Backyard Aquaponics
A place to discuss aquaponics

I think this thread is about to get to 100pages

frank, i put to you that a gentle unrestricted flow will NOT airate as well as one that penetrates the waters surface with more vigour......................

The case i put forward (where i stated that i thought it was the speraneos) was the change from a gentle flow to one with a bit more force.

Ask yourself why is it that the smell of chlorine is so much greater from a shower than when running a bath?

Yes, H2O2 is a good disinfectant, but as far as the tips to increase yeild i was elluding to the fact that the "tips" may be no more than FLAWED ideas............any one who wishes to use H2O2 at 3% concentration needs to do the maths on it. say you add 30ml...............you have just added 0.9ml of H2O2...........probably should have used weights here instead of volume............anyway from the .9ml of H2O2 work out the mg of actual oxygen released from the conversion to H2O...........when you get to the figure divide it over the tank volume that you've put it into. and write down the mg/L of additional oxygen that you've added, and then tell me if the addition of H2O2 as an oxygen enhancing method is viable. LOL

Anyway, the aeration pros and cons has been done to death over MANY pages elsewhere her, i'm not going to get involved any further. Anyone whos interested should find that thread and read on.

Just off the top of my head... I'd be willing to bet that 600kg/m3 catfish farm you visited was using direct injeted O2 Frank... probably via airstones....

Here's a pic of a highly stocked system without any O2 addition...

I run air stones 24/7 in my system.
I may not have to..., but, without access to a DO meter, how would I know?
My fish are happy, I'm happy...

A couple of watts of power for piece of mind

+1

and:

with all due respect, Rupert,
that is not very respectful
you come up with examples, but fail to show ANY argumentation (mathematical or practical) that these systems are performing well from any energy efficiency viewpoint.
Aerate they do (I never contested that), but they are inefficient until proven contrarily.
I will give you another -historical- example to ponder about:
as said on other threads, there was a time when people believed the earth to be flat and that you could fall off the end of it
Instead of contesting this with proof, these people insisted on showing examples of "very intelligent" people "above suspicion" who propagated this idea i.e. the pope.
It took several circumnavigations to even shake this belief. It took ages to eradicate it. It might still linger with some.
Surely you don't wish to win a debate on the basis of: "so many good and intelligent people can't be wrong", rather than on mathematical or practical proof?

or do you?

Steve, I have not made any remarks concerning the ability to use H2O2 as an aerator. I have not the necessary knowledge for this. I merely wanted to point out the excellent disinfection performances of H2O2 and the huge dangers of higher concentrations which make it impractical to use (this is the ONLY reason I most reluctantly gave it up as a disinfectant, ALL other arguments being in favor of it, not one other product can beat it).
buying H2O2 in less dangerous concentrations (<20%) stand for huge pricing, stocking, transport and packaging costs: you are buying, stocking and transporting 80% water.
Same must be valid for other purposes: the product in itself is wonderful, the logistics for implementing it are prohibitive.


don't compare apples to pears:
a shower will expose more chlorinated water surface to air surface for a longer time than a faucet, that is obvious
but the pressure has very little if nothing to do with it
let me explain:
a pressureless "shower" will perform better than a pressurized one as for the same or less energy it will expose much more water surface to air surface.

while that is probably true, it WILL consume more energy to do so, it will produce more sound, the restriction of the pump necessary for more pressure will convert more energy into heat, it will be less energy efficient on the whole.


no way, Dufflight, not from me
energy waste is wasted on me, you must know that by now

I don't believe in convincing believers. That doesn't work
while I would like to exchange ideas with the people who dared attack the presumption that the earth was flat, I would not invite them (not even the ones that were beheaded for it) to a barbecue: there are far to many of them. It would ruin me. Still they were proven right in the end.

please confront me with mathematical or practical new facts
to start with: any example that doesn't mention power consumption is utterly worthless
and that is only one part of the equation

friendly greetings

frank

That was easy you hit the nail on the head. And with bubbles this has the same effect of exposing more surface area to the air for a longer time. More o2 into the water. O2 good, suffocating fish bad.

Never set out to argue "efficiencies" Frank... that would take a 100 pages...

But I did challenge... as quoted... and as "invited"... your postulation that...



And showed, by example... that in fact, efficiencies aside.... they are an integral part of any RAS designed system that I've ever seen, read about... or heard about...

And for the very purpose you quoted ....

Aerate they do (I never contested that)[/quote]

Considering that RAS systems don't provide aeration by means of flood and drain growbeds, open trickle filters (usually) .... then I contend that, not only are they not [b]"redundant" in RAS designs... and aquaponics in general.....

But are in fact an integral part of the system design....

Even in commercial systems utilising bio-filters and bead wash filtration systems..... they all inject aeration..... ne'st pas....

And most heavily stocked RAS systems directly inject O2.... without it ... the fish die.....

Efficiencies have been discussed on another thread....

This is a question of realities... for small scale backyard aquaponic systems... and the associated ease and cost of implementing a method to acheive the desired outcome...

thank you duff light, and BTW frank, you DID say that a gentle flow would aerate better (forgive my lack of using the quote function), then you say that what I said was probably true............

Also YOU were the first to bring up pressure...........i said have the water jetting back...........(jet: A jet is a coherent stream of fluid that is projected into a surrounding medium, usually from some kind of a nozzle or aperture.) I dont think that capping the outlet pipe from the sump return and drilling 20 odd 6mm holes will increase the pressure to the pump as much as you're making out. Also, the noise is mostly due to the air mixing, as highlighted by dipping the the same return pipe UNDER the surface of the water with a near total loss of noise.............

Oh, and a final note, i dont believe you asked anyone to prove you wrong in relation to efficiencies, only to show you proof that it is effective............

assumptions, assumptions...

while there was indeed such a backup system, it was only used as backup
you obviously still haven't understood that fish health has all to do with O2 contents and thus doesn't stand or fall with density/m³, but rather with density/m³/hr.
and with quick and efficient solids removal

please take a little more time for reacting like I do

I found the sardines picture quite funny, but totally inadequate as an argument



no it doesn't. Not with air bubbles. And not efficiently.
With water bubbles, yes, but again at the expense of energy: creating small water bubbles like in a shower costs a lot of energy to the disadvantage of water surface. Absolutely unneeded. There are better ways.
been through this before on other threads

please hang on to your beliefs
but you might admit they are beliefs, not facts

facts and figures please, not emotions and assumptions

greetings

frank

I presume you mean droplets when you say water bubbles. Surface area of a droplet of water compared to the same size air bubble. Close enough to being the same size. But your water bubble from a shower hits the floor at a greater speed than an air bubble getting back out of the tank. So more time in the air bubbles favour for the o2.

Now I've got to go, so I'm going to miss most of the fun. But with your views on the people that thought the world was flat. I think if I was there I would of poked them with a stick as I prone to do.

Poke poke.

ya know, i've found just found atleast another 7 aeration thread spanning multiple areas......

There was some interesting info here viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1866

As with many others this thread has has some interesting points brought up by all but has now simply become a to-and-fro quote fest.