a ppk for a 6 plant limit

[catman]

If the "PPK" works and DWC works. DrFever's hybrid might work too.

Miraculous_Meds makes a great point in relation to the many theories of operations of this device.

Flood and drain tables displace gases and remove PWT, but of course they don't have a two way street. DrFever's idea hooks it up to speak. Some of you might say what's he's trying to do is excessively complicated, but we should all try to be a little more honest with ourselves!

 

[Snook]

If the "PPK" works and DWC works. DrFever's hybrid might work too.

Flood and drain tables displace gases and remove PWT, but of course they don't have a two way street. DrFever's idea hooks it up to speak. Some of you might say what's he's trying to do is excessively complicated, but we should all try to be a little more honest with ourselves!

flood and drain method relies on the O2 being in the solution that is doing the flooding. the pots typically used in E&F are too small to retain enough ambient O2 in the media from the flood cycle to make the girls happy for too long. the PPKs bigger size retains much more O2 between 'floods'.

I do not think that E&F addresses PWT, it remains in place without some kind of .??..wick to remove it.

not saying soma dis and soma dat wont work.

 

[fishinnutt]

Here is a few pics of my evolving ppk setup. I have four sites out of nine hooked up for this first run (just hedging my bets this run to see how I do) The 2" pipe makes a full rectangle circuit around a 3 light footprint and then pokes through the wall in another room for a 3 resevoir setup. I use Jacks Hydro along with Calcnit at a strength of 666ppm. Ph is stable as can be and plants are loving the Colorado oxygen.....




Casey Jones fem cross by OJD.....loving the PPK way

 

[delta9nxs]

Here is a few pics of my evolving ppk setup. I have four sites out of nine hooked up for this first run (just hedging my bets this run to see how I do) The 2" pipe makes a full rectangle circuit around a 3 light footprint and then pokes through the wall in another room for a 3 resevoir setup. I use Jacks Hydro along with Calcnit at a strength of 666ppm. Ph is stable as can be and plants are loving the Colorado oxygen.....


[URL=https://www.icmag.com/ic/picture.php?albumid=57770&pictureid=1350244&thumb=1]View Image[/url] [URL=https://www.icmag.com/ic/picture.php?albumid=57770&pictureid=1350239&thumb=1]View Image[/url] [URL=https://www.icmag.com/ic/picture.php?albumid=57770&pictureid=1350246&thumb=1]View Image[/url] [URL=https://www.icmag.com/ic/picture.php?albumid=57770&pictureid=1350247&thumb=1]View Image[/url]

Casey Jones fem cross by OJD.....loving the PPK way

[URL=https://www.icmag.com/ic/picture.php?albumid=57770&pictureid=1350241&thumb=1]View Image[/url]

nice job! let's see if i have this right. you built and operated it almost exactly like i do. and you got beautiful, healthy plants! what a surprise!

 

[delta9nxs]

really, i encourage experimentation. but you should, at least, have completed a successful grow in the device before you start modifying it.

and have a thorough theoretical understanding.

this theoretical understanding is not necessary to build and operate it. just follow directions and you will be fine.

it's similar to driving a car. you don't have to be a master mechanic to drive one.

just turn the key and away you go!

but if you want to "improve", "redesign", or "reinvent" it you really should have a solid background with the device.

just my opinion.

 

[delta9nxs]

also, i have read dr fevers posts on this subject and nowhere do i see that he has announced an intention to make a "hybrid" device by combining a ppk with an undercurrent.

my understanding is that he intends to build both devices and compare them. this i encourage and i personally would like to see him do this with pictures and weights.

using the same strain and lighting, in the same room with the same environment, etc.

 

[delta9nxs]

but, since we are on the subject of hybridizing the ppk with an undercurrent or any other fast moving hydro system i will try to explain why i think it will not be worth the effort.

ambient air holds 23,300 times the free o2 molecules than the same volume of water at normal atmospheric partial pressures.

in addition, the vast majority of the roots are not in continuous contact with the solution.

so, lets assume that you can drive the dissolved o2 up over the normal saturation of about 9-10 parts per million to say, about 25-27 ppm, which is possible, albeit very temporarily, with devices such as a Speece cone or a u-tube.

let's be very generous and say that 27 ppm is possible with a lot of engineering and some heavy duty equipment.

the ratio becomes 23300 to 3. and i submit to you that most folks will not be able to achieve 27 ppm because of equipment limitations.

so chasing o2 in water seems to me to be very limiting. especially when the roots are not sitting in it.

editing to include this working model of a Speece cone. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6thCFEWWSrw

large ones, 30 feet and even larger, are used in the treatment of waste water.

this supersaturated condition will exist only momentarily as the instant the injection ceases it will revert to it's pre-charged state.

if this exchange occurs in a medium with a huge air filled porosity the ratio is immediately diluted.

it could certainly help in conventional fast water hydro.

 

[delta9nxs]

the atmosphere at sea level is approx 20.9 % oxygen.

i think that injecting oxygen enriched air into the medium will grow a better plant.

there are several approaches to this.

one is to inject pure o2 into the medium to the desired %.

but if you exhaust this gas into a sealed room it will create a problem in that it will change the co2/o2 ratio. very important in a sealed room.

so the exhaust gas needs to be trapped and pumped out of the room. hard to do.

the easier way would be to use an oxygen concentrator that concentrates the room o2 in a sealed chamber before delivery to the medium.

the "plunger/piston" stroke could provide the energy needed to intake and exhaust.

there would have to be an "air" tube added and a top over the medium with flapper valves installed at the appropriate points.

this is far more likely to reap rewards than water delivery.

 

[DunHav`nFun]

Well actually.....Dr F did make reference to hybridizing said PPK with O2 infusion in the main Rez , injection into the medium , and finally down in the bottom container where the tailpiece and air gap reside , so guess yas missed it D9......now....

What DF`s missing or rather choosing to ignore from lack of understanding and experience is that , the majority of the rootmass are "air roots" and ABOVE the leftover solution in the bottom containers , thus the unneeded increased O2 ppm`s in the nutrient solution regardless of where it sits in suspension from bottom containers all the way back to rez.....IOW...again....

The plants rootmass aren`t growing in water/juice/solution and have no need for O2 supplementation for survival underwater like RDWC(recirculating death without cause) setups depend on .....

Even my DIY ebb and flow buckets I ran for yrs and yrs NEVER had a chance of rootrot due to the fact the main rootmasses resided ABOVE the solution in the bottom containers EXACTLY like PPK`s , so even though I kept millions of microscopic bubbles suspended in solution using "thru-hull" bait aerators in all my 325 gal rez`s to help keep solution stirred AND be blasted into my bottom containers during feed cycles , I doubt the increased ppm`s in solution had any bearing on yield compared to the push from the feed pumps that blasted feed AND O2 into , up , and out of each container 3 times a day to get rid of stagnant air , then drain pumps kicked on and sucked solution back to rez at lightspeed with as much O2 as possible back into the rootzone FTW....and again....

No O2 injection needed for explosive rootgrowth or upper foliage development IME with 5 locations and 10 rooms of them puppies pumpin out 2 1/2 oz mini-xmas trees every run .....that said.....

I think the huge difference between PPK`s and what I could attempt with ebb and flow buckets , would be the wide and shallow upper containers the PPK utilizes to provide more lateral feeder roots with the only contact below with the residual solution is down the tailpiece compared to my upper containers being drilled out on the bottoms and mats of "water roots"filled the "air gaps" between upper and lower containers and actually sat in lil over an inch of juice 24/7 , but was exchanged and re-oxybenated every 4r hrs during lights on......that said......

I can`t see me growin plants as big as a PPK can with even my old 5 gal bucket-in-bucket ebb and flow`ers due to those limiting factors where the bottom containers filled with rootmass by end of stretch , so that`s why my headies plant will be in a PPK that I`ve already got in the works while I play at the beach and wait for Thanksgiving when we go home next week to the farm.....Thanks again D9 , and as Disciple said it earlier....

This shit`s so easy , even Fred`s understands it.........now....

Back to our regularly scheduled program , and DR F....Start a thread with questions about what "you`re" gonna do so this one don`t get clogged with expanding ideas and ways to create a new mousetrap when D9`s already gone and done...

Peace....DHF........

 

[catman]

flood and drain method relies on the O2 being in the solution that is doing the flooding. the pots typically used in E&F are too small to retain enough ambient O2 in the media from the flood cycle to make the girls happy for too long. the PPKs bigger size retains much more O2 between 'floods'.

I do not think that E&F addresses PWT, it remains in place without some kind of .??..wick to remove it.

not saying soma dis and soma dat wont work.

This all depends on the medium. When I say flood and drain, I automatically assume the system is ran with hydroton, but I understand I didn't express this. It doesn't have a PWT once it is drained. Flood and drain can be done in any sized containers, but I do think you make a great point that the PPK design is better for larger plants or at least larger root mass.

Lately I've been starting plants with turface in a flood and drain system, and then they get transplanted to hydroton. When the plants get even larger I may consider putting them back in a more PPK environment. I've been loving how mobile I can be with netpots and have been very surprised what a small amount of medium can do above ground.

but if you want to "improve", "redesign", or "reinvent" it you really should have a solid background with the device.

just my opinion.

I agree. I learned a lot by "reverting" to hand watered turface. It's not all that complicated though. Being able to tell when your plants have too much moisture in the root zone, just enough, and when they are thriving is key. I personally aim to see new leaf wet...then I know I'm treating the roots well.

 

[delta9nxs]

Well actually.....Dr F did make reference to hybridizing said PPK with O2 infusion in the main Rez , injection into the medium , and finally down in the bottom container where the tailpiece and air gap reside , so guess yas missed it D9......now....

What DF`s missing or rather choosing to ignore from lack of understanding and experience is that , the majority of the rootmass are "air roots" and ABOVE the leftover solution in the bottom containers , thus the unneeded increased O2 ppm`s in the nutrient solution regardless of where it sits in suspension from bottom containers all the way back to rez.....IOW...again....

The plants rootmass aren`t growing in water/juice/solution and have no need for O2 supplementation for survival underwater like RDWC(recirculating death without cause) setups depend on .....

Even my DIY ebb and flow buckets I ran for yrs and yrs NEVER had a chance of rootrot due to the fact the main rootmasses resided ABOVE the solution in the bottom containers EXACTLY like PPK`s , so even though I kept millions of microscopic bubbles suspended in solution using "thru-hull" bait aerators in all my 325 gal rez`s to help keep solution stirred AND be blasted into my bottom containers during feed cycles , I doubt the increased ppm`s in solution had any bearing on yield compared to the push from the feed pumps that blasted feed AND O2 into , up , and out of each container 3 times a day to get rid of stagnant air , then drain pumps kicked on and sucked solution back to rez at lightspeed with as much O2 as possible back into the rootzone FTW....and again....

No O2 injection needed for explosive rootgrowth or upper foliage development IME with 5 locations and 10 rooms of them puppies pumpin out 2 1/2 oz mini-xmas trees every run .....that said.....

I think the huge difference between PPK`s and what I could attempt with ebb and flow buckets , would be the wide and shallow upper containers the PPK utilizes to provide more lateral feeder roots with the only contact below with the residual solution is down the tailpiece compared to my upper containers being drilled out on the bottoms and mats of "water roots"filled the "air gaps" between upper and lower containers and actually sat in lil over an inch of juice 24/7 , but was exchanged and re-oxybenated every 4r hrs during lights on......that said......

I can`t see me growin plants as big as a PPK can with even my old 5 gal bucket-in-bucket ebb and flow`ers due to those limiting factors where the bottom containers filled with rootmass by end of stretch , so that`s why my headies plant will be in a PPK that I`ve already got in the works while I play at the beach and wait for Thanksgiving when we go home next week to the farm.....Thanks again D9 , and as Disciple said it earlier....

This shit`s so easy , even Fred`s understands it.........now....

Back to our regularly scheduled program , and DR F....Start a thread with questions about what "you`re" gonna do so this one don`t get clogged with expanding ideas and ways to create a new mousetrap when D9`s already gone and done...

Peace....DHF........

hey, fred! yup, i missed it, but the same advice still applies.

thanks for your help!

 

[delta9nxs]

This all depends on the medium. When I say flood and drain, I automatically assume the system is ran with hydroton, but I understand I didn't express this. It doesn't have a PWT once it is drained. Flood and drain can be done in any sized containers, but I do think you make a great point that the PPK design is better for larger plants or at least larger root mass.

Lately I've been starting plants with turface in a flood and drain system, and then they get transplanted to hydroton. When the plants get even larger I may consider putting them back in a more PPK environment. I've been loving how mobile I can be with netpots and have been very surprised what a small amount of medium can do above ground.



I agree. I learned a lot by "reverting" to hand watered turface. It's not all that complicated though. Being able to tell when your plants have too much moisture in the root zone, just enough, and when they are thriving is key. I personally aim to see new leaf wet...then I know I'm treating the roots well.

i just want to add that the reason hydroton does not support a pwt is that the air void spaces are too large.

it is also the reason you are screwed when the power is interrupted.

 

[catman]

Uninterruptible power supplies can be easily had for $100 or less today. Ones powerful enough to support water pumps without fail.

I personally flood every 2 hours up to the top inch of the medium and while I was last away for an extended vacation the plants (outdoors in a very sunny northern climate to boot) survived 4 days without power because of my caretakers negligence.

I will always trust what I see..from myself and others...and I know that the "PPK" has it's purpose. For me... it's for smaller plants and for the monsters... Flood and drain tables with hydroton in the middle best help me select which ones best deserve pampering and extended lives.

 

[delta9nxs]

you're still screwed when the power is interrupted!

 

[delta9nxs]

well, after going over the last few pages of this thread i'm going to ask people to focus on ppk stuff as opposed to ppk vs whatever smackdown stuff.

this thread was intended to inform folks about the newer build techniques and materials and to help new people understand the ppk.

all this other stuff is distracting and possibly confusing to new people.

i personally don't want to talk about the relative merits of various systems. i just don't have time for it.

so please! pretty please with sugar on it!

thank you in advance for your cooperation!

d9

 

[twist1uc]

well, after going over the last few pages of this thread i'm going to ask people to focus on ppk stuff as opposed to ppk vs whatever smackdown stuff.

this thread was intended to inform folks about the newer build techniques and materials and to help new people understand the ppk.

all this other stuff is distracting and possibly confusing to new people.

i personally don't want to talk about the relative merits of various systems. i just don't have time for it.

so please! pretty please with sugar on it!

thank you in advance for your cooperation!

d9

Yes indeed! Although the system seems to run rather easily (once it's made)... understanding the concept and build out is a little confusing.

 

[Grow4Flow]

D9,
Is 1g Jacks-.67 Calnit/gallon in RO still the magic recipe, or have you found a better working ratio?

 

[delta9nxs]

D9,
Is 1g Jacks-.67 Calnit/gallon in RO still the magic recipe, or have you found a better working ratio?

yep, on the bag of jack's pro hydro 5-12-26 it says to first mix 130 oz's of jack's into 1000 gals of water, then mix 86 oz's of calcinit into the same water.

86/130=.6615 so 1/666

mix at 666 i like the way that sounds



this provides approx a 3-1-4 ratio. change feed strength based on perceived nitrogen requirements, not the ratio.

editing to say that your gram per gallon is not right. convert oz's to grams and /1000 and you get 3.685 and 2.438.1 or 1/.6615 so 3.69 or 3.7g jack's and 2.4 calcinit should make ec 2.1 or 1050 ppm at the .5 conversion. take a percentage of those figures for your input strength. like 60% for approx 600 ppm and so on.

which for 600 ppm would be approx 2.2g jacks and 1.4g calcinit per gal, respectively. cumulative error due to rounding makes this very conservative, you might want to bump it up a little after looking at how the floor part of the system is running. ppm stable, falling, rising.

i would probably start at 2.4g and 1.6g to maintain the ratio. this would be just a little over 600 ppm.

but why are you mixing by weight? it is far easier and much faster to mix by meter. you don't need to know the exact volume of water.

 

[av8or]

When using C02, didn't you say a while back that you pushed the ppm up to 750? Or are you using 600 ppm regardless?

 

[Grow4Flow]

Thanks D9,
i Guess that's why im getting yellowing. Funny though......i went this route the whole last round and ended up with some healthy plants and Primo buds.

All i did was create a concentrated 100 gallon stock in a 2gal container @1g Jacks: .67 Calcinit and poured into a 20gal tub with RO water til i hit the desired PPM of each it went great! just not getting the same results this time around. Started adding Epsom as well