# liquid Co2 ?? is this possible, please weight in on this



## That 5hit (Mar 23, 2010)

i ran across this in the thread
https://www.rollitup.org/advanced-marijuana-cultivation/312052-flower-power-pics-36-0n.html
it gat me to thinking 
could the science be there
this guy seems to know what he is talking about, but what do you guys think- ( and yes i know all the other methods of gennerating co2)

sugar yeast (brew)
shroom compost
burning hydrocarbons
pets living in grow room 
tanked Co2
opening a window and sucking in freash air


now this: 





sven deisel said:


> oh yeah and here is the liquid carbon i use the pet store is ur friend
> 
> Flourish Excel is a simple source of readily available organic carbon. All plants require a source of carbon. This is typically obtained from CO2, but, may also be obtained via relatively simple organic compounds (such as photosynthetic intermediates). Since both processes occur simultaneously one can derive a substantial benefit with the use of Flourish Excel either alone or in conjunction with CO2 injection. Flourish Excel also has iron reducing properties which promote the ferrous state of iron (Fe+2), which is more easily utilized by plants than ferric iron (Fe+3). Flourish Excel is recommended for use with the entire family of Flourish products as well as our gravel, Flourite, our GH builder, Equilibrium, and our non-phosphate buffers, Acid Buffer  and Alkaline Buffer.
> 
> ...


----------



## That 5hit (Mar 23, 2010)




----------



## That 5hit (Mar 23, 2010)

https://www.rollitup.org/members/that-5hit-135841.html


----------



## That 5hit (Mar 23, 2010)

https://www.rollitup.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=3946015


----------



## That 5hit (Mar 23, 2010)




----------



## MacGuyver4.2.0 (Mar 23, 2010)

What exactly are you trying to achieve with this? The additive you mentioned (Flourish Excel) is an additive for aquatic plantlife (not cannabis). Cannabis while being tolerant to Hydro, Aeroponic and other DWC growing methods does NOT make it an aquatic plant. The roots of land based plants (cannbis included) take in oxygen through the root system, and Co2 through stomates in the leaves. This liquid Co2 is concentrated and meant to be added to a volume of tank water to supplement aquatic plants. Im not following how this would benefit cannabis. Simply diltuing and spraying it on leaves is not the same as CO2 is meant to be absorbed through gaseous exchange. Please elaborate...


----------



## That 5hit (Mar 23, 2010)

wait a min
this is not my idea 
i only posted it as a question 
herd it, thought it sounded good, but wanted to get some of you brainny scientest grower types to weight in on this and you where the first 
(thanks for that, +rep by the way)

wish i had more info but the quote is all i have
i think ths guy is pouring this in the soil


----------



## MacGuyver4.2.0 (Mar 24, 2010)

Ah... okies. I see another has posted a simliar question,
https://www.rollitup.org/newbie-central/293111-should-i-water-my-plants.html
and I'm afraid this will not yield a positive outcome. Mother nature has designed plants over millions of years and all plants are designed to operate in thier specific evironments and they all do it well. I think we need more botanists, scientists and chemists on this site to give much needed insight as to the wonderful workings of plants.  (+rep back at ya thanks.)


----------



## That 5hit (Mar 24, 2010)

well i spoke with the guy that thought this up
and he said he has had great results
some thing about plant converting carbon from the co2 in to something useable
so if you feed the carbon to the plant via the root system it will use it up like co2 would be used- idk but the way he said it sounded great -
it kind of makes sence to me


----------



## sven deisel (Mar 24, 2010)

well That im glad u take interest in things beond what these stuck in the stonage guys like to keep copy and pasting ove r and over with the same stale info. i learned about this from a thing i seen on growing in the space station. i swear every new idea on this site meets with nothing but bashing it with nothing to back it up but opinion and you mac you shouldnt even be quoting einstien if he was as closed minded as you we would all still be sitting in the dark


----------



## That 5hit (Mar 24, 2010)

sven deisel said:


> well That im glad u take interest in things beond what these stuck in the stonage guys like to keep copy and pasting ove r and over with the same stale info. i learned about this from a thing i seen on growing in the space station. i swear every new idea on this site meets with nothing but bashing it with nothing to back it up but opinion and you mac you shouldnt even be quoting einstien if he was as closed minded as you we would all still be sitting in the dark


i noticed that also 
instead of people trying to test thing and look thing out the shoot at it
if it didn't come out of some old dude book that he wrote 600 years ago (thats in technology years)

imagine how the first guy who thought of growing in his barn under street lights was attacked
"hey that will never gow buds like the sun
you gowing to burn down your house"

i love knew shit keep the grow moving forward we need more guys to take chances and try new things and document them 






we can grow things with out soil
LOL did you here this guy he thinks we can grow things with out soil
thats insane just water and nute, now thats crasy...................................................................fast forward a few hundred years


----------



## sven deisel (Mar 24, 2010)

well im glad to see that someone is still open minded and im not wasting my time. check out the love i was met with on this thread
https://www.rollitup.org/grow-room-design-setup/314722-easy-safe-way-add-extra.html


----------



## That 5hit (Mar 24, 2010)

*Photosynthesis
*is a process that converts carbon dioxide into organic compounds, especially sugars, using the energy from sunlight.

this being true
then is in not possible to help the plant skip this step and give it the converted compounds in the form of liquid co2 via the root system

i think this may just work


----------



## MacGuyver4.2.0 (Mar 24, 2010)

sven deisel said:


> well That im glad u take interest in things beond what these stuck in the stonage guys like to keep copy and pasting ove r and over with the same stale info. i learned about this from a thing i seen on growing in the space station. i swear every new idea on this site meets with nothing but bashing it with nothing to back it up but opinion and you mac you shouldnt even be quoting einstien if he was as closed minded as you we would all still be sitting in the dark


 
No offense, but I did research this 'new' method before posting (as I always do)
Turns out it has been tried YEARS ago before space flight was even possible.

I have some refrences from some published white papers you are free to review if you'd like. What it all boils down to is what I first said: Plants have been growing for millions of years and they developed the way they did for a reason; survival of the species. Turns out that there IS a certain amount of carbon dioxide present in soil already and plants WILL pull up some of this through their root systems. But because O2 (oxygen) is more important to the plant it primarily only pulls O2 and a trace amount of CO2. The 2 studies I will post here also mention that only a neglible difference was noted (if at all) by disolved carbonates fed to the root system. Glad you claim great results, but the REAL scientists who did this years ago say otherwise. Unless you have actaul (current) scientific white papers that state otherwise, I will believe what has been proven already, thanks. 

(FYI-I work with real scientists and engineers all day) unlike most of the people here. 

*The uptake of carbon dioxide by plant roots* 
JournalPlant and SoilPublisherSpringer NetherlandsISSN0032-079X (Print) 1573-5036 (Online)IssueVolume 17, Number 3 / December, 1962DOI10.1007/BF01377673Pages357-364Subject CollectionBiomedical and Life SciencesSpringerLink DateTuesday, April 05, 2005

http://www.springerlink.com/content/x53wu314516711nj/

And this one on WHY aquatic plants need dissolved Co2: (not land based plants)
http://www.aquariumplants.co.za/co2.htm


Also- Keep in mind that by altering the plants intake of one gas over another actaully can negate your yield, as in this gov study that found that elevated Co2 levels dropped nitrogen levels and yield.
http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publications.htm?seq_no_115=216243

And more in simple, laymans terms:
This explains (near the end) the role of the plants Stomates (they help regulate the intake of CO2). By introducing more CO2 via root uptake you are actually overloading the role of the Stomates and the important part of transpiration. 
http://www.biologyreference.com/Ve-Z/Water-Movement-in-Plants.html

In short: Man is NOT smarter than mother nature. Not you, not me, not anyone here. Einstein would agree.

I can post hundreds more examples of why this is not a good idea. If only you can find me some that say and prove it IS.


----------



## That 5hit (Mar 24, 2010)

but the man says 
he see's a noticable differance
when he does what its is that he does


----------



## sven deisel (Mar 24, 2010)

the stuff is not a gas this has nothing to do with the gas form of co2 it is just a form of carbon which is what the plant is using out of the co2. either way try it dont try it idc i have grown great plants with nothing but soil and mg i have grown greta plants in nothing but hydro fish gunk and some peters i have grown great plants with nothing but rain and the great outdoors but i am always looking for something better or new to try. just like this site suckered me to jump on the fox farm wagon there soil cost 3 times as much as mg did i try it yes am i seeing 3x's the results for me money hell no all i see is a prety bag that started a hippy fad and there nutes i have never in my life had anything that ever fukked up my ph so badly and have never in my life had to use ph up b4 ph down yes but never ph up b4. i see alot of 2 things on here 1st being fox farm 2nd being whats wrong with my plants. and a quote from you mac (Turns out it has been tried YEARS ago before space flight was even possible) ill say it again go ahead and stay stuck in the stoneage


----------



## MacGuyver4.2.0 (Mar 24, 2010)

sven deisel said:


> the stuff is not a gas this has nothing to do with the gas form of co2 it is just a form of carbon which is what the plant is using out of the co2. either way try it dont try it idc i have grown great plants with nothing but soil and mg i have grown greta plants in nothing but hydro fish gunk and some peters i have grown great plants with nothing but rain and the great outdoors but i am always looking for something better or new to try. just like this site suckered me to jump on the fox farm wagon there soil cost 3 times as much as mg did i try it yes am i seeing 3x's the results for me money hell no all i see is a prety bag that started a hippy fad and there nutes i have never in my life had anything that ever fukked up my ph so badly and have never in my life had to use ph up b4 ph down yes but never ph up b4. i see alot of 2 things on here 1st being fox farm 2nd being whats wrong with my plants. and a quote from you mac (Turns out it has been tried YEARS ago before space flight was even possible) ill say it again go ahead and stay stuck in the stoneage


 
But Ill quote myself too:
"I can post hundreds more examples of why this is not a good idea. If only you can find me some that say and prove it IS."

So if you really believe in your results post the scientific backing or studies that prove it works, for the rest us of to study and learn from. There were 2 guys who claimed they invented cold fusion quite a few years ago, but they could not provide factual scientific proof to the world.

I'm not saying your results are not good, but the logic behind your results are not backed up by anything other than your post here. I have been in the same boat, so I know how it feels. Im posted a revolutionary method to eradicate spider mites with no chemicals(and it works). Both of my parents are nationaly certified master gardeners, I'll quiz them on liquid carbonates and see what they know.

It would be a GREAT service to the community here if you did have actual scientific backing to your claim, that's all.


----------



## That 5hit (Mar 24, 2010)

sven deisel said:


> the stuff is not a gas this has nothing to do with the gas form of co2 it is just a form of carbon which is what the plant is using out of the co2. either way try it dont try it idc i have grown great plants with nothing but soil and mg i have grown greta plants in nothing but hydro fish gunk and some peters i have grown great plants with nothing but rain and the great outdoors but i am always looking for something better or new to try. just like this site suckered me to jump on the fox farm wagon there soil cost 3 times as much as mg did i try it yes am i seeing 3x's the results for me money hell no all i see is a prety bag that started a hippy fad and there nutes i have never in my life had anything that ever fukked up my ph so badly and have never in my life had to use ph up b4 ph down yes but never ph up b4. i see alot of 2 things on here 1st being fox farm 2nd being whats wrong with my plants. and a quote from you mac (Turns out it has been tried YEARS ago before space flight was even possible) ill say it again go ahead and stay stuck in the stoneage


 man i love the way you type
i'm with you 
trust,
others, even the haters will try it
if they do or dont your happy with it thats all that counts, fuck'em 
you did your part , you've earn you wings 

us horses have been led to the water!


----------



## MacGuyver4.2.0 (Mar 24, 2010)

Never mind...I found the answer for you. NO WONDER your post made no sense. It's NOT Liquid CO2 (which is liquid carbon dioxide)and impossible unless extremely cold and under pressure. *What you are talking about is LIQUID CARBON... which is not EVEN close to the same thing as liquid CO2.* A Google search turns up lots of hits for liquid carbon...but NONE for liquid carbon dioxide being used for plants.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=liquid+carbon+plant+root&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

I guess it helps to know the difference when a question is posted. I really thought you meant what the post stated.. liquid Co2.


----------



## That 5hit (Mar 24, 2010)

look 
thats my fault
but in my defence
i under stood it to be a replacement for co2 inrichment
but i could be wrong .....idk


----------



## MacGuyver4.2.0 (Mar 24, 2010)

That5hit- No worries. 
Nobody was 'bashing' anyone, (I wasn't anyways). I simply knew that it did not make sense. I called my parents up and they knew exactly what it was. So yes, LIQUID CARBON will def help. LIQUID CARBON DIOXIDE will not. Thanks for posting this to start with it has been a good learning experience for everyone here that reads it. 

(I cannot rep you again, doh!)


----------



## BoomerBloomer57 (Mar 24, 2010)

sven deisel said:


> well That im glad u take interest in things beond what these stuck in the stonage guys like to keep copy and pasting ove r and over with the same stale info. i learned about this from a thing i seen on growing in the space station. i swear every new idea on this site meets with nothing but bashing it with nothing to back it up but opinion and you mac you shouldnt even be quoting *einstien if he was as closed minded as you we would all still be sitting in the dark*


i thought tommy edison invented the lightbulb?

back to school for bb


----------



## sven deisel (Mar 25, 2010)

loll i think ur right bb i was to busy smacking my head off the desk being like its not co2


----------



## That 5hit (Mar 25, 2010)

*Let there be light*

Today the light bulb is one of the most common illuminating devices around but this simple luxury was designed less than 200 years ago. Similar to any other great invention, like the invention of the internet, many scientists contributed to the invention of the light bulb, including the famous Thomas Edison. A glimpse into the 1800s provides details on just how the light bulb became what it is today. 

*Converting Electricity to Light* Before the light bulb was invented, people had to rely on candles and torches during the evening hours. Oil lamps were also used, however they left a messy residue of soot on anything close to them. 

Starting in the early 1800s, inventors looked for ways to convert electricity into light. Sir Humphry Davy, an English physician, successfully passed an electric current through platinum strips in 1801. Unfortunately, the strips evaporated quickly and Davy was unable to create a light that lasted more than a few minutes. 

In 1809 Davy created what would become known as the Arc lamp. He made an electrical connection between two charcoal rods connected to a battery. The light from this was very bright but small. 

For the next 50 years, others sought ways to lengthen the amount of time the light source would remain. In 1840 Warren de la Rue, a British scientist, placed a platinum coil in a vaccum tube. When he passed an electric current through it, light was formed. This design was efficient and the light lasted longer, but platinum was very expensive which made it impossible to be distributed on a commercial level. 

In 1841 Frederick de Moleyns of England was given the first patent for an incandescent lamp. His design used powdered charcoal. He heated this material between two platinum wires in a vacuum bulb. 


*Joseph Wilson Swan* Joseph Wilson Swan was born in 1828 in England. He worked as a physicist and chemist. Swan wanted to produce a practical, long-lasting light source. He used a carbon paper filament in his light bulbs. In 1878 he received a British patent for his light bulb. Swan began placing light bulbs in homes throughout England. By the early 1880s he had started his own light bulb company. 

*Thomas Edison* While Swan worked in England, Thomas Edison was busy in the United States. He experimented with thousands of different filaments. His goal was to find materials that would light well and last for a long time. He brought in various metals and supplies from all over the world. 

Then in October of 1879, Edison had a breakthrough. He carbonized a piece of sewing thread. Using this as a filament, he was able to produce a light bulb that burned for thirteen and a half hours. By bending the filament, he could make the lamp burn for over 100 hours. Eventually Edison invented a bulb that could glow for more than 1200 hours. He received a patent in 1880 for his light bulb. It had the same features of today's modern light bulbs: an incandescent filament in a glass bulb with a screw base. 

*The Real Inventor of the Light Bulb* When the question is asked, who invented the light bulb, Joseph Swan and Thomas Edison are usually given credit. However, both of these men worked off of previous inventions. Historians estimate that over twenty inventors worked toward the creation and design of the light bulb. Of these, Edison's version was the most efficient. 

When studying who invented the light bulb, it is appropriate to credit numerous inventors that lived during the 1800s. Even after Swan and Edison, others continued to improve the light source. The light bulb, as we know it today, is a result of much time and effort. Remember that the next time you flip on the switch!


----------



## sven deisel (Mar 26, 2010)

damn this thing came to a halt as soon as someone agreed


----------



## That 5hit (Mar 26, 2010)

yeah would have love to here more facts on the topic
and what others thought


----------



## sven deisel (Mar 27, 2010)

i doubt your going to get alot of thought out of this site i c alot of followers and few leaders just a bunch of copy and pasters


----------

