passive plant killer

[jjfoo]

I am considering running high pressure sprinklers that can evenly cover the entire surface. They run at 6 gal per hour. I'f I want to deliver 6 oz that should take 30 seconds. Most people run them for 10-15 minutes but much less frequently.

From what I gather, I can use the same irrigation equipment as drip or pulse based on the amount and frequency. Would you agree?

 

[ImaginaryFriend]

I can use the same irrigation equipment as drip or pulse based on the amount and frequency. Would you agree?

For the most part, I agree.

If you are using HP sprinklers with that high a rate of flow, and you can readily adjust the time up or down, you should be able to direct manage the quantity and the frequency of the pulse.

Some irrigation components have flow restrictions. For example, it is possible to install a 1/2 gallon/hour drip restrictor inline in a drip system, such that it reduces the quantity of water a given feed line can pass through. On the same main line, you could run 1/2 gallon/hour drippers and 2 gallon/hour drippers--or whatever, but you catch my meaning.

If I recall jjfoo, you never shared my concerns with intermingling the salts/exudiates contained within the media with your sub reservoir. If this is still the case, then effectively, after a certain point, the total volume (i.e. 14.2oz vs. three gallons) won't effect the dynamic of the PPK provided the media is sufficiently course to drain once saturated, and the subreservoir's volume/plumbing can handle the additional flow.

I've been thinking about trying to employ much larger supply lines for much shorter durations to push a more impressive puddle of solution on the top of the media before it even has time to drain... But that requires a pressure chamber/manifold combination to become even reasonably practical. Or lots of little pumps.

Overlooked Possible Dynamic:
Much of my change in heart with regard to the pulse quantity is derivative from the fact that I watched the inverted leaching happen in a PPK... that is, at one point, I fucked up my lower reservoirs, and added back only RO to the bulk reservoir. I watched the EC/PPM climb in the lower reservoir as the inverted leaching took place. This is when I was running a very restricted quantity, but relatively high frequency pulse.

I concluded that if it's in the hydraulic column the electro-chemical tendency to equilibrium was sufficient to transfer solutes down into the reservoir in a manner that overcame whatever upward hydraulic pressure was resulting from root uptake and transpiration. Of course, there is dark time too, when the upward moment of solution up the wick would reduce/stop once a the media hit an equilibrium state in the non-transpiration period, there would be no upward current to resist the tendency to whole solution equilibrium.

All that said: maybe the coco is somehow binding up unused nutes (i.e. out of balance salts that don't have a place in the metabolism) and allowing the pretty-close feed solution to move unhindered through the media. If this is the case, can a massive and regular flush really fuck things up?

I don't think so... just saying.

 

[*mistress*]

hand-water, 1x/day.... until trickle run-off.... end....
.02....

 

[ImaginaryFriend]

top-off-reservoir, 1x/week.... end....
.02....

 

[*mistress*]

reservoir = reservoir (bulk), pump(s), feed lines/hoses, equal pressure(?), equal distribution(?)....etc

hand-water = exact/equal distribution, no res, no lines/hoses, ability to change/alter feed/ph 1-x during 24hr, if desired/needed....etc

works = both....

 

[ImaginaryFriend]

reservoir = reservoir (bulk), pump(s), feed lines/hoses, equal pressure(?), equal distribution(?)....etc

hand-water = exact/equal distribution, no res, no lines/hoses, ability to change/alter feed/ph daily, if needed....etc

works = both....

*mistress*, I'm only giving you a hard time because this is the PPK thread.

There are ways to skin cats.

works = many....

That said:

If you clean or prepare you water, reservoirs are common to both hand watering and pulse+wick feeding.

The pulses need not have equal pressure or equal distribution provided that there is sufficient porosity within the media and/or it is consistent for each individual cell.

PPKs seem to be evidence that altering feed/pH daily is not necessarily necessary for positive outcomes.

Perhaps handled by experts, hand watering results in 'exact/equal distribution'. I have seen that this is not always the case. The feed is only as good as the hand that pours, the eye that sees and the mind that guides.

Moreover, there have been citations on this thread that discuss the trends in root structure, and how rapidly air-roots can develop, and then be drowned in inconsistent moisture profiles.

Observations in blumat threads seem to corroborate the idea that consistent moisture profile is advantageous over inconsistent hand-watering.

I am not saying that you don't have the eye and touch for dialed hand waterings.

I am saying that some people don't.

PPKs work for dumber/lazier/less-able-bodied people. Like me.

Don't dumber/lazier/less-able-bodied people deserve a chance too?

 

[*mistress*]

there is the ability to alter or change the ph/ppm/ratios, etc... if not needed, don't change. ability to feed/adjust ph/ratios in 1 container & not alter others that may be ok....

root structure.... "wet-feet" w/ drier to dry top 1/3 may provide ideal conditions.... this is concept of "sub"-irrigation.... the roots seem to prefer water @ bottom (but not too much) & air @ top. see roots of trees w/ roots laterally growing paralell to ground. they could just go strait down to water, but expose themselves to air on top.... plants are frequently over-watered. part due to indust. to keep ferts going off shelf, part because there is difference w/ watering "container" plants....

set 2 plants/trees next to each other... water 1 only when bottom becomes dry, w/ media visibly dry @ top (every 24-48hrs).... water other 2-4 tymes per day, so media is always moist.... observe which is healthier over 2-4 weeks.... the watered-less gets more oxygen (gas-exchange ability) during this same period.... roots can and do grow into "thin air", as long as there is sub-irrigation avaialble, even if minimal... moisture profiles have much to do w/ which media is used. not expert... may or may not work for current gardeners.... just different choices available....

maybe.... just for adding to base & curve of ppk, for notes of extremes and variations ....make 2-3x more vertical slices/holes in existing buckets.... so that media is fully exposed, like laundry basket. water it only til run-off trickles out bottom... water only 1x/24hrs.... water others same as est. ppks. observe diffrences, if any.... roots may be encouraged to grow out of the bucket & down into whatever thin layer of run-off that doesnt evaporate over 24-48hr span... roots may also grow out of sides more, as they want oxygen just as much as contact w/ water, if not more in containers. 2cent....

may be same or more growth in less-watered, less over-all water used, less over-all nutrients used.... less equipment used... maybe try & see differences, if any.... if same can be done w/ less input/resources, why use more? either ways, do what is comfortable for your garden, though, and the plants will be happy.

ppk... "passive"pk... "active" generally includes pumps.... this was noted in first few pages of the thread... maybe passive may also include passive water uptake by roots, after being fed actively, not just delivery system?....

a "terms" or "definitions" post/section for this thread may be +

 

[ImaginaryFriend]

For what it's worth:

root structure.... "wet-feet" w/ drier to dry top 1/3 may provide ideal conditions.... this is concept of "sub"-irrigation.... the roots seem to prefer water @ bottom (but not too much) & air @ top.

This is consistent with the PPK system.

plants are frequently over-watered.

With a sufficiently porous media, this danger is reduced.

make 2-3x more vertical slices/holes in existing buckets....

Like this:

Or like this:

the watered-less gets more oxygen (gas-exchange ability) during this same period

Pulsing may force gas-exchange.

less over-all water used

PPKs are a closed system. There is no run off.

 

[*mistress*]

coco is not that porous.... 100percent perlyte works well. turface is not that pourous.... smaller lava rock works well, too... coco holds too much water, unless mixed 10-90percent w/ perlyte, lava, pumice, etc....

like the first pic. or the second, w/ more slices....

more access to oxygen allows for maximum gas-exchange. if pulsing works for your garden, pulse.... it is just not "passive"....

ppk does have run-off, it is just re-cycled... even dwc is 1 tank of fresh+run-off.... once the nutrient solution it leaves contact w/ the plants' roots, or leaves the plant-holding container, it is "run-off".... if it is not re-used it is "waste" or drain to waste... it is only "waste" if, after cation exchange, the ph &/or the ratios of elements decreases assimilation properties... if the plant is fed once, w/ minimal watering, the "run-off" is generally still ph stable, and still holds active cations and anions... it is still usable.... pulsing may force clearance of accumulation on particles, but if the feed is only once per day, then there will be less particles acculumated to begin...

just different apporaches.... not trying to say this/that is better/worse.... hand-watering a ppk bucket is still a ppk bucket... the pulsing tech was not in the first pages.... the tech was based on passive reclamation of run-off water, not so much on the method of top-irrigation....

yes, the ppk has evolved..... maybe the pulsing does improve the system.... but, a ppk is still ppk if hand-watered..... as long as the media, or other system attachment acts as a wick, to reclaim the "run-off"... at least that could be 1 possible interpretation of the first pages of the thread....

 

[ImaginaryFriend]

coco is not that porous

Misuse of my language. I should have used the phrase 'coarse', in reference to the consistency of the media as a whole, rather than the medium.

w/ more slices

That's a close up... I'm not sure the container would have stayed together with much more... On this particular unit, they are separated by less than an inch.

ppk does have run-off, it is just re-cycled

I hear what you're saying with this, but that is a user choice. You can 'pulse' in low enough volumes to not reverse the hydraulic flow. I'm not sure how effective it is or isn't, but you can.

but if the feed is only once per day, then there will be less particles acculumated to begin...

This presumes that both solutions begin with the same concentration. If you were to hand water five times a day at 1/5 strength...

it is just not "passive"

yes, the ppk has evolved..... maybe the pulsing does improve the system....

True. You were here from the beginning. The PPK is no longer Passive.

Of course, it has also been shown to not be a Plant Killer.

---

*mistress*, you were there when I slayed my last rDWC plant effort.

Following your posts, I redirected my attention to a DTW chow run.

Then I think I found the PPK thread following you around.

It didn't look like it would make big puddles unless I screwed up.

So I built it.

You have been a formative influence in where I am today.

Thank you.

 

[jjfoo]

If I recall jjfoo, you never shared my concerns with intermingling the salts/exudiates contained within the media with your sub reservoir.

I actually am running where I hand water and get runoff and use it on my outdoor plants. My whole ppk system is up off the ground so the overflow goes down to a single bucket that is my sump. I have my buckets on top of buckets with 2x4's so they can balance. I don't like bending over and hitting my head on low lights so I like them high.

I had a situation where system was on a pulse watering for a few week (till it leaked). One day I hand watered and the EC went from like 1.8 in the control bucket to about 3, so there where salts above. Now that I am running a small amount of run off (I water slowly till I just see a drip coming out, then more comes but I have stopped by then, I don't want to leach out too much salt)

 

[jjfoo]

hand-water = exact/equal distribution, no res, no lines/hoses, ability to change/alter feed/ph 1-x during 24hr, if desired/needed....etc

works = both....

I agree both work and actually do hand water now (till i get my pressure biased pump). I use a res and hose and pump. how can you water with out a res of some type at least? Even a watering can (too small for the vol I need) has a res.

I saw a study done in the security lighting industry that showed people would rather feel safe than *be* safe. I didn't understand this at first but came to realize that people would ignore scientific data and go with hunches essentially.

If you are saying you can get more uniformity while handwatering, then you either are very talented or have never measured. Most people get the worst uniformity when handwatering. There are studies to show this. I like handwatering because it is *not* uniform, I mean my plants by the fan need more water to get a trickle than the others.

 

[jjfoo]

coco is not that porous.... 100percent perlyte works well. turface is not that pourous.... smaller lava rock works well, too... coco holds too much water, unless mixed 10-90percent w/ perlyte, lava, pumice, etc....

do you run this much perlite and also handwater? If so, do you water more than once a day?

 

[jjfoo]

pulsing may force clearance of accumulation on particles, but if the feed is only once per day, then there will be less particles acculumated to begin...

Watering frequency is not the only factor in determining how much salt you deliver. The dilution of the solution maters. You can accumulate or actually provide too little, so the uptake of the plant would cause the salts to diminish. This isn't purely a function of watering freq. I do agree that in general sip watering (little here a little there with no runoff and high EC than the plants are metabolizing, which is a common problem) can lead to salt build up as opposed to a once a day watering for runoff.

 

[bad gas]

congratulations on having the best thread ever in icmag. thanks to all for all the awesome information given in the spirit of collective cooperation.
in an effort to bring my grow room out of the dark ages, i'm building a plant killer[great name] myself.
i propose co-locating the control reservoir and lower wicking reservoir in 4x4 boxes on wheels. with 2x6 sides, i can maintain a 3.5 to 4" air gap with room for adjustability. this is covered with a 3/4 ply hinged top with holes for the media wick. the pulse feed pump is inside the box [i propose we call it a coffin] with plumbing to the tops of the plants.
otherwise, i,m shamelessly copying your design.
do you see a congenital problem with this?
i've read this entire thread including links. i've learned so much. again, thanks to all.

 

[ImaginaryFriend]

do you see a congenital problem with this?

Nope.

Are you doing it for mobility?

It seems like a large footprint.

It will have a pretty stable level, and lots of solution in there for being such a low profile.

But it seems like a large footprint.

Say more about that specific design?

 

[bad gas]

yes to mobility. after plant servicing, i can roll the coffin back under the primo light area.
footprint is a constant, plant numbers is a variable. i'll drill extra holes in the coffin top and plug them. if a plant needs to be moved or if i go back to SOG, provisions are already in place.
the coffin is the reservoir for the media and the pulse pump which is also in the coffin. the coffin top is 3/4 plywood hinged for access between crops. i can tie media buckets down and provide tie down points for LST. coffin is on wheels. i'll take care of any coffin leveling necessary.
my veg room is only 4x8. i'll set up small plant killers here. is it possible to transplant small plants with this specialized root system to the 5 gal buckets at the end of veg?
i'd like to veg 16 plants because that number will fill the flower room. if i can't do this, now would be a good time to know so i can go back to the drawing board. i hope i'm not having a brain fart.
thanks for the help.

 

[griptape]

Hey delta, coming back with a question. I picked up a couple of valve stems and some 3/16 ID tube cribbing off page 44:

the new tubing is black 3/16" id and is a tight push fit on both the tire valve and the drip line, no tape needed. no algae. i cut 3" lengths.

I remember you saying it was easy to just pinch off the end so you could move/empty a plant when going from veg to flower. So I was trying to figure out how the thing worked with some plastic coffee cans and I was wondering about how you pluck the tube off, do you pinch the tube on one part with one hand, the valve stem with the other hand? Just to make sure, you did pull out the little compression fittings from the stems, right? I feel like an idiot for even asking... anyway, is it a two handed pinch at the same time, which stem do you pull the tubing from (control or plant), do you raise the hose or plant or what? I gotta be missing something obvious.

-
Sounds like a cool variation bg.

 

[ImaginaryFriend]

is it possible to transplant small plants with this specialized root system to the 5 gal buckets at the end of veg?

Shouldn't be a problem.

I pre-veg in other containers, then go directly to the 5 gallon pot. Sometimes they have wicks in reservoirs, other times I hand water.

The roots don't penetrate deeply into the tail-piece/sump... one of the reasons it's there is to move the inhospitable conditions out of the primary root zone. Whatever does make it's way down is no great loss.

Are you planning on stacking all 16 buckets on the single 4x4 reservoir? If so, I doubt you'll need such a large media container. But maybe I'm confused.

My first PPK had some things in common with the design you are describing:

Worked well, but when I over pulsed, it didn't drain directly back into the reservoir... it pooled on the top of the wood and then made it's way down. Planning for that is my only real advice...

 

[*mistress*]

Misuse of my language. I should have used the phrase 'coarse', in reference to the consistency of the media as a whole, rather than the medium.

coarseness is best, it captures and holds water (& cations on collidial surfaces).... everything from bark mulch to coarse coco, to perlite, to pumice... to good lava rock works well.... for watering 1 tyme per day... the water is there, in the center.

That's a close up... I'm not sure the container would have stayed together with much more... On this particular unit, they are separated by less than an inch

there are other types of containers that provide even more oxygen contact & ability for gas exchange.... but, those slices & holes should work.... keeping the bottom in contact w/ slight amount of water will give signal to lateral roots that its ok to grow out of the sides into thin air.... because there is constant water source below...

I hear what you're saying with this, but that is a user choice. You can 'pulse' in low enough volumes to not reverse the hydraulic flow. I'm not sure how effective it is or isn't, but you can.

pulsing is not bad, or anything else.... just not passive.... just trying to note the definitions/terms of the current & previous versions of the ppk....in this thread...

This presumes that both solutions begin with the same concentration. If you were to hand water five times a day at 1/5 strength...

the basic tec is to mix cal-nitr8 in one tank.... feed one day... mix p-k-mg-s.... feed next day... this makes cal get thru w/out any precipitation or other interaction.... there is a shallow-type catch for the run-off.... it accumulates just enough water that the roots uptake it in 24-48hrs.... so feed, then next day, shallow catch is nearly-dry to dry.... feed again... alternating ca-n & p-k-mg-s, micros.....

True. You were here from the beginning. The PPK is no longer Passive. Of course, it has also been shown to not be a Plant Killer. --- *mistress*, you were there when I slayed my last rDWC plant effort. Following your posts, I redirected my attention to a DTW chow run. Then I think I found the PPK thread following you around. It didn't look like it would make big puddles unless I screwed up. So I built it. You have been a formative influence in where I am today. Thank you.

thanks. you seem to have found an interpretation to the tec that makes your gardening most enjoyable....