passive plant killer

[ImaginaryFriend]

I'm using a common irrigation drip line to run to my sub reservoir with an OD of 1/4". They are readily available, and have lots of accessories. For example, I have each line plumbed with a shut off valve--cheap solution to the problems I ran into progressively building out the space. I just need something stretchier than I can find.

I've been thinking about a two bucket control.

Supply to float valve in bucket one.
Small ID connection (i.e. the tire valve plumbing) with or without flow control from bucket one to bucket two.
House pump in bucket two.
Home run all sub reservoirs to bucket two.

The restricted flow from bucket one will mean that the pulse pulls back 'old' solution from the various sub reservoirs and remixes it centrally before the volume is rebalanced/topped off from the control in bucket 1.

As a side note, I think about the pulse these days primarily as a mechanical feature, rather than a hydration/feed feature. It flushes/remixes salts, pumps gasses, etc. as it's primary purpose... not watering the plants.

 

[huntingbb]

So... I capitulate... I just gotta get these things plumbed ;P

Got an easy way to punch the holes and the rest? i had a hard time finding enough tire valves btw, apparently socal is dried up ~_~;

 

[ImaginaryFriend]

i had a hard time finding enough tire valves btw, apparently socal is dried up ~_~;

Did you try hitting up a tire place? They have millions on hand at all times.

I think it's a 7/16 drill bit for the tire valves.

If you go the grommet and barbed fitting (for the 1/2 tube) route, a 13/16 paddle bit will make the hole for the grommet.

 

[delta9nxs]

here are a few pics of plants in the new medium. the small one was transplanted today and the bigger one is 2 weeks from transplant.

and a shot of the new plumbing. leak proof.

i bought 50 tire valves for 12.95 at the local goodyear store. the guy said he would give them to me at his cost if i bought my next set of tires from him. nice guy.

yes, IF, the pulse also waters the plants. at least partially.

 

[jjfoo]

if you take 86 and divide it by 130 you get .662. so that is the ratio they recommend. i divided weight by 1000. i measured ppm of each substance at the .5 conversion and got a ratio of 1/.67. i don't remember the weight numbers right now but i used the same ratio to achieve any mix strength i needed. for example, right now i'm running 600 ppm at the .5 conversion so, using a meter, i measure 360 ppm jack's first and 240 ppm calcinit. 240 divided by 360 is .666 so i round it to .67 for convenience. this works really well. i'm growing huge, healthy plants with it. the weight numbers i used originally are somewhere back in this thread.

JJ, all this really doesn't matter as long as you mix according to their instructions to achieve the strength you want. i hope this helps.

later d9

I don't' think I was clear. I am simply stating that if you mix based on EC with the same ratio they use for weight, that you are not following the instructions. If you follow the instructions and mix separate tanks, the EC percent of cal nit to jacks will be higher than %67 due to the fact that cal nit doesn't conduct the same as the stuff in jacks. EC has its limitations.

do you agree that not all salts conduct the same? If you do agree with this (you can look it up), then it is flawed to assume the weight ratio is the same as the EC ratio.

 

[ImaginaryFriend]

yes, IF, the pulse also waters the plants. at least partially.

Of course I agree with that...

I guess I'm trying to describe the way that I'm thinking about the pulse...

A pulse, to me, is not like a drip system, wherein it is the necessary feeding element. We could pulse with no nutes, for example, and the pulse would still be a mechanical performance element. It would still reconnect the hydraulic column to the surface. It would still change the gases within the media. It would still reduce the concentration of salts out of solution.

 

[MedScientist]

I have set-up my variation again, leaving out the OC+, and using GH 3 part nutes. The Strawberry Cough plant was underperforming because the other plants were blocking the light, but she is ready to take the spotlight. I have all the feeder arms buried under the perlite so it doesnt spash with the high O2/H2O spit from the air driven Spider Feeders 24/7. I may have to weight them down, oh, I have some stakes! Nevermind... hehe

 

[daggerinmyback]

Wooh I just pulled a plant to swap from veg to the flower chamber and it had a wad of roots all the way down the tail piece, and 8" in the water...


and nutes are stable, my lines are ok, and I thought about doing a bigger PVC connection but it doesnt allow as much arrangability (is that even a word) but uh... I dunno I think this is where the brainwashing we received in basic comes into play, with the governments motto of: If it aint broke fix it till it is...

Im gonna just roll with it though

 

[delta9nxs]

Quote by JJ
“I don't' think I was clear. I am simply stating that if you mix based on EC with the same ratio they use for weight, that you are not following the instructions. If you follow the instructions and mix separate tanks, the EC percent of cal nit to jacks will be higher than %67 due to the fact that cal nit doesn't conduct the same as the stuff in jacks. EC has its limitations.

do you agree that not all salts conduct the same? If you do agree with this (you can look it up), then it is flawed to assume the weight ratio is the same as the EC ratio.”





JJ, i'm going to go over this again to see if we can find why we are thinking differently about this subject.

First, the instructions do not only tell you how to mix separate tanks, it also shows mixing both substances at a “dilute, ready to use, strength”. Which is the way all us small indoor growers have to do it.

On the instruction sheet that comes with the package it shows that, when mixed according to their instructions of ½ teaspoon per gal of each (volume) or 130 oz's jack's and 86 oz's calcinit per 1000 gals, you will get an ec of 2.1 or 1050 ppm at the .5 conversion. (weight)

They further show their content of jack's at this dose at 630 ppm. This number was achieved by adding up the listed elements.

So if the total dose of 1050 ppm is 630 ppm jack's then the balance representing the calcinit must be 420 ppm. 420 divided by 630 is .666 or 1/.67 for convenience. (ec)

Remember the jack's has no carrier or filler and the calcinit does.

Now lets verify.

Lets convert oz's to grams for measurement.

130 oz's of jack's is 3685.5 grams divided by 1000 is 3.69 grams rounded

86 oz's of calcinit is 2438.1 grams divided by 1000 is 2.44 grams rounded

dividing by 1000 gives us grams per gal.

using jack's at 3.69 grams weight and calcinit at 2.44 grams weight per gal should give you around 1050 ppm or ec 2.1. 2.44 divided by 3.69 is .661. this is 1/.66 ratio

I calibrated my meter this morning to 1382. It read 1377 and should have read 1382.

I checked my ro water and it was 003 ppm as I have just changed the filters.

I measured approx 3.69 grams jack's. I say approx. as my scales won't read 10'ths. So I hit 3.6 and bumped it up a little but did not reach 3.7.

added this to my ro water and got 621 ppm. Very close considering my gram scale doesn't read 10'ths.

I then added approx 2.44 grams calcinit and got 1041 ppm. Again very close considering my equipment limitations and certainly close enough for plant work.

I do not think all salts conduct equally and I did not assume the weight ratio was the same as the ec ratio. I discovered this almost accidentally crunching their numbers around.

I believe it to be coincidental, stranger things have happened.

I presented the weight option for those who possess a gram scale but no ec meter.

By far the easiest way to do this is with a meter.

I sincerely hope this helps, JJ.

d9


editing to say that the scales you see in the pics are not my gram scales used in this effort.

 

[delta9nxs]

Of course I agree with that...

I guess I'm trying to describe the way that I'm thinking about the pulse...

A pulse, to me, is not like a drip system, wherein it is the necessary feeding element. We could pulse with no nutes, for example, and the pulse would still be a mechanical performance element. It would still reconnect the hydraulic column to the surface. It would still change the gases within the media. It would still reduce the concentration of salts out of solution.

just messin' with you, dude!

but you are right about the pulse mechanical properties.

that is why a pulse system will consistently outperform drip or blumats.

d9

 

[delta9nxs]

I have set-up my variation again, leaving out the OC+, and using GH 3 part nutes. The Strawberry Cough plant was underperforming because the other plants were blocking the light, but she is ready to take the spotlight. I have all the feeder arms buried under the perlite so it doesnt spash with the high O2/H2O spit from the air driven Spider Feeders 24/7. I may have to weight them down, oh, I have some stakes! Nevermind... hehe

hey, medmoose! excuse me but what is an air driven spider feeder?

how is that strawberry cough?

 

[delta9nxs]

Wooh I just pulled a plant to swap from veg to the flower chamber and it had a wad of roots all the way down the tail piece, and 8" in the water...


and nutes are stable, my lines are ok, and I thought about doing a bigger PVC connection but it doesnt allow as much arrangability (is that even a word) but uh... I dunno I think this is where the brainwashing we received in basic comes into play, with the governments motto of: If it aint broke fix it till it is...

Im gonna just roll with it though

hey, dagger! whenever i get roots coming out of the tailpiece going into flower i just tear them off. you will find that they don't grow back.

one reason i like each plant "home run" is that i get better mobility at the end of an umbilical. i don't move the lights, i move the plants against them.

and here is a little tease to think about from my last batch. i've extracted the trichs and am drying them now. full photo essay in a few days.

later on

 

[jjfoo]

I do not think all salts conduct equally and I did not assume the weight ratio was the same as the ec ratio. I discovered this almost accidentally crunching their numbers around.

ok, I'll remeasure and use one tank not two, unless one of of has made a mistake I should get the same results (using RO water that is around 5 ppm.

I am only going to measure by weight (again), then see if my EC ratios are .67. Last time I measured to a 10th of a gram and came up with .80, I may have made a mistake.

It seems to be OK but measuring by volume could lead to different readings depending on the prill size. I am assuming that not all calcium nitrate is prilled. Non prilled would be denser which could lead to issues. Have you ever seem the cal nit that peterslab's sells? I'd be curious. Peterslab told me they can not confirm that yara would be the same mixing instructs and (of course) recommend that I buy their product.

Thanks for responding with the details.

 

[MedScientist]

hey, medmoose! excuse me but what is an air driven spider feeder?

how is that strawberry cough?

The Spider Feeders are used in the 6 sided Eco Growers. Was my solution to running a top drip without problems of a pump in the res... high temps... tangled roots... has proven to be an excellent substitute. I have found several creative ways to use them!

http://www.sunlightsupply.com/p-11657-eco-grower-drip-hydroponic-system.aspx

I have an incredible Sour Strawberry (Strawberry Diesel)... 9.5/10 Med factor... 10/10 Duration (lasts 4-6 hours, intense). I picked up the Strawberry Cough, thinking the Mom would be as intense, and possibly better... but NO! I want to give it 1 more try, dial it in before eliminating in comparison.

 

[ImaginaryFriend]

that is why a pulse system will consistently outperform drip or blumats.

I agree with this.

 

[jjfoo]

just messin' with you, dude!

but you are right about the pulse mechanical properties.

that is why a pulse system will consistently outperform drip or blumats.

d9

Is this something that is agreed upon in the commercial green house industry or something you have seen in your own experience?

I'm just curious and would like to start studying this. I am considering running pressure compensated sprinklers. They have a 360 spray.

are not pulse and drip just two points on continuum? If not, what things differentiate the two? I think the to variables are rate and time, right? If pulse is short bursts does that mean drip is longer?


Right now I am actually hand watering because my cheesy spagetti tube lines had several leaks. I don't mind hand watering for now, but I want to get a high pressure pump to run the pressure compensated sprinklers. I want to actually plan my water system before buying stuff this time...

 

[jjfoo]

water uptake

water uptake

I came across an interesting read here:

http://www.biology.duke.edu/jackson/tps00.pdf


interesting apparatus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potometer

 

[ImaginaryFriend]

agreed upon in the commercial green house industry

I think there are links in this thread to green house pulse feeding... check the page containing post 948.

Trying to understand the hydraulic interaction of the pulse and wick combination is personally convincing. To go further, watching it in action--and trying to flush plants that have been PPK'd, compared to watching other systems (i.e. salt build up at the bottom of drip system's media) supports this understanding.

It may be stating the obvious, but I presume that there is an agreement that there is a coarseness of media that approaches ideal in this application, that maximizes the benefits of the system. Large variations from this ideal coarseness may impede the hydro/gas dynamics significantly.

With the grossly inappropriate media (raw clay, for example... or, I suppose clay pellets on the other), you might be able to make a PPK fail.

If one were to use a very different media, a different application technique might be beneficial.

The PPK, viewed systematically (i.e. with an eye on the air gap, media consistency, and pulse timing relative to the media consistency) has numerous mechanical advantages in comparison to one sided drip/wick based systems.

 

[jjfoo]

first of all, what is the difference between drip and pulse? Is it the frequency that determines this, the amount of water? My goal is to not let the top dry out, I can achieve this with 'drip', sprinklers, open tubes, etc. If a ppk does better with salt distribution I'd think this has more to do with bottom watering than pulse watering. I mean if I bottom water and use a drip system, what is the difference? If you just bottom water you get salt on top. I understand that having bottom water and wetting the top (this could be drip or pulse) will take care of the salt at the top that is common with bottom feed only systems.

 

[ImaginaryFriend]

Is it the frequency that determines this, the amount of water?

Semi-Educated Speculation:

1. A drip is a drip. A pulse is a pulse. That is, a much heavier, continuous stream of fluid. In some of D9's pics, he shows four points of distribution of that pulse.

2. In a container garden, pulse can have enough volume to cover the surface of the media, before moving through it.

This offers the potential benefit more complete capture of consolidated salts.

This offers the potential benefit of what has previously been described as a plunger effect--that is, the displacement of media bound gasses by water/nute solution. As this water moves down and through the media, the resulting 'purged' air gaps are refilled with 'new and fresh' air.

3. In so far as root structures take on different forms (water/feeder/air), in a properly structured media, a pulse does not result in constant saturation as a continuous drip might, possibly benefiting the air roots. I have noted a very different root structure and density in the top 1/4-1/3 of root balls.