Carbon dosing - method testing started

Wow. This keeps getting better and better. Some of you should work for the gov't...if we could analyze the national budget as well as you did light and algae, we'd all be better off...

 

Great contribution m2434. I would like to see a repeat test in the near future to compare.
Would there be any difference with the light penetration based on where the tanks are located (middle or the ends of the T5)? Along this thread, that issue was mentioned several times and I'm not sure if the positioning would affect the results.

 

Good point, I'll let Steve addresss the data collection, as he was there. This was discussed though and I know we decided that for the second set at least, to take the the images at night, with no ambient light. I'm not sure how much of an issue it may have been in the first set.


Also, just to add, one other source of ambiguity, would be the source of opaqueness. If there were particles that reflected blue, vs particles that reflected red, theoretically, the red could have better light penetration, but look more red. Most of the sources of in our aquarium should enhance the red though. One exception may be phytoplankton, which could disproportionally increase green. However, this should show up in the green to red ratios. I didn't present that here, but did look at this and the ratios were very consistent within datasets, indicating most likely just typical scattering and probably not selective reflection.

 

Interesting study m2434
and I thank you for the effort you put in to collating this for me
I will certainly be keen to repeat the images in a few weeks to see if maybe only cleaning the blue painted panel along with front panel helps

Thanks DRM

Thank you Magnus
we will be repeating this with the methods swapped around in order to eliminate light as a reason for 1 being more effective than others etc

Thanks again Matt

yes the images where taken early Sunday am, without room lights on and with curtains pulled tight (They have remained that way in fact since test started, again, to eliminate the effects of the sun on one tank more than others

in terms of there being a difference in light between the 2 middle tanks and the tanks on each end ( ends of tubes factor)
we will soon be in a position to know exactly how much difference this puts out in terms of Lumens

arrived today without batteries ( typical yeah!) tomorrow Ill battery it up
and do some tests in different areas underneath the lamps (not in the water)

 

Lux meter used today after 6 hours illumination

results

unit held on the top edge of tank - canopy puts lamps 4 inches away from meter
right edge of tank 1 - left edge of tank 2 = 11420 Lux
right edge of tank 2 - left edge tank 4 - 11380 Lux
right edge tank 3 - left edge tank 4 = 11410 Lux

extreme left edge tank 1 = 5000 Lux
extreme right edge tank 4 = 5200 Lux

moved sensor inwards in both cases until a reading of 11000 plus Lux was recorded

this did not occur until approximately 1/3rd into the tank (4 inches from outside tank edge reveals similar lux reading to inside edges on the other tanks)

basically tanks 2 and 3 have a average over surface of 11000 plus Lux

Tanks 1 and 2 have
8 inches at 11000 plus lux - with a steady increase over 1st 4 inches between 5000 and 11000 Lux


mathematically I believe a good way of analyzing would be as follows

tanks 2 and 3 have 11000 lux over every inch of tube space - thus 11000 x 12 = 132000

tanks 1 and 4 have 11000 lux over 8 inches - 88,000 + 5000 + 6500+ 8000+9500 = 110500

or tanks 1 and 4 have approx 83% of the light that tanks 2 and 3 have

Steve

 

update

taken a bit longer in the absence of CUC, but that rock has cleared up inside 2 weeks, with no manual intervention on my part
http://www.photoshop.com/users/spwace/assets/85faf9f427f3407f823f105f0789483a

snails have helped in the Bio Fuel set up, but I believe that its the pellets and resulting lack of nutrients in the pellet run tank, that has been the major reason for algae decline in that set up
http://www.photoshop.com/users/spwace/assets/ba16933bd95b4a61960a75b7efd975d2

 

Maybe it was stated before and I didn't see it, but can you tell me what is the volume of pellets you are running in the pellet setup and percentage/ ratio to tank volume? Also, what is the reactor set up and flow rate through the pellets like? You seem to be getting some really good results with this set up!! Thanks again for sharing all of this!

 

Thank you Will
There is a post earlier with a short video in it, cant get access to it at present
but I am using 100 mils of pellets in a 13 gallon aquarium
a lower ratio seemed hardly any pellets in the reactor I got
flow rate is about 180 gallons per hour
I have a light tumble on the top 1cm of pellets


Steve

 

Steve,

Another question/thought out loud...

On carbon dosing - it is widely known that nitrate and phosphate are not consumed by the bacteria on a 1:1 ratio. Therefore, many people also choose to run GFO in parallel to consume whatever phosphates are left behind. Your setup is unique in that there is only one variable per tank, and no GFO has been used with the tested carbon dosing techniques.

Is it possible that the biopellets do reduce phosphate further than vodka? Have you or are you able to test PO4 with a hanna meter?

If the above is true with regards to nitrate/phosphate consumtion ratio, then there should be a lingering PO4 level in both tanks?

Another thought is that the constant carbon source available by running biopellets 24/7, as opposed to introducing carbon once or twice daily (vodka), would make a difference?

 

Thanks for the info... I am running biopellets and have yet to see my algae recede like this... of course, my daily input of phosphates may be much greater than yours with my feeding regimen. I may have to cut back on feeding at some point (though was hoping to avoid this).