# CO2 revelations



## plantbrain (Jan 23, 2004)

CO2 is one of those critical things that aquatic plants folks should really focus on.
I've nagged folks about this for a very long time, and I will likely nag you to the grave.
Complacent experts, newbies, test kit freaks, all of you(and myself included).
Poor CO2 reduces growth and is responsible for nearly 95% of all algae related issues.

Now KH test kit variance is one issue, making a reference standard to compare you KH test to is a very WISE idea to check the accuracy. I've seen many folks have very high CO2 predicted levels, yet fish were fine, but another than has barely 30ppm and the fish are gasping. It cannot be that both are at the same CO2ppm level becaused we would expect to see the same behavior from the fish. Instead we see very wide ranges and impacts on the fish(as well as plants).

So it's much more likely that it is the testing method, rather than anything else.
pH is the best thing as far as accuracy for CO2 measurements using a pH probe and no electrical equipment runnign when the pH is measured(stray current will depress the pH giving false high ppm CO2 levels).

KH test kits have consistency issues (see recent post) and in some places, although rare, non bicarbonate alkalinity exists(recent poster in NM has significant borate alkalinity, desert regions generally).

Addressing this issue by making a reference sample will take care of the KH issue.

The next issue is more interesting for many of of you.
I'd suggested that the venturi DIY reactor I have shown folks on my site is better than any reactor. Well, initially, and perhaps partially true, is the purpging effect of gas build up.
This gas is some O2 and some CO2, but very little "air".

As the gas is expelled, consistently I see better growth, this is not due to O2. 
So why would a mist of tiny CO2 bubbles vs dissolved CO2 in solution do better for growing plants?

I addressed the O2 issue simply, I used a diffuser disk for CO2(no O2 gas build up occurs).
But that did not do it __alone__.

I wondered why.

So I placed the diffuser disc near similar current like that produced by the venturi reactor after is starts mistuing the gas out the bottom.

Lo and behold, Bam! Excellent similar growth.
Not the kind of so so growth, but pearling like nothing you have ever seen or perhaps only in a very few well run tanks right after a water change. But I'd not done a water change for a week.
I tried it several times on 4 tanks, same result in each tank. Day after day, intense pearling even with fair good current.

So why would this mist be better than dissolved CO2?

For one thing, it's __pure CO2 gas__, which flows much faster than dissolved CO2 liquid.
The flux rate is much faster with pure CO2 gas than CO2 dissolved in water, so the plants get more CO2 and a more concentrated form.

Some folks may not like the bubbles, some might not like pearling.
But I sure do.

I can say that the venturi effect is one of CO2 now, and not of O2 by using the diffuser disc to rule out O2.

So that just left CO2 and the gas vs dissolved form to consider why one method was better in terms of plant than another.

Both flow and actually having some gas in the tank itself seems to be the key here. 
So those disc are not so bad and neither are the venturi reactors.

You can make a purge loop for external reactors by making a hole 1/2 down and running the air line back to the intake for the power head, caniter filter etc, this will not add bubbles but will reduce the gas build up inside the reactor.

The real issue is having gas bubbles in the tank and putting them where the plants are in that form.

I think folks should really consider this/these idea/s and try them.
I've had very intense pearling and have over the entire routine time frame, not just for a day or a few days.

Be careful and watch the fish, CO2 levels when doing this, I've not had any fish issues yet. Make sure there is some surface movement. If you use disc, clean them often(monthly).

For larger tanks, they make 6x1" diffuser stones for about 60$ than can be used set along the bottom back gravel layer so they will not be seen. wwww.aquaticeco.com sells them if interested.

In any event, this notion of having tiny gas bubbles floating around very dissolved CO2 might solve many folk's problems and improve those who seek better growth.

Nitrogen is an essential element, but only 1.5%, vs 40+ % for Carbon, it is very very wise to focus on this if you seek better growth.

With good CO2 levels, even the wimpy plants do very well(Tonia, ES, Eirocauleon) algae dies, pearling as intense as you have ever seen it day after day will occur.

I think the gas bubbles might also be less of an issue for fish since it's not dissolved into solution also.

The nutrients can be addressed easily by doing EI, so you know there's enough, so all that's left to really focus on is the CO2.

So I have been playing around trying to figuire out a good way to reproduce max CO2 without causing issues for fish, and adding enough for the plants.

The CO2 mist + current seems to be the best method.

This can be done with a reactor or a diffuser stone/disc.

Also, folks using spray bars, turn them vertically, next to the intake and place the disc down near this also. This hides the bar, the disc, intake all in one place. Having the spray bar current blowing along the back side the tank wall seems to give good flow characteristics+ near the disc, the water blows out and away from the intake and circles around to the intake.
Since water is being blown directly away from the intake, this gives optimum mixing.
Since water is being blown directly on top of the difusser, all the bubble mist is being blown all over the tank.

The results are easy to see.

The other issue is not to trust the test kits so much until you see the type of pearling like this, no BBA growth etc, slowly and patiently add more CO2 till you get the pearling and good growth. Basically use the test to get close, then tweak(add more) carefully and slowly.
Do not go overboard, do it slowly and observe the plants/fish. Your test may give you high numbers, but if the fish are fine, then it's okay.
Turing off CO2 at night will help add the margin of safety also. We add CO2 for the plants, not to maintain pH. Some leave it 24/7, but mainly out of convenience rather than methodology. With disc, running them at night can cause issues, anyway, you can save 2-3x the gas by not running it at night. We know fish don't care about the pH change.

Regards, 
Tom Barr

www.BarrReport.com


----------



## Jim (Apr 4, 2005)

Tom,

Good information, thanks. I have a 5' wide tank with two canister outputs on either end, current runs into the middle. I'm running a ceramic diffuser below one of them, but am not getting great dispersion of the micro-bubbles. They seem to stay at one end of the tank . Do you think I should split my CO2 line and run a diffuser in each end? Do you do this in any of your tanks?

FYI, I only get a minimal amount of pearling. I'm running a 48" PC light with 260W over the 85G tank (which is actually 60" long).

Thanks,

Jim


----------



## plantbrain (Jan 23, 2004)

Yes!
Use two small diffusers for larger tanks, not one huge diffuser!!
Use the spray bars vertically, not horizontally, place the diffusers at the bottom of these spray bars and have them blow along the back and then opposite for the other end/diffuser so you get a circular flow pattern.

If you split the line, you will need two needle valves.

The odd thing is that this waste CO2 but it's an issue of CO2 delivery, not getting more CO2 into the water dissolved.

Now some folks say this works yada yada but no of them suggested why it's better from a growth prespective.

Pure 100% CO2 gas that moves rapidly into the plants asap, or a slow build up of this thick visicous semi rich CO2 medium.

It's no wonder the pearling/growth is far more intense.
You can use the venturi designm, on or off, and then use a diffuse in the same way to see that O2 purged from the Reactor method does not increase/decrease growth(as measuered as O2 levels in the same tank).
I used the same tank for the different methods of CO2 diffusion(DIY w & w/o venturi and then a diffuser stone)

Regards, 
Tom Barr

www.BarrReport.com

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## cousinkenni (Jan 24, 2005)

Maybe this is the problem with my Rotala macrandra! I will switch back to a diffuser in the output current of my fluval.

KT


----------



## JaySilverman (Jun 19, 2005)

My plants only pearl right before lights out. And I'm having trouble purging the built up gas in my external diffuser.

Can you explain a little better on how to create the venturi mist with the external diffuser? I'm very interested in giving my co2 an extra kick with this misting of the built up gas.


----------



## plantbrain (Jan 23, 2004)

There are two or more methods that can be used to purge the gas build up.
You can add a venturi loop to from the tube(say add a airline hose 1/2 way down) and run the line back into the powerhead(or filter), or set up another powerhead to purge exclusively and deposit the CO2 opposite from the other outflow direction.

This can be applied to any reactor made.
A bit off topic here.
The internal venturi is designed for micro bubbles, externals are for purging the gas build up mainly but this will improve their efficency later in the day.

Regards, 
Tom Barr

www.BarrReport.com


----------



## plantbrain (Jan 23, 2004)

Update, 5 other folks reported similar results in terms of pearling rates, and growth rates/water clarity.

They only changed(to the best of their knowledge) the delivery without changing the rate of CO2.

Dramatic changes.

PO4 was not this intense.
If you have grown plants a while, you know when you see good growth(even if you cannot measure it with a meter/Test kit etc).

I've suggested several plausible reasons for the observations and the DO meters readings as well as the visual and plant observations also correlate well.

My red plants are no longer red, they are all silver from pearling.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## urville (Sep 20, 2004)

yesterday I switched my co2 input from across the Powerhead venturi, where i could see visible bubble loss and larger bubbles. to my powerheads intake. both this powerhead and my fluval return point toward the left side of my tank. Immediatley I saw a swirl of itty bitty bubbles. they go across the top down and straight across all my plants.

issues. 
flow itself prevents build up of co2 bubbles on leaves. and i have the powerhead turned all the way to the slowest setting. it's a hagen 201. my tank is a 29. and i runt he light 10 hours a day.
on the otherhand it passes constantly right by every plant in the tank, so some touching must be going on. It's been only one day so nothing to tell yet. just thought i'd give something to update to.
:-k


----------



## plantbrain (Jan 23, 2004)

See what happens, if you did it right, you will see immediate increases in pearling, even if you have good growth already, you should see a dramatic visible increase in both growth a pearling.

I'm talking if you do this, in 3-4 hours or so, you should see a difference.

Several other folks have reported sismilar things/results in doing this.
I'll spend more time supporting the arguement and researching why later, right now I am still seeing if more folks are seeing it and how we can get folks to do to consistently.

6 folks and counting have reported the same thing I saw...........

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## urville (Sep 20, 2004)

plantbrain said:


> See what happens, if you did it right, you will see immediate increases in pearling, even if you have good growth already, you should see a dramatic visible increase in both growth a pearling.


well 5 hours into my lighting schedule and well... i see some collection on a java fern a bit here and there, greater growth on the side where the bubbles come down i will say that. and thats always kinda been true, even before the tiny bubbles. things on the side that dont experience the bubbles like the left side dont grow as well.

but Pearling? no offense but ahahahahaha. i'm at a point where i just dont beleive in it unless you have plants already grown. you can see my tank in my journal thread, i dont think i can get pearling yet, and i've never actually seen the phenomenon with my own eyes. i mean i believe in it, just not until your tank looks like something in an amano book.

ian


----------



## plantbrain (Jan 23, 2004)

Insistence on DIY and not adding enough CO2 will prevent this for you.
Even with DIY, I produced awesome growth, but I used the reactor I list on my site for the public to do this and changed the brew out 7-10 days.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## urville (Sep 20, 2004)

i'm working on pressurized..
slowly

still i maintain a good ppm... best i can do right now

i was thinking it should have been obvious this system works just never thought of it till you said something. plants grown emersed and do great and they have access to co2 in the air which is nowhere near pure. but it's touching the leaves constantly so it makes total sense.
ian


----------



## plantbrain (Jan 23, 2004)

Comments,

Dissolved versus undissolved bubbles.............this is where folks are getting boondoggled.
There is a two step process.

1.The initial few minutes/hour/s(typically 1 to 3 hours after the light/CO2 comes on) are mainly dissolving the CO2 into solution.

2.Once a high level builds up, then it becomes much more difficult for the CO2 mist to be dissolved. Chemically: it is more difficult to dissolve a substance against an increasingly larger concentrational gradient.

So in the AM when the lights first come on, the CO2 is poor and the gas rapidly dissolves entirely.

Say we get up to 30ppm dissolved in one hour.
Great, plants are bathed in a rich CO2 solution.
Still the same and works well as what was previously discussed for the last 40 years.

Now, what about the CO2 bubbles at 30ppm?

Are they so quick to dissolve at this level of CO2?

You are adding CO2 to a solution that is already heavily super saturated.
The O2 is at best only mildly super staurated.

After 1-2 hours, the micro bubbles will persist and float around the tank.
This is true for my venturi reactors as well.
That gas build up in the external reactor tubes as well as the internal venrturis are similar later in the day.Think about what that gas might be, I'd suggested it was O2 at one point, the flame test was not conclusive(it put the flame out, suggesting CO2, not O2).

I could see the external reactors perhaps building up O2 later in the day, but what about the internal venturi reactors?

No way, there's nothing to degas O2 in there! This rules out the O2 theory. No other gases are super saturated, thus unable to increase and degas of solution, only O2 and CO2, and CO2 is much higher than O2 relative to ambient in all cases, so this makes sense chemically regarding concentration.

So this means, and I know I'm right(rare), that the CO2 dissolving is greatly reduced later at a stable given CO2 dosing rate in the day after you build up to a certain level. What level? I'd guess about 30ppm.

After you get this into the tank( 30ppm dissolved CO2), then this CO2 micro bubble theory starts to work. You still have 30ppm in the tank, but now you have added pulse of pure CO2 mist on top of that for the plants.

It is not one _or_ the other, they are synergistic, one complement and builds on the other.
My mistake in the past was assuming that the gas in the tube was O2, it's not, it's CO2 excess that's much more difficult to dissolve.

Thinking about the internal venturi reactors has shown that it cannot be O2(why would it degas there just like in the external sealed tubes)?

I tried this without any plants(thus no O2 build up), I had gas build up later in the day, thus reduction in CO2 dissolving at higher ppm levels.
............so there.
I finally figure out why that dang little venturi diffuser worked so good, only took me 12 years ! haha

By using comparative diffusers, reactors etc, I was able to muddle through this.
One by itself would not have answered this question.

30ppm bathes the entire plant, the mist of relatively pure CO2 bathes part of the plant.
Together both drive photosynthesis at a rapid rate that I've observed.

Regards, 
Tom Barr

www.BarrReport.com This month's very in depth K+ review article completed.


----------



## urville (Sep 20, 2004)

Tom.
for my ten with no fish just snails i mixed nyberg co2. i put this into the powerheads water intake aimed it mid tank. the powerhead is higher flow than rated for 10. there are millions of bubbles and i am sure that i am well well over 30ppm. i have no substrate in this tank and the plants are all tied with monofilament to fishing sinkers. I dose EI in this 10 gallon.
i did a water change last night and hooked up the nyberg diy co2 into the powerhead. today 20 hours later these are pics of some rotala vietnam which when put in last night looked dead, and some, i think, gracilis

Rotala Vietnam Notice how it doesnt look dead









gracilis









cheers 8) 
ian


----------



## dennis (Mar 1, 2004)

But how much of that is pearling and how much is simply floating bubbles attarcted to the surfaces by tension (or what ever the equivilent is under water)? Do you actually see bubbles streaming from damaged portions and growth apexes?

Would you find the micro-bubbles annoying in your display tank? I find that I dislike it when my canister filter, which doubles as my CO2 reactor, burps out bubbles that float all over my tank.

Tom,

I though that plants could not really use even 30ppm of CO2, physiologically they are not made to use CO2 in that concentration. If this is the case, then by what mechanics is it benificial to have a CO2 bubble floating past a stomata when it is water that is 30+ppm? I could understand the micro bubble working good with less than optimal CO2 saturation/ dissolving but once concentration is 30ppm.....why?

Are we trying to further improve the growth of plants or combat algae even more? Granted, the two go hand in hand. Does CO2 enriched water statify due to its thickness, chemical charges, in the same way that warm water rises, cold sinks? How is the Pradtll Boundry (spelling) affected by the different means of CO2, or better question, on a molecular level, do the 2 means of CO2 delivery (micro bubble vs. dissolved gas) make any difference as far as availibility to the plant. 

I guess dissolved CO2 has formed H2CO3 (the acid by which our ph drops and the reason the kH-pH relationship works) meaning that the pure Co2 microbubbles are easier for the plants to get and use, as opposed to stripping the C from the carbonic acid. Maybe that is really why the micro-buble method works better? The H2CO3 formed by dissolving CO2 in H2O would logically be the reason why the gas built up in reactor chambers is CO2 and not O2, the only other would be a mix of many gases, including O2, CO2, N2 and maybe even trace amounts of methane, sulfer dioxide, etc from decomposition of organic matter in the aquarium.

As for the gas build-up in reactor chambers, the O2 does not have be created by the break down of CO2, it could simple be a point of collection of O2 from many sources, ie...hose leakes, photosynthesis, water surface-air transfers, etc. How many times have you moved hardscape of plants and had a bubble rise from the substrate. Granted, much of this could be from the transfer of O2 by plants to the substrate but some of it will be from OM decomposition and bacterial respiration. Maybe one of these things is not enough to cause build up, but possibly all together over the course of the lighting period are enough. IMO, not even the most effecient DIY reactor will not yield a 100% dislving of the CO2, so soem of the buildup will come from that aswell.

Finally, what about facts mention on the APD that 30ppm CO2 is no where near saturation level. (I have no knowledge of this, just stuff I have read...of course, most of my knowledgeos just stuff I read so take it with a grain of sand )

Not trying to argue or question anyone here. I am just asking questions so I can better understand and learn.


----------



## urville (Sep 20, 2004)

dennis said:


> But how much of that is pearling and how much is simply floating bubbles attarcted to the surfaces by tension (or what ever the equivilent is under water)? Do you actually see bubbles streaming from damaged portions and growth apexes?
> 
> Would you find the micro-bubbles annoying in your display tank? I find that I dislike it when my canister filter, which doubles as my CO2 reactor, burps out bubbles that float all over my tank.


I wondered the same thing. i tried turning off the powerhead for an hour or so and saw no change. but is that because i'm saturated with co2? so the bubbles dont become smaller? or is it because of the much lower rate of oxygen absorbtion into water? I cant tell you.

i can tell you the current is high. high enough to push some of those plants and their sinkers to one end of the tank. that i can see raising bubbles but i cant tell where they come from because there are literally a gazillion bubbles everywhere. the growth is good though, i mean nothing in that tank has grown this fast. i had gee.. i'd say near an 3/4 of an inch to an inch on the rotala since yesterday. it went from drak brown to full on green. i'm impressed either way. my question is that with this much fine bubbled co2, will the ppm climb in an actual fish populated tank enough to kill them?

in my 29 i pointed my powerhead deflector down so it pushed more into the center of the tank and started getting those tiny bubbles distributed around the tank more. I see some bubbles under my java fern leaves and a bit in my riccia that was flattened in shipment and is now coming back but not like an amano picture or anything so i assume this must be captured bubbles? they dont seem to grow to a point they get pushed away or rise though. and it isnt tank wide. kind of a weird time to star trying this as right now until i can afford the tank to go with my regulator and needle valve i'm seeing if nyberg or jello co2 lasts longer. i'm entralled with the jello fuel cell and it's mixtures and their effects on rate and length using the same amount of yeast..

anyway. i wish i could say... all i can say is co2 or o2 i've never seen this before nor growth like that. if i can get my 29 to do it without deaths i'm happy. and i rather like the bubbles. i missed the iny bubbles ever since i went planted and got rid of my PH's venturied<sp?> air supply

how can i tel whats really going on?


----------



## Laith (Sep 4, 2004)

I'd also like to understand better how this works. However, I have two questions regarding this:

- So plants grow faster with this method, what is the exact benefit? If we are anyway able to keep CO2 levels in the aquarium at 30mg/l (or more), are already getting really nice results, have algae under control, etc. what is the benefit besides faster growth? I'm already trying to slow growth down by staggering my light intensity...

- I am one of those people that absolutely abhor aerators in tanks. So I can't imagine that millions of tiny micro bubbles all over the tank would look very good. I mean pearling is one thing but this sounds like you actually have clouds and clouds of bubbles; almost like what you would see just under the surface in ocean surge?


----------



## urville (Sep 20, 2004)

Laith said:


> - I am one of those people that absolutely abhor aerators in tanks. So I can't imagine that millions of tiny micro bubbles all over the tank would look very good. I mean pearling is one thing but this sounds like you actually have clouds and clouds of bubbles; almost like what you would see just under the surface in ocean surge?


I dont get that great of growth, but i use DIY, but I still have 30ppm. I just dont see it and I dose into EI reccomended amounts. but you know most things in this hobby are individualistic. and hey my motto is dont fix what isnt broken.

yeah it's alot of bubbles. i dont mind so for me it works great, but i cant speak as to whether toms venturi reactor does the same thing or not. i would assume by the desription it does, but i cant say that with any kind of certainty. i just did it this way cause i could always put money somewhere else in the hobby so if i can i will use the cheapest methd as long as the result is the same.

Here are the bubbles in my tank all over like this


----------



## urville (Sep 20, 2004)

It's definitley pearling as many of the bubles form also on top of leaves like in the riccia. I have it everyday now and never did before with nothing more than a powerhead, fine bubbles, and DIY co2
Ian


----------



## plantbrain (Jan 23, 2004)

So then what would be your assessment?
Improved growth, less algae and more pearling?

Folks can haggle the theory(I am in the process of testing it), but the results for folks will tell if what I suggest works on a practical level.

It's a pretty clear cut difference.

And there are few other options that seem to fit the observation.
No one seems to want to argue what those options might be. It's okay to say something does not work or cannot be it etc, but what then is the issue that causes it?

I'm ruling out what the potential issues might be and doing some simple but effective bubble persistence time runs.

By measuring trhe time to dissolve a known volume of CO2 in the morning vs the evening(when the CO2 gas builds up) you can predict how long the bubbles will stay in solution before dissolving rather easily without a 4 ft column etc and with much more accuracy.

You can also measure the O2 levels doing the mist vs not as well as the dissolved CO2 levels.

The advanatages are more robust stability to the tank.
Even less algae presence(Green dust, Hair algaes, GSA etc).
Better O2 levels during the night/day.
Better bacterial cycling(higher O2 levels)
Better root zone cycling(excess O2)

If you want to slow growth down, you certainly do not need to do this method, 30ppm does work.

But you can try it if things are still not right or if you have other issues with CO2 measurements, want better growth, etc.

Many folks do not like the bubbles but when the tank is pearling well, few dislike that and that is what this does.

If you do not like pearling, then excel and less light does the trick also.
The amount of pearling is much more, but it depends of how much you like.

Most like it from everything I've seen.

Regards, 
Tom Barr

www.BarrReport.com


----------



## urville (Sep 20, 2004)

Indeed better growth, less algae, more or haha any pearling.

I can tell you to that the tank being 29 gallon and my hatred of flow pushing my plants over one another causing shade hehe ahem...
i'm not getting those bubbles around that tank as fast as i'd like. it could be better, and forgive me but i cant see how using the venturi will help this issue. in fact i feel i get better spread this way. its hard without real flow to get those bubbles to every inch of the tank. and from waht i have noticed theres always going to be at least one dead area bubble wise. I think once I go pressurized here within the next two weeks that will help greatly. I was thinking about using a T, and put two diffusions of co2 on each side of the rear. OR and this is the best idea but requires I do some major substrate disturbance... is to use the jet system form the DIY section at the cichlid-forum. This places several small jets around the tank substrate that blow upward using a powerhead located int he rear of the tank. If I use this as my diffuser and jet the bubbles from many areas of the tank from below the plants i think the result will be triple fold.

Still takes a good long time for pearling to begin, but then i am on DIY co2 and I'm having a light issue. i'm not quite hitting the upper envelope of 3 wpg.
still a couple of things to work on.
Ian


----------



## alexperez (Oct 8, 2004)

I got my 2 small Azoo diffusers yesterday and hooked them up. I placed the diffusers in the path of the water flow. The tank started to get filled up with lots of micro bubbles pretty quick. In about an hours time the pearling had increased a lot. Now to see if growth is increased any.


----------



## plantbrain (Jan 23, 2004)

Alex, you can use DO level differences as a measure for increased/decreased growth and compare those with dissolved CO2.

That is a good measure of plant production/growth.

You should be fairly pragmatic with it though........I'd suggest doing this several times and allow the plants to get use to the higher levels of cO2 for a few weeks and then go back and give it a few weeks at regular CO2 diffusion.

I have not done that....... but will.

The data I now have only points one direction, the CO2 in the reactor tube that builds up is CO2. I have 6 different methods and parameters to support the gas is CO2 and not O2(which I have and have added) as well as the persistence as CO2 levels go from ambient to 30ppm(roughly 10-60X normal CO2 levels).

I'm not sure why so many people believ that somethign will dissolve at the same rate when the concentration is nearly 50X higher...........
As the concentration gradient decreases, so does the solubility.

But more than that, the method does work on a basic non scientific practical level and folks can see the results. It's also a cheap method that can easily be added to an existing system as well as modifying the external and internal reactors to purge the CO2 gas bubble build up that occurs daily and improves reactor efficienies.

So try it and see and observe, then you can postulate and experiment.
CO2 is far more interesting and significant than many of these other nutrients and a good focus on making it non limiting will allow the plants to use the other nutrients much better and reduce algae.

Even if you use DIY, you will get the most out of the DIY this way.

Regards, 
Tom Barr

www.BarrReport.com


----------

