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]). | |
| |
| |