Tubing is nice for feed lines but for drains it's too small... not nearly enough flow rate with 1" tubing and also roots/debris/etc are much more likely to clog it.
-
ICMag with help from Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest in November! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
Heaths latest tree grow
- Thread starter heath robinson
- Start date
- Status
Tubing is nice for feed lines but for drains it's too small... not nearly enough flow rate with 1" tubing and also roots/debris/etc are much more likely to clog it.
Also like DHF mentioned to help prevent cord roots don't use net pots with holes up the sides, there the roots also will be inefficient that don't get water and nutes like the rest.Here are some of the tree systems I use hopefully some of you will find the info useful
In the early nineties I was growing and experimenting with dripper systems, after running things for a while I noticed that if I increased the flow rate to the drippers the plants grew and flowered more quickly.
This led me to install bigger and larger bore dripper pipes, I had just modified one system before I went away for a week, when I came back the plants were all much larger as expected but what I didn't expect was the flow rate had been too high and as the roots had grown the roots had blocked the drain and were growing fully flooded! that's when I had a eureka moment and went and bought some brewing and builders buckets and started experimenting.
The basic idea is very very simple you basically have a bubbler bucket but instead of having the nutrients just sat in the tub you recirculate them at a high rate from a external rez so the nutrients are in continual motion.
Here is a Waterfarm bottom modified to recirculate the nutrients.
in this picture you can see the water entering the bucket from the right through a half inch fitting and exiting through a 1 1/2" fitting this picture shows nicely the sort of flow I like to have through the buckets.
View Image
The level in the rez is set so that the water level in the bucket is touching or a couple of inches above the bottom of the the inner bucket (the one with the holes drilled in it). The reason for this is I dont like cord roots (the type you see in bubbler bucket grows) to me this is wasting root space.
Here are some pics showing what I mean, these aren't my pics I am only using them to illustrate my point. If you look closely you can see that the roots nearest the bottom of the pot are like cords, this type of root develops when you have a gap between your nutrient level and the pot. I prefer not to have this type of root system as the cords do very little other than support the weight of the roots below.
View ImageView Image
Here are the roots in a Aquafarm and as you can see they are quite different, this is due to the level being set higher than the pot, and the recirculating nutrient solution. You might notice in the next two pics you can see the water level on the pots. This is the type of root system you should strive for.
View Image
View Image
I came across these new type of net pots called mesh bottom pots where the holes made are only at the bottom part:
Hydrofarm also makes them. The pic I have is from Greners and sizes 6, 8, 10 & 12 inch diameters. 8" holds 1.75 gallons (volume wise) of hydroton or media, the 10" 3 gallons and the 12" 4.5 gallons. Capacity I measured of 8" regular net pot is 1.165 gallons. 1 gallon = 3.785 liters. Also these were Greners specs but looks like others sell same pots (the 8" diameter I suspect should be 7.5" bottom as they're tapered):
8" diameter x 11" top x 8.5" bottom x 8.5" height
10" diameter x 12" top x 9.5" bottom x 9.25" height.
12" diameter x 13" top x 11" bottom x 10" height.
Here's another pic of a Hydrofarm 12" mesh bottom pot:
Some smaller net pots also seem to have this feature like the Botanicare 3.75" and Hydrofarm 5 & 6" (though holes are up the sides somewhat):
Botanicare 3.5" net pot
Hydrofarm 6" net pot (5" is similar)
If you keep water level a few to several inches above net pot bottom for these smaller ones you should be golden. Guess it'd be good to know your water levels.
They are based in North America, but heard of people in Europe using their reflectors. Also here's a UK distributor site that says they distribute Hydrofarm: https://www.hydrogarden.com/index.asp Here's a link to one of their mesh bottom pots: https://www.hydrogarden.com/Ko-Besp...D BRAND/GROWING/HYDROGARDEN/35/01-010-270.htm and here's a UK retail store locator: https://www.hydrogarden.com/find-retailer.asp
Nice pics too for their 10" (25.4 cm):
horticulturesource.com is supposed to do international orders. They are cheap but have messed up a few orders with me before, maybe bad luck but I usually never have online problems with orders anywhere else. Their site says new Hydrofarm Lumatek ballasts coming out late May with up to 20% more lumens. Digistar from Gavita also might come out in May here in the states those would be interesting to compare.
If the center bulb is on 12 hours, with the four outer bulbs on 6 hours each, that's 1800 watts running all the time. (3 of 5 bulbs on) Since there were two plants, each plant utilizing half the space and light, each plant used the equivalent of 900w.
It's like having three 600w lights above two flood trays. You don't calculate gpw of one tray as g/1200w but rather g/900w. Simple math...
If questioning a poster's accuracy, it's not necessary to be rude or insulting when doing so. That really harms discussion here... there are high yielding growers out there that don't post online because they don't want to deal with that garbage.
It's like having three 600w lights above two flood trays. You don't calculate gpw of one tray as g/1200w but rather g/900w. Simple math...
If questioning a poster's accuracy, it's not necessary to be rude or insulting when doing so. That really harms discussion here... there are high yielding growers out there that don't post online because they don't want to deal with that garbage.
OK I SEE!
Relatively speaking he mentioned the yield from ONE TREE, not the whole grow. So that one tree saw the equivalent of 900 watts total - the 1 600 watt in the middle and the other outer 600 watts on for 1/2 the time or another 300 watts added to that 600 watts.IDK what the other tree or canopy yielded from the 1,200 total equivalent watts. But the math is interesting as he's "adding" only another 300 watts and I would've bragged about an even better gpw most likely. budman8's right though if it was just that 1 tree he grew with those lights. But HR says plants not plant.
W
willyweed
is it 2 x trees 600x3 divided by 2 = 900 each,i am not 100% but that's how i read it ! ! !You might have a point there. He's adding up 600 watts and 300 watts for the 2 other (600 watts each I'd assume) bulbs which are on 1/2 the time. He's still running the other 2-600 watts for 12 hours total (6+6 hours each). And 600 + 600 = 1,200 watts equivalent. It's from post #126: Heaths latest tree grow page 9
STILL 56 oz that Heath got is 1,589 grams divided by 1,200 watts comes out to 1.32 grams/watt instead of 1.77 grams/watt with 900 watts. Still impressive in my book...
Hey everyone I just had a revelation . Ready for this as to the exact number of plants and the exact number of lights down to the last watt , who really gives a fuck ? It looks to me like Heath pulls some serious weight from a couple of plants and just a few lights. Props to you Heath, props to you. That pot is probably straight fire too, the
Gets you high as a lab rat. I wish I could grow half as well as Heath and most of you douchey nitpickers do as well
Gets you high as a lab rat. I wish I could grow half as well as Heath and most of you douchey nitpickers do as well
I think you are right. But if he's adding 900 watts a side (or plant/tree) that would total 1,800 watts when he's actually using 1,200 watts total or equivalent over 12 hours. And according to those calcs he's being modest (and not the 1st time I've heard that). Here the "whole seems greater than the sum of the parts" and I think a clever use of lighting. Each plant "sees" 900 watts of lights or 1,800 watts total with only 1,200 equivalent watts actually used.
I know both math & physics pretty well but this "simple math" is interesting! He's striving for efficiency or most gpws with his lighting.
Not to complicate things but if HR just mentioned the total yield of both plants and said 1,200 watts for 12 hours equivalent using 3-600 watt lights (with 2 on a flip-flop) then you would get gpw for the grow, not 1 plant/tree. That's what really matters.
Don't forget trees require longer veg time and that could skew up the gpw as well. A bigger yield per plant but with less harvests per year.
W
willyweed
i think 5 lights 1x 12hours 2x6hours and the flip those 2 go off, another 2 come on 1800watts per hour divide by two trees = 900watts per tree.but yes an inspiration to me anyhow !
x o x
. x
x o x
x o x
. x
x o x
Well thanks farmari and willyweed, you are right. To quote Heath (from page 3, post # 33):
Interesting how he grows at 1.2 EC and never higher. For me it's 1.4 EC where things seem to settle out in RDWC but that could change once I tweak my system for the next grow (larger 10-15 gallon coolers in UCRDWC & chiller).
Looks like a flip-flop double "reverse lighted" donut of 3 lights each. Very clever! I wonder if you switched out the x's and o's and put in 1,000 watts or stacked 600 watts where the x's are?
Interesting how he grows at 1.2 EC and never higher. For me it's 1.4 EC where things seem to settle out in RDWC but that could change once I tweak my system for the next grow (larger 10-15 gallon coolers in UCRDWC & chiller).
It's 1200. Nice try, but sorry.
At any given time, 1200 watts are burning.
It doesn't even require math skills, ffs.
The yield, and light usage mentioned are per plant.
I've met H several times, and there is absolutely no ego about him at all. A more humble, generous fellow, you could not possibly meet.
D
DHF
I`ve asked for this thread to be locked MORE than once cuz of folks not reading the whole thread and or not understanding certain posts pertaining directly with the math that Heath calculated per plant per watt , but.....
It ain`t rocket science as who the fuck ever budman know-it-all stoner genius is stated according to "his" math without reading the thread , and laughingly`s been bitchin bout 3 lights instead of what was plainly stated as 5 lights round 2 plants from the get.....
Anyone that doubt`s Heath`s setups is a fuckin idiot......I did this waaaay too long and know exactly what 5' wide plants 6-7' tall will yield with dialed environment , proper watts per sq ft , and the right hybrid to do it with.....
Mods....Please put this thread to rest......Heath`s retired from the forums......
R.I.P.......DHF.....
.....
It ain`t rocket science as who the fuck ever budman know-it-all stoner genius is stated according to "his" math without reading the thread , and laughingly`s been bitchin bout 3 lights instead of what was plainly stated as 5 lights round 2 plants from the get.....
Anyone that doubt`s Heath`s setups is a fuckin idiot......I did this waaaay too long and know exactly what 5' wide plants 6-7' tall will yield with dialed environment , proper watts per sq ft , and the right hybrid to do it with.....
Mods....Please put this thread to rest......Heath`s retired from the forums......
R.I.P.......DHF.....
.....- Status
