passive plant killer

[Snook]

i think you are going to need to call a museum curator or someone like that cause i'm totally unqualified to answer that question.

but i can handle your question about the turface/rh mix.

i like the holes still with this mix but i am putting a 4" wide strip of regular fiberglass window screen against the holes on the inside. i'm also putting a small piece down the tailpiece from the inside.

No D9 for 4 days, hope all is well. Screen it is. the 3:1-8822(turface substitute):rice hulls will be heavy, like you mention in you first posts in this thread. but not as heavy as your 100% turface examples. I recieved the rice hulls last week, the look like little roaches (the bugs). The 8822, I'll have to go raid napa soon. I'll be happy not to have gnats in the future. Hows the G13 doing?

 

[zeke99]

I cut these on 8/11 and took the lids off for good on day five. Today, they all have roots that are visible on the bottom of the latch boxes. Coarse perlite, FNB, wicks, etc. No rooting gel either, instead I used saliva. That comes from The Dirt Doctor. I cut the clones, put them in water for a few minutes, and when ready to plant, scarify (sp???) the end of stem just a little bit and hold the stem gently in my mouth for a few seconds (5-8). Delta9, your cloning system has helped to save my grow.



Three in turface from way back and the first three I put in perlite (21 days), all with roots as well, but slower than group three.

 

[catman]

Commence rambling..

So... I found a link that has cleared some things up for me and I hope it helps others although I'm sure it has already been covered in this thread.

Capillary rise/action or capillarity or simply wicking (through the forces of adhesion) is determined by the size of the pores in a particle of medium. Particles with more smaller pores have a greater surface area than larger holes so they hold more water and becuase they are closer together, will have greater capillary rise (they will wick higher) although more smaller pores wick slower than larger pores. Another force, cohesion which causes surface tension, is basically why water likes to stick to it self. Think about how drops of water pool together. Cohesion alone can also cause wicking without any pores. Notice that if you put a straw into a glass of water, the level in the straw will be higher than in the glass. The smaller the straw, the higher it will be wicked. This is why particles that are closer together (compacted), will wick higher.

Now, back PPK to turface like mediums and mixtures... One of the goals of PPK has been proposed to keep as much medium, as moist as possible, at all times which is being done with top-feed drippers. I'm wondering if there is a design that can top-feed without any pumps what so-ever by using properties of mediums and capillarity/wicking. Compacting medium will raise the PWT and restrict root growth, but it will also allow water to be wicked higher. So, maybe 'wicking' zones outside of the plant medium could be used to move water from the res to the to the top of the bucket creating a truly passive plant killer. No pumps or timers of any sort needed if we can control the frequency and amount of water flow through dimensions and amount of parts (bucket sizes,tube diameters, hole sizes, etc) in a design and using properties of various mediums and physical phenomena to keep our plants happy.

An illustration below and further explanation and theory.

On the very left, the system is almost ready to have water added to it again. In this stage, the system is at rest where the holes on the bottom of the upper bucket serve to air prune roots and/or maintain higher levels of oxygen.

The two green tubes are filled with a material or medium wick that will need to be wicked as high as possible and ideally to the tip-top of the plant's medium. Tubes with a smaller diameter will wick higher and more or less tubes can be added (or even disabled during periods when the plant uses less water) to regulate flow of water. What I'm unsure of (and this could destroy this entire concept) is how to get the wicks in the green tubes to release the water into the plant's medium. For now, I'm hoping there is a way, but if there is not; the system could use pumps.

I'm not suggesting a mix of a medium with small pores like turface would be used ~50/50 with a medium with larger or no pores like rice hulls or perlite as shown in the picture, but there is a reason why I'll say perlite, should be above turface. Water evaporates from perlite easily so salt build up will occur and the CEC of turface will buffer nutrients for the plants to use in the lowest and most moist zone of the bucket.

When it comes time to add more water, the system is set into motion. Water is added quickly and it will drain quickly which will flush salt built up (if the green tube wicks work well enough, perlite shouldn't dry out enough for significant build up to begin with) and because turface drains slower, a pool of water will be formed on top of it which will create a seal/blanket/plunger effect which will push down gases to leave the air holes while new gases are being brought in from the top of the medium. Now that I understand how pore sizes and particle size influence capillary action (keep in mind capillary action works downward as it does upward), the plunger effect isn't caused alone by adding lots of water quickly like with a pulse, but is caused by turface's strong capillary action which also means slow drainage. If a major benefit of PPK is frequent gas exchanges, more frequent pulses with just enough volume to create a temporary pool of water above turface would seem to accomplish the same plunger effect. Too much of a temporary pool would just be a waste of water at least in regard to the frequent gas exchange theory and would increase the time before another plunge would be optimal.

Pulsing large amounts of water however speeds up the drainage at first. To understand this with an experiment we can do, fill a container with a hole in the bottom with half turface and add water to it fast enough until it reaches the top of the container. Notice how water drains faster when there is lots of water in the bucket and slower as the water level gets closer to the actual turface itself. So, more water above the medium pushes the water down quickly, but still, less water is of course drained faster.

Anyway, water then makes its way down the tailpiece increasing the height of the reservoir and thus increasing the height of the PWT and thus increasing the moisture content's height. This will cause gases to be pushed out of the air holes until the PWT will want to be raised higher than them, and then gases will be pushed out of the top of the medium. The PWT will reach a maximum height because of the air holes on the side of the bucket and the overflow of water out the holes will flow back down into the res which will break the surface tension of the water thus allowing more dissolved oxygen to be absorbed. The air holes not draining the temporarily raised PWT will now allow new gases to enter to them while gases are being pushed upwards out of the medium. The increased res height will also increase the flow going through the green tube wicks which would keep the tip-top of the medium moist in addition to the temporally increased PWT increasing moisture below this tip-top zone.

This system would violate a theory that the PWT is to never enter the upper bucket which is to create as much air roots as possible through keeping more medium avaible to them as to fully fill the buckets opposed to having an upside down cone-shaped root system. I'm skeptical of this theory for a few reasons. Plain hempy buckets work fairly well with a stagnant bottom res giving rise to water roots. Water roots produce great plants in water cultures. And most importantly, plants in nature have air roots, water roots, and an upside down conical-shape probably for good reason having evolved for millions of years suiting themselves not only to their environment, but to physical laws of nature. Moving the PWT temporarily into the plant's medium not only will make water roots more happy, but will contribute to more effective (and possibly more frequently) gas exchanges and increased dissolved oxygen in the bottom reservoir

Just some more food for thought.

 

[jjfoo]

catman,

I'm not sure I fully understand. You are not suggesting that the extra wicks will 'topwater' the perlite are you? I don't think you are saying this, just want to be clear.

There is already a wick from the bottom to the top, the media. I'd expect that adding these extra wicks would have the same function as making the main media wick bigger.

IF the wick was had a very high affinity for water (more surface area, more than perlite or media being used), it may wick higher, but would be harder to transfer the water into the growing medium.

My point is adding more wicks alone wont change the water table at all.

here is a link to a guy that gives some details on how this works:

http://forums2.gardenweb.com/forums/load/contain/msg0321395926870.html

this is probably in the thread somewhere, but I just wanted to highlight it for you

 

[catman]

I'm not sure I fully understand. You are not suggesting that the extra wicks will 'topwater' the perlite are you? I don't think you are saying this, just want to be clear.

There is already a wick from the bottom to the top, the media. I'd expect that adding these extra wicks would have the same function as making the main media wick bigger.

Yes, I'm saying they could 'topwater' the perlite. The media wick does not go from the bottom to the top depending on the size of the container and media. 100% perlite needs to be constantly topfed to avoid nutrient build up because the salts get left behind when the perlite isn't always moist. The purpose would be water flowing back down between watering instead of only wicking up. Also to keep nutes mixed around and more consistent moisture through all of the plant's media as top of the media dries out faster.

IF the wick was had a very high affinity for water (more surface area, more than perlite or media being used), it may wick higher, but would be harder to transfer the water into the growing medium.

My point is adding more wicks alone wont change the water table at all.

I realize it would be hard to transfer and maybe impossible, but still I'm wondering. Maybe the top of the medium would have to be peat or coco, but even then I don't think it would receive enough water as to drip into the perlite below it. Like I said before, maybe this won't at all work, but could be done with air pumps which drive "water pumps" which would serve purpose of introducing more DO into the res, regulating moisture content based upon res height. See here if that doesn't already make sense. A gravity res could feed a slow drip as well to keep the entire system free of electrical devices.

Of course it wouldn't change the water table in the plant's medium as water is simply being recirculated in the system. The idea is that a wicking material could be used in the small green tubes to create a PWT as high as possible and then for another wicking material to drain it out and drip into the perlite. Thanks for the link, but that is where I've already learned most of what I know about this.

 

[jjfoo]

you can't sustain a flow like that, if the wicks hold enough water to make it past the perlite they wont transfer it, it will essentially balance out and come to equilibrium.
water wont flow in circles up the wick and down the media (I think this is wht you are saying) with out energy input.

Things like this can happen in special state of matter called an einstein-bose condensate. They have little fountains that run forever (super chilled, which takes tons of energy to maintain), the liquid has no friction.


If you want the most oxygen and lowest amount of water, go with a longer air gap and adjust the top watering accordingly.

I run my PPK buckets with 3 gal pots in 5 gal. I don't need 5 gal for one thing and a three gal sits higher and lets me have a longer gap. They make a tail piece that is a perfect fit from the bottom of the 3 gal bucket to the bottom of the 5.

 

[zeke99]

Catman:

Peat pucks at walmart,HD+RH dome=very easy, fail proof,& fast method of cloning IME. change dome 1,2 days, add water 2,3 times..ta da! roots

No it's not failproof. And since I just had seven out of seven remain perfectly healthy and grow roots in ten days without a dome, I don't think I'll be using anything else from now on. Thanks anyways.

 

[delta9nxs]

From what I understand, more pressure = more dissolved oxygen. Maybe this is why RDWC hands down produces the biggest plants, the quickest. I'm just speculating.

hi, this system does not use dissolved oxygen in water for an oxygen source. it uses oxygen from the air.

this system produces plants in the same time frame as dwc. if you have a 9 week cultivar it's a nine week cultivar no matter what system you grow in. i have grown the same plant in bio-buckets and dwc before and they did not mature any faster in those systems than it does in a ppk.

i am growing 32" plants in 28 days of vegetative growth. fat, bushy, heavy plants.

i am regularly producing 16 oz plus plants in 13 weeks total growth. i have produced a 22 oz plant in 14 weeks total time. as far as i know that equals or surpasses the growth rate of any system out there.

what was your biggest plant using dwc? and have you grown a 1 pound plant using any system?

i am limited here because of space and electrical considerations but when i move into a custom designed facility i can promise that you will see 2 pound plants from this system.

i don't know if your designs will work or not but i do know that the basic design developed here works great. if you were to build one just as you see it here you will be successful on your first try.

your writing still demonstrates that you do not have a complete understanding of how this thing works. if you were to just build one as you see it here all the principles involved here will become apparent to you.

 

[delta9nxs]

No D9 for 4 days, hope all is well. Screen it is. the 3:1-8822(turface substitute):rice hulls will be heavy, like you mention in you first posts in this thread. but not as heavy as your 100% turface examples. I recieved the rice hulls last week, the look like little roaches (the bugs). The 8822, I'll have to go raid napa soon. I'll be happy not to have gnats in the future. Hows the G13 doing?

hey, snook! the rice hulls are weird looking! i have 4 coco medium plants left to whack. everything else is in a non coco medium with most being in the 3/1 turface/rh mix.

fungus gnats are disappearing and i still haven't done any treatments.

i'll see if i can get some g13 pics up later.

later

 

[delta9nxs]

I cut these on 8/11 and took the lids off for good on day five. Today, they all have roots that are visible on the bottom of the latch boxes. Coarse perlite, FNB, wicks, etc. No rooting gel either, instead I used saliva. That comes from The Dirt Doctor. I cut the clones, put them in water for a few minutes, and when ready to plant, scarify (sp???) the end of stem just a little bit and hold the stem gently in my mouth for a few seconds (5-8). Delta9, your cloning system has helped to save my grow.



Three in turface from way back and the first three I put in perlite (21 days), all with roots as well, but slower than group three.

super cool dude! i am greatly relieved to hear that you are cloning successfully.

scarify is the correct term but it sounds like something you do on halloween. "i'm going to scarify the shit out of them"!

i'm going to have to get a big ole jar of industrial strength spit. it's such a versatile substance.

i did not invent this method, it's been around for a long time but usually used with perlite. i did do the turface mod myself.

congrats again!

 

[dgr]

I guess I gotta quit kissing D9's butt. I tried spit and they all rotted. Maybe I don't have enough THC in my saliva?

D9,
I know it's in the last 2450 posts. Can you remember me your results with coco/rice hulls?

 

[catman]

you can't sustain a flow like that, if the wicks hold enough water to make it past the perlite they wont transfer it, it will essentially balance out and come to equilibrium.
water wont flow in circles up the wick and down the media (I think this is wht you are saying) with out energy input.

I'm not talking about a sustained perpetual flow. If the PWT was higher than the perlite, it could be drained out with another wick just as a wick can drain a PWT on the bottom of any container. What did I say about water flowing in circles? The notion was it flowing vertically, then horizontally, and then in both ways.

Answer me this. Could a tube inside of a medium (filled with another medium) have a different PWT then media outside of the tube?

Like I said at first..I might be wrong about this, but water-air pumps could be used or a gravity fed rez for a truly passive system instead of a glorified drip system.

If you want the most oxygen and lowest amount of water, go with a longer air gap and adjust the top watering accordingly.

I run my PPK buckets with 3 gal pots in 5 gal. I don't need 5 gal for one thing and a three gal sits higher and lets me have a longer gap. They make a tail piece that is a perfect fit from the bottom of the 3 gal bucket to the bottom of the 5.

I don't believe I said anyting to imply I want the most oxygen with the lowest amount of water. I'm actually suggesting more water should be involved in a PPK theory which doesn't reflect the practice of it anyway.

A larger res (5 gal) means more still water in the reservoir unless you are of course watering so much you have to drain drain it; and then it is a stretch to call the system passive. Are you trying to say the extra 5 gallon bucket in my proposed system makes it void of any value to you or anyone else?

Catman:
No it's not failproof. And since I just had seven out of seven remain perfectly healthy and grow roots in ten days without a dome, I don't think I'll be using anything else from now on. Thanks anyways.

Suite yourself man. If you're ever open to other ways, check out the "peat puck" thread here on ICMAG. Moisten puck for a hour, make straight cut with a scissors, insert cut and cover with a dome. Change air one daily while adding water if required. In 20% RH I water once in 10 days to get roots with some strains.

hi, this system does not use dissolved oxygen in water for an oxygen source. it uses oxygen from the air.

It uses both and I only mentioned benefits of additional dissolved oxygen because they were possible additional bonuses to parts serving greater purposes.

i am regularly producing 16 oz plus plants in 13 weeks total growth. i have produced a 22 oz plant in 14 weeks total time. as far as i know that equals or surpasses the growth rate of any system out there.

Nobody has questioned your results, but that is irrelevant to your understanding as to how the system works.

RDWC and drip systems can equal or surpass your growth even with more simplicity. I don't think they can conserve water and be as robust as a PPK system.

what was your biggest plant using dwc? and have you grown a 1 pound plant using any system?

I thought I found a special thread, but I was wrong. You didn't get enough out of stroking your own ego to not have to attempt to cut down mine?

i am limited here because of space and electrical considerations but when i move into a custom designed facility i can promise that you will see 2 pound plants from this system.

I've seen 2 pound systems with simply dripping perlite.

i don't know if your designs will work or not but i do know that the basic design developed here works great. if you were to build one just as you see it here you will be successful on your first try.

your writing still demonstrates that you do not have a complete understanding of how this thing works. if you were to just build one as you see it here all the principles involved here will become apparent to you.

I never doubted the basic design would work well and I've already made a basic PPK bucket that I plan to use and I am grateful for the knowledge. Considering my limitations is only 3 flowering plants, I'd like to have each bucket recirculate themselves so they aren't being fed the same food and I'll veg as long as the other 3 are flowering. I'm sure you've read plenty about Heath, but I hope you'll find the work of Billy Liar and maybe you'll be humbled.

If my writing skills (as vague as it is to say that) are not well and I'm not understanding simple concepts, it would seem some one else has failed to demonstrated an ability to articulate and/or sincerity to try.

What i'm soliciting here are any and all comments or pointers about any part of this effort. Any input or links to passive growing techniques are welcome. Anything anyone wants to show and tell is fine with me.

...

 

[jjfoo]

Answer me this. Could a tube inside of a medium (filled with another medium) have a different PWT then media outside of the tube?

Like I said at first..I might be wrong about this, but water-air pumps could be used or a gravity fed rez for a truly passive system instead of a glorified drip system.

yes, but it wouldn't spread into the perlite if it had a higher affinity to water (you said it has a high-water level), it would actually pull water from perlite (at first) then balance out to the same point it would with out the extra wicks. I perceive this as added complexity for nothing (literally no more, no less, 0), not supply water.

I mean no offense and I encourage you to not listen to be but rather build a single unit and measure it, then you will have less doubt.

You can easily measure this with food coloring. The laws of nature are sometimes very unintuitive.


yes I agree the PPK is a glorified drip system (or pulse), Is that a bad thing? some people like bottom watering, some like top watering, the PPK gives yo a way to do both and control the rate of both. I stumbled on this thread a year ago or so when googling words that described what I was trying to do.

I've since moved on to tables with a long wick handing in the air, this is my pref because I like my media to hold as little water as possible. I am not saying this is better, than having a smaller air gap, I just don't want any standing water in my environment.

on the drying note, I am playing with rockwool cubes on drain wicks. They drain completely and are actually light within an hour. Some hydro tomato crops are watered 20X a day according the grodan.

 

[jjfoo]

Are you trying to say the extra 5 gallon bucket in my proposed system makes it void of any value to you or anyone else?

yes, to be really clear, I am saying that there are no purposes at all for 5 gallon buckets ever.

kidding... it just came across as ridiculous that you would say something like this

I'm not trying to be rude and am having trouble communicating with you (I assume it is my fault not yours as I am often misunderstood by certain kinds of people for whatever reason).

I was just giving you an example of what I do. I talk to much.

Now that I better understand that you want more water in your medium, I have nothing more to say except why?

 

[delta9nxs]

I guess I gotta quit kissing D9's butt. I tried spit and they all rotted. Maybe I don't have enough THC in my saliva?

D9,
I know it's in the last 2450 posts. Can you remember me your results with coco/rice hulls?

hi, i used the botanicare cocogro bricks for 3 parts amended with 1 part each of turface and rice hulls. it grew a nice big plant.

i'm liking the 3/1 turface/rice hulls a lot. i intend to try the napa #8822 floor dri too.

i don't have to go to a "grow" store anymore. i'm really digging that. i always feel like there's a target on my back every time i go.

later on

 

[delta9nxs]

1. 4" wide piece of fiberglass window screen. there is a small piece shoved down the tail piece also. necessary with the turface and rice hulls.

2. back side of a g13 cutting going into flower tomorrow. notice the tight node spacing. the seedling, shown in the last picture, did not branch as much. the second g13, which is a cutting now in flower, was taken from the seedling before it reached alternate phyllotaxy so has only slightly more branching than the seedling. this cutting was taken from the second cutting after it reached alternate phyllotaxy and is finally representative of what i'll be growing from now on with this plant. i believe that cuttings taken from sexually mature plants yield more than seedlings. people growing from seeds every time never realize the plants potential.

3.4. the front of the same plant at 28 days veg. 30" high and 34" wide. it has not been topped. it grows short and fat and does not stretch much in flower.

5. purple nukush seedling. my first one was a male. i'm hoping this one is a female.

6. the g13 seedling about 2 weeks from whacking. this plant was defoliated heavily at 24 days of flower.

well, that's all, folks!

 

[catman]

yes, but it wouldn't spread into the perlite if it had a higher affinity to water (you said it has a high-water level), it would actually pull water from perlite (at first) then balance out to the same point it would with out the extra wicks. I perceive this as added complexity for nothing (literally no more, no less, 0), not supply water.

Imagine you have a perlite container with a hole below the PWT. If you put a wicking rope in it with higher affinity for the water than perlite, the water will drain out the rope and drops will fall through the air, to the ground. How would this not happen assuming the PWT really was above the perlite? After the water drops, I'm not suggesting it would raise the PWT of the entire bucket, but make the top more moist avoiding salt buildup and flushing salts down. The system is never static. There is watering being removed from the system and added again so I think there at least would be a spurting effect when the rez is raised. And like you, I'm thinking of ways of staying away from still water in the bottom bucket rez.

I'll repeat myself again in that even if this doesn't work, there is another way to accomplish the same thing while keeping the system truly passive.

yes, to be really clear, I am saying that there are no purposes at all for 5 gallon buckets ever.

kidding... it just came across as ridiculous that you would say something like this

I'm not trying to be rude and am having trouble communicating with you (I assume it is my fault not yours as I am often misunderstood by certain kinds of people for whatever reason).

I was only responding to your ridiculous assertion. You seem to nitpick at whatever you can find instead of trying to see ideas for progress or how to help others progress. You sure talked up your 3 gallon buckets and maybe they meets your needs just fine, but a bigger plant will grow in a bigger bucket for those of us with low plant counts. Have you noticed I'm talking about theoretical ideas of systems instead of being defensive of what I'm doing? I'll take constructive criticism even if it is rather tactless so I really do appreciate that, but you don't seem to be interested in any real discourse.

Now that I better understand that you want more water in your medium, I have nothing more to say except why?

See the last paragraph here. It would be more precise to say I'd like more water at the bottom of the root structure without having to frequently pulse large amounts of water on timers.

I thought the most interesting thing I said regarding PPK had to do with the properties of turface facilitating a two-way plunger effect moving gases around because of the air holes on the side of the top bucket allowing this to happen, and how they could regulate a max PWT like a hempy bucket. Hadn't seen this idea brought up before so maybe I've missed it else where. Anyway, I don't have anything new or nice to say so I'll show myself the door.

 

[delta9nxs]

@catman

Quote:
Originally Posted by delta9nxs
hi, this system does not use dissolved oxygen in water for an oxygen source. it uses oxygen from the air.
“It uses both and I only mentioned benefits of additional dissolved oxygen because they were possible additional bonuses to parts serving greater purposes.”


No, it does not use dissolved oxygen in water as a significant source of o2 for the plant. The design as you see me using derives 23,333 times more o2 from air than it does from the same volume of water. The water in all containers making up the parts of this system is stagnant and have no aerating devices installed. There will be some free o2 in it but not much.


Quote:
i am regularly producing 16 oz plus plants in 13 weeks total growth. i have produced a 22 oz plant in 14 weeks total time. as far as i know that equals or surpasses the growth rate of any system out there.
“Nobody has questioned your results, but that is irrelevant to your understanding as to how the system works.”


My understanding of how this system works is not in question here.



“RDWC and drip systems can equal or surpass your growth even with more simplicity. I don't think they can conserve water and be as robust as a PPK system.”


I didn't say other systems could not equal or surpass the production of this system. I said that this system is capable of equaling or surpassing other systems. And this thing is very simple both to build and operate. For most people. You said:
“Maybe this is why RDWC hands down produces the biggest plants, the quickest.”
I have done dwc, rdwc, and bio-buckets with this same cutting and did not get these yields.


Quote:
what was your biggest plant using dwc? and have you grown a 1 pound plant using any system?
“I thought I found a special thread, but I was wrong. You didn't get enough out of stroking your own ego to not have to attempt to cut down mine? “


Now you've gone and done it. You have misunderstood not only my intentions but everyone else you have interacted with here. Everyone here has a good understanding of how this works and is sincerely trying to help you. Some of them have changed it to suit their personal likes and situations and that is fine with me. We all live different lives. Listen more, argue less.


Quote:
i am limited here because of space and electrical considerations but when i move into a custom designed facility i can promise that you will see 2 pound plants from this system.
"I've seen 2 pound systems with simply dripping perlite."


I'm sure you have but how is that relevant to what we are doing here?


Quote:
i don't know if your designs will work or not but i do know that the basic design developed here works great. if you were to build one just as you see it here you will be successful on your first try.

your writing still demonstrates that you do not have a complete understanding of how this thing works. if you were to just build one as you see it here all the principles involved here will become apparent to you.
“I never doubted the basic design would work well and I've already made a basic PPK bucket that I plan to use and I am grateful for the knowledge. Considering my limitations is only 3 flowering plants, I'd like to have each bucket recirculate themselves so they aren't being fed the same food and I'll veg as long as the other 3 are flowering. I'm sure you've read plenty about Heath, but I hope you'll find the work of Billy Liar and maybe you'll be humbled.“


Yeah, heath was my main moderator at *****. A very smart guy and a great grower as well as a fine human being. I'm certain that heath or billy (I have read his stuff also) would get similar results with this system if it were used in the same environment and lighting they use in some of their higher yielding grows. You know, same plant, same lights, same co2, same temperature, same humidity, etc.
the likelihood of me being humbled by anyone or anything is an extreme improbability. Not that I don't admire and respect a lot of folks.


“If my writing skills (as vague as it is to say that) are not well and I'm not understanding simple concepts, it would seem some one else has failed to demonstrated an ability to articulate and/or sincerity to try.”


You are absolutely correct. I, obviously, am solely to blame for your not understanding and have failed miserably in my feeble attempt at communicating. I shall sheath mine vile instrument of rapprochement and retire.
But before I do so I will recommend that you relax and stop trying to reinvent something that you have yet to understand. Build one exactly like something someone else here is using successfully. At the end of a single grow you will have a complete understanding and most of your questions will have been answered. Patience, grasshopper.

Yours truly, d9

btw, i'm not the one who neg repped you so you can stop doing it to me.

 

[disciple]

 

[catman]

No, it does not use dissolved oxygen in water as a significant source of o2 for the plant. The water in all containers making up the parts of this system is stagnant and have no aerating devices installed.

I never said it did. I'm well aware your system is stagnant and again I only mentioned DO in my previous post because the water fall effect would have been a consequence of an aspect severing a different purpose. I'm not even going to question how a rez that is frequently drained is considered stagnant...

My understanding of how this system works is not in question here.

It was and respectfully so. You sure seemed to be giving answers while dodging all content. Which flavor of the PPK are we talking about anyway? You can flip a light switch on and off and claim you know how the light bulb works because you get results, but to say you understand electricity would be a far cry from the truth.

Now you've gone and done it. You have misunderstood not only my intentions but everyone else you have interacted with here. Everyone here has a good understanding of how this works and is sincerely trying to help you. Some of them have changed it to suit their personal likes and situations and that is fine with me. We all live different lives. Listen more, argue less.

I believe my intentions were misunderstood foremost despite having been very careful with my words. I've heard that I'm wrong a dozen times, but not specifically about a single damn thing. I'm not here to argue. I'm here to learn. I'm here to question and debate as to understand. I have read a considerable amount of confusing and contradicting information in this as I've highlighted before. I hope you realize I'm aruging about ideas and not with you, or your ideas.

btw, i'm not the one who neg repped you so you can stop doing it to me.

I found one of your posts not helpful at all and that is that.

I completely fail to see how RDWC is more simple than PPK. I completely disagree with what you wrote. I find it misleading and feel you are doing a huge disservice to new medical growers who read this.

If you would have read some of my previous points you'd find I'm very much on the same page you are. I'm not doing to debate the semantics of simple. To say I'm doing a huge disservice is a little hasty, don't you think? I'm not sure what exactly you disagree with me about and it is you think I disagree with so before you make such extreme remarks, maybe you should more to say along side of them.

this thread covers hundreds of pages. i've read them all. can't find ego stroking? there is some humor (along with IF) but that is good when there is so much to read, yes?

Maybe not so much ego stroking as appeals to popular opinion void of reasoning. I agree, but apparently what I've wrote is worse than having said nothing at all.

did you actually mean that Delta9NXS should be humbled? hopefully you chose that word in error and didn't mean to be so offensive. Reading what you wrote pissed me off enough that a response is mandatory.

It wasn't an offense statement, but a recommendation to observe some one modest who has advanced our methodologies without a sense of entitlement that makes one immune to discourse and branding of an idea.

Heath,Doubleds,Dizzle,Coxie,Janus,Krusty

The point with all my name dropping is you are going to have a very hard time finding something to tell me that I don't already know.

Likewise, but I think you are getting off-topic. Although, I can't resist to mention that two of those names belong in a different category and I hope D9 would not want to join their ranks.

I didn't quote anything you said about Heath, but your insights are spot on and I enjoyed reading it. Don't forget about flip-flopping bulbs half way through a flowering period. You seem pretty focused on large scale operations while I'm merely trying to grow 3 plants as big as I can. None the less, I'm OCD for efficiency and effectiveness like Heath's mentality.

The solution can be a lot warmer. Major advantage. Learned this from Janus
No aeration. Not fair to say if rez is really being flooded (from the top down) and drained.
way less solution is needed (less waste). Depends on the flavor of PPK
the ec and pH of the solution are very easy to manage and if input correctly require no maintenance. Again, depends

If you top-pulse feed PPKs, you can attain veg times that are very competitive to RDWC.

I'll dispute this as I believe RDWC offers more rigorous growth, specially in veg, becuase of the medium being pressurized.

D9 did not come up with any ideas here as he even said in his first post. I've read lots of the sources were he got his information from (even the 1.5'' tailpiece was likely borrowed from a research article) but I'm still glad he shared these sources with all of us and his interpretations. If you read his opinion on Hempy himself, I think it would be evident he views himself in the same light although some times more than others.

The names mentioned (krusty, Heath etc) alongside the suggestion that D9 be included in that list are all people who have aggregated the work of others before them and presented it in a newly organized way. There is not really a lot of groundbreaking discovery going on.

The presentation pales in comparison to the venue.

Hopefully this information is helpful to you. These are they key points that got me very excited (and to take action on building PPKs). If you already knew them (not really evident in your comments) then hopefully this post of mine will provide a little more clarity.

Thank you for the post as I did find it exciting, but I think if you would take a few minutes and even scroll up this page with my recent drawing, it should be more than evident you haven't told me anything I hadn't learned already at the time of that post. And modestly, I think my presentation might have even been better in at least a few aspects. What is it do you believe I'm missing?