C
Carl Carlson
D9, Please respond to post 998 if you can
passive plant killer
- Thread starter delta9nxs
- Start date
hey, carl! i thought i did on post 1012.
n/a
good point Burnt Rope...
good reply delta9nxs...
keep only strongest.
good reply delta9nxs...
keep only strongest.
Last edited:
n/a
oldone
Member
IMHO, I think that without the wicks you would be continuously adjusting the quantity of the pulse. Too much and you get runoff and it just becomes an automated hempy bucket. Too little and well you know what would happen...
OO
If I did this type of system I would still have a wick to maintain the perched water table below the root zone. Redundancy is a good thing in many cases. If your pump goes out plants wont die.
n/a
B.R.
The pulse watering is for nutrient concentration management; that is, it's purpose is not so much to feed the plant as it is a methodology of managing the salt concentration within the coco. More Complete Explanation/Summary
The pulse watering is for nutrient concentration management; that is, it's purpose is not so much to feed the plant as it is a methodology of managing the salt concentration within the coco. More Complete Explanation/Summary
n/a
D9 did the work already to develop this system to where it is. It's in this thread. It is summarized elsewhere, if you don't want to do the work of reading 1100 posts with uncounted links.
He initially ran pulse in veg to make sure that the roots made it to the area of the media with adequate solution to feed them. He was so pleased with the results, that he added it to flower. He was so pleased with the results, he left it there. He speculated as to why it may be the way it is, and then added outside links that provided theory that supported his observations response.
Post 1 of this thread states the aim of his system:
Even within the light of complex-theory/simple-application context, the thesis is that the pulse feed acts as a counter to the consolidations of salt that are the consequence of evaporation by redissolving them into solution. Additionally, depending on your set up, the pulse can act as a means of forced gas exchange within the media. Depending on volume, it can act as an active flush to move any excesses out of the plant, or at lower volumes, it can act as a passive flush by way of inverted leaching. As basic evidence of that claim, I contrast D9's rootball EC tests with OO's flush as he prepared to transfer to Jacks...
Do you think there is something being overlooked here when you ask, "What's the real reason?" If so, please share.
If, when you state, that "there is only one way to make that determination," refers to a systematic trial, I would suggest that it has been done with the thoroughness, and the conclusions say pulse.
He initially ran pulse in veg to make sure that the roots made it to the area of the media with adequate solution to feed them. He was so pleased with the results, that he added it to flower. He was so pleased with the results, he left it there. He speculated as to why it may be the way it is, and then added outside links that provided theory that supported his observations response.
Post 1 of this thread states the aim of his system:
Observed responses suggested the addition of a pump. As knna alluded to in the VPD conversation, the actual causes can be complicated, but the application simple.
Even within the light of complex-theory/simple-application context, the thesis is that the pulse feed acts as a counter to the consolidations of salt that are the consequence of evaporation by redissolving them into solution. Additionally, depending on your set up, the pulse can act as a means of forced gas exchange within the media. Depending on volume, it can act as an active flush to move any excesses out of the plant, or at lower volumes, it can act as a passive flush by way of inverted leaching. As basic evidence of that claim, I contrast D9's rootball EC tests with OO's flush as he prepared to transfer to Jacks...
Do you think there is something being overlooked here when you ask, "What's the real reason?" If so, please share.
If, when you state, that "there is only one way to make that determination," refers to a systematic trial, I would suggest that it has been done with the thoroughness, and the conclusions say pulse.
n/a
Good luck in your endeavors.
oldone
Member
Hi BR, nice to have another loony tinkerer in the house, LOL.
My miniature ppk is only 7" deep and top surface never dries out. Somewhere between my 7" and d9's 10ish depth is the wicking height of coco so his surface does dry out.
see ya,
OO
n/a
To me, this seems like a different animal entirely.
If your grow season is long enough, why not just run with organically amended soils and blumats? The soil will improve year by year with cultivation, and blumats are a super efficient way to dial in your localized water content without automation and will shut down when it rains, etc.
In the medi-world, everyone likes the term 'orgainic'...
If your grow season is long enough, why not just run with organically amended soils and blumats? The soil will improve year by year with cultivation, and blumats are a super efficient way to dial in your localized water content without automation and will shut down when it rains, etc.
In the medi-world, everyone likes the term 'orgainic'...
n/a
S
SCROG McDuck
Changing Gears
Changing Gears
Cutting the pie!
D9, would you concider, 'flushing' in the PPK a reasonable idea?
Personally, I've never flushed but with all that do, it must have
some merit.....
Running a seperate control/volume rez w RO only....
after ppk has its' rez drained of the jacks and
replaced with Phd, RO and run the last ???, 2-3 weeks
on straight RO?
This is the second time I've typed this question,
deleting it the first time because I do not flush...
but the question keeps coming to me.. dono why!
Whaddaya think?
Your dialed in and documented sucesses would be a good
test of 'flushing vs yield vs taste' controversy.
Changing Gears
Cutting the pie!
D9, would you concider, 'flushing' in the PPK a reasonable idea?
Personally, I've never flushed but with all that do, it must have
some merit.....
Running a seperate control/volume rez w RO only....
after ppk has its' rez drained of the jacks and
replaced with Phd, RO and run the last ???, 2-3 weeks
on straight RO?
This is the second time I've typed this question,
deleting it the first time because I do not flush...
but the question keeps coming to me.. dono why!
Whaddaya think?
Your dialed in and documented sucesses would be a good
test of 'flushing vs yield vs taste' controversy.
2-3 wks of only water not good for plant. especially if desire large, aromatic flowers, w/ nice texture...
boron, manganese & calcium are needed to fully & properly develop fruit. & lots of potassium - up to 4400-500ppm. in tomatoes, there is blossom end rot, in other certain plants, there is generally calcium (top) & magnesium (bottom) deficiencies... but b & mn also help fruit ripen to peak maturity... iron, manganese & calcium immobile in plant, so once not supplied, those parts w/out it stored have none...
the anionns (sulfates, phosphates, nitrates, chlorides) are held mostly in solution, not on particles...so if no flowing solution, these rinse out easy...
the opposite may be good.... increase ec to 3.5-4.0 (2500-3000+ppm). this gives slight water stress, but not much, as sub-irrigation (ppk/passive hidro) keep water present. it increases concentration of elements required for fruit/flower finishing.
not every gardener do this... but ec can slowly rise wkly... "flushes" can be every 5 days. just pour in water to res, run for 24h. end...re-fill tank w/ regular ferts.
flush only requires 1-2 waterings (han)...or....1-3 days recirculation.
the plant requires in-organic elememts 100% of tyme. espcially cal, mag k & sulfur during flowering + the ^^^ micros
another option, maybe in pages back... crf's. can insert a crf @ begin of season, or simple break off small piece(s) @ wk 3-4, & insert into coco. 1in down... then slow-release for final 2-4 wks & feed only r.o./h20...
if desire to increase flavor/aromatics/texture - add gh fl0ralicious bl00m. every other water @ 1/2-1 tsp/gal...
"flush" coco last 2-5 days.... or every 3rd water (hand)/1x/wk (recirculation). end..... much more difficult to insert calcium into feed regime, once absent...the fruit may suffer for 1-2 wks w/out signs - then
yellow bottom leaves (>mg++), stunted, yellow tops (>cal++), small, airy fruit (>b-)...hope this help
Last edited:
