Quantitative Airstone Test. an end to the hype

woodsmaneh!

Well-Known Member
The oxygen deficit (D) is the driving force for the establishment of air-water equilibria and is calculated as the departure from saturation: The saturation concentration for oxygen is calculated using Henry's Law and varies with temperature (effect on K[SUB]H[/SUB]) and P[SUB]O2[/SUB], the partial pressure of oxygen.
 

jeeba

Well-Known Member
Mike91 I'm not a weekend grower, I take my growing very serious and go to great lengths to make sure what I do is founded in science and reasearch. Knowing a little about something does not make then an expert, you need to look at the big picture and if smaller bubbles work better than I will keep tweeking my systems till I get the biggest plant I can grow. So in an effort to be the best I can I will apply every thing I learn to that end. Big gains are very hard to get but running a ideal grow enviorment and makeing sure every aspect is as good as it can be = 1# plus plants.

Some people are happy just tossing things together or just doing what everyone else does, someone needs to lead and it's guys like leagllyflying, ucundercurrent and me who try to do that, intresting thing is not maney people can help us as were the leading edge of growing in water so we try to advance the cause by shairing. So if you still got your nickers in a knot lets agree to disagree and get back to the work at hand.
This is the kind of things Im interested in and the post b4 that woulda seemed alot classier without the dude are you that fucking stupid jpeg.What I got out of it is that when the bubble exits the airstone it creates another"surface" to exchange gas?Like say the top of the pond, lake ,bucket,res?If Im wrong please feel free to correct my assumption.I welcome it. Thanks
 

mike91sr

Well-Known Member
Mike91 I'm not a weekend grower, I take my growing very serious and go to great lengths to make sure what I do is founded in science and reasearch. Knowing a little about something does not make then an expert, you need to look at the big picture and if smaller bubbles work better than I will keep tweeking my systems till I get the biggest plant I can grow. So in an effort to be the best I can I will apply every thing I learn to that end. Big gains are very hard to get but running a ideal grow enviorment and makeing sure every aspect is as good as it can be = 1# plus plants.

Some people are happy just tossing things together or just doing what everyone else does, someone needs to lead and it's guys like leagllyflying, ucundercurrent and me who try to do that, intresting thing is not maney people can help us as were the leading edge of growing in water so we try to advance the cause by shairing. So if you still got your nickers in a knot lets agree to disagree and get back to the work at hand.
I'm not sure where you thought I said I was an expert grower, but all I'm doing is standing by the facts that have been known for some time about chemical and physical properties, not even grow-related info. I gave both of you the respect to even come out and say you're more experienced, knowledgeable, and skilled growers, yet somehow I'm still catching shit from both of you about acting like a know-it-all. Nowhere on this board am I dropping my opinion as fact or claiming to be some awesome grower. I'm on my first hydroponic grow, and freely advertise it. That doesn't change the fact that I have substantial knowledge from other realms that do not change just because it's now related to a plant I have little experience with. And nowhere did I claim anything besides that. I was honestly under the impression you and I were having a halfway decent debate about something of a technical nature(which, don't worry, I'll get to in a sec), and then out of nowhere I started getting slammed by legally for not just shutting up and doing as you were telling me. By the time you came back into it, of course it had reached a personal level. I respect your drive to constantly learn and improve, and have learned immensely from it myself, but when I see something that is factually incorrect, I'm going to call it. My posts, while sometimes abrasive and not necessarily justified to say the least, still managed to keep more of a technical nature than either of yours towards me. Look at the the last page. You answered somebody, I did the same, and from then on, every post from you and legally is a direct attack against me. How useful is that?

Now, like you said, back to work. If you're going to get pissed that I feel like you and I should continue the debate that was the cause of all this,let me know, but for now, I'm going to continue clearing this up. I dont care if legally continues to do nothing but slam me all day long, if you can be decent towards me, I'll return the favor.

You are mixing up two very similar terms and it's the difference between the two that makes your theory false. Your last post proves my point, not yours:
The rate of oxygen mass transfer , i.e. from the gas (air bubbles) to the liquid phase (water) is governed by the terms described below. Typically, K[SUB]L[/SUB] and a are combined into an overall mass transfer coefficient
(K[SUB]L[/SUB] a, d[SUP]-1[/SUP]).


From the same website:
"The saturation concentration for oxygen is calculated using Henry's Law and varies with temperature (effect on K[SUB]H[/SUB]) and P[SUB]O2[/SUB], the partial pressure of oxygen."

Edit: you posted it yourself. Do you know what Henry's Law is, and how it proves your theory wrong?
 

mike91sr

Well-Known Member
Small bubbles afford greater surface area and lead to more efficient gas transfer, e.g. 1m3 of bubbles with a 1 cm diameter have 10 times the surface area of 1m3 with a 0.1 cm diameter.
K, then I saw this post...
More efficient does not mean that more can be transferred. Please tell me you understand this. If you do, it means you understand that bubble size makes no difference in how much oxygen is available in the water. Like you said, being persistent doesn't make you right.
 

mike91sr

Well-Known Member
This is the kind of things Im interested in and the post b4 that woulda seemed alot classier without the dude are you that fucking stupid jpeg.What I got out of it is that when the bubble exits the airstone it creates another"surface" to exchange gas?Like say the top of the pond, lake ,bucket,res?If Im wrong please feel free to correct my assumption.I welcome it. Thanks
Yes, and because it's rising, it comes into contact with more h2o. More surface area will mean it can exchange faster, not that any more can be exchanged. This difference being misunderstood is the only reason this argument is still going on. More total air(not the same amount of air split up differently) will mean there's more air to be exchanged. More total air comes from a bigger pump, plain as that.
 

jeeba

Well-Known Member
Yes, and because it's rising, it comes into contact with more h2o, making it more efficient than just having the surface area sitting stagnant. More surface area will mean it can exchange faster, not that any more can be exchanged. This difference being misunderstood is the only reason this argument is still going on. More total air(not the same amount of air split up differently) will mean there's more air to be exchanged. More total air comes from a bigger pump, plain as that.
This being said I believe the size and dissapation amount of the airstone is directly related to the size and flow of the pump you are using?When I use my epdm airstone utilizing a single outlet from 80 lpm pump it is overpowered and makes huge bubbles.As opposed to 8 2 inch airstones all diffusing small bubbles.You can see it moving more area through the coloumn,Get my drift?
 

legallyflying

Well-Known Member
Yes, and because it's rising, it comes into contact with more h2o. More surface area will mean it can exchange faster, not that any more can be exchanged. This difference being misunderstood is the only reason this argument is still going on. More total air(not the same amount of air split up differently) will mean there's more air to be exchanged. More total air comes from a bigger pump, plain as that.
Ok,k honestly, this is the last time I am going to address this. And seriously dude, and I don't mean this in an insulting way although it is getting quite fucking annoying at this point, your just clinging onto this whole notion that rate of transfer and total transfer are completely independent of each other in this application and they are not.

Obviously the principal understanding in all of this is that max DO has not been reached... because no bubbles are going to surpass the max DO level. SO STOP SAYING it doesn't equal more, it doesn't equal more because you can't change the maximum level of oxygen in solution (DO). (ALTHOUGH, everyone should realize by now that it is NOT JUST DO levels that will effect plant growth. Bubbles passing over the roots will increase oxygen (and mineral) uptake.

1. more surface area DOES equal increased quantity of gas exchanged. The exchange RATE is total transfer/ time. Given the same amount of time (the time it takes for bubbles to rise to the surface) MORE air will be transferred. This is especially true since the smaller bubbles will have more time in water since they do in fact travel to the surface slower. So you are increasing the time that transfer is occurring.

It is quite simple that as long as the water is not already at max DO levels, that a faster rate of transfer will equal more transfer.

It is well documented in the aquaculture, and to a greater extent, the sewage treatment industry that small bubbles are the MOST EFFICIENT means to oygenate water. PERIOD. END OF STORY. Given a particular amount of energy to produce and distribute the air (like watts of pump or HP), small bubbles will more effectively oxygenate the water. Don't get all side tracked on the notion that faster does not equal more. There is plenty of literature in the waste treatment world that will say the same thing. Smaller bubbles equal more efficient transfer. Which means MORE oxygen put into solution, not just faster which you claim.

Lastly, given the different efficiencies of different sized bubbles, you can not state that more total air will equal more transfer. This again comes back to the small bubbles being the more efficient. So while yes, at some point simply pumping more air through a large bubble stone will surpass the amount of air transferred from a small bubble stone and smaller pump, you can just say that a bigger pump is better "plain as that". Actually, ignoring the benefits of bubble to root air exchange, a bigger pump is just a waste of money as you could get the same QUANTITY of exchange with a smaller pump and smaller bubbles...as that is what MORE EFFICIENT MEANS.

http://www.processenergy.com/Aeration Paper.pdf

Look at table 1 in that link. It says it all. The faster RATE of transfer equals MORE TRANSFER per energy unit/time. So again, a faster transfer DOES mean more transfer.
 

mike91sr

Well-Known Member
@ jeeba: Ultimately, h2o can only hold so many extra oxygen atoms in solution (bar supersaturation). So the stone has no actual effect on total dissolution, that's what the experiment proved. The reason there is now confusion is because legally and woodsman are saying that the stone DOES make a difference(due to bubbles being smaller). Providing max DO in a container, as proven, can be done with a relatively small pump and just about any stone. To get more oxygen to the roots you then need a bigger pump not a different stone, unless the stone has a max airflow rating lower than the pump's. It's no longer an attempt at dissolving more oxygen, but creating a constant supply of air pockets (bubbles) around the roots themselves. Think of an aeroponic system. The roots get oxygen primarily from their surrounding air, not DO. Once max DO is reached, that's it. Providing more air flow only changes how much volume of undissolved air is present for the plants. More undissolved air is a good thing, it's just not caused by stone "upgrades", and I need to make sure that's clear.

Think of it this way: If a garbage bag can hold 50lb of baseballs before it rips, does it matter if the baseballs are whole or cut into halves or quarters? No, they're still going to weigh the same amount, and ultimately, the bag will not get stronger just because the baseballs are now smaller.

Likewise, if a factory can produce 20 baseballs per minute (pump's airflow), it doesn't matter if they ship them in 10 trucks of 1000 or 1 truck of 10000 (surface area of bubbles). They're still only going to produce 20 baseballs per minute. It's faster to unload 10 trucks of 1000 because you can have more access to the baseballs and therefore more work being done at once, but in our case this makes no difference as the supply of bubbles (baseballs) is constant regardless and we only have so much space to keep the baseballs (DO being maxed out). So even though they can work faster, they don't, there's no change because speed of dissolution, or unloading the trucks, was never a factor..

The diffuser should have smaller bubbles unless they're coagulating. I'm honestly unsure about the conditions required for that to happen, though I read through something yesterday that talked about it. I'll try and find it again. Ultimately, my point remains same: Your 80lpm pump, whether hooked up to 1 epdm stone or 1 blue stone, will provide roughly the same amount of airflow, provided that the stones' max airflow is at least 80lpm and their resistance to flow is similar. Legally said his diffusers were more restrictive, so the diffusers will actually flower less air, probably not any substantial amount though. I can't find specs on the cheaper stones otherwise I'd be able to have a definitive downside of diffusers. But you can see a very clear difference in total water turbulence when running the blue stones over the diffusers, due to a less restrictive flow of air. Regardless, I have 10 buckets to aerate, so for me to max out the airflow(not DO) of 10 airstones will take a lot more air pump capacity than I care to have no matter what stone they are. And no matter what stone they are, DO will be the same. Resistance to flow is more important than bubble size, as this will affect how much air can be constantly present for the plants vs bubble size which affects only the rate of solution(irrelevant here).

If, however, I upgrade and have 5x250lpm pumps and my stones can only flow half of that, yes a stone add-on or upgrade may be warranted. But not even to a diffuser, as legally said himself that they were more restrictive. Larger or more stones would do the same thing. And again, that won't change DO(which was already maxed out), but will provide more total airflow to the plants. Because more oxygen (not dissolved) will be present, and more oxygen is generally better, the plants will then benefit.

Moral? Pump upgrades are more important than stone upgrades, unless you already maxed out your stone's airflow. To check this on a 2+ outlet pump, close one outlet and see if the airflow on the other changes. If it does, your pump is not able to push as much as as the stones are able to flow. If it doesn't, you may want to look into stones that allow for more airflow. That way, your pump and stone capacity is about equal.
 

mike91sr

Well-Known Member
Thank you for at least trying to post a bit of info and not just slamming me personally based on your growing experience vs my scientific evidence, and I'm fine if you no longer address my posts, however yours still have several flaws (including that link) that I'm going to point out, and then let you think whatever you like because, clearly, none of us is going to budge. But honestly, there was no need for any of the bs this thread is now filled with. Your write-up was great and I originally just wanted clarification as to why you started believing things that went against it, thinking maybe there was something I was missing. There wasn't, and you shelled out pages and pages of nonsense at me for not backing down, responding to my on-subject posts to OTHER PEOPLE with your own slandering. I understand its your thread, but at least have the decency, for other readers finding this thread, to explain why you think I'm wrong. Until now, you really did very little of that, and instead made it known that you dislike people who don't accept disproven theories over proven facts. Just check out post #21 and your response, #23. A simple question about the application and validity of the test, and actually, a question that you still haven't answer correctly in this thread. Then, #28, you state very similar things to what I'm not saying, yet you're willing to try and bash me for standing by it now. It was the same thing 18 pages ago, if someone questions you, you go off the handle before anything else, then MAYBE, get around to attempting to provide something useful. which, youre still defending the theory that is applied in a stone you yourself are sending back....??? You cant get upset if people don't want to just take your word for everything when every other time someone questions your word if your response is telling them youre not going to spend the time to fix a flaw or void in the test. Doesn't build much credibility for defending your theories when you're able and not willing to test them. Which is fine, but like I said just dont get upset when people still call bs.

1. Solubility and rate of solution ARE two different things and neither is affected by the other whatsoever. Stirring a solution increases rate of solution. Stirring also generally decreases solubility. A higher temperature increases rate of solution. A higher temperature, in the case of a gas, decreases solubility. Think hot soda bottle exploding. See my point? Henry's Law and the Combined Gas Law are fundamental principles that have withstood decades of testing, and those two theories are all I really need to prove my point, but here goes anyway.



2. You seem to be ignoring the fact that I agree, smaller bubbles=more EFFICIENT transfer, given that efficiency=work/time. BUT,having the ability to be more efficient does NOT mean that you got more work done. An h2o molecule isn't going to hold more oxygen just because it has more time to do it. This fact cannot be disputed. So faster does necessarily not equal more if the AMOUNT is limited. Driving 100mph won't get you any further than 25mph if you only have one tank of gas, but you'll get there faster. It's still only one car showing up at the same spot though, same end result. Right?


3. I never stated that more airflow=more DO. I said that more airflow=more UNdissolved oxygen in an environment where DO is maxed, which is also a good thing. Do we agree here? Because max DO can be reached fairly easily at a given temp(your statement, not mine), what's the point of smaller bubbles allowing "faster" transfer of a gas that is already at its full capacity in the solution? In the case of SWC or something of that nature where the oxygen must be quickly absorbed given the shorter timeframe from stone to surface, yes, smaller bubbles with greater total surface area resulting in faster absorption would be more effective because TIME is the limiting factor, not max amount. However, that is NOT a factor in most applications, including ours. It's not going to dissolve more of anything just because it can dissolve faster if it's already maxed out, simple as that.


4. Yes, the bubbles travel slower, providing more time for dissolution, and with a greater surface area, the ability to be more efficient. And up front, that seems to be all there is too it, like you're trying to tell me. But there is more; More oxygen will not be transferred. So the "amount" part of that equation will remain the same. If this weren't true, the diffusers would have shown a higher DO in your test.

Hypothetical numbers: 50 atoms of oxygen/minute can be dissolved with diffusers. 25 atoms of oxygen/minute can be dissolved with blue stones. Because water can only absorb <25 atoms of oxygen/minute, that benefit is not seen here. I say that less than 25 atoms/minute can be dissolved with water because all I really know is that it IS in fact less than the blue stones can provide. Again, if this weren't true, the diffusers would have shown a higher DO in your test.



6. What it comes down to is that h2o only allows so much oxygen to be dissolved, the rest will be passed over the roots, then onto the surface. You seem to be forgetting that the rate of solution doesn't matter if no (or very little) dissolution is happening, as time is not the limiting factor here but capacity. Because time is not a limiting factor here, neither is the size of the bubbles. Though it could be in other situations, such as waste treatment like you said(I honestly don't know anything about their processes, environment, etc.)

7. If I was wrong, the diffuser's ability to create smaller bubbles and therefore allow for faster dissolution would have resulted in an increase DO. But because the DO wasn't increased, the rate of solution clearly has no effect on how much ends up being dissolved(solubility). It all adds up to this, and I'm not sure why you still insist on arguing the very facts that build the foundation to prove your original write-up CORRECT, and current/changed beliefs to be INCORRECT.


Now, I'll leave this discussion be, as all I can do is provide the info with proof, I can't force anyone to accept it. I think I did a good job of getting enough outside reading and substantiated fact into this thread that people can make their own informed decision. But if you respond to my post to tell me I'm wrong, I'm not going to NOT defend myself. Hence the ongoing argument. Otherwise, Im gonna go on smoking my pitiful harvest and tending to my shitty grows. happy growing:leaf:
 

Gigaah

Member
Good point Leagallyflying. While while bubbler methods appears to me to easily cap out the max DO of the water. The bubbles themselves actually interface with the roots. So that has to be taken into account. I'm now here near an expert.I'm just looking at what I can grasp
 

legallyflying

Well-Known Member
Giggah, that is probably the most important part of the whole deal. I cant think of a way to test that aspect though. After having several cheap stones clog up and areas of huge root balls that were not growing anymore because of no bubble coverage I decided that coverage and ability to remain clog free were the most important. The flexair discs are huge and put out small bubbles but were not working at the psi I was running. So I ended up with the 12" alita airstones
 
So did anyone ever figure out a pump to happily push 4 of the 9 inch disks? Looking to piece together some buckets, and that disk looks perfect.
 
Figured I would follow up my own post. Got one of the retailers of the disc on the line, and to put the disc to its upper limit pump wise, you need to be in the neighborhood of 141 lpm PER DISC. Legallyflying, this would explain why pushing 4 of them with 110 lpm didn't do much. You would need to be around 560-570 lpm to give those things a workout.
 

sawyer

Member
legallyflying,

did you ever do a 'control' measurement where you measured the DO of the water without any airstones? I'm curious to know what the 'control' DO values are compared to the aerated values.

btw I've read some of your other threads. good stuff bro. thanks for all your hard work
 

legallyflying

Well-Known Member
I thought I did a control. Would be weird if I didn't. I switched out my undercurrent system for DWC. The 12" alita stones don't fit in the buckets so I am back to using the 2" round stones. May upgrade all the buckets to alita stones in the future. They are VERY nice and never seem to clog.

In other news, I upgraded to the pond master pumps off eBay (look like alita) an they are fantastic !!!!
 
Top