pH meter that I have tested my water throughout the period of the photoperiod. pH drops to 6.3 in about 2 hrs after the CO2 turns on and doesn't move off that point the whole day!

Now please tell me how a CO2 controller would benefit me!!!


----------



## ray-the-pilot (May 14, 2008)

*Re: Why live with a wood burning stove?*



SpeedEuphoria said:


> RTP, why do you drive a car that is not direct injection?
> 
> Why dont you use solar energy to power your house?


Can I make a point here. If you want to talk to me it is better to link to my original post and not to some one else. 
This causes the nest to get too deep and I cannot comment on your post.

Getting back to your question I'm not sure what this has to do with a CO2 controller. Are you saying that they are too expensive?


----------



## mcsinny99 (Sep 2, 2008)

*Re: Why live with a wood burning stove?*



ray-the-pilot said:


> Now here is a really tragic piece of the puzzle. If your fish actually spawn, you have no idea what caused it because you do not know what is going on in your tank.


That's crazy talk. Fish spawn because they are horny just like every other animal.


----------



## Sunstar (Sep 17, 2008)

*Re: Why live with a wood burning stove?*

The question is, do you feel your way is the correct way and the way others should see it as? That is the impression I am getting.

What is really puzzling you?

I think each system is as different as the area one lives. And if a person found a system that works for them, then kudos to them. Trying to fix that which is not broken is pointless. As it is pointless trying to make someone see the proverbial light.

So I am asking, what are you trying to get across? are we wrong and you are correct?


----------



## ray-the-pilot (May 14, 2008)

*Re: Why live with a wood burning stove?*



helgymatt said:


> OK, YOU WIN! CO2 controllers are the best thing ever invented. Keep using yours, and I'll keep using my wood burning stove, because it works wonderfully!
> 
> Oh BTW, I have a pH meter that I have tested my water throughout the period of the photoperiod. pH drops to 6.3 in about 2 hrs after the CO2 turns on and doesn't move off that point the whole day!
> 
> Now please tell me how a CO2 controller would benefit me!!!


I love you and I cannot win since this is not a contest!

You didn't say what the pH was at the start? I'd be curious how much of a pH change you have. As a rule of thumb 1 pH unit = a 10x change in CO2.


----------



## helgymatt (Sep 12, 2007)

*Re: Why live with a wood burning stove?*

My pH starts at 7.3 and goes to 6.3. Please tell me what is wrong with a 10x pH change! If the CO2 starts out at 2-5ppm and you go to 20-35 that is a 10x change. Provide some evidence this is bad, and I'll start to listen.

Oh by the way...I have already explained all of this to you!

This was our discussion before. Your comment in italics
Quote:
Originally Posted by ray-the-pilot 
_A whole pH unit! I would be worried about that not because of the change in pH but because this corresponds to a 10 fold increase in CO2. CO2 levels ranging from 50 - 5 seem unhealthy but I guess Angelfish can take it. _

Yes a ten fold increase, but I don't see if really meaning much. pH is a direct relationship between KH and pH. Look at this chart. 
http://freshwateraquariumplants.com/carbondioxidechart.html
My KH is about 3. At pH 7.2 I have about 5 ppm CO2 - My pH drops to 6.3 which means my CO2 is then between 35-56 ppm. - which explains why my drop checker is yellow/green and not green (drop checkers are green at ~25-30ppm

What is the basis for saying this is unhealthy until you have tried it and know that the fish can tolerate it? My fish and plants are perfectly healthy.


----------



## ray-the-pilot (May 14, 2008)

*Please Read This*

Thank you everyone for your posts!

I would like to reply to everyone and will try to do so but can you follow some rules about posting.

If you want to call me an idiot please link your post with my original post. That way I know you are talking to me.

If you want to comment on something that someone else says link to their post and I will ignore that post.

When the nest gets so deep that it doesn't appear on your screen it is better to start a new post and reference what you are commenting on.

BTW I expect that any new technology will meet with some resistance and I do not think this group is really too difficult.

Peace RTP


----------



## Indignation (Mar 9, 2008)

*Re: Why live with a wood burning stove?*

How about some pictures of those great tanks Ray? I mean, you believe deeply in your theories. There must be a reason why. I'd love to see your success.


----------



## helgymatt (Sep 12, 2007)

*Re: Please Read This*



ray-the-pilot said:


> Thank you everyone for your posts!
> 
> I would like to reply to everyone and will try to do so but can you follow some rules about posting.
> 
> ...


I don't get what is so complicated here...You ask a question and get a response.

I actaully am beginning to think you are getting more enjoyment with people calling you an idiot. What are you trying to prove!!! Please tell us all. Everyone is having success, success, success, without CO2 controllers. And yes, people are having success with them. CO2 controllers are not new technology at all! IF ANYTHING can solve this rediculous back and forth it is that the CO2 controller is a *luxury*, not a necessity.

But, I'm sure the dead horse will continue to be beaten, and beaten, and beaten, and beaten.


----------



## ray-the-pilot (May 14, 2008)

*Re: Why live with a wood burning stove?*



helgymatt said:


> My pH starts at 7.3 and goes to 6.3. Please tell me what is wrong with a 10x pH change! If the CO2 starts out at 2-5ppm and you go to 20-35 that is a 10x change. Provide some evidence this is bad, and I'll start to listen.


Well first let me point out that if you assume that the original level was 2-5 then your estimate of the 10x increase is 20-50 not 20-35. Also how do you know that the original level was 2-5? 
Since you do not have a controlled system, how do you know that there are not places in your tank where the CO2 is higher still?

Look I'm not telling you that your fish are going to die or your plants will wilt. What I'm saying is that without control over your tank you don't know what is going on and it can be way out of control before you know it.


----------



## Sunstar (Sep 17, 2008)

*Re: Please Read This*



helgymatt said:


> I don't get what is so complicated here...You ask a question and get a response.
> 
> I actaully am beginning to think you are getting more enjoyment with people calling you an idiot. What are you trying to prove!!! Please tell us all. Everyone is having success, success, success, without CO2 controllers. And yes, people are having success with them. CO2 controllers are not new technology at all! IF ANYTHING can solve this rediculous back and forth it is that the CO2 controller is a *luxury*, not a necessity.
> 
> But, I'm sure the dead horse will continue to be beaten, and beaten, and beaten, and beaten.


and beaten and beaten, I think its well on its way to being dogfood and or glue.

He hasn't answered mine yet. Anyway yeah I agree with you. It's a luxury.

I ran a DIY system for months without a drop checker or any sort of indication other than fish and my danio still spawn.


----------



## Indignation (Mar 9, 2008)

*Re: Please Read This*



ray-the-pilot said:


> Thank you everyone for your posts!
> 
> I would like to reply to everyone and will try to do so but can you follow some rules about posting.
> 
> ...


Ray - speaking of learning new things... You don't have to start a new thread every time the "nest" gets too "deep". confused You see that little button that says "last page"? Click it. Look at that, there are still posts there! In fact, if you were to look at some of the more popular sticky threads on here, some of them are 50+ pages long! So please, stop polluting the forums with the same junk. Being willfully ignorant and trying to create your own rules of forum use because you don't grasp the ones that exist is not a great way to get your point across.


----------



## ray-the-pilot (May 14, 2008)

*Re: Please Read This*



helgymatt said:


> I don't get what is so complicated here...You ask a question and get a response.
> 
> I actaully am beginning to think you are getting more enjoyment with people calling you an idiot. What are you trying to prove!!! Please tell us all. Everyone is having success, success, success, without CO2 controllers. And yes, people are having success with them. CO2 controllers are not new technology at all! IF ANYTHING can solve this rediculous back and forth it is that the CO2 controller is a *luxury*, not a necessity.
> 
> But, I'm sure the dead horse will continue to be beaten, and beaten, and beaten, and beaten.


It makes you wonder? If a person doesn't know how to follow posting rules how they can grow plants!

Can you link to some pics of your tank? I'd like to see how this mind works.


----------



## Sunstar (Sep 17, 2008)

*Re: Please Read This*



ray-the-pilot said:


> It makes you wonder? If a person doesn't know how to follow posting rules how they can grow plants!
> 
> Can you link to some pics of your tank? I'd like to see how this mind works.


posting "rules" are not necessary if you can follow.

But here is my tank for the record. That is if you read any of my posts.


----------



## ray-the-pilot (May 14, 2008)

*Re: Please Read This*

I guess you have the same problem as the poster above. Go here:
http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/showthread.php?p=428912&posted=1#post428912


----------



## helgymatt (Sep 12, 2007)

*Re: Why live with a wood burning stove?*



ray-the-pilot said:


> Well first let me point out that if you assume that the original level was 2-5 then your estimate of the 10x increase is 20-50 not 20-35. Also how do you know that the original level was 2-5?
> Since you do not have a controlled system, how do you know that there are not places in your tank where the CO2 is higher still?
> 
> Look I'm not telling you that your fish are going to die or your plants will wilt. What I'm saying is that without control over your tank you don't know what is going on and it can be way out of control before you know it.


YOU DON'T GET IT.

LOOK at the table I liked you to! The KH is THREE. LOOK!

There is variation, not every KH test kit and pH meter are perfectly precise. That is why the table gives you a range. And since we know CO2 is not the same in all areas of the tank, how are you controling your tank with just one pH meter (co2 controller)?...hmmm. How do you know you don't have areas in your tank with higher CO2!

But, my tank, as you say, is WAY out of control. If your saying that your CO2 controller is a safeguard against any kind of problems, that is just wrong. Your CO2 controller can malfuntion just as easily, probably more easily, as my needle valve.


----------



## ray-the-pilot (May 14, 2008)

*Re: Please Read This*

Yes you are right but I cannot find them easily and they are not referenced in order.

If you want to call me an idiot you have to do it in a way that I can easily respond to and that is in a linear mode.

Sorry, that is my rule. You have to live with it.


----------



## ray-the-pilot (May 14, 2008)

*Re: Why live with a wood burning stove?*

Click on my ID there is an old pic of my tank there.

BTW I'm not trying for a garden with my tank. My tank is a biotype and I want it to look like a natural setting.


----------



## helgymatt (Sep 12, 2007)

*Re: Please Read This*



ray-the-pilot said:


> Yes you are right but I cannot find them easily and they are not referenced in order.


Find what easily?

If you are referring to the KH/PH table then...
The link is in my post where you asked me about my pH and CO2, just a page back. Here it is for a third time.

http://freshwateraquariumplants.com/carbondioxidechart.html


----------



## helgymatt (Sep 12, 2007)

*Re: Why live with a wood burning stove?*



ray-the-pilot said:


> BTW I'm not trying for a garden with my tank. My tank is a biotype and I want it to look like a natural setting.


What does this have to do with anything? Many gardens are meant, and do, look very natural.


----------



## ray-the-pilot (May 14, 2008)

*Re: Why live with a wood burning stove?*



helgymatt said:


> YOU DON'T GET IT.
> 
> LOOK at the table I liked you to! The KH is THREE. LOOK!
> 
> ...


The temp in my house doesn't change much because I have a temp controller. Just like your temp. controller in your tank.

My wood burning stove doesn't have a controller so the temp is all over the place. Near the stove it is hot, near the window it is cold.

I don't need 10 temp controllers to control the temperature in one room I only need one.

A CO2 controller works the same way.

You know that pH measurement doesn't give you an accurate estimate of your CO2 level. How do you know that pH 7.3 in your tank is not 15 ppm?


----------



## mcsinny99 (Sep 2, 2008)

*Re: Why live with a wood burning stove?*



ray-the-pilot said:


> Since you do not have a controlled system, how do you know that there are not places in your tank where the CO2 is higher still?
> 
> Look I'm not telling you that your fish are going to die or your plants will wilt. What I'm saying is that without control over your tank you don't know what is going on and it can be way out of control before you know it.


I take issue with this idea. How do you know there aren't places in a tank with a controller in it that have higher co2 or lower? You can't honestly say you have probes in every cubic inch of your tanks, or that your probes swim around and look for co2 pockets.


----------



## mcsinny99 (Sep 2, 2008)

*Re: Why live with a wood burning stove?*

But actually, alot of fish breed in cycles. I breed discus and there are patterns involved. I believe in the wild breeding occurs during flooding in the amazon.


----------



## helgymatt (Sep 12, 2007)

*Re: Why live with a wood burning stove?*



ray-the-pilot said:


> The temp in my house doesn't change much because I have a temp controller. Just like your temp. controller in your tank.
> 
> My wood burning stove doesn't have a controller so the temp is all over the place. Near the stove it is hot, near the window it is cold.
> 
> ...


If you understand what a CO2 controller does, you will know it is just a pH meter!

And why do you think everyones CO2 is all over the place? If the pH is stable, the CO2 is stable. It is a DIRECT relationship!!!! Learn a little bit about CO2 before you start demanding everyone use a CO2 controller. All it is is a pH probe that controls how much CO2 goes into the tank.

I already asked what benefit a pH controller would do for me, if my pH stays steady all day without one, but you failed to answer that.

Also, did you even look at the chart I linked you two?


----------



## SpeedEuphoria (Jul 9, 2008)

*Re: Why live with a wood burning stove?*



ray-the-pilot said:


> Can I make a point here. If you want to talk to me it is better to link to my original post and not to some one else.
> This causes the nest to get too deep and I cannot comment on your post.


I said "RTP", that means YOU as you are self proclaimed "RTP".


ray-the-pilot said:


> Now here is the story from RTP.





ray-the-pilot said:


> Getting back to your question I'm not sure what this has to do with a CO2 controller.


What does a wood burning stove have "to do with a CO2 controller"?

This is what I'm asking. I'm using round about tactics that I learned from reading your posts.


----------



## ray-the-pilot (May 14, 2008)

*Re: Why live with a wood burning stove?*

Well I'm sorry but you've reached your limit. I cannot respond to any of your posts since you cannot folloe the rules.

Peace
RTP


----------



## Minsc (May 7, 2006)

*Re: Why live with a wood burning stove?*

The real shame is that this discussion started (3 threads ago:lol) with the idea that CO2 levels in the tank may affect the behavior of fish prior to the point where it becomes obviously harmful.
If that discussion had taken place, it might have been interesting in an intellectual way, not just a car crash way

BTW, thank you helgymatt for sharing how your pH changes over the course of the day and with differing levels of plant mass. I found that very useful. Previously I was pretty sure I didn't want a pH controller, now I'm completely sure it would be a waste of money.


----------



## ray-the-pilot (May 14, 2008)

*Re: Why live with a wood burning stove?*



Sunstar said:


> The question is, do you feel your way is the correct way and the way others should see it as? That is the impression I am getting.
> 
> What is really puzzling you?
> 
> ...


This is one of the problems with these nesting posts. I really think that I answered your post. I'm sorry.

I don't thing that there is a right way or a wrong way. There are many ways to get to an answer to a problem.


----------



## freydo (Jan 7, 2006)

*Re: Why live with a wood burning stove?*



ray-the-pilot said:


> you use the bubble counter to measure the change. I'm not sure what your point is? This is a CO2 in = CO2 out system. What are you trying to say?


Bzzzt! wrong again. as i stated, a bubble counter does JUST that, counts bubbles. a bubble counter doesn't measure change of any sort. it's only an indication of the RATE of CO2 bubbles enter the tank. it does nothing to measure how much co2 is in the tank.

a bubble counter is not needed for co2 injection, it's just a very good visual tool to view the rate co2 entering the tank.

did that make sense re-typed the second time around? i don't know why you conceded the point, when you obviously didn't understand what i wrote.


----------



## bigstick120 (Mar 8, 2005)

*Re: Why live with a wood burning stove?*

Im all for a good debate, but stop the name calling. If you dont like another persons opinion state facts without being insulting.


----------



## bigstick120 (Mar 8, 2005)

*Re: Why live with a wood burning stove?*

I cleaned it up, if you want to continue the debate keep it clean.


----------



## mcsinny99 (Sep 2, 2008)

*Re: Why live with a wood burning stove?*



davemonkey said:


> Sunstar,
> That's friggin' hilarious with Starscream and Megatron in the tank! (Sorry if I misspelled the names. ) :wave:
> 
> Thanks,
> Dave


Where is that at? Bigstick, I did not mean the starscream in the tank as an insult. I too collect some things of that nature.


----------



## bigstick120 (Mar 8, 2005)

*Re: Why live with a wood burning stove?*

I deleted the off topic posts as well to help clean the thread up a little


----------



## chagovatoloco (Nov 17, 2007)

*Re: Why live with a wood burning stove?*

OK so one way you add co2 to the max limit and shut it off at night letting it reset( Kind of like the ei ). And the other way you use a ph meter and only add co2 as needed ie when the plants are in their photo period there is more co2( Kind of like pps pro ). This is a common debate, even in my local club their are some that are die hard ei and others are pps pro. I think it gets down to personal preference because both are proven to work. It is nice we are a an age in the planted tank community where their are options strategies and low and high dollar methods that work (High dollar not meaning better). Is that not where we are at?


----------



## Sunstar (Sep 17, 2008)

*Re: Why live with a wood burning stove?*



chagovatoloco said:


> OK so one way you add co2 to the max limit and shut it off at night letting it reset( Kind of like the ei ). And the other way you use a ph meter and only add co2 as needed ie when the plants are in their photo period there is more co2( Kind of like pps pro ). This is a common debate, even in my local club their are some that are die hard ei and others are pps pro. I think it gets down to personal preference because both are proven to work. It is nice we are a an age in the planted tank community where their are options strategies and low and high dollar methods that work (High dollar not meaning better). Is that not where we are at?


I think it is important to be open minded and willing to try and experement. I think you hit the nail there on the head. I shut my co2 off about an hour before lights out, and turn it on about 15 minutes before lights on. I do this manually at the moment as I have yet to get a timer. Argh... off topic ruminating....that's what I am needing again, power bar.

I think the key here is to advance the hobby with varied experiances, from high tech scientific reasoning to simple observations of aquatic life, leaf colours and pearling. All in all if the results please the owner of the tank, then it is good. Some folk my like strict biotopes, while others, who lack a garden, like myself, may wish to use the Aquarium to get the much needed gardening urge out. I love plants and always have, so I choose a variety of plants I enjoy. Some work, some don't and most simply go bananas.

Since my pressurised system is quite new and I just got off DIY, I am still trying to find the area I feel comfortable with my system. I had to mark the kneedle valve with some red paint to mark the high end of my comfort zone, now I am looking for the middle and low ends. my bubble counter leaked, so I need to get a new one. but so far, so good. Fish and plants communicate well.


----------



## helgymatt (Sep 12, 2007)

*Re: Why live with a wood burning stove?*

I want to first say that I appologize for any inapporpriate comments I made.

Ray, I could not help but look through all of the threads you have started. 
In all of them that mention anything about CO2, you seem to bring up the controller issue time after time. Everytime, you get the same response....that they are not an essential tool to be sucessful with a planted tank. Please accept this fact, and understand why others choose not to use them. I understand how they work and how they can be useful, and I have no problem with anyone using one. I do have a problem when you argue that "no system should be without one, and that there is no sence of control without one". This is nonsence. There are many ways to reach the same result and we happen to have two different methods of doing so. BOTH work! Fair enough?


----------



## Indignation (Mar 9, 2008)

*Re: Why live with a wood burning stove?*

On the topic of what helgymatt just wrote: I've been getting rankled by Ray's ph controller posts for a while now, and while some of the reasons were apparent, the most important wasn't clear to me. I stopped reading this earlier this evening and was sitting looking at my tanks, and I figured out what was bothering me so much about the posts.

Ray - going back through your posts, I found the same theme, again and again - without total control, you are inviting disaster. This is what bothers me. I have a career that is very stressful, and my aquariums are one of my releases from that stress. I don't want to control it. I've found I don't need to. My joy from this hobby comes from looking into a microcosm that is removed from my control. I provide what my plants and fish need to thrive, and they do the rest. I'm not saying you're wrong -I am saying that what is right for you isn't, and doesn't have to be, right for everyone else.

All that I ask is that you realize we don't need to do things your way to do them well. Look at the tanks of those who have posted here - These are not algae-laden fish death factories. They are beautiful, balanced ecosystems. I have never said that you shouldn't use your ph controller - just that you shouldn't pressure other people into using one. As the saying goes, There is more than one way to grow a plant underwater. 

On a final note, I also think you might find a better reception if you didn't imply that as a community, we were somehow uninformed about the topic at hand, or unable to learn. You keep stating that ph controlled co2 is a new technology. It is not. If you do a search on here, you will find threads that cover all the topics you presented from 5 years ago(as far as I can tell, the age of the forum). If you look at the Krib's cache, the topic goes back another 10 years past that. Maybe take some time and read some of the back posts, see if any of your questions have already been answered. If not, then a new conversation is always a good thing.

I hope this reads clear, respectful and on topic, as that is what I have intended. If not, Mods please delete.


----------



## Sunstar (Sep 17, 2008)

*Re: Why live with a wood burning stove?*

Indignation, I can agree with you 100% on the aquarium being the release of stress. The only time I am stressed with it are when the lives within are at risk. When I was a student in high school I used to go to the green house where I could be at peace with myself. then living in an appartment where it gets poor sun, or too much depending where I am. I was unableto have my greenery. Now I can surround myself with green and peace. Which for me, and my temperment, is imperative for my sanity.

I have enough control over my system using simple methods. I can't afford some things I wish to, so I make do with what I can afford.

I've been told my death trap may be my UGF that I am using, but we shall see.

Ray, I appologise myself, but I tend to get even more stubborn and onnery when I feel someone is trying to thrust their way down my throat implying that I am wrong..or a heathen. peace.


----------



## freydo (Jan 7, 2006)

*Re: Why live with a wood burning stove?*

thanks bigstick120 for cleaning things up and getting us back on topic. i unfortunately got caught up in things, and became frustrated with how this thread came off it's wheels.


----------



## SpeedEuphoria (Jul 9, 2008)

*Re: Why live with a wood burning stove?*



bigstick120 said:


> I deleted the off topic posts as well to help clean the thread up a little


What you need to do is close this worthless thread.

The OP has been over and over this topic 1/2 dozen times. Opinions of both sides have been discussed. For some reason the OP wants to spam the board with this topic when no new info is presented.


----------



## JanS (Apr 14, 2004)

*Re: Why live with a wood burning stove?*



ray-the-pilot said:


> While it is true that people have been heating their homes with wood burning stoves for centuries, there are some problems with wood burning stoves. For one thing it is hard to control the overall temperature of your home. You have to tweek the stove on hot and cold days. Another problem is that there are hot spots and cold spots in your home. This is a result of the nature of this type of system. When you rely on a heat in = heat out method of control you have to expect some places will be hot and some will be cold and you have to expect that on hot days, your house will be too hot and on cold days, your house will be too cold.
> 
> Now I realize that a wood burning stove is romantic and yes your pipes will not freeze if you heat your home with a wood burning stove but really do you want to heat your home with one?


I think you need to get your facts straight when using the comparisons before you use something like burning a wood stove compared to C02 use.

We live in northern Minnesota where it gets really cold and we exclusively heat our home and water with wood. Take a look at the model we use and what it can do, since you're obviously not up to date on the facts, which for some reason I've taken personally....
Classic wood boilers
No cold spots in our house since it's run through our forced air system through the *civilized* thermostat, and our water is heated much better than it is in the summer with propane, not to mention we _save_ money.....

Sorry I'm not commenting on the C02 part of it, but why would I since we burn wood....


----------



## freydo (Jan 7, 2006)

*Re: Why live with a wood burning stove?*

jan... i'm probably one of the few people on this board who could challenge you on who lives in the coldest area


----------



## Indignation (Mar 9, 2008)

*Re: Why live with a wood burning stove?*



freydo said:


> jan... i'm probably one of the few people on this board who could challenge you on who lives in the coldest area


I'm going to throw my name in that hat too... Freydo has me beat by northern latitude by about 100 miles, but it still gets mighty cold here. And Jan, one of my co-workers uses the same system, combined with radiant in-floor heating. It's an amazing system!


----------



## jargonchipmunk (Oct 25, 2008)

*Re: Why live with a wood burning stove?*

"radiant in-floor heating."

please don't get someone started on the "science" behind heating cables now. We've had enough of people trying to prove that I need to toss more money in my tank


----------



## Sunstar (Sep 17, 2008)

*Re: Why live with a wood burning stove?*

I would love in floor heating... Actually, I would like a hermostat..... I live in an appartment now and they like cooking us to death. I have to keep my windows open so I don't cook alive.

I'd love to live in a house that had thermal mass.


----------



## ray-the-pilot (May 14, 2008)

*Re: Why live with a wood burning stove?*



JanS said:


> I think you need to get your facts straight when using the comparisons before you use something like burning a wood stove compared to C02 use.
> 
> We live in northern Minnesota where it gets really cold and we exclusively heat our home and water with wood. Take a look at the model we use and what it can do, since you're obviously not up to date on the facts, which for some reason I've taken personally....
> Classic wood boilers
> ...


I think you missed the point?

I wasn't referring to using wood as fuel. I was comparing a bubble counter and needle valve with a "classic" wood burning stove like a Franklin stove.

I agree that you can heat your home with a Franklin stove but as you point out a modern "controlled" heating system is a much better way to heat your home and water.

A CO2 controller does the same thing as a modern "controlled" heating system.

I agree that you can grow plants with a bubble counter and needle valve but if you want to control your system you need a CO2 controller.


----------



## freydo (Jan 7, 2006)

*Re: Why live with a wood burning stove?*

unbelievable... i thought this freaking thread had died an ugly death, and here it is regurgitated again.

mods... can we get this closed? i definitely don't think we need this sort of "banter" again.


----------

