a wicked pulse

[village green]

Yes a 600 and a 1000 because of heat issues.

I used to run 3 stacked 1000 watters in an area 20 foot square by 8 foot high and heat was only bad a couple of months a year..right about this time of year.

Do you think a plant trained to grow downward could still fill in the screen the way a normal flat scrog does ?...no reflector of course. I remember Verdant Green (no relation) arguing that flat scrogs fill in better due to the effects of orientation to gravity on the plant's growth.

 

[Ichabod Crane]

I used to run 3 stacked 1000 watters in an area 20 foot square by 8 foot high and heat was only bad a couple of months a year..right about this time of year.

Do you think a plant trained to grow downward could still fill in the screen the way a normal flat scrog does ?...no reflector of course. I remember Verdant Green (no relation) arguing that flat scrogs fill in better due to the effects of orientation to gravity on the plant's growth.

I don't know if it will fill in or not. I know when I tie branches down they flip back up. Try it and let us know.

As far as the (3) 1000 watt bulbs, that is what I heated my house with last winter in northern Michigan. My house is super insulated.

But back to deltas thread.

 

[zeke99]

The Bastard will attempt to upload pics yet again!

ok, just some more general purpose shots

the main res without the lines installed. a 50 gal sterilite container with 24 tire valves installed as low as possible. attached through the sidewall with 3/16"x1/2" stainless machine screws and nuts is a 3 liter sterilite "ultra latch" food storage container. notice it's the red one and rectangular. the float valve fits it nicely.

more on the pump and manifold later.

last pic just shows the floor/reflectix seal.

the reservoir is on two levels of solid 4x8x16 blocks making it the same height as the top of the caddies so the water level we have here is the same in the plant reservoirs.

Was this labeled incorrectly, so that main res. should be control box? And why do you have the float valve in a container of it's own?

 

[zeke99]

so i'm finding that a pump with approximately 100 gph capacity per plant site to be adequate for pulse delivery.

thank you!!!!!!!!!!

 

[delta9nxs]

Those bastards!!! It is just going to annoy the hell out of you till then huh.

based on your price they owe me $9 from 3 years ago and $11 from the other day so that's $20. hell no, i'm not fergettin'.

 

[delta9nxs]

Quotes by village green

“Thanks for waiting til this week to start flowering. It makes my procrastination so much easier. In all seriousness, though, you're running many more plants than I'm planning. I'm mainly following to guage your speed of vegging and to see if you have good results positioning your buds for both full canopy fill and optimum angle to light.”

My speed of vegging this time was not correct and should not be used by anyone as a guide. I had all kinds of delays with the construction and had to use stalling techniques. Then had to veg extra to correct. This was certainly not efficient.


“Although he hasn't tried a PPK, Ichabod takes about as long to fill his vert screens as I was hoping to use. His seem to have the height I'd like to get with and he has two stacked bulbs but his are more narrow. Trying to fill a circle with two plants may require much longer veg time.”

putting plants in a circle around a single light or a single vertical column of light can be very efficient if done with perfect timing and plant counts but there are some geometric problems that are difficult to overcome.

These stem from the fact that a doughnut is really just a pie with a hole in the middle. Fewer, larger plants have to be physically worked to accomplish a circle of the right size, which, with a 1k bulb, is 30-32”. a circle with a radius of 15-16” from the center of the arc tube. You are stuck with this as this is what produces the maximum rate of photosynthesis at 1500 umols of photon bombardment.

The circumference of this 32” circle is 100.53”. so with 2 plants you have 50” of “face” each. 3 plants 33”, four plants get you 25”, and so on.

Also, at 16” from the center of the arc tube, the sweet spot of a 1k bulb is only 16” high. 8” arc tube plus about 4” either way up and down.

But, if you center the bulb in the middle of plant mass you can illuminate approx. 36” of vertical canopy adequately enough.

So there is this balance between time and growth rate. If you use more plants, such as 6-8 as I have seen done here, they must be smaller to use the light efficiently. This is where knowing your plant comes in.

the “doughnut” inner ring defined by the hole is much smaller than the outer ring. You must end with a wedge shaped plant every time so the bigger the plant the more wasted growth after a point.


“I've seen some impressive walls of green in vert but these use a much higher number of plants. DHF adressed the problem of maximizing bud exposure to light by tilting plants toward the light.

One thing I miss from flat growing is the apical bud development. The top buds get complete coverage. Bud development and canopy density are also impressive in flat scrogs and one plant seems to fill a screen of good size fairly quickly (strain dependent of course). I still can't get away from wanting plant matter to completely encircle the bulb.

I have seen scrogs that are horizontal but shaped into a bowl or crater.

Here's where the flashbacks are probably to blame. I have no "sketchup" so I'll try to keep this simple.

Would buds grow to the bulb strong enough to overpower the effects of gravity? I'm thinking to try a PPK on the floor growing up into a scrog and another elevated with the upper plant trained to grow downwards to a scrog above the bulb..sort of like a Rotogrow or Omega Garden with only two plants and no rotation movement.”

the plant is extremely phototropic and very plastic and can be grown in any position if you are willing to do the work. On the effects of gravity I have found that once buds get below the level of the medium they blow up. Or the level of the originating node. It's obvious that gravity is assisting flow.


'Would there be enough DLI to allow flip flopping a 1000 watt light on a relay between two such units?”

borderline in my opinion because you are splitting but not sharing the dli between two plants.

A 1k bulb run 12 hours at 1500 umols produces approx 64 moles per day. If you split that equally you are giving each plant approx 32 moles per day.

In my set up the plants in front of each light get 32 moles for half the period from the light directly in front of them and then get another approx 20 moles per day from the lights on either side when the flip occurs. So 52 moles per day.

With only two bulbs in that arrangement and splitting them over the 12 hours you would get better yield if both lights were hitting each plant, just different parts of it.

 

[delta9nxs]

Was this labeled incorrectly, so that main res. should be control box? And why do you have the float valve in a container of it's own?

no, the "control" box is the container with the float valve in it inside of the main res.

i went to this instead of buckets for more pulse volume. the float valve "control" container has a 3/32" hole in the lower corner.

when the pump fires the hole slows down and meters the input of fresh solution.

this was made possible by using the main res as a "pump" chamber too.

 

[zeke99]

no, the "control" box is the container with the float valve in it inside of the main res.

i went to this instead of buckets for more pulse volume. the float valve "control" container has a 3/32" hole in the lower corner.

when the pump fires the hole slows down and meters the input of fresh solution.

this was made possible by using the main res as a "pump" chamber too.

I see it now, in post 47

https://www.icmag.com/ic/showpost.php?p=5217013&postcount=47

I recall with the original PPK, the reason for the separating the control and pump buckets was for solution stability. Did you just say "fuck it" one day and decide to try out the combined pump/control bin?

 

[catman]

There seems to be a lot of confusion whether yield is better with more or less plants around a donut. I started vertical doing donuts around a 150W HPS bulb and hell, I used 12-24 plants. Now I'm doing 3 plants around a 600w. I think a more pressing question is which one yields more, while being easier to pull off as to be consistent. The answer might depend on personal preference as having more plants to care for is more work(contingent on design ofc), but the training/trimming required for fewer plants might be too labor intensive for some. It also depends on the size of the plants you are trying to grow and in what time-frame; an emphasis well made by d9.

I think it would be interesting to see someone place 55w PPL lamps around the outside of a donut because at least for me, the reflection of light I get back from 600w in a 4x4' tent isn't near enough to prevent the plant from wanting to plunge into the bulb. If a guy has perfect plants, there would be no light to reflect after going past the plants, but as such the plant is going to lean heavily and will need to be tied up-health style.

Leaning the plant forward allows for the greater inner-canopy exposure, sure, but I think that is fitting for more, smaller plants. I've found my self actually wanting to lean my plants back, away from the bulb once flowers come. Tilting the plant back so that the lean shape becomes vertical columns that can be spread out sideways, peacocked.
This theoretically seems to be the best way to make use of a donut with a single light source and insufficient reflectivity. I think it was d9 who said the mentality is to grow 2D-flat plants that can be placed optimally in the "pie."

At first (to me anyway) it seemed d9 was after growing as big as monsters as possible; effectiveness. Then the focus shifted to labor intensity..physical anyway.. which isn't being intellectually lazy at all. Proper planning prevents poor performance. I'm an active young cat, and maybe nobody else is thinking like me, anyway, I don't mind the physical work (I would love to minimize it however), but the inconsistency from training few plants around a lot of light is unsettling for me. There are many variables that need to be fined tuned to grow great plants and I just don't see how training techniques can't create a large margin for variability that can mask other aspects. Maybe it's just something that takes some time to become comfortable with.

All in all, effectiveness is king, but only those who can manage/market the other aspects will stand the course of time.

I just wanted to ramble about some things that have become more clear to me over time. I love theory and the nitty-gritty specifics about things, but I understand some of ya are ultimately concerned about the bottom line.

 

[zeke99]

Does anyone care to venture guess as to why US Plastics skips the 3 and 4 gallon plastic buckets?

1, 2, 3.5, 5, 6, 7

Maybe there is a factor in the restaurant/baking industry?

 

[zeke99]

Delta9 you've convinced me to switch from Vert + Circle to Vert + Flat. This transition will start in about six weeks. I'll start a thread at that point.

PPK Forever!

 

[ashesashes]

I had something to say. I supsepct it was profound.

But I forgot.

 

[village green]

I had something to say. I supsepct it was profound.

But I forgot.

Uhmm...Sour Diesel or Platinum Kush?

 

[ashesashes]

I'd tell you, but I'm supsepct.

 

[village green]

Quotes by village green

“Thanks for waiting til this week to start flowering. It makes my procrastination so much easier. In all seriousness, though, you're running many more plants than I'm planning. I'm mainly following to guage your speed of vegging and to see if you have good results positioning your buds for both full canopy fill and optimum angle to light.”

My speed of vegging this time was not correct and should not be used by anyone as a guide. I had all kinds of delays with the construction and had to use stalling techniques. Then had to veg extra to correct. This was certainly not efficient.


“Although he hasn't tried a PPK, Ichabod takes about as long to fill his vert screens as I was hoping to use. His seem to have the height I'd like to get with and he has two stacked bulbs but his are more narrow. Trying to fill a circle with two plants may require much longer veg time.”

putting plants in a circle around a single light or a single vertical column of light can be very efficient if done with perfect timing and plant counts but there are some geometric problems that are difficult to overcome.

These stem from the fact that a doughnut is really just a pie with a hole in the middle. Fewer, larger plants have to be physically worked to accomplish a circle of the right size, which, with a 1k bulb, is 30-32”. a circle with a radius of 15-16” from the center of the arc tube. You are stuck with this as this is what produces the maximum rate of photosynthesis at 1500 umols of photon bombardment.

The circumference of this 32” circle is 100.53”. so with 2 plants you have 50” of “face” each. 3 plants 33”, four plants get you 25”, and so on.

Also, at 16” from the center of the arc tube, the sweet spot of a 1k bulb is only 16” high. 8” arc tube plus about 4” either way up and down.

But, if you center the bulb in the middle of plant mass you can illuminate approx. 36” of vertical canopy adequately enough.

So there is this balance between time and growth rate. If you use more plants, such as 6-8 as I have seen done here, they must be smaller to use the light efficiently. This is where knowing your plant comes in.

the “doughnut” inner ring defined by the hole is much smaller than the outer ring. You must end with a wedge shaped plant every time so the bigger the plant the more wasted growth after a point.


“I've seen some impressive walls of green in vert but these use a much higher number of plants. DHF adressed the problem of maximizing bud exposure to light by tilting plants toward the light.

One thing I miss from flat growing is the apical bud development. The top buds get complete coverage. Bud development and canopy density are also impressive in flat scrogs and one plant seems to fill a screen of good size fairly quickly (strain dependent of course). I still can't get away from wanting plant matter to completely encircle the bulb.

I have seen scrogs that are horizontal but shaped into a bowl or crater.

Here's where the flashbacks are probably to blame. I have no "sketchup" so I'll try to keep this simple.

Would buds grow to the bulb strong enough to overpower the effects of gravity? I'm thinking to try a PPK on the floor growing up into a scrog and another elevated with the upper plant trained to grow downwards to a scrog above the bulb..sort of like a Rotogrow or Omega Garden with only two plants and no rotation movement.”

the plant is extremely phototropic and very plastic and can be grown in any position if you are willing to do the work. On the effects of gravity I have found that once buds get below the level of the medium they blow up. Or the level of the originating node. It's obvious that gravity is assisting flow.


'Would there be enough DLI to allow flip flopping a 1000 watt light on a relay between two such units?”

borderline in my opinion because you are splitting but not sharing the dli between two plants.

A 1k bulb run 12 hours at 1500 umols produces approx 64 moles per day. If you split that equally you are giving each plant approx 32 moles per day.

In my set up the plants in front of each light get 32 moles for half the period from the light directly in front of them and then get another approx 20 moles per day from the lights on either side when the flip occurs. So 52 moles per day.

With only two bulbs in that arrangement and splitting them over the 12 hours you would get better yield if both lights were hitting each plant, just different parts of it.

I appreciate everyone's patience and feedback. It's not much fun responding to a proposed, undocumented grow. It would be funny to know how many scrog disciples have fantasized about two sides to their flat scrogs. Maybe growth pattern in response to gravity would allow you to enjoy what appears to be the advantage of a flat scrog while surrounding the light source. Maybe you could even station the screens adjacent to a similar setup and reap the benefit of different angled light.

.......However...I must have been tripping. Even with the screens on rollers to access them easier, working under the top screen would likely be a nightmare. The effect on neck, back and shoulders would require my own Project CBD...or another failed psych eval

 

[village green]

There seems to be a lot of confusion whether yield is better with more or less plants around a donut. I started vertical doing donuts around a 150W HPS bulb and hell, I used 12-24 plants. Now I'm doing 3 plants around a 600w. I think a more pressing question is which one yields more, while being easier to pull off as to be consistent. The answer might depend on personal preference as having more plants to care for is more work(contingent on design ofc), but the training/trimming required for fewer plants might be too labor intensive for some. It also depends on the size of the plants you are trying to grow and in what time-frame; an emphasis well made by d9.

I think it would be interesting to see someone place 55w PPL lamps around the outside of a donut because at least for me, the reflection of light I get back from 600w in a 4x4' tent isn't near enough to prevent the plant from wanting to plunge into the bulb. If a guy has perfect plants, there would be no light to reflect after going past the plants, but as such the plant is going to lean heavily and will need to be tied up-health style.

Leaning the plant forward allows for the greater inner-canopy exposure, sure, but I think that is fitting for more, smaller plants. I've found my self actually wanting to lean my plants back, away from the bulb once flowers come. Tilting the plant back so that the lean shape becomes vertical columns that can be spread out sideways, peacocked.
This theoretically seems to be the best way to make use of a donut with a single light source and insufficient reflectivity. I think it was d9 who said the mentality is to grow 2D-flat plants that can be placed optimally in the "pie."

At first (to me anyway) it seemed d9 was after growing as big as monsters as possible; effectiveness. Then the focus shifted to labor intensity..physical anyway.. which isn't being intellectually lazy at all. Proper planning prevents poor performance. I'm an active young cat, and maybe nobody else is thinking like me, anyway, I don't mind the physical work (I would love to minimize it however), but the inconsistency from training few plants around a lot of light is unsettling for me. There are many variables that need to be fined tuned to grow great plants and I just don't see how training techniques can't create a large margin for variability that can mask other aspects. Maybe it's just something that takes some time to become comfortable with.

All in all, effectiveness is king, but only those who can manage/market the other aspects will stand the course of time.

I just wanted to ramble about some things that have become more clear to me over time. I love theory and the nitty-gritty specifics about things, but I understand some of ya are ultimately concerned about the bottom line.

I get off on experimentation but with the goal of trying to improve the bottom line. More plants, shorter veg times, and more green stuff in the sweet spot of light seems hard to argue with. Unfortunately (?) yield ain't everything after a while, so I'm brainstorming on how to do most with less stalks and juice.

A couple of runs with a new strain would be minimum to see what it could do and in what time frame. If there are better vert scrogs than what Marlo, Billy Liar or Ichabod do, I haven't seen them. Heath did a thread where he got over two pounds I believe by flipping 600 watt bulbs in two adjust-a-wings but he used a flat scrog. I HAVE to try a true vert vs. flat scrog side by side with two plants each. It's driving me crazy!!

 

[zeke99]

these thread in. to install i drilled 7/16" holes in a 2' piece of 1.5" schedule 40 pvc pipe then tapped the holes with a 1/4" pipe tap. they are hand threaded into place without teflon tape as they will be immersed anyway so leaks don't matter. the 3/8" od poly tubing is a push fit and will take pressure.

the pipe has a cap on one end and a coupler and a 1.5" slip to 1" pipe reducer to fit the pump output.

this rig should prevent pump pressure from blasting off the latex connectors which i have had happen a few times.

this pump is going to come on like a hammer.

Thanks for that ^ Were you able to find all of those pieces at Lowes?

what is your opinion of this how-to video? (pipe tap)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayduerGoCyw&feature=related

 

[delta9nxs]

Thanks for that ^ Were you able to find all of those pieces at Lowes?

what is your opinion of this how-to video? (pipe tap)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayduerGoCyw&feature=related

yep, all except the tap, it came from an ace hardware but plumbing supplies have them too. i just bought the one tap for about 7 bucks.

the guy in the video knows what he's talking about.

 

[zeke99]

I put a tomato plant in a handwater PPK for my mom this summer and she can't stop talking about nice the plant is, how ingenious the system is, how much easier it has been than planting in the ground, etc. I don't take credit for your creation.

 

[bloyd]

I put a tomato plant in a handwater PPK for my mom this summer and she can't stop talking about nice the plant is, how ingenious the system is, how much easier it has been than planting in the ground, etc. I don't take credit for your creation.

Tell your mom we want pics! I dream of the day I am able to run a greenhouse full of ppk's. Would love to see somebody grow a monster outdoors in a ppk! If I make it back to oregon I am going to make it happen myself.

All the best to you Zeke, that index you made surely has helped many, many people!