[omera1]

Originally Posted by Only Ornamental

Sorry Omera1 to intercept but your posts made me thinking


So you have a yar with water and triacontanol and nothing else, you used ultrasound and the liquid is milky: You don't have a solution but a suspension or colloid; the former will eventually floculate after some time. Good thing is the high melting point, when it starts creaming the particles won't fuse.
Pure water is somewhat risky when using pure non-ionic detergents (triacontanol may be regarded as such) to obtain stable micelles because of the insufficient zeta potential...
Well, you state <0.3 um particle size which would speak for a colloid... how did you determine that (with a Zetasizer)?
Still, a colloid is not a solution and no matter what, you won't get triacontanol into a real solution without additives.

BTW Beeswax was mentioned by someone and completely ignored; it might provide a slow release formulation (only in soil)?

thanks ornamental,
i made this "formulation" exactly like a method that is patented for triacontanol. i took the half of the mix and let it stand till now, and from what i can see there is no floculation. i know that it is no real solution but the particle size is theoretical much smaller than the ace/poly mixes. the information about the particle size cames from the patent, where they measured the particle size of some formulations (poly20,aceton etc) and compared them with the ultrasonic method. like i said, i have to wait how or if it will work.

[FatherEarth]

The beeswax is still broken down with acetone to get it into the dried ready mix state, or so it claims in the patent.... Its a foliar only application. btw

[Only Ornamental]

Originally Posted by omera1

thanks ornamental,
i made this "formulation" exactly like a method that is patented for triacontanol. i took the half of the mix and let it stand till now, and from what i can see there is no floculation. i know that it is no real solution but the particle size is theoretical much smaller than the ace/poly mixes. the information about the particle size cames from the patent, where they measured the particle size of some formulations (poly20,aceton etc) and compared them with the ultrasonic method. like i said, i have to wait how or if it will work.

Good luck with that, sincerely!

Ultrasound is a bit delicate; wattage, time, temperature etc. influence particle size and the more is not always the better/finer.

Judging from your photo (and photos aren't always reflecting the true nature), I'd say you have a suspension with particles of 20 to 200 um diameter (with luck it's an emulsion, i.e. micelles -> this may be regarded as liquid colloid). Finer particles 'usually' are less milky, often clear or at best with some grey-white hues but normally with a weird opalescent effect. Also, a suspension wets a surface like water (it pearls off due its surface tension) whereas an emulsion often has a reduced surface tension (it wets easier, droplets spread and don't pearl). Colloids should behave like water as they contain solid particles. Triacontanol may give something in between an emulsion and a colloid as it is solid at room temperature (colloid) but behaves like a liquid (oil, emulsion) during formation (where it gets hot I assume). Also, the feeling on the skin is different but there I can't tell you who exactly, it's just a feeling... like cream X is more comfortable than cream Y.

If you're in for an experiment:
- Prior to mixing with water, colour your triacontanol with some lipophilic dye (an 'oil' dye wich isn't water miscible); if you have a suspension or a large particle emulsion, the liquid will be coloured accordingly. With very fine particles (< 10-20 um and colloids), the colour won't be visible (or barely) and it looks (nearly) like the unstained one.
- Do you have a laser pointer? Theoretically, the beam through a colloid is well visible whereas not so much in a large particle suspension (fine emulsion also show the light beam). Check THIS out (just a funny reference with pics so you know what I mean).

[med-man]

thanks for the great links

dont you think a microwave would ruin any active ingredients in the tria?

i mean, they ruin nutirtion in food and kill plants that are fed microwaved wtaer

med-man

[FatherEarth]

Yea no microwave, for anything that enters a living body should be a rule of thumb.

Better yet a law enacted by an Organic Congress for Well Being of the People, by the People.

They really only sell microwaves in America, lol...

[shaggyballs]

Originally Posted by med-man

dont you think a microwave would ruin any active ingredients in the tria?

med-man

I am not sure I have no scientific background or evidence to refute that statement.
I believe we have not tapped the full potential of triacontanol.
I look forward to the healthy debate!
Not a big fan of the microwave.
Just ignorant about dissolving triacontanol.
Shag

[mrrangz]

you can dissolve tria via microwave but its no easier vs stove.

[Only Ornamental]

I don't see why microwave should be bad when used on food and alike... unlike cell phones, WiFi and all the other electrosmog... It's just rapid heating and does not destroy more than normal heating when time is adapted.
Triacontanol is a very simple and stable compound and will not loose activity when 'microwaved' in water even for hours.

[SRGB]

Hi.

For what it is worth, and as was alluded to in previous posts, one of the original experiments which prompted the researchers to isolate tria initially was, perhaps, the observed results of applying alfalfa `waste` or `meal` used as an `alternative` fertilizer on certain agricultural fields. To the best of our recollections, those researchers were not actually looking for tria, but were testing use of `agricultural waste` or `agricultural by-products` as a fertilizer, or amendment for crops, instead of `traditional fertilizers`.From there, numerous approaches were undertaken to create `stable collidial dispersion[s]`; they key being `stable`. Even within the realm of laboratories, the task still appeared to be challenging.

There might be several different natural compounds from which tria could be derived from, each perhaps having its own set of challenges to reach the `stable collidial dispersions` point. It would probably require laboratory grade tools (microgram particulate, et al.) to accurately measure the derived particle size, and to determine if the application was in fact permeating the specimen.

We should mention, again, that from what we could recollect, the effective rate of tria application was on 1 um/l (1 microgram per 1 liter of water) - applied only once per season - not applied multiple times per season. There was a subsequent paper published describing the potential for a greater amount of tria being applied to virtually render tria ineffective.

A simple approach towards experimenting with tria might be to replicate one of the original experiments the researchers performed (noting that the researchers were not actually studying for or looking for tria when they observed its effects, but rather were simply attempting to utilize local agricultural `waste` products` as an alternative `fertilizer`). That is, for example, amending the substrate (soil, coco coir, soilless mixes, etc.) with a small amount of alfalfa meal (relatively, and comparatively, simple to acquire). Also, perhaps for edification and accurate comparative analysis, to set aside a specimen with everything (media, watering, container size, etc.) without alfalfa meal - as a control.

It might be that tria is - chemically - largely insoluble. Whether the particle be `small` or `large`. As was pointed out above, there might be a difference between suspension of particles and the particles` chemical or physiological ability to permeate the leaves of a specimen, or root `hairs`, for that matter. These were some of the challenges facing the original researchers. They, and other apparently did find novel ways to derive tria in a consistently usable form. There might be several pre-packaged products which contain tria in some form or another, often mixed with other compounds. Trying to create a like solution without laboratory grade utensils - and more importantly, measuring devices, might be a very involved gardening project; though perhaps doable.

We are not certain about what exactly gardeners might be seeking when applying tria, yet whatever the goals, it might be rewarding to have a `control specimen` to compare to whatever form of tria that might be applied to a `test specimen`. If not, how could any gardener actually accurately attribute any observed, or even perceived effects of tria accurately? Especially if part of the experiment might be perhaps sharing results of experiments, which could be replicated by others?

This (The Scientific Method) might be helpful towards formulating an outline which could be replicated once gardeners find novel approaches to creating `stable collidial dispersion` of tria, or simply find that a handful of alfalfa - or even a ground up alfalfa tablet from the local health food store mixed in the media (or even foliar sprayed) demonstrated `xyz characteristics` as compared to the `control specimen`. Without the control specimen, there might not be a baseline from which to draw any reliable conclusion as to the direct effects of tria application.

Best,
/SRGB/

[steamer]

Originally Posted by SRGB

We should mention, again, that from what we could recollect, the effective rate of tria application was on 1 um/l (1 microgram per 1 liter of water) - applied only once per season - not applied multiple times per season. There was a subsequent paper published describing the potential for a greater amount of tria being applied to virtually render tria ineffective.
/SRGB/

I have no idea or opinion what is the correct concentration is but doesn't 1ppb completely go against the manufacturers instructions and the studies and experiment outlined in this thread by a simply extraordinary amount? Can they all have just collectively got it totally wrong?

https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=221235