-
As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.
a ppk for a 6 plant limit
- Thread starter delta9nxs
- Start date
anyone know right offhand what a bag of turface runs? they dont sell it where i live but i will be making a trip to pick up quite a few bags.
I've been paying $12/50# bag of allsport as MVP is supposedly discontinued, but same results here
Hey D9 i went and picked up some other top buckets the 2.5 gallon seems small ?? like you said
so what size you think would be perfect i picked up 3.5 gallon and 4 gallon pails leaning towards 4 gallon for my top buckets leaving me .49 space in my lower bucket being its 4.49 gallon bucket
so what size you think would be perfect i picked up 3.5 gallon and 4 gallon pails leaning towards 4 gallon for my top buckets leaving me .49 space in my lower bucket being its 4.49 gallon bucket
Owe and i found turface for 18.00 Canadian for 50 lbs bag think thats a good deal anyone ??? also i am thinking of adding chicken grit into the mixture as well as some tree bark
this is what i found might be useful
Granite combined with Turface in the gritty mix gives you the the ability to adjust water retention. By increasing the Turface and decreasing the granite, while still limiting the bark fraction to no more than 1/3 of the whole, you can increase water retention. Increasing the granite and decreasing the grit decreases water retention.
this is what i found might be useful
Granite combined with Turface in the gritty mix gives you the the ability to adjust water retention. By increasing the Turface and decreasing the granite, while still limiting the bark fraction to no more than 1/3 of the whole, you can increase water retention. Increasing the granite and decreasing the grit decreases water retention.
I think I filled a 5 gallon pretty good with roots only using 600w and drip. The amount of roots isn't predictive of how much plant is above ground however. Doubtful that more room could hurt...
Perlite can be used to adjust water retention and you can separate it easily after using it because it floats while turface and granite will not.
Perlite can be used to adjust water retention and you can separate it easily after using it because it floats while turface and granite will not.
a 3.5 in a 5 is about as cheap as it gets and will still grow large plants.
the only problem with this is that you will only have 3" of water in each plant module.
this is ok if you raise the buckets on blocks or something to get more operating depth for the pump in the reservoir.
you are quoting from tapla at gardenweb. he uses the "gritty mix" in hand watered pots.
please start crediting your sources so that people can read further.
you will find it highly unsuitable for the ppk.
the granite has zero porosity.
the bark is composed of primarily lignin and cellulose. the cellulose portion will break down and tie up nitrogen during a grow.
while doing so it will drive ph down.
further, it will physically collapse and make less usable medium as the grow progresses.
i have already done almost every combination of potting media you can think of and keep coming back to pure turface.
turface mvp will have an air filled porosity of approx 30% after washing.
well, well, well! holding out on us, eh?
welcome to the asylum! the refugee camp set up by growers without borders!
several people are reporting "too wet" conditions in the 7 gal tuff tubs sitting in the 70 quart muck tubs.
this is supposedly with an air gap of 4" created by running the water level at 6".
so i took a new one and drilled the hole for the tailpiece and measured to the bottom and got 10", which would have been right if there were no sag.
the sag loaded is coming close to another inch so about 9" to the bottom.
if you want a 4" air gap you will have to run these at 5" instead of 6".
the 3.5 gal buckets are 11" high but there is no sag in the top tub so 7" water depth will get you a 4" air gap.
this is supposedly with an air gap of 4" created by running the water level at 6".
so i took a new one and drilled the hole for the tailpiece and measured to the bottom and got 10", which would have been right if there were no sag.
the sag loaded is coming close to another inch so about 9" to the bottom.
if you want a 4" air gap you will have to run these at 5" instead of 6".
the 3.5 gal buckets are 11" high but there is no sag in the top tub so 7" water depth will get you a 4" air gap.
Go to the original thread and read about the perched water table. The wick lowers this so the water that builds up by capillary action. This dries out the media to prevent what you are asking about.
MrAwder
Member
Whew just read 31 pages. It's been about a year since I have been on here and went through the last PPK master-thread. I understand the concept, and was hoping I could get some suggestions to help me adjust it to my space/style. Right now I grow 6 plants in 2gal top-fed fabric pots with coco yielding about 5oz per plant. It's been working great for over a year but I want to a) try something new, b) possibly improve yields, c) get away from coco because everything is ALWAYS SO DIRTY, d) reduce possible points of failure and daily maintenance.
The PPK has always looked like the answer but I was previously too invested in the other setup to make the switch. My biggest challenge is reducing the footprint of each site as much as possible. That said, it looks like 3.5 gal inside a 5 gal would work perfect for me and allow me to maintain my 6 sites. My space is the size of a large-ish closet, roughly 8x4. I grow on the walls/trellis similar to Marlo or Ichabod with 1200W.
Questions:
1) Is 3.5g in a 5gal ideal for ~6oz plants? Can I get by with smaller even, 3.5 in a 3.5 - I don't think I really gain anything from going smaller since the bucket footprint is basically the same.
2) Will the tail-pipe design from this newest build work with those size containers or should I use the old tail pipe design?
3) When you showed you're old 3.5/5 setup you said it only leaves you with 3" of water in each module... Am I right in thinking I could just put each module up on cinder blocks and then modify the control res to get the proper air gap in the module?
4) Any other thoughts or issues with scaling this system down I should be aware of?
What really sold me was the no bulkhead/glue connections to the modules with the new design. I hate paying ridiculous prices for bulkheads and hate using goop/silicone everywhere. Looks like there is finally a cheap way to get everything rigged up clean with no leaks.
The PPK has always looked like the answer but I was previously too invested in the other setup to make the switch. My biggest challenge is reducing the footprint of each site as much as possible. That said, it looks like 3.5 gal inside a 5 gal would work perfect for me and allow me to maintain my 6 sites. My space is the size of a large-ish closet, roughly 8x4. I grow on the walls/trellis similar to Marlo or Ichabod with 1200W.
Questions:
1) Is 3.5g in a 5gal ideal for ~6oz plants? Can I get by with smaller even, 3.5 in a 3.5 - I don't think I really gain anything from going smaller since the bucket footprint is basically the same.
2) Will the tail-pipe design from this newest build work with those size containers or should I use the old tail pipe design?
3) When you showed you're old 3.5/5 setup you said it only leaves you with 3" of water in each module... Am I right in thinking I could just put each module up on cinder blocks and then modify the control res to get the proper air gap in the module?
4) Any other thoughts or issues with scaling this system down I should be aware of?
What really sold me was the no bulkhead/glue connections to the modules with the new design. I hate paying ridiculous prices for bulkheads and hate using goop/silicone everywhere. Looks like there is finally a cheap way to get everything rigged up clean with no leaks.
av8or
Member
To measure my air gap, I sat the 7 gallon tub inside the 70 quart muck tub and stuck a ruler down into the wick (there was no media in the bucket at the time). When doing so, I put pressure with my opposite hand on the bottom of the 7 gallon bucket to simulate the weight of the media. There's no question as to what the air gap is now. I had a heck of a time trying to figure out what the gap was until that dawned on me. Of course, if you already have media in your top bucket, you can't do this.
Miraculous Meds
Well-known member
So ur doing stacked 600's then? Ive got a lot of experience with those. How much ceiling height do u have?
Or are u doing side by side, its been a while since I looked thru ur thread.
3.5 gal of root space is plenty for lb plus yields. Id go with a 3.5 on top of a 3.5 with a 3" drain/wick. But any will work. Those 3.5 gal buckets are about 10" tall, so the base of ur plant would start at 20", if that helps u with ur planning for finished height.
all that said if u want to stay with 6 plants for 1200w vert, a healthy goal would be 50oz. So a little more than 8 oz a plant. I think 2 gal on top of 2 gal would work. But I wouldn't limit myself just in case u can blast that yield up even higher Id stick with the 3.5's.
I do have a question for people using the new hose tech with no bulkheads. Can u do this in the standard 3.5 gallon buckets, or does it only work in those muck tubs since they might be thicker or more rubbery, or at least they look like that.
MrAwder
Member
600's side by side on a vertical light mover. Starting at 20" is great, right now since I am catching runoff on a table, the table is at 20", plus the pot height, so I would be saving ~7" of head room. Yes, a healthy goal would be 8oz per plant and I would love to achieve that, but for now I'd be happy getting over 6oz - I think my limiting factor is really canopy sq. footage (walls). And I am also wondering (hoping) that the no bulkhead hose tech will work on the buckets.
hey, growteam! welcome! you can't over water these because the perched water table is mechanically removed from the root zone by the wick/tailpiece.
this is the short version!
