Curious Whats Everyone Ppm At During Veg & Flower In (r)dwc

  • Thread starter Kannabiz
  • Start date
  • Tagged users None
Junk

Junk

1,754
263
See this chart here



You are looking at that and saying the EC column is the universal standard. That is, in every way, wrong, I have been shouting it from the rooftops. Mathmatecally, scientifically, you pick.

Universal = Common Denominator. You need to take that chart and align the the middle numbers. Those 3 scales, need to read eg. 1000 PPM. Then there should be different EC values listed. 3 columns with identical values....and one column (EC, with the variable. That is how you establish "universal."

All the conclusions you are arriving at are just based on the fact that the columns have only been arranged for one subject.

Having one column value translate to 3 differently numbered columns E.g. 1:3 < three = column values but one that fluctuates....e.g. 3:1 get it?

That's common denominator/universal.
 
ken dog

ken dog

1,699
263
@Dumme , @ken dog

However, you are on the 700, and have .7 meter. I am on the 500 and have a .5 meter. In addition, we have EC only meters...you with me?

I tell you my Lucas ratios and I give it to you in EC. You use your EC only meter and measure it. You use your similar products to the same EC as me. Now we both measure EC. And we are the same. 3.2

Now, we both measure TDS, with the correct meter per solution...you are at 2240, I'm at 1600? In this example I gave, EVERY reading is accurate?

So why are the contents of the solutions 40% different? The EC says they are the same? Or more to my point....how? How can that happen since we are both at the same EC?

......
... what you don't get, is that you are at the same concentrations... The 700 and 500 scale display the same concentrations as different measurements... In other words, even though they read differently, the measurements are the same.

That is why EC is a superior measurement.

Believe it or not, your concentration is not 40% more... They are the same, if the EC reads the same.
 
ken dog

ken dog

1,699
263
Too late to edit,

but the reason I didn't include the "no hard feelings" comment towards @MGRox , was because he was one of the few people who wasn't a dick about it.

Respects,

Hey, in no way shape or form in my being a jerk about it... I am acting more like a robot.:cool:
 
ken dog

ken dog

1,699
263
Ken, does every EC have the same contents?
Do they weigh the same?
Have the same volume?

Do you believe that positively charged ions in a solution are the only thing that matters?

Of course not... I can raise my EC with nitrogen, or I could raise my EC with phosphorus.

Measuring PPM's will not give you that information either.
 
Junk

Junk

1,754
263
Hey, in no way shape or form in my being a jerk about it... I am acting more like a robot.:cool:

No, saying, "What a load of BS, Keep it up Junk" is being a dick. And I'm sure a lot of people would agree, that it's at least in some way, shape or form being a dick. But you are an intellectual sinkhole my friend. I don't expect you to get it.

You still don't have any clue of what I'm telling you.

If what I am telling you is correct the 40% figure will carry, roughly everywhere. And anywhere it doesn't, there will be an explanation for it. And the 40% does carry. E.g...

3.2 EC on the 500 scale is 1600 ppm
3.2 EC on the 700 scale is 2240 ppm 40% difference (but 2240 is hot, and we've already agreed EC, alone, doesn't mean anything. But Ken says these are the same. Nope. They are the same EC. That is all. The contents are obviously very different. Because EC is not, by itself, a measure of contents. It cannot be. It is simply a measure of conductivity...absolutely no relation to total content, unless we give it one. That is what the scales are.



1600 ppm on the 500 is 3.2 EC
1600 PPM on the 700 is 2.3 EC 40% difference. Wow, the two things correlate to one another? However now we are at the same PPM. The same dry weight of material (very roughly) and the fact that the EC is 40% different...who cares? PPM is what's actually IN it. And most of you have said, correctly, EC alone, isn't everything.

Once again, I'm explaining to you how the numbers work together. You keep saying bullshit. It's math dude.

Mix your solutions using EC units (one bucket at .5, one at .7) and do the dry evap test...(we know we can't, but people here are smart enough to figure it out, I know you are)

The TDS at the end will be roughly 40% off, if you mixed by EC, because it doesn't account for the total contents.

Mix the buckets (two, one .5, one .7) and mix them to the same PPM. Dry weights should be roughly the same. +/- 10%-ish, given the materials.

There is a 40% difference because of the scales. Flip the charts around and you can easily see that PPM is the common denominator, not EC. % is a common denominator. It carries everywhere, all the time (as I just showed). PPM is literally, a %.

They are correlated....the only difference is with one number, we are actually mixing the same dry weight contents, PPM. EC alone measurement disregards total content. But it is viewed as the more accurate way to measure, or more universal. If it was universal, no matter what tables we were one, we could run the same EC everywhere, but 3.2 (I've gone as high as 4.0!) on the 700 scale is very hot. If EC was universal. That wouldn't happen.

If PPM was universal, that wouldn't happen (gasp).....and it doesn't! Either scale, I tell you to mix to 1600 ppm,...we both end up at 1600 ppm (assuming you are using the right calibrated meter for your solution. I don't think that's difficult) now EC fluctuates....but nobody looks at the chart this way, to say you aren't proving jack by saying PPM fluctuates. I can make EC fluctuate...what does that prove?

The PPM fluctuates, because you arranged the table as such, that you made EC stable, and PPM fluctuate. I can just rearrange the table to make PPM stable, and EC fluctuate....and to get common denominator (this is a !@$# simple math problem people. If you can't get it...bring it somewhere for help) that chart should look different. PPM is the common denominator.

What all that proves is that the numbers have the same faults. So stop exalting one as better. Within the same table, one = the other.

In effect the two measurements tell us the same thing. PPM is just one step further, in telling us total content. But everything you think you can do with EC, I can do just as well with PPM. And somethings you CAN'T do with EC, I can with PPM.

It's math. Sorry you don't understand it. Find a 6th grader somewhere to explain it to you. That should be easy enough for you @ken dog , I clock you as about middle school maturity level....
 
Last edited:
ken dog

ken dog

1,699
263
No, you misunderstood my BS comment, at least how it was intended.

I put a smile on the end of it, to show that I was in on your joke regarding double talking PPM's and EC... Which is why I also said it was entertaining.

That is why I wanted to clear it up if you thought I was being a jerk... It was quite unintentional... My apologies.
 
ken dog

ken dog

1,699
263
Moving on...
To be clear, the only thing that junk has showed, is that PPM measurements are very unclear, unless the scale of PPM used, is given.

If you use PPM's, you can have a 40% difference in measurements, depending on if you use the 700 scale or the 500 scale... That is what he is showing.
Much better to use EC... And if someone wants to convert to 500 or 700 from EC, they can do the math themselves or let the EC meter do it for them.
 
jumpincactus

jumpincactus

Premium Member
Supporter
11,609
438
Let me pop in her for some schooling if I may. I have a bluelab truncheon which displays in both 500 or 700 hundred scale. It also gives the ec for each scale be it 5 or 700 So when I use this meter which scale should I use.
 
ken dog

ken dog

1,699
263
Let me pop in her for some schooling if I may. I have a bluelab truncheon which displays in both 500 or 700 hundred scale. It also gives the ec for each scale be it 5 or 700 So when I use this meter which scale should I use.

Use any scale you like... Best to use the scale that the dosage recommendations are giving.

But hey, they all express the same result in different ways.
 
ken dog

ken dog

1,699
263
...and must be talking about a pre-mix formula to be relevent to the PPM's, because, my Aquaponics hasn't made a lot for sense with this forum so far.

I think he is just trying to be confusing... And double talking and trying to sound logical, yet all the time knowing he is double talking and having a good time doing it.

He builds his premise upon a falsehood... such as saying that 1000 ppm on either scale should read the same EC... Then blaming EC for the discrepancy, not acknowledging that the PPM scales are based off the EC measurement.
 
ken dog

ken dog

1,699
263
IMO, PPM's becomes more important when determinin specific chemicals within the Nutrients you're using, not when determining concentration of your Nutrients as a whole.
I agree...
With that information, NPK ratios for example, can be added until the targeted EC is reached.
 
IronLeaf

IronLeaf

25
13
I use EC instead of PPM. My EC starts at 1.0 and goes up to 1.5 during peak. Drop to .8 in week 7-8.

If 1 EC = 500 PPM, then I'm starting at 500 and peaking at 750. I'm getting well over a pound per plant with 7 foot ceilings using LED, CMH, and side HPS. About 650 Watts per plant.

With so much air in a UC DWC setup, you don't need higher PPMs. In fact, with higher PPMs I was seeing nute burn and general unhealthy leaves. Plus I think you run risks of Hermaphrodites.

I recommend using EC instead of pH. It's how I learned and it's been highly successful for me.
 
ken dog

ken dog

1,699
263
There is no difference at all... The only difference is when trying to communicate your dosages to others.
 
Junk

Junk

1,754
263
There is no difference at all... The only difference is when trying to communicate your dosages to others.
That's the first intelligent thing you have said. It's also something I have said in this thread many times.

I'm going to try this again.....remember, the context is not about how you measure!!!! Measure how you want. The context is how you understand the numbers. Look at post # 2.

https://www.thcfarmer.com/community...d-nutes-side-by-side-test.75869/#post-1524997

The only nutes I have ever used (meaning worked with thoroughly) are NFTG (700 scale) and GH (500 scale). So Ken, when you say that 1600 ppm = 2240 ppm, I can assure you, you are wrong. (I think I saw you say it). Mathematically, you are wrong too. This is the correct statement 1600 ppm ≠ 2240 ppm. If you think I'm being overly scientific about it, I assure you, it carries over to the real world (as most science does).

A lot of people think EC is somehow "universal" or "superior." This is false. EC is actually meaningless, the number itself. See this chart?
EC PPM conversion


A lot of people see the above and they say, "I use EC because it's (universal, standard, insert word here)." Because EC is on the left and stable and PPM fluctuates. This is incorrect. Common sense, math, in every way, it's wrong. Mathematically, you can have as many rows as you want (horizontals) but you want the least number of columns (verticals). That is how you establish common denominator (universal).

If I put PPM's on the left, and the EC's on the right, ppm will now appear stable, and it will appear that EC fluctuates. There will also be fewer columns because across all the scales some of them will share EC values. E.g. 50 ppm across all the above scales will be .1 EC.

So, if you are saying EC is superior because it's "stable", you are wrong. Mathematically, that's how it should be arranged (ppm on the left). But whatever, it's really not meaningful, so long as we know the scale differences. Both numbers mean the same thing in the end. Try to follow me here.... Rox provided me with charts to show Lucas ratio's for .5 and .7.

Lucas profile  lucas ratio


So, look ^^ Lucas Ratio's....estimated PPM is just about 1000 at .5 and estimated EC is 1.91. Great. Now look at what happens if we make it 700


Here is what happens if we dilute it. Still Lucas ratio's.
Lucas ratio diluted


Same ratio, now .7 is just about the same, 1000 ppm. Look at the estimated EC, 1.43....it's 40% lower. Same PPM, but now the EC is off. Same ratio's, same ppm, (and the above two pics mimic what would happen across scales) but the EC is 40% off. That's because that is what PPM does. That is it's whole purpose. It is simply so we can take numbers and cross scales with them...and they mean the same thing.

Assume you are on .5 scale, and I'm on .7 scale. If I give you my recipe in EC (I'm at 3.2 on the .5) and you mix it with your .7, you are going to be at 2240 ppm. 40% difference and 2240 is extremely hot. And I can tell you from experience, you are gonna burn the daylights out of your plants. I don't care if they are heavy feeders, unless it's a tree, it won't take that much. The EC value, of 3.2, does not travel across scales. Therefore, it is not universal. Within any scale, EC is fine. But if I give you a nute recipe with EC, and we are not on the same scale, one of us is going to be extremely hot.

"If I mix my solutions, one .5 and one .7, by EC, and let the buckets dry, they will be the same dry weight. If I mix them by PPM and let them dry, the dry weight is 40% different."

Correct. That is what PPM does, and has been doing the entire time. It takes the EC "fluctuation" out of the equation so you can cross scales. See that 40% difference that keeps popping up everywhere (the 500 and 700 = 40% different)....PPM simply takes that out of the equation, so you can cross scales and still be at the same relative potency. So, when people say EC is "universal", "Standardized", "doesn't change", it's untrue. Maybe this is too far for the argument to be understood, but to say that EC, is universal (which, in every context I've read, they mean they can cross scales with it) is to say that 1600 ppm = 2240 ppm. < That, is demonstrably untrue. PPM, is the closest thing we have to a "universal" figure. If I gave you my lucas recipe in PPM's (I'm on the .5) , and you copied it (and you are on the .7), we would both be much closer to comparable potency. With EC, there will be a 40% difference. That is the entire purpose for PPM....to remove that. So, if you are talking about ending dry weight etc, yes, if you measured by PPM, across the scales, dry weight will be 40% different. That isn't proof that ppm inferior somehow, or inaccurate. To the contrary, that is what it's supposed to do. And it's what it's been doing the entire time.

"We don't even know if the scales are correct."

Yes we do. There is actually no such thing (in real life) as a .5 and a .7 solution. Those numbers were simply chosen to reflect the difference of 40%, which was ascertained by a dry weight assessment. If it was a 60% difference, we would be using .5 and .8, get it? Those numbers are simply to cross scales, but they are not arbitrary. Someone has done the measuring and figured out there is a 40% gap.

"EC is stable, ppm fluctuates"

That's because of how the chart is arranged. I can put PPM in the left column and make it look like EC fluctuates. In truth, neither one "fluctuates." The scales simply have different correction factors (the tables). EC alone, ignores the correction factors, yet some people believe it's "universal." It's only "universality" is that a unit of EC is a unit of EC. The same way a mile is a mile, and an inch is an inch. It does not translate to potency. I checked this with not one, but two chemists. And they verified what I have been trying to explain all along. Just because a chemical has a specific EC value, does not translate to potency. Again, 1600 ppm ≠ 2240 ppm.

"They both mean the same thing"

Within the same scale, yes they do. One is simply a multiple of the other (to make it "universal") An EC in the .5 scale will carry pretty closely anywhere in the world, with other .5 nutes. When it ceases to mean the same thing is like with the NFTG and GH. You can no longer use EC and expect similar potency. With PPM...you could. With PPM, the scales are no longer a factor. So long as you are using the correct meters....e.g. using a .5 TDS meter in .5 solution, a .7 meter in .7 solution.

"EC is the better figure because that is what we are actually measuring"

The only reason we are measuring EC is because it's such a simple test. But the EC value itself is meaningless. If it was the only thing that mattered, we could just dump a straight water/salt solution to whatever EC we wanted. But, it's what the EC indicates that's important...that's it. You can use it alone, within a scale to judge potency. But also, EC, multiplied by ___ will essentially be the same. In other words, in the same scale, it doesn't matter. PPM is divined from the EC figure. It's a multiple, it is the same. But if you want to cross scales, you must take that extra math step to be in "common denominator" mode, which is PPM.

The way that many people understand the EC/PPM connection, or the how's, why's etc, are actually incorrect. It's isn't "universal" in the way that people think. The only way it could be, is if all nute lines had the same EC to PPM scale....and as we know...they don't.

PPM, is simply taking the EC number an extra math step, to make it "universal." It's not better than EC. Neither is EC better than PPM. But if you want to talk "universal", ppm is the number you want.

PPM = common denominator. Not EC. Measure how you want...but understand what you are talking about.

The fundamental principle being misapplied here is that an EC is an EC. That is true. But we are using EC to try to determine relative potency. The only way that this works, "universally" (across all scales) is if every single nute line had the same EC to PPM ratio....but they don't. That's why we have the scales. But it seems that many people can't "handle" the math, or are influenced by entrenched thought. But what I explained above, is correct. I had a chemist check it...and they had another chemist check it....

And the concept that EC would carry the same meaning across the different scales, well, I don't know. Find your own chemists and listen to them laugh at it. EC, across scales, will not reflect potency. Ppm will. I don't know what is so hard to understand about that.
 
Last edited:
Midwestjay

Midwestjay

3,355
263
200 to start and take it up as she grows. Depending on the nute brand I'll end up between 800-1200ppm. Vary few plants I've grown liked it above that range. I'm on the Hanna scale.
 
Junk

Junk

1,754
263
200 to start and take it up as she grows. Depending on the nute brand I'll end up between 800-1200ppm. Vary few plants I've grown liked it above that range. I'm on the Hanna scale.
That sounds quite reasonable. You can go a bit higher...but then it's up to plant size and symbiosis.


Appreciate the PM's. What I'm saying about the chart...

The rows/columns thing, I probably should have left out altogether. But to explain it...

The way that it is, is fine, because we all measure in EC. Some meters, just have a calculator in them to convert to the appropriate ppm. But the initial measurement, is always an EC test. So, if you want the chart to be that arrangement...I get it. I'm with you...no problem....who cares.

What I'm saying is some people see the chart the way it is and make the false assumption that EC is eternal, and true. All knowing, the only meaningful number....because it's stable, it's linear...it must be the better number.

I guess try to make your own chart to see what I mean...you will see if you put ppm's in the left column and EC values on the right...EC will appear to fluctuate. Nothing is fluctuating per se, it's just the scale difference. But judging one measure as better because of how a chart looks is stupid. I can change the chart and make it look like EC is the more unreliable number. And across scales, I would say it is the more unreliable number. You are definitely taking a risk just measuring EC with two different scales. All chemicals do not have the same EC properties. With PPM, it would account for the 40% difference.

It's not about one being better, it's about people thinking you can cross scales with EC. You can't. That is what PPM would be accurate for. In fact, that IS what it's for.

Both systems are linear...but they are two separate systems. The 40% carry proves they are both linear. One, is just converted to another to account for that 40% difference. PPM can be expressed as a percent. It doesn't get any more "common denominator" than that.

That is the argument against this idea of "universality." I can assure you 3.2 EC of NFTG products, are MUCH hotter than 3.2 of GH. About 40% hotter I would bet (overall) lol. I have seen it.

No one cares how you measure. But if you are saying EC is better because it's universal, standardized, ppm is a gimmick to sell product etc. I believe I have proved you sufficiently wrong.
 
Midwestjay

Midwestjay

3,355
263
I know there is a science to growing, and this is gonna sound lame, but I like to take more of an artistic approach and work with nature. No set of numbers and measurements is gonna tell you how to grow the best plant. There is no set standards unless you know the strain you're growing like the back of your hand. I grow from seed and like a variety, so every plant is totally different and has its own personality. Each plant gets treated accordingly. I will say that they all get started the same tho.
 
Junk

Junk

1,754
263
I know there is a science to growing, and this is gonna sound lame, but I like to take more of an artistic approach and work with nature. No set of numbers and measurements is gonna tell you how to grow the best plant. There is no set standards unless you know the strain you're growing like the back of your hand. I grow from seed and like a variety, so every plant is totally different and has its own personality. Each plant gets treated accordingly. I will say that they all get started the same tho.

You can take an artistic approach. Personally, I measure all my nutes in ml, and just check TDS after.

I'm not saying you need to use this much of this, or that. The plants will tell you that.

I'm trying to help people to understand what is happening with the scales, because I've only met a few people who truly understand how it works.

It's a field of it's own. Just because a person has a lot of experience growing doesn't mean they can change the laws of physics lol. It's a knowledge and mechanic of it's own, and often I see it applied here in a way that reflects a misunderstanding of what's going on.

You can be artsy, but if your fly is down, or you have a booger on your face, I'm sure you would want me to inform you. At least that's how I operate...if I don't understand something correctly, I want to know all about it, and why etc.

I must have said it 2 dozen times, it's not about how people are measuring. I couldn't care less how you measure. How anyone measures is the last thing on my mind. But this "universal" idea, I feel like I've refuted it pretty thoroughly. On top of that, people much smarter than me, who know much more about it than me, find it somewhat ridiculous that some people think this way.

In chemistry, EC, does not correlate to overall potency across scales! Within any scale, you can use it, but it loses it's accuracy once you change scales (this has been my context the entire time). A 3.2 EC of NFTG is not the same as 3.2 of GH... I've seen the difference. EC correlates to potential for electrical conductivity. That is ALL IT IS! You can achieve it with dirty water, salt water, lots of stuff. For us, we are using it as a measure of potency of the chemicals we have put in. So, we can use that information, to divine relative potency/concentration of our nutes. But not on a different scale you can't. EC, must then be converted to PPM. It doesn't matter what scale you are on, if you are speaking in ppm (correctly ascertained) you are all talking about a comparable thing.

So, how, is EC, universal? We have to alter it to cross scales. To go from GH at 3.2 EC, to NFTG, I would have to keep ppm's the same (measured correctly) and drop the EC of the NFTG to 2.3 EC. So there is a real life example. If I wanted to cross scales, I have to drop (adjust) the EC. That's not "universal" or "standard." PPM is, or it's close enough. Certainly far closer than 40%.

The above only happens when you cross scales. EC will not translate, so how is it universal? Ppm will translate, e.g. "universal."

I'm just trying to tell some people that their fly is down, and they are arguing that it isn't.
 
ken dog

ken dog

1,699
263
@ Junk you said," 50 ppm across the above scale equals .1 EC."

No it does not... On the 700 scale, 70 ppm equals .1 EC

Then your post went on and on and on, but I didn't bother reading it past the first mistake that you made, because you started building upon that false premise.
 
Top Bottom