Okay I guess its pretty much decided that flow will be acceptable to oxygenate my tank. If I have my tank with a CO2 dissolver keeping the bubbles in a plastic tube facing down being chopped up with a powerhead repeatedly so it never reaches the surface and I take away my night shift airstones, (they turn on when lights go out to make sure no CO2 buildup over night). Will a second powerhead aimed at the surface knock the CO2 out of the water? Actually I am going to do an experimental DIY design to prevent my AquaClear110 filter from pushing micro bubbles deep into the tank. Planning on splitting a PVC pipe in half, slightly tilted towards an elbow into a complete tube sealed with small holes drilled to make force the water length ways of the tank, acting like a powerhead pointed at the surface. Only problem I see so far would be the fact the filter puts out so much water that im not sure if it can move it through the pipe fast enough and not go over the ridge lines... Maybe I can build a rectangle box deep enough to receive out of this left over thin acrylic I have here.
Do air stones REALLY provide oxygen to the tank?
- Thread starter unseenone00
- Start date
No offense, but referencing about is laughable, why not just use wiki?
Using bubbles to create flow back in the day is very different than people accepting that bubbles themselves actively aerate.
It is not a matter of opinion, I saw the 220 with just the FX5 running and just the air stones running. With just the FX5 some water moved from the corner that the output was in along the front of the tank. With just the air stones the entire water column was moving. You could see it in every corner, front to back, end to end. Keep in mind this is not a tiny air pump, it was a big pond air pump that ran the whole 2,000 gallon freshwater room. Definitely A LOT more flow than the FX5 was creating.
Using bubbles to create flow back in the day is very different than people accepting that bubbles themselves actively aerate.
It is not a matter of opinion, I saw the 220 with just the FX5 running and just the air stones running. With just the FX5 some water moved from the corner that the output was in along the front of the tank. With just the air stones the entire water column was moving. You could see it in every corner, front to back, end to end. Keep in mind this is not a tiny air pump, it was a big pond air pump that ran the whole 2,000 gallon freshwater room. Definitely A LOT more flow than the FX5 was creating.
The only tank I use one in is my tank in the bedroom because I can't stand the splishy splashy noise the hob makes so that tank is filled to the brim. I added an airstone just to make sure the surface is agitated enough. But normally a hob will do the job.
Really the point of me creating the top was to know if I should make something to catch the HoB outflow to stop these micro bubbles from being pushed all over the tank... doesnt look great... So Im turning the outflow into a concentrated water pump from a PVC to disrupt right under the surface allowing O2 for the fish. Thus making making aeration and no more tiny bubbles that ruin the view! ... also some redirecting current.
Regardless of how you feel about sites like about.com and Wikipedia, the information presented in that pro and con list was consistent with what I was trying to express...I could have said it myself in my own words, or linked to it. I decided to link to it. It's not the sort of content that needs peer reviewed accuracy, it's simply a bulleted list of cut and dried facts that it would be hard to find argument with.
In that case, I'm sure you're right, and I retract what I said...however most people are using air pumps rated for their sized tank, for example a Fusion 500 on a 55 gallon tank, or a Whisper 100 for a 75 gallon tank. For most people, two airstones won't do much. Depending on what the OP is using for an air pump (and chances are it is going to be a "tiny" air pump, as you say) much more flow will be had from a circulation pump/powerhead such as a Koralia.
But it arguably won't aerate as well.
And yes, the site you base information on should be reliable. In order to accept their 'facts' as factual they need to be from a more reliable source.
The point is that a good strong air pump can create a better, whole water column movement than many pumps. In freshwater, yes, I would rather have a strong air pump than a powerhead.
And yes, the site you base information on should be reliable. In order to accept their 'facts' as factual they need to be from a more reliable source.
The point is that a good strong air pump can create a better, whole water column movement than many pumps. In freshwater, yes, I would rather have a strong air pump than a powerhead.
I'm sorry, but it's difficult to find a scientific journal on the positive and negative aspects of airstones. When you find one, please let me know.
If I had linked to a thread within this forum, or another forum, I don't think you would have had a problem with it. All 10 of the downsides that were listed in that article were things I agreed with, which is why I posted it. As you said yourself, airstones have fallen out of favor in the hobby, and this list explains quite succinctly why:
The strongest air pump I have ever run is a TetraTec Deepwater 150, it cost about $40 new. While it had an impressive amount of flow, for $40 I could buy a Koralia 3 850 gph circulation pump. Considering the noise of the air pump, the mess of the spray, the hassle of replacing airstones and brittle airline tubing, and having to hide the tubing and pump...you can see why most people are happier to use a powerhead when all they are looking for is increased O2 and circulation. A single naked airstone works great for an emergency circumstance (power outage, extra aeration for ich heat treatment, etc.) but as far as a long lasting solution, it's not what most people want nowadays...and it shows, as airstones and air pumps get moved out of the prime shelf space in stores, where they previously dominated.
Nevertheless, air pumps are very useful for powering air powered filtration, tremendously so for breeders and keepers of multiple aquariums. I would never want to be without an air pump, and I have several in use as well as a couple put away.
If I had linked to a thread within this forum, or another forum, I don't think you would have had a problem with it. All 10 of the downsides that were listed in that article were things I agreed with, which is why I posted it. As you said yourself, airstones have fallen out of favor in the hobby, and this list explains quite succinctly why:
- They are not as efficient as powerheads, water pumps, and/or protein skimmers are at creating water movement in an aquarium. All of these are much better at helping with oxygen and other gas exchanges at the water's surface.
- They do not move water fast enough or in adequate volume for what a tank usually needs for good all round, vertical and horizontal, water circulation. This situation can also contribute to a low or insufficient GPH (gallon per hour) tank water turnover time.
- They create a lot of salt spray, that in turn contributes to salt creep problems.
- They clog up.
- They wear out quickly, and usually need replacing often.
- They can give off irregular air flow.
- Air line hoses can get pinched or kinked, which weakens or cuts off the air flow.
- Many times the air pump chosen to run air stones is inadequate, resulting in low air flow pressure.
- Some air flow pressure is lost the longer the distance the air has to travel through the clear tubing from the air pump to the air stones.
- The deeper the tank water, the farther the air has to be pushed downhill to reach the air stones, resulting in loss of air flow pressure.
The strongest air pump I have ever run is a TetraTec Deepwater 150, it cost about $40 new. While it had an impressive amount of flow, for $40 I could buy a Koralia 3 850 gph circulation pump. Considering the noise of the air pump, the mess of the spray, the hassle of replacing airstones and brittle airline tubing, and having to hide the tubing and pump...you can see why most people are happier to use a powerhead when all they are looking for is increased O2 and circulation. A single naked airstone works great for an emergency circumstance (power outage, extra aeration for ich heat treatment, etc.) but as far as a long lasting solution, it's not what most people want nowadays...and it shows, as airstones and air pumps get moved out of the prime shelf space in stores, where they previously dominated.
Nevertheless, air pumps are very useful for powering air powered filtration, tremendously so for breeders and keepers of multiple aquariums. I would never want to be without an air pump, and I have several in use as well as a couple put away.
Last edited:
It is hard to find a scientific journal for anything in this hobby. Most studies are based on commercial fish farms at best, usually not applicable at all to the hobby. So if you are waiting for true scientific facts to change your mind on anything you will likely never change anything.
I would definitely be questioning those jokes called 'facts' no matter where they came from for the following reasons:
-'They are not as effective as powerheads': only if you buy a weak air pump.
-'Don't move enough water': See line above.
-'They create a lot of salt spray'. They only create salt spray if used in a saltwater tank, which is not what I am recommending at all.
-'They clog up'. Who cares. Air stones can run for months to well over a year without being replaced and cost $0.50-1 each to replace. If you can't handle that get out of the hobby now.
-'They wear out quickly and need replacing'. Not at all. Air pumps can run years with absolutely no maintenance or replacement of anything. You will more likely be replacing a powerhead's impeller (or the whole thing) before you need to touch an air pump.
-'They can give off irregular air flow'. No, not at all. The air pump provides a nice, steady stream of air.
-'Air line hoses can get pinched or kinked'. So don't pinch or kink them.
-'Many times the air pump chosen is inadequate' See response to first 'fact'. How many times can they reword this point?
-'Some air flow pressure is lost...', Yet again, see response to first item.
-'The deeper the tank...', YET AGAIN, see response to first item.
Like I said, get a large enough air pump and all those problems go away. That is EXACTLY like saying that powerheads are not good enough because if you don't get one that is large enough it won't work. We are not talking about super mega air pumps. I have two Azoo 9500s on my 75 (they run about $20 or so on drsfostersmith) and they definitely create a lot of flow and aeration in my 75, exceeding what the two Fluval 405s are doing in that tank). It is a different kind of flow. Powerheads move a lot of water quickly through one particular section of the tank. The kind of flow created by air stones is not quite as strong, but reaches further, getting the entire water column moving.
Every freshwater tank should have a strong air pump on it. They can save the entire stock one day if the filter ever stops (which definitely happens). They are cheap, effective, increase aeration and flow, and many fish enjoy them. How evil.
I would definitely be questioning those jokes called 'facts' no matter where they came from for the following reasons:
-'They are not as effective as powerheads': only if you buy a weak air pump.
-'Don't move enough water': See line above.
-'They create a lot of salt spray'. They only create salt spray if used in a saltwater tank, which is not what I am recommending at all.
-'They clog up'. Who cares. Air stones can run for months to well over a year without being replaced and cost $0.50-1 each to replace. If you can't handle that get out of the hobby now.
-'They wear out quickly and need replacing'. Not at all. Air pumps can run years with absolutely no maintenance or replacement of anything. You will more likely be replacing a powerhead's impeller (or the whole thing) before you need to touch an air pump.
-'They can give off irregular air flow'. No, not at all. The air pump provides a nice, steady stream of air.
-'Air line hoses can get pinched or kinked'. So don't pinch or kink them.
-'Many times the air pump chosen is inadequate' See response to first 'fact'. How many times can they reword this point?
-'Some air flow pressure is lost...', Yet again, see response to first item.
-'The deeper the tank...', YET AGAIN, see response to first item.
Like I said, get a large enough air pump and all those problems go away. That is EXACTLY like saying that powerheads are not good enough because if you don't get one that is large enough it won't work. We are not talking about super mega air pumps. I have two Azoo 9500s on my 75 (they run about $20 or so on drsfostersmith) and they definitely create a lot of flow and aeration in my 75, exceeding what the two Fluval 405s are doing in that tank). It is a different kind of flow. Powerheads move a lot of water quickly through one particular section of the tank. The kind of flow created by air stones is not quite as strong, but reaches further, getting the entire water column moving.
Every freshwater tank should have a strong air pump on it. They can save the entire stock one day if the filter ever stops (which definitely happens). They are cheap, effective, increase aeration and flow, and many fish enjoy them. How evil.
Getting back to the OP, the answer to your question is yes. Air stones do provide oxygen to the tank.
Would I run one without a filter? No. Would I run a filter without an air stone? Not in fresh water. Many fish enjoy swimming through the bubbles. The curtain of bubbles rising up the back wall of the tank is kind of cool.
Our dojo's are constantly swimming down through the bubbles provided by the air stone. This provides another characteristic to enjoy while watching the fish.
Would I run one without a filter? No. Would I run a filter without an air stone? Not in fresh water. Many fish enjoy swimming through the bubbles. The curtain of bubbles rising up the back wall of the tank is kind of cool.
Our dojo's are constantly swimming down through the bubbles provided by the air stone. This provides another characteristic to enjoy while watching the fish.
For what it's worth, a study was done (I wish I could find the link to it again) that compared Wikipedia to Encyclopedia Brittanica. In that study, Wiki was more accurate and comprehensive than Brittanica. I don't remember what issue of Brittanica was being used for the comparison, but wiki, and potentially about, could easily be more accurate than you give it credit for.
