passive plant killer

[catman]

Whether or not readers agree with me, they can look up a poster named "Coxie". He's a really good example of the guys I'm talking about. He spent huge money on a RDWC room (warehouse) only to convert to top-fed, drain-to-waste perlite after a few crops.

He followed Mr. Dizzle to drain-to-waste Perlite and settled on that. I found myself in the same situation and saw that Dizzle and Coxie were talking about someone named Janus who was running recirculating top-fed perlite and killing it. Jalisco Kid was also referring to Janus as using systems similar to what he designs and sells to guys. These guys have been vouched for and go back over a decade. They are worth listening to and certainly have more validity than me with my 100 posts.

Again, I've read the lessons learned on the farm just as you have and everything you've said is true. Might I add that I believe Mr Dizzle concluded that dripping into a hempy bucket was inferior to dripping into a bucket with no reservoir. Janus was the guy who inspired me as well to go with lots of perlite, but I believe it has been said no longer uses it. Regardless if he still uses it, I saw the success he had with it. I put some sure-to-grow hail which is like a fiber cube in my medium because of JK. We already went through that before, but if you insist.

In your bucket there is no media-based wicking happening between manual irrigation events but the plants do have some roots that have grown down into the solution and that will go a way towards sustaining them. (whether it is optimal or not is a different matter).

I'm not surprised if I'm already spot on with this, but I'm going to take measurements of the weight of water held by one of the root plants and one with "the air gap" at different levels;the tailpiece being submerged. I already know what it should weight before I grew anything in it and I can tell from lifting the buckets that tiny amount of roots made a big difference. I could water as long as once a week instead of every 2 days. The roots deliver water to the medium or the medium stays moist longer because the roots are already saturated or something along those lines.

In your (Catman) bucket, the water level is so low that the air gap is likely greater than the wicking capability of some string, so using a string would get the PWT down out of the bucket without the corresponding wicking back up. The trouble with this is PPK growers WANT THE SOLUTION WICKING UP INTO THE ROOT ZONE.

What are your thoughts on this? What is your purpose and what are your objectives?

The roots do wick water back up. Roots have a greater "wicking potential" than the medium and they move moisture around by night and then there is transpiration during the day that pulls water all up and out of the plant.

I'm just asking questions and sharing opinions and have no ulterior motives.

Is it to improve on the PPK? Is it to disprove the viability of the PPK or show that aspects of it are not necessary? Is it to show that you don't have to follow the design of the PPK to grow a plant? Is it to come up with an innovation you created that you can attach to the success and popularity of the PPK?

I'm really confused....

If aspects of the PPK are not necessary then removing them would be an improvement, but no, I'm not here just trying to piss people off and I'm insulted you would imply such a thing. I've already answered all these condescending and maligning questions before and you don't have shit on me so please, at least hear me out or don't bother replying at all.

 

[disciple]

 

[ImaginaryFriend]

Hi everyone.

Life has been hectic, but arguably within control.

Been away from my computer for a long while--I need to start getting caught up around page 185--but projects are calling me away even now.

Just wanted to check in and say 'hi', and wish everyone well.

 

[delta9nxs]

Hi everyone.

Life has been hectic, but arguably within control.

Been away from my computer for a long while--I need to start getting caught up around page 185--but projects are calling me away even now.

Just wanted to check in and say 'hi', and wish everyone well.

how, high are you?

here are a few pics of the "evil" arcata trainwreck. i named it the evil one as it has very sharp, pointy, serrated leaves. all it needed was a switchblade. also has a tight node structure. this is a cutting at five weeks of veg. that's a yardstick in the foliage.

tomorrow i'll trim it up and put it into flower.

the 5th week of veg really puts some size on. this will be the first one to go to flower.

 

[stagehand099]

Hi D9. I wonder if you would mind posting a few pics of the "black box" and its innards? And if you feel like it, a few words on why you changed things up. If there is already a page of info, just say so and I will look for it. This thread has become so large that its hard to find specific things. Thanks.

stagehand

 

[mcfly420]

'search this thread' helps
black box - mostly post #2774

 

[delta9nxs]

unfortunately, i did not do a photo series on building it but if you are already familiar with the construction techniques outlined here in different parts of the thread you will have no difficulty building this.

all the same shit is used. it's just in different looking containers.

the main tub is a sterilite "footlocker" sold at wally's. the control box inside of it is a marine battery box, also from wally's. it's the smallest size.

starting from the right side the control box is attached at the same level as the flat looking ledge in the photo. it is held in place with 4 #10-24 x 1/2" stainless steel machine screws and nuts. specialty hardware bins at lowes. you will need a 3/16" bit for this. i start one at one end at the right height and then use a small level to mark and attach #2 at the other end. then just drill and install the middle two.

the float is installed at the same 10.5" level that i use normally. it is, of course, installed through both container walls.

In the lower corner of the control box there is installed a stock tire valve with the guts removed. it is not drilled out. there is a stock tire valve cap threaded on the tire valve. it is drilled 5/64". this accomplishes the same thing as a metered injector. it retards the opening of the float valve, controls the input of fresh nutrient solution, and allows the entry of some used solution from the pump chamber as a start on the re-blending process.

the pump is the same 950 mag drive you've seen before. in flower it is supplying 8 plants.

the distribution manifold is built with vinyl tubing pulled through slightly undersized holes as shown previously. a good, fast reference to the technique can be found in zeke's index. here i used 3/8" od vinyl tubing but the hole size should be 11/32". i use vinyl tubing here as it is a lot more flexible than the polypro.

the manifold itself is a 1" compression T. the T ends are plugged with 1" plugs. the center opening, facing the pump, is threaded for 1" pipe threads but my pump has 3/4" threads so i had to use a 3/4" to 1" adapter. i might move up to a bigger pump and the larger one has a 1" threaded outlet.

the pump electrical cord is set through a 5/16" hole high up in the wall so that i could slit the wall with cutters to avoid having to cut off and reinstall the plug. the cord just snaps in and out for cleaning.

i built the same thing for the vegging area but the pulse and sub lines go out of the hinge side of the container because of the direction i have to work from.

it's really very simple and fast to build. this one took about an hour.

the aluminum tape is on a couple of holes that need to be blocked. they are obvious. the short garden hose sections are over the connections to keep the latex tubing from being bent shut.

the sub-irrigation supply lines are installed with tire valves just like before. the difference here is that they return to the pump chamber instead of the float chamber. this was necessary to achieve the shorter time frame for equilibrium to occur.

the pulse lines are shoved through 3/8" holes and are a tight push fit. the 5/16" latex connectors need to be 4" long here with 2.5" shoved up on the vinyl tubing and 1.5" onto the plastic tubing. the 3" sections that i was using before popped off the vinyl tubing a few times until i made this change.

This entire change is still experimental. I have been running it in flower for about 6-7 weeks now. I'm still playing with the timing and amounts. It looks like it is producing a heavier plant but I haven't gotten to the point where i've run one for life on it. I'll know for sure then.

The idea is to get as much solution into the medium as possible before draining occurs. Thereby exchanging a higher percentage of gas. There have to be practical limits to this.

In IF's iteration he was running a single plant with coco and a pump capable of putting enough water onto the top of the medium so that it pooled, then fell and drained as a single mass. I postulate this as ideal but very difficult to do with a different medium and higher plants counts.

However, if you get x amount of solution into the medium before draining occurs you are displacing the same x amount of gas. It doesn't matter if this is in the form of a solid cylinder of water, a stream of water, droplets, or vapor. I feel like IF's version is probably the most efficient but it is also the most difficult to accomplish.

Disciple's comment about blasting turface and perlite all over the room is no joke. That is the reason I designed the pvc pulse delivery manifold. It gets a lot of juice out in a short period of time without blowing the medium around. Fairly even distribution.

This “black box” comes to equilibrium much faster than the separate pump and control bucket. This is not very important with a smaller pulse volume but is very important with the “turbo” pulse as this can be a limiting factor both in volume and timing.

this could probably be accomplished with much smaller containers but i was moving fast and this stuff was readily available.

 

[stagehand099]

Excellent explanation, Thanks. Thank you McFly also for the other post number.

stagehand

 

[ImaginaryFriend]

I postulate this as ideal but very difficult to do with a different medium and higher plants counts.

Higher plant counts simply require appropriately scaled reservoirs, plumbing and movement. But that can be pretty bulky, and maybe more complicated than it ought to be.

The root mass resulting in coco was extremely dense, and radically effected the percolation rate as the plant grew. This begs the question of both media and root mass volume over time. One recommendation: If you intend to aggressive pulse, leave an amount of volume above the media level that is larger than your intended pulse... Leaving four inches in the top of the bucket should be more than adequate if you hope to pulse hard enough to have one inch of standing water before it percolates.

The supply side (i.e. bulk reservoir feed) needs to be fast enough for 'normal' plant uptake, but slow enough that the system can perk and drain back into the control reservoir without it overflowing or significantly effecting the PWT.

For example, in the end of the cycle, the system was perking slow enough that the control reservoir following the pulse was always full with the valve controling the addback. It was never a problem, but might be on a larger scale.

If the root density is as dramatic as I describe, it demands a reconsideration of the media itself... that is, if root content significantly modifies media qualities in terms of air content, and wicking capabilities, than perhaps something more porous than the previosly discussed 'target' porosity might be in order.

On a personal note, I've been super busy on a lot of projects that are not as easy as they ought to be, but moving forward none-the-less...

Best wishes.

 

[zeke99]

This thread has become so large that its hard to find specific things.

index:

https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?p=4582464#post4582464

 

[stagehand099]

I have another question, which I probably already know the answer to. My question is whether or not the vertically-oriented lighting in cooltubes is integral to the entire process/concept? I ask because A.) changing from horizontal to vert presents a major reworking of the ventilation requirements of the intended space, and B.) because it adds significantly to the price of this project. I only have one cooltube at the moment.

I plan on using 1 1K and 2 600's to do 4-6 PPK's. Is this enough light for a decent result? And does anyone have any suggestions for arranging the plants/lights in a 7 X 7 space? I am going to veg and flower in place after my other projects finish. I thought I would just run the (3) cooltubes down the centerline of the space, with the 1K in the middle position. Any thoughts?

stagehand

 

[gregor_mendel]

I thought I would just run the (3) cooltubes down the centerline of the space, with the 1K in the middle position. Any thoughts?

Good idea, and might work with just the 1 cooltube with fans on the 600s.

My room size is similar to yours, and had I another space for veg, I would do just that.

 

[stagehand099]

If I do 4 (likely) then something like this? I know, pitiful job with Paint.....

 

[disciple]

 

[delta9nxs]

stagehand

In zeke's index you can see a few pics of my vegging area.

It is 7'x7' also.

I'm vegging with the single 1k hortilux.

It is sufficient for plants up to about 40” maximum vertical height.

If you intend to have taller plants than that you need to light the tops.

Either all vertical or the 1k vertical and the 600's horizontal.

Disciple is right about the reflectivity in that size space if you have walls.

So maybe an establishing criteria would be that if you have walls that can be made highly reflective verticals might work good.

And if you do not have walls the 600's run horizontal in fixtures would be more efficient.

I'm preferring the 1k vert and 600's horizontal scenario as you can leave the vertical light fixed at mid plant yet the horizontals would be centered over each pair of 2 plants. This is the only way to get those bulbs truly balanced in that space.

With 4 plants grown simultaneously and all lights on simultaneously for the entire photoperiod you can grow 4 whoppers in that space. Stake and start tying them upright as soon as possible in veg. Just before the flip to 12/12 hollow out the plants so that you have about 6-8” of foliage left at branch ends. Only leave branch ends that reach the periphery of the canopy.

The trainwreck photos I put up earlier at post #2946 show a medium sized plant at 5 weeks veg. As you can see it is already at maximum width for that space so I think that with a 4 week veg and a lot of tying you might be able to control them.

If you have walls you are not going to be able to position the plants in the corners of the space. You will have to put them at midpoints of the flat sides. This decreases your distance to that 1k.

Your biggest challenge here is to keep that bare 1k 14-15” from the closest point of foliage. And i'm assuming at least an 8' ceiling.

Correct me if i'm wrong but I think you said you already have the horizontal fixtures for the 600's but no cool tube for the 1k.

It's funny that our main concerns growing in a ppk are about controlling and lighting the plants, not keeping them alive.

later

 

[stagehand099]

stagehand

Disciple is right about the reflectivity in that size space if you have walls.

So maybe an establishing criteria would be that if you have walls that can be made highly reflective verticals might work good.

I'm preferring the 1k vert and 600's horizontal scenario as you can leave the vertical light fixed at mid plant yet the horizontals would be centered over each pair of 2 plants. This is the only way to get those bulbs truly balanced in that space.

If you have walls you are not going to be able to position the plants in the corners of the space. You will have to put them at midpoints of the flat sides. This decreases your distance to that 1k.

Your biggest challenge here is to keep that bare 1k 14-15” from the closest point of foliage. And i'm assuming at least an 8' ceiling.

Correct me if i'm wrong but I think you said you already have the horizontal fixtures for the 600's but no cool tube for the 1k.

It's funny that our main concerns growing in a ppk are about controlling and lighting the plants, not keeping them alive.

later

OK, thanks to Gregor Mendel, Disciple and Delta9 for your posts. Excellent help and I appreciate it.

My 7 X 7 space will be enclosed by flimsy foamboard/1" X 2" walls or more accurately, movable partitions. So the walls can be made reflective...I was thinking of covering the foamboard in either B/W Panda or Reflectix. Panda's better for me since I have it already. Its an area in the center of a larger room. The ceiling is 7 ft. I need everything to fit within that 7X7 footprint. I have 2 Sun Systems Supersun II 6" hoods and 1 6" cooltube now. So I have the hoods/cooltube to aircool all the lamps. I have 1 6" inline that can exhaust the 2 horizontal hoods and I planned on getting another 6" fan to exhaust the tubed 1K or scavenge if I run the 1K bare. I don't like bare lamps for safety reasons. I've had a 600 explode over my head before...a real buzzkill let me tell ya.

So anyway, I made another crude drawing (nothing to scale) of how I think Delta9 is suggesting to do it...I understand Disciples suggestions and don't need to draw them up. The hoods put a good 3.5 X 3.5 ft. pattern down. The corner sides (backsides) will not be well lit, I'm thinking.

So Delta9, you think the drawing would work well for me with my constraints? I do appreciate your tips on controlling growth and will have more questions on that, I'm sure. Thanks again to all of yall...I'm getting closer to D-day.

stagehand

 

[disciple]

 

[delta9nxs]

OK, thanks to Gregor Mendel, Disciple and Delta9 for your posts. Excellent help and I appreciate it.

My 7 X 7 space will be enclosed by flimsy foamboard/1" X 2" walls or more accurately, movable partitions. So the walls can be made reflective...I was thinking of covering the foamboard in either B/W Panda or Reflectix. Panda's better for me since I have it already. Its an area in the center of a larger room. The ceiling is 7 ft. I need everything to fit within that 7X7 footprint. I have 2 Sun Systems Supersun II 6" hoods and 1 6" cooltube now. So I have the hoods/cooltube to aircool all the lamps. I have 1 6" inline that can exhaust the 2 horizontal hoods and I planned on getting another 6" fan to exhaust the tubed 1K or scavenge if I run the 1K bare. I don't like bare lamps for safety reasons. I've had a 600 explode over my head before...a real buzzkill let me tell ya.

So anyway, I made another crude drawing (nothing to scale) of how I think Delta9 is suggesting to do it...I understand Disciples suggestions and don't need to draw them up. The hoods put a good 3.5 X 3.5 ft. pattern down. The corner sides (backsides) will not be well lit, I'm thinking.

So Delta9, you think the drawing would work well for me with my constraints? I do appreciate your tips on controlling growth and will have more questions on that, I'm sure. Thanks again to all of yall...I'm getting closer to D-day.

stagehand

i was thinking of the 600's turned 90 degrees on that center line. the bulbs radiate best out of the sides of a horizontal light.

but now that i know you will have walls i like that original vertical drawing you did.

and i would at least try to run the lights without the cooltubes just to see if you can get away with it. maybe with no plants.

you could run the 600's elevated slightly above the 1k.

all the reflectivity studies show the differences between commonly used reflective materials to be slight.

when i build new i will use flat white low voc (volatile organic compound) paint. the color is "titanium white" it actually contains titanium pigment. i believe glidden actually sells one named "titanium white" but other brands have the same thing. might be called "glaring white" brilliant white" "blinding white" "way too white" or something like that.

reflectix is a great ir shield though.

 

[disciple]

 

[seventhchild]

DA*N IT BOY'S thats a lot to take in...almost 3000 pages...read them all...i stand in the shadows of gaints...very,very thankful there is a index,however.....i seem to recall reading in this thread that i need to determine where the PWT sits and check the air porosity of the medium i will be using...unable to find it in the index...can one of you kind folks link me in the right direction?