It's the estimate we are working off of, so your point is moot.
Simply answer my question. If I give you EC alone...no correction factor (scale) why can't you tell me the ppm? You can't tell me how many parts of this to this to this...not as accurately as ppm.
You could try to reverse the question, & I will tell you once again, we don't care about the EC of the solution. The EC is a means to divine TDS. It's not that hard.
A lot of what has been posted is just high school level chem. If we are backtracking that far, there is no hope. It's a very simple answer.
Also, in the same way everyone keeps saying EC is universal/absolute....SO IS PPM. So stop giving it as an argument.
You are essentially saying, "well, this one is universal"...& my answer is "ok, in a way....but in that same way, so is PPM, so what is your point?"
They can find a lot of facts that I would hope someone arguing agains my idea would have known from the beginning.
They can find a lot of questions to be answered as to why EC is referred to as universal when it's a misnomer for our application. It isn't universal...try to get it. One of the first posts said that the scales were based on location. That's not exactly right, but we'll call it close enough.
It would be universal, if Australian EC contained the same PPM as USA as the rest of the world. But it doesn't. Saying it's universal is foolish. So is #, kilos, ml...it's the same everywhere. A kilo here is a kilo there. However & EC here, doesn't contain the same volume as an EC there...it's pretty simple. Just as a kilo here may not be the same volume of a kilo there. A kilo of feathers, & a kilo of stones weighs the same. But density, mass, EC etc, would be different, because we are weighing a different thing... get it?
The weight being universal doesn't mean squat. Just like the EC being a universal measurement doesn't mean squat. The company is telling you that right off the bat. One unit of EC with our nutes is 1400 ppm. With their nutes its' 1000 ppm.
Same EC measurement...but a higher or lower volume of content.
Yep, we are all reading EC...& it would throw some people's measurements off per m3 up to 40%
40% difference. Now explain to me, how that is more accurate?
If we are all talking PPM, we are talking about the same thing (given your meters is calibrated correctly) That is what is UNIVERSAL. THAT IS WHERE BEING UNIVERSAL MATTERS. Even though it's universal in the way that EC is not (it's double universal lol)
I don't know how much simpler I can make it.
**Edit, I argue forcefully sometimes. But I've got no beef with anyone here. I argue the idea...I'm enjoying this conversation. I just wish some people would answer my questions...because I'm showing you why it's not right...but everyone keeps spouting the same nonsense. The world is flat.
;) I always love a good debate! just harder to do online once the term troll arrived as a meme haha. When I did research for a particular company, anytime someone had a new possible idea; we would go into a room and "shit all over the ideas". I.e. if our whole team could not find err in an idea, THEN money was put into it. worked well.
They can find a lot of questions to be answered as to why EC is referred to as universal when it's a misnomer for our application. It isn't universal...try to get it.
Yes. EC, electrical conductivity is universal. Rather and also, that the reciprocal; electrical resistivity is also universal.
Quite technically ALL meters are directly and actually are measuring electrical resistivity. This is universal.
(have you ever heard of a conversion factor for an ohmmeter?)
As mentioned on the first page and Jumpincactus more informatively posted; depending on location in the world (from info available), different "standardized solutions" were used in the calibration of EC. As mentioned in my previous post, elements (and compounds) will have differing conductivities (I.E. resistivity) relative to their weight.
**The basis standard then for EC solutions became / is >> 1 ms/cm
--In some locations NaCl was used. If a solution has NaCl added until the "conductivity" equals 1ms/cm; then the ppm equals 500. (I.e. 500mg / liter of NaCL has an EC of 1ms)
--In some locations KCl was used. If a solution has KCl added until the "conductivity" equals 1ms/cm; then the ppm equals 700. (I.e. 700mg / liter of KCl has an EC of 1ms)
--As well Jumpincactus listed a few other possible solutions that can be used, but follow the same suit.
A Mfg providing a conversion factor is only to let us know with which solution their meter is calibrated with in the factory. Again, if we dealt only in EC; we would not ever need conversion factors and it would not matter which solutions were used to calibrate.
Good, we are getting somewhere. Not to make it sound angry at you Rox, you know I love you. But I'm going to bold the questions that if people could answer them, I could see that I'm being a fool
Mathematically, it's called a correction factor, because not everything has the same value of EC. If it did, it would be a conversion table. But it doesn't. Everything has a different EC value per volume. So, yes, we are converting it. But when the conversion table changes based on the substance, it becomes a correction factor....make sense? It's semantics, I just know that you would appreciate the info. I'm happy to call it a conversion table.
One isn't needed brother. It's purely a resistance measurement, which, every time I deal with ohms (a lot) is exactly what I'm looking for. I'm not looking to convert it to another, more appropriate figure. Ohms is exactly what I want to know.
With this measurement, I'm not looking for EC, I don't care what the EC is...nobody does.
You don't give a damn about EC. The plant doesn't give a damn about EC. It cares about the periodic table of elements. You are simply using EC to give you the best estimate of what the total dissolved solids are...because, their is a pretty scientific calculation to do it.
The Mfr has told us, that per 1 unit of EC, their product averages 1,ooo ppm of volume. Others have told us that per one unit of EC, it's 1,400 ppm. The contents of every EC are not the same. This "universal" thing is a misnomer. It's universal, it's absolute...it's nonsense. Ohms is a resistance measure. Why don't we start measuring in ohms? Aside from higher difficulty, we don't care about the ohms.
1 EC is = to 1000 ppm or, up to 1400 ppm (for our purposes, there are more)...that's a 40% difference. Same electrical conductivity, but 40% more units per given volume. 40%! EC, would be misleading you. I would say lying...but it's giving you the correct EC. But the EC is just an easy measurement we can take to diving actual content. It's not the "answer", it's part of the equation.
No dude. Well, correct (yet wrong). Can you please tell me why you want to know the EC?
Here...imagine we have the same setup. Identical in every way, cuts, feeding schedule etc. It's so identical that it could only exist hypothetically. Our EC is the same too. We just have a light stick, no TDS meter. Both our EC reads 1.0 (one of us is 500, the other is 700)
The ratio of water to contents could be up to 40% different per given volume. 40% dude! How is that the better measurement? We imagine all those ppm as marbles. Clear ones are water, colored are contents. 1 ppm = 1 marble.
We dump them out, both 1 EC, yet I have 40% more colored marbles than you?
One of us could be burning the daylights out of the plants, same plants, same cut, RO water, same EC, everything, the same except the nutes. If EC is the golden standard, how can that happen? Remember, it's universal...it's absolute......so how can that happen?
Let's do large volumes. You have an EC of 10. 10,000 ppm I have an EC of 10...but it's 14,000 ppm? That 40% figure I gave you...that is absolute and universal.
So to go back above when I said you are correct (yet wrong). Yeah, we wouldn't have to deal with conversion tables....but that = up to a 40% difference in units per given volume. How is that better?
The conversion tables are given so that the meter takes the EC, runs it on the calculations appropriate for your nutes, to give you the ACTUAL CONTENT PER UNIT OF VOLUME....not how electrically conductive it is. We don't give a rats tit how EC it is.
The conversion tables aren't an issue. It's a 6th grade math equation. It took me two seconds to find mine. The conversion tables are the means to figuring out what we want.
We also wouldn't need them (in the same way you are describing) if everyone used a TDS meter running the right scale for their nutes. So that's a moot point. Parts per unit of volume can change drastically, & EC will read the same. Thats the whole point of the conversion tables.
What's insane brother? I said at the outset, I don't care how people measure their nutes. Do it by eye for all I care. I am simply challenging the notion that EC is a superior, or more accurate measurement. Or that it's "universal." If it was universal we would all be able to replicate using EC alone. But we can't. Some nute lines, have 40% more units per EC value. Do you disagree with that?
You might learn something if you stopped & thought. With the arguments you (Dumme) are making, it seems like you just don't want to admit to certain facts. I posted one above....do you disagree with that?
This will only influence the people who know me on here...but I just called a chemist (I have a relative who is a chemist) to run it by them, before I even finished, he said the same thing I am saying. The only way an EC test could be this - reliable, universal "thing" it's made out to be, is if every product had the same value of EC per PPM. But they don't.
You are using it to get an idea of your ratios because it's inexpensive, easy, & accurate within reason. But you must factor in that nute line "A" is less EC than nute line "B." PPM can be converted to %. I would have to ponder it more to be absolutely certain, but EC cannot be converted to a %. It's not a measurement of units per blank.
Wrong brother. Incredibly wrong. It's a simple math equation. A fraction. Google it, you'll get how to calculate it for almost anything. I think you may not be learning because you just aren't listening. The mfrs are telling you right here...1 EC is = to ______ ppm.
That is what the tables are for. If you want to do it the hard way, here http://www.lenntech.com/calculators/tds/tds-ec_engels.htm
People ARE coming here to learn....& I bear no ill will towards you at all, but hopefully they are learning that you are incorrect about some things.
Because it's a FAR more accurate indication of what you are mixing. I don't see my marble illustration above...I'm either missing it, or I deleted it, so here...
We both have a 5 gallon bucket, filled to 4 gallons with 0 EC/ppm water. I use nutes that are on the 700 scale, you use ones that are on the 500 scale. We both have EC sticks. We both mix to 2 EC. We will use marbles to represent units. A clear marble represents water. A colored marble represents other material. We have both mixed to 2 EC.
Now we dump out our buckets, & get rid of all the clear marbles. I will have 400 more colored marbles than you. 40% more. This is the system that's "universal"....& we are measuring to the same EC. But different substances have different EC's. In theory, we could measure the same EC, & I could have WAY more colored marbles. There are more scales than the 500, 640, & 700. You finally admitted you don't care what the EC is...So, if it's not accurately giving you the ratio of part to part, why are people saying it's superior?
Are you being serious? I'm asking sincerely? I'm happy to continue to try to explain it, but if you are just taking a piss, I have other things I can do.
Assuming you are serious...we are "complicating" a simple number because it does not reflect that Nute line A is 40% less EC than Nute line B. All you have measured is potential EC which we don't care about. We care about how much of a given substance you have dissolved into the water. That is what the TDS meter does. It does the math for you. I turn it on, I stick in the bucket. It's exactly as easy as putting the EC stick in there. I'm on the 500 scale. I looked it up once, never forgot it. If that number, or these equations are too difficult for someone to handle, I don't know how they manage life. There is no extra step or wasted time, or math. You put the meter in the water. "EC is just easier" (even if it was) is not a valid proof that it's superior. Which is all I'm arguing. Measure it in bullet casings for all I care. All I'm saying is, it is not "universal" in the way people portray it to be. Go back to the marble illustration if you don't understand what I mean. EC as a measurement is universal. But you are using it to try to divine how much of a product or ratio's of product. Different products have different EC values. I'm really struggling to find a better way to phrase it. The EC is completely irrelevant. You want to control how much product per volume of water. That cannot be done until someone tells you the average ppm per EC of their product. Hence the scales.
Two buckets of equal volume can measure the same EC, but when you examine total dissolved solids (the thing you actually care about) I'll round up for impact...one could have 50% more product. So tell me again, how is EC better?
Do the same mental exercise with TDS meters calibrated to their solutions. You with me? Your 1600 ppm will be roughly equal to my 1600ppm. Because a PPM is a PPM. Its' a unit with no number attachment. Like a %. In fact, it IS a percent. So now, we have the same ratio of water to solution. Measure (mentally) the EC. One will read 3.2 the other will read 2.3, yet the content/ratios of solution to water etc are the same? But the EC measurement is significantly different? So again, how is it a superior measurement to tds as ppm?
Two buckets can measure the same EC, but one could have 40% more dissolved solids.
That is what the scale is for. Per unit of volume substance A is contains less EC than substance B...& some people are essentially saying, "all we need to check is EC. If getting the most accurate depiction of relative water to solution ratio's is what your after (it is), than those people are wrong. EC as a measurement is universal, as a trait for a given substance, it fluctuates massively. The same way pounds (weight) as a measurement is universal, but not everybody weighs the same.
You are measuring quantity of potential + ion exchange to try to figure out, as accurately as possible, quantity/volume. That is not what EC does.
Ohms is exactly what our EC meters are testing (and showing us the reciprocal). When your EC meter shows you 1ms/cm that means that it tested a resistivity of 1,000 ohms/cm across 2 spaced pins. It did this by comparing the voltage dropped between these points given a known current. So, we cannot argue the validity, method or equation used to arrive at the value a meter will show here.
You mentioned that EC can be fooled. The only way that the above measurement can be altered, would be A. with an external electrical source applied to the solution. or B. Leaving the sensing probes in the solution long enough for electrolytes to coat the probe surface. Otherwise we must assume that the tested voltage drop does indeed directly and accurately relate to resistivity (i.e. conductivity).
Sure, PPM's and elements are important to a plant in so far as the roots are presented with the proper "ratio" and "concentration" for healthy growth. This more relates to the "chance" of those elements to be brought to (or held by medium) the root via osmosis / mass flow; or from direct root contact. Ultimately though a plant is not aware of ppms.
However, elements move about, intermingle and combine based around charge. Particles adhere to soil surfaces because of charge. Ions get attracted to nearby transporters for uptake via charge. For an ion to be absorbed into a transporter it must be of a specific size and charge. When an Ion of X charge is absorbed, another ion of X charge is given off. An ion internally in a plant is mobilized via osmotic pressure, internal conductivity variation along with its' own charge. Even pH is an expression of an overall net positive or net negative solution...ie. based on charge.
Plant roots (and their conductivity) are very much aware of charge and by proxy conductivity of surrounding medium / solution. If we look at any area of scientific investigation EC is the only term applied. Similarly ppms are not often used in scientific arenas; quite often its moles. If ppms are noted noted in these papers, it is generally from a calculated formula (rather than derived from a meter reading as EC is). It's really not until we get into more hobby fields that we begin to see ppms be used more often and is the first place you will find meters attempting to read this vs mathematical formulae.
-------------
By the formula for ppms; if we take 500mg of NaCl and dissolve that into 1 liter, we get 500ppms right?
-Now test that solution with a 0.5 meter and what does it read? 500ppm
-Now test that solution with a 0.7 meter and what does it read? 700ppm
We know that we put in 500mg so the accurate ppm is 500. We also know that the standardized solution for EC using NaCl also uses 500mg/L and that its' conductivity is 1 ms/cm. Last we know that the 0.7 meter showing 700ppm IS calibrated correctly as it means it's detecting an EC of 1 ms/cm also.
-so is that solution 700ppm? No
-did that solution change with the other meter? No
-what is constant between those 2? EC
The difference in a meters' conversion factor does not make a mix 40% "more units".
I've mixed up a ton of different lines of nutes, combos of nutes and even single compounds. In most all cases the variation in EC relative to "total elements" (using ppm calculators) is rather small, nowhere near 40% no.
Though I DO try to make up the most NPK ppms @ the lowest total EC and that can be varied some.
This is not possible as they are measuring 2 totally separate things. PPM is how much weight we put in. EC is how that weight affects resistance.
I totally agree though that it would be nice if there was just one standardized formula for calibration. But I also understand that these separate solutions were developed and used independently for EC calibrations not for ppms. There are separate standard solutions for ppms that are not designed for EC too.
if i recall correctly this is the first time you've mentioned that as a factor. So EC is superior because PPM is confusing?
It's a meter you stick in the water. I also think the majority of people here can handle it. The person who seems confused here is you.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. I linked you to two pages with formulas. Your "come here to learn" line is becoming pretty ironic. I'm aware I cut you off mid sentence
You are aware that this isn't a real law? Not in nature (physics) nor legal? But if this is how you want to arrive at your knowledge understanding be my guest. But I thought you were here to learn?
I will reiterate, again, my entire point is that EC is sometimes touted as the superior measurement. I have stated numerous reasons why I believe that to be incorrect. Your latest post is about why YOU choose to use it. I submit to you, that the merits you are attributing to a strictly EC measurement are weak. It's hard to find the tables? You don't want to do math (that you don't have to do)? It's confusing to use the other kind of meter?
I would say your processes are not remotely scientific. You are exchanging simple for accurate? As hard as I rack my brain, I don't understand how much more difficult it is for you to use a ppm meter instead of EC. The meter does the math for you (even though the math is pretty simple, esp if you are on the 500 scale)
Does it matter? Does it change anything I've stated?
& if you are gonna come up short with your arguments & try to cast aspersions on my motive, at least come up with something that makes sense. "Do you work for Blue Lab?" At least that has a chance at making it seem like I have the wrong motive.
But no, I don't work for any cannabis related company. I'm simply using my brain, to examine something that some people continuously tout as the better way because it's universal. I've explained what my brain has come up with, several times, many in direct response to you. Because I thought this place was about learning no?
I don't believe EC to be the superior measurement. You yourself have admitted that on it's own, it's irrelevant. You also stated (finally) that we can determine PPM values with the EC & conversion tables. That is the entire point of measuring EC. It's the jumping off point to figure out what we want to know. It isn't what we want to know.
So, can I assume by your consistent rebuttals that you work for an EC pen company? You haven't agreed with anything I've said, at least in print, you just switch gears when I make a point. You aren't in this thread to learn brother. Learning involves allowing a new thought to pass through your brain, without prejudice, & examine it critically to see if you find fault with any of the logic. Do you find fault with any of the arguments I've made regarding why I don't regard EC to be the superior measurement?
I'll be very specific for you....my marble metaphor that shows how the contents can vary significantly, but the EC reads the same. Am I wrong?
Is there anything else that is relevant, but still unclear to you?
Ohms is exactly what our EC meters are testing (and showing us the reciprocal). When your EC meter shows you 1ms/cm that means that it tested a resistivity of 1,000 ohms/cm across 2 spaced pins. It did this by comparing the voltage dropped between these points given a known current. So, we cannot argue the validity, method or equation used to arrive at the value a meter will show here.
No one is arguing that bro? What I'm saying is we don't need the final number in ohms, or EC....do you disagree? You took that quote out of it's context.
You mentioned that EC can be fooled. The only way that the above measurement can be altered, would be A. with an external electrical source applied to the solution. or B. Leaving the sensing probes in the solution long enough for electrolytes to coat the probe surface. Otherwise we must assume that the tested voltage drop does indeed directly and accurately relate to resistivity (i.e. conductivity).
This is also out of context. Are you in agreement that the EC in & of itself is irrelevant? We are trying to use EC to determine how much of a product is in there. There can be more of one product in there for a given EC than if it was another product. It is claimed that EC can be used universally. It is a figure everyone can use without change or flux. I don't believe that is correct. If we had a bottle that contained just N. More specifically, Advanced Nutrients version of it (I'm their president by the way...I'll send you some stuff brother!!) vs Dyna-gro. We can mix our buckets to the same EC, but I (or you I forget) can have a higher concentration. I cannot make it any simpler than that. The question I will ask again, is how is that universal/more accurate? If we multiply the EC & the median PPM (aka, a tds meter) that wouldn't happen? It will catch that. So why is it the inferior number.
I wasn't kidding when I said I like you Rox. We don't talk a whole lot, but I like your posts, I like what small conversations we've had etc. A lot of the people I consider top notch people, consider you top notch people. I just like ya.
Where I'm going with this is that I will read your post thoroughly tomorrow. What I read, I responded to. I didn't read any further because I can tell you put some thought into it & I don't want to misconstrue something, or miss the full benefit of an enlightenment. There is a reason I keep asking the questions I do. I have thought about it, & this is what makes sense to me. If it is not correct, I will know by the answers to those questions. If the questions cannot be answered satisfactorily it means my thought is correct. I'm not certain it is. A chemist I asked is, but that doesn't hold much water (for you it might) but my brain is just done for the day.
So let me start fresh later. But what I would like to know, is in your opinion, why are we using EC? Meaning, what are we doing with that number, since the plant doesn't care about it. What is the value in ascertaining the EC
I typed out a big response to this, but this is the last time I'm going to cover it. So I'm going to take a couple more days to proof it & make sure it is worded in a way that leaves no room for misunderstanding. Like a "sticky" quality response.
I wrote down the basic ideas & ran it by the chemist again, & he said it is correct.
I feel like this has become a bigger thing than it is. All I'm doing is showing that an often repeated rhetoric is not true. The context is akin to clarifying a technicality. Or correcting someone's grammar. (I guess its' more about explaining a math problem) For education's sake, you should know that a statement that appears on boards sometimes, is not true, not in the expressed context.
I feel like, & in the end, people are just going to say, "Yeah, well, if you're talking about it in that context, then yeah, that's right." The above context is the only context I mean, & most of the information I have, I have already explained. I'll just do it in different manner & see if that sticks.
I apologize if I misinterpreted the intent with your couple of statements as that was not intended. Also, tyvm for the kind words.
So, I sat and thought about this for a bit last night; from different perspectives. I believe I "may" see what's up.
If I'm correct here, your stating that PPM's are important and and accurate and that they should not be discounted or set aside; also there's no conversion. You are stating that ppm's (based on mass per unit volume) are more accurate than EC.
Is this right? (I hope so and not out of context)
I've been pointing out more of the differences between the two and also as to why EC, in itself, is an accurate method to test "conductivity". I understand then, that this is not what your asking nor would it answer anything (if above is assumed valid).
----------------------- so let's start fresh here----------------------
-Are ppms important. YES
(since PPM's are most often used in this industry) When developing a nutrient profile, it is very important to know the ppm's of each element (both individually and cumulatively). I would not ever try to make a profile without knowing these values in PPM's.
-Is the conductivity reading from a working / calibrated EC meter accurate? YES
(skipping over this as I don't believe there are opposing thoughts here)
-Is Measurement of PPM's accurate? ***Too general
A.-Is measurement of ppms via dry mass weight per unit volume accurate? YES (accuracy limited to scale / container)
B.-Is measurement of ppms in a solution via gravimetric analysis accurate? YES (accuracy limited to scale)
C.-Is measurement of ppms in a solution via Spectrophotometry accurate? YES/NO (accuracy variable)
D.-Is measurement of ppms in a solution via a TDS (EC) meter accurate? NO (not in any "scientific" sense)
"The only true way of measuring TDS is to evaporate the water and weigh what’s left. Since this is near impossible to do for the average person, is it possible to estimate the TDS level by measuring the EC of the water."
Link: Principles of Hydrogeology Pg. 138
"Electrical conductance measurements can be used to estimate the concentration of total dissolved solids (TDS) in a water sample. .....Therefore, conductance determinations cannot be used to obtain highly accurate estimates of TDS."
With single dry salts, pre-mix salts (with guaranteed analysis) or liquid salts (with GA and known density); Accurate calculations of PPM's can be determined mathematically "upon being mixed" into a known volume, using (A.) above.
Once any of the above are dissolved into solution and/or if that solution is of unkown constituents; then the only accurate way that we commonly use (I.e we don't have spectrophotometers nor time to wait for evaporation), to measure "general concentration" of salts, is via electrical conductivity.
If anyone anywhere in the world has GH Maxibloom powder and I say mix to 1.0ms EC; anyone can do that with any meter. No more info is required and the "concentration" that begets conductivity is accurate and all solutions would be the same.
It is only when you attempt to base an "estimation" for TDS (ppms); that a conversion factor comes into play. As well we also introduce the 10% error inherit in this estimation.
Given all the above, in general, it is preferred to convey "solution concentrations" in EC terms vs ppms.
So, I sat and thought about this for a bit last night; from different perspectives. I believe I "may" see what's up.
If I'm correct here, your stating that PPM's are important and and accurate and that they should not be discounted or set aside; also there's no conversion. You are stating that ppm's (based on mass per unit volume) are more accurate than EC.
I appreciate you not reciprocating the frustration in my previous reply. That's why I stopped. I was tired, I think you were tired. It just stopped being productive. But, classy move in not being a dick about it, thank you. I told you I like you.
Throughout this post, in order to avoid getting off track, I'm going to put a * in some places. That means refer back to this sentence. "I don't care how you measure, I want you to understand what you are saying, & how it works."
So, what I'm saying is - statements like I'm about to post are technically incorrect. After this, I bet 100% of people will continue to measure the same way. & THAT IS FINE! Hopefully, they will better understand the concepts. @Dumme , you said you "don't see anyone saying that." I did a quick search on a couple sites & found literally hundreds. There would be thousands if I did a thorough search of all the major sites. I won't quote directly, but completely in the context it was used in. If you don't believe me, search, there are hundreds of them. I thought this would be the best way to stay in context, to literally use the statements I'm saying are wrong. It isn't anything earth shattering. It's a slight adjustment to how people think about this issue, that's all. Many of you have an idea of the "dots," I'm just connecting them for you.
"I use EC because it's linear."
They are all linear. What is happening is you are standing on "EC" road & saying it's "straight" because of how the others look to you. If you were standing on "PPM" road, you would see that it's also linear. I will come back to this illustration so make a mental note of it. But you are letting conversion factors confuse you.
A PPM is a %, it's a fraction, it's a decimal number. It doesn't get any more linear. You must understand that concept to proceed. Forget about the tables, meters etc, take time to understand that concept. A PPM, both in the abstract, & in practice is a measurement expressed as a %, a fraction, or a decimal number. It is a literal "parts" to "parts" comparison. For the purposes of what we are doing, it couldn't be any more appropriate. Whatever confusion the tables cause you, you must understand that PPM is always linear. If the tables are making you think otherwise, you aren't understanding them properly. & if/when you come to a fork in the road where PPM appears to becomes non linear, you need to understand that this isn't possible. So, what is making it "appear" to happen?
"Use EC because it's been universally standardized." <That is utterly meaningless. It has not been standardized to universally <that word is key to my clarification) allow us to measure nutrients to the same concentrations. Using EC alone, this is simply not possible. You need to understand that. If you are getting stuck here, start over, & read till you get it. Some people actually think that EC has been made so that we call test our nutes using the same common denominator. This is wrong. I'm just trying to help people understand that*. Here is a good definition of EC- "the degree to which a specified material conducts electricity, calculated as the ratio of the current density in the material to the electric field that causes the flow of current. It is the reciprocal of the resistivity."
To say that we can "universally" just use EC, with any product, is to say that every product has the same ratio of density to electrically conductive material. They do not. If it did, it would be easily converted to a number that is more appropriate. It would also appear on conversion calculators like this one. http://www.translatorscafe.com/cafe/EN/units-converter/electric-conductance/c/
But I will save you the time. 1 unit of EC does not contain the same volume everywhere (remember, "universal") If you disagree with that, you need to do a little more work to understand it. An unit of EC is not a universal expression of concentration.
I was at a hydro store yesterday & ran it by the guy who is extremely knowledgable. I explained how the tables work, that a unit of EC (EC alone)has no bearing %'s, concentrations etc. & he explained, basically, what many people keep saying because he didn't understand what I meant. So, I'm on the GH 500 scale. Right now, I'm at 3.2 EC (this is what I max out at) So I walked over to another section of nutes which are on the 700. & I said, "Ok, now I'm gonna take these, & formulate the Lucas Recipe & mix to 3.2 EC. He immediately said, "You can't, you'll burn the !@$# out of them. (I forget the name, but even just the display says it's too rich for my blood) I asked why, be brought me back to the meter & showed me how with those nutes, 3.2 EC is way more PPM. <That is what I'm saying (he immediately understood it for what it's worth). It is not a universal common denominator (not an accurate one anyway). A PPM however, is. 1600 ppm, is the same, no matter where you go. It is a %, a fraction, a decimal. Percents carry, no matter where you are, or what you are measuring.
Is EC a unit of measure? Yes. Does it measure concentrations or ratios? No. Because every unit does not have the same EC value. I'll try to use another illustration, & I feel this is spot on (close anyway) But it's easier for people to wrap their head around.
What people are doing is no different than taking, if it were easily done, a viscosity reading. Then saying, we'll use that, because it's "universally standard." Sure, it's universally standard, but that is meaningless because my product & your product may not be the same viscosity? Viscosity has no "universal" relation to a volume, fraction or %, it cannot be used, to accurately measure, across all platforms.*
So, yes, viscosity is universally standard, but our products aren't. This is the same with EC. So the "universally standard" statement is technically correct, but it's totally irrelevant, by itself. It does not measure everything, equally, everywhere. So the universal/standard statement, is misleading. It's a unit of electrical conductivity. & that, by itself, doesn't help you at all. It's akin to using a random cup to measure parts to parts. It can work roughly for you...but people are saying it will translate for everyone, everywhere. It won't.
It is universal, & standard, in that almost every mfr uses it. It's a simple, accurate, way to HELP measure dissolved solids. Because 0 ppm water conducts no electricity. It's the minerals & other contents in it that conduct electricity. So when we add them, we can measure them, in large sample sizes that will still be relative to the overall volume. However, it's measuring positively charged ions (sometimes "potential for") We don't need to know the number of positively charged ions. Nor do we care. it's only relevance is in it's ability to convert to a relevant number. That is what the tables do. GH is telling me that my EC of 3.2 = a total dissolved solids of 1600 ppm. That is .16% or about 1/6th. The TDS is about 1/6th of the total volume. If I was using Advanced Nutes, 3.2 would equal 2240 ppm, .224% or a little over 1/5th. The company is telling you right up front, their solution contains more concentration per unit of EC, but people think EC alone is a superior measurement. For what we are doing, it's not a final measure of anything important. It's what it indicates that we care about. & only once it's converted to a common denominator is it universal, in the context it's being talked about.
I can use EC in my own product line, & measure and compare to divine ratios. .2 EC of this, .5 EC of that. It would be similar to grabbing a random glass or bowl & using it as a "parts" reference. 1 "part" = 1 full glass. Yes, that can work, but it's not terribly accurate. & more to my point, MY .2 EC is not necessarily the same as yours. If you are on a different scale, EC translate like it is portrayed. The argument that "this is the reason" we should choose it is devoid of thought*. PPM is what is universal. People aren't understanding it correctly. The above person can use it because they like it....but saying they are using it because it's "universally standard" is incorrect. It isn't universal volume across all platforms. <That is simply not possible. . PPM is universal, that's why we have the tables.
"Thats one reason why I bought the Truncheon meter, it shows EC and both .5/.7 ppm conversions. I agree, EC is easier and more accurate." - He was fine until the "more accurate" part. This is why I continue to ask, what are people using the EC to do? If I could just get someone to answer that, we could proceed pretty easily. They aren't using it alone to to accurately measure content, it is not possible with EC alone. They are saying "1 EC's worth" of etc. You can use this to divine ratio's using EC as the platform. But as much searching as I did, I never saw one post where someone said 1 part this to 1 part that. They are using EC as if it was a constant reflection of concentration all around the world.* & my point is that my EC & your EC are not necessarily the same concentrations. So saying it's more accurate than a percent or a fraction reflects a lack of understanding of how this all works.
"what conversion rate do you use? any chance you could use EC instead of ppm as its a universal system.. where with ppm 1 ec could equal 500 660 700, etc…"
Exactly. So, explain to me how EC is the more accurate representation of concentration? He just said 1 EC can be a different ppm. The PPM is the number of dissolved solids in the solution. So, you can see how EC (alone) can be a inaccurate for what we are trying to know.
This is what make people think it's not linear. You must understand that they are both linear, in both the abstract, & real life. That is a fact that needs to be understood. So what makes it appear like they aren't linear? Funny enough, it's simply the fact that people aren't converting EC, & using it to divine concentrations. Which is EC's only purpose. I know the latter can be hard to wrap your head around, but that is how it works. Whether you understand it or use it or not.*
If you account for the fact that the EC value to ppm is variable, & convert it, everything is linear. Which is proof that it's correct...because they are all linear.
"because unless you state which conversion method you are using, its kinda meaningless."
"if we all just used EC we wouldn't even need the tables."
^This is actually backwards, & I understand the confusion. But its the same thing as my illustration above about 'standing on EC road.' But you have to look at this from the proper perspective. This is a math problem.
If I only have EC, that is when I need to know the scales to reproduce your concentrations, not the other way around.
One value is post-equation, the other is pre-equation, but people have the idea that they need to know the math for the post equation number. No, you don't. The formula has been applied, the math has been done. PPM is in fact, the "universal" number. We are all, everywhere, referencing a unit of identical value. We now have a common denominator & you are saying you "need" to know how we got there. This shows a lack of understanding about how this all works. The only reason the tables would need to come into play is if you were trying to convert it back to the irrelevant * EC value. Which makes sense, if people only know how to work in EC. However small you believe the differences (e.g. I think EC is close enough etc) On paper, this is a math fumble. You are converting it back to the number that is, in fact, not, a common denominator. But they are converting it back because they think that EC IS a common denominator (remember, I'm talking about cross platforms) It isn't.* Hopefully by this point you are understanding that this can only be done in ppm* Yes, there is an observed correlation with EC, but EC is simply the number we are using to divine actual content. THAT is the part is universal. Everyone uses EC to divine median PPM. So basically what people are saying is, I'm going to measure how all the companies choose to do it (Great idea, I'm all for it) but I'm not going to factor in the relevant information. You are doing it in your head anyway...equating the EC value to a measurement assessment of some sort. Why not just do it the right way.
That statement, that “if we just used EC we wouldn’t need to bother with the tables” is incorrect unless you have a +/- 40% margin of error. I know Rox mentioned the 40% number. But that is what it is. The difference between 500 ppm & 700 ppm is 40%. Wherever you want to take that information is up to you.* But if attempting to use EC only, across all platforms (my context) you must be "ok" with a margin of error of 40%. If you want to make a statement of when we could dispense with the tables, it would be, "If we all used TDS, we wouldn't need the tables. It's a true, concrete, & on average, accurate, common denominator.
The logic in this statement> “if we used EC, we would never have to mention scales.” If you are indeed so afraid of the scales, you should be using PPM if you want to cross platforms.
I mentioned I know a chemist. He understood this whole thing from the beginning. So I asked how these companies ascertain those EC-ppm values. Obviously he can't speak for GH et al, but he said that what his co would do is take a glass plate, of which they know the exact weight. It has a very fine rim, they put as shallow a layer of material as possible, & then evaporate the liquid. Now there is a layer of solids left on the plate & they weigh it. With the other information that they have e.g. density, they can determine the TDS & correlate it to an EC value. Because EC values are easy to measure, & if you have the PPM info now, you can determine precise concentrations.
"By the way, if a person prefers to use PPM's, I would strongly suggest to use the 700 scale... That way you will never overdo it when converting from EC."
Or we could just use the correct conversion so we learn what we are actually doing...& just go lighter on the feed.
This idea that we should not use the actual figures for fear of messing it up, to me, is crazy. Do the math wrong to be safe...? Being safe, & using the right math, are not mutually exclusive. I understand the intention, I'm questioning the logic.*
"Simply put, PPM can mean two different measurements, depending on which scale you use."
No, that's backwards. Do you see it now? Refer back to my EC road vs PPM road illustration. A PPM is a PPM, always, everywhere, all the time. There is an assumption being made, because of the phrasing that is so often repeated, that an EC is an EC, everywhere, all the time. For what we are using this whole measurement system for, EC is what can possibly mean two different things. Remember, they are both linear, so how can this discrepancy happen? It's because EC is not a common denominator.
"Nice to see you around _____ i would also like to drop ppm for ec, makes more universal sense."
No, it doesn't. * If you can't see that by now* I guess maybe ask a specific question & I'll try to help* But that sentence, is literally incorrect.
In order for me to faithfully replicate your concentrations across any nute platform (universal), if the only knowledge I have is EC, well...I can’t.
It cannot be done because EC is not a unit of concentration. Aside from that, EC alone does not accurately reflect of concentration figures on it’s own (universally). Forget being universal for a minute, with a tds meter, I can give you the concentration to the decimal place or fraction. Down to a very tight fraction. Using just EC, that is not possible. Try to cross platforms & it's even more impossible?
"I've never checked my EC because I grew in soil with mostly organic nutes and I fed light then I would go by what the plants told me and I never had major issues"
That's good, because as I've pointed out, the EC doesn't matter. Have you ever talked about EC for your outside plants? It's solitary importance * is in what it can be converted to, in order to give us a reading of what we really care about.
"but 2.3 ec is roughly 1600 PPM"
It depends on how widely you define roughly, but if the only information I have is that it's 2.3 EC, I cannot accurately give you PPM.
If you give me the number in PPM, there is no need to tell you what EC is. Unless you are, for some reason, unable to convert to ppm. I personally don't find multiplying by 500 - 700 that difficult. & you would have a hard time convincing me that a TDS meter is too hard to use.* The whole "universality" understanding, is actually backwards. The "traits" people are attributing to EC value actually belongs to the TDS value.* For several, indisputable, unerring, reasons, & I think that is due to the scales.* Which is ironically, the whole point of the EC number. People get confused. Personally, I would rather encourage correct understanding, than dumb it down so much. Due to the "telephone" effect, it gets passed around & added to, & you get the misstatements I've typed above. I'm not trying to pick on anyone. & *******. I think with proper explanation, people can understand what all these things actually mean.
I see how people have come to understand all this in the way they express it. (None of those statements are out of context). At first glance what continues to be rolled around the threads appears true. You do commonly see two ppm values but only 1 EC value. I get it. & most of you have come to understand the correlation of EC value to amounts in your solutions. But you are actually converting it in your head. EC itself is meaningless...what does the EC indicate? A lot of you, through practice, are familiar with what the EC indicates for your products* But "universally" it doesn't translate in the way that people think it does. Using EC as a parts to parts measure, (initially) you are actually doing a whole lot more math than if you just converted it. With EC, you need to measure all the parts, then compare. TDS expressed in PPM IS the fractions (parts) right from the start.
No matter where you live, on paper, it's a superior measurement * assuming it's taken accurately. But I have faith that everyone can handle it.
The same works with PPM. & ml, oz...that means nothing. Statements like that make it seem like there is somehow a benefit to EC. If I gave you PPM you can do the same thing. So...what are we talking about?
Also, what other information could their be? You gave me the EC, & the product, ergo the table. A proper example would be for me to tell you I run the Lucas Ratios, & I'm (literally) at 3.2 EC now. For this to be universal, you should be able to replicate it by using the similar products, & this is the key, adjusting to 3.2 EC. If I'm on the 500 & you are on the 700, it doesn't work does it.
PPM, nothing else is required. It is the most whole, complete, relevant number & it requires the least amount of verbal adjustment to make sure you get it right. Remember, I'm talking about this "universal" thing.
& I read the references. It only bolsters what I'm saying.
We do not need to weigh & evaporate a solution to figure out TDS. We don't need the equipment to do it. That has to be determined once, & then a TDS value can be equated to an EC value. That is what the tables are.
I don't need to know the number of positively charged ions in the solution. I'd like to know how much I am using. EC itself is irrelevant. But with the tables, we can multiply it to make a relevant TDS figure.
None of what you are saying accounts for the fact that EC is not the type of measurement we want. In the ways it's being talked about & used, that is not it's function. It's not it's intended purpose. It correlates to something, that is what we want to know. If you can do the correlation in your head, good. But we can't pretend it's not happening. If it's happening, why not just do it in a way that's more accurate. EC is not an expression of dissolved contents. It is correlated. & per content, it is not universal.
About the 10% margin of error. It's better than 40% no? If you cross platforms, and mix to the same EC value, the contents, according to the companies, are 40% different. That's the math.
They are both linear. So that cannot happen. The only way it can happen is if, in one of those two parts of the equation, the figure being used is not absolute. (It's not the same all the time).
A PPM is absolute no matter what, which means the EC or it's relative function in the equation is not absolute. & that is indeed the case. When you adjust for that, all numbers & laws fall right into place, e.g., linearity. EC as it relates to TDS is not constant. Different "TDS" have different EC values. So if you want to measure, or make a recipe, you can use the EC to make a parts to parts comparison by simply using it as a unit. But it does not translate equally, everywhere, with any product.This is not a discussion. That's how it is.
The EC alone is not an expression of concentration. It is easily read though, & once someone has figured out the TDS in one unit of EC, the rest is pancakes.
I can't express this enough, measure how you like. This was an educational thing. Hopefully, at least someone, has a better grasp on it now. The only argument there is to make is if it is only the positively charged ions that matter. I believe I can prove they don't.
I figured out the perfect way to frame my context. I'm pointing out a large "oxymoron" that imo, reflects a slight misunderstanding of how this works. So, the first part of my context is picking on the language, e.g. universal...but the latter is a pretty broad "education." At least I hope that's how it came across (vs. fighting).
But when I say "education" I mean it in the scholarly way. To help the community as a whole deepen, or reshape their understanding this. It literally has nothing to do with how people are measuring. It's about how they think it works. You can choose to use a certain method for any reason you like...but if you say, "I measure in ml because I refuse to use the metric system." I'm gonna point that out to them. That's just who I am. I personally love stuff like this (deeper explanations).
But most of what I'm saying, that is just how it is. There isn't much to argue, unless I misunderstood one of the concepts, but I checked it. I'm not trying to argue most of that...I'm trying explain it. It IS what is happening, people just aren't aware.
And I feel like this sums up the context/feel of what I'm saying....I asked the chemist after he was up to speed which way he would measure and he said, "it doesn't really matter because we are just going to use it as a reference and adjust based on results. " I feel exactly the same.
But if your saying that all products are equally potent, concentrated et al, based on the EC value, that's not the case. That's not even a question. It would apply within it's own tested system, but not if the possibility of different scales is involved. E.g. If I give you my GH recipe, of course I can give it EC, because I know what products are going to be used. But this idea of "Universally Standardized", or at least the concept people have of it is wrong. Some people are genuinely under the impression that PPM is marketing gimmick and that EC is the one and only truth. They are both fact.
We do brother. That is what the scales are for. That is their sole reason for existance. Otherwise we would live in a "table free" world. I personally don't fret much about the scales, but it seems to scare a lot of people. Whether one likes it or not...the scales are happening. The median ppm of Advanced nutes is 40% higher than the median ppm of GH. I haven't looked We don't have to do an evaporation test. We have the ppm to EC correlation.
1 unit of EC on the 500 = 500 ppm
1 unit of EC on the 700 = 700 ppm.
The singular reason we EC is involved is because it's an extremely easy way to measure
You are still missing it, but I believe now you are at least open to understanding it. I think it would have gone a long way if I had said earlier that this is not opinion, it's fact...but I didn't want to go that far until I was sure. So now it's me + 2 chemists...and we are all certain. Chemist B had a good idea, that if you don't believe me, go to your local college library and find any chemistry or math student. Maybe they will explain it better.
But bottom line, EC is a relative measurement for this idea of "universality." It hasn't been "standardized" for anything, any more than any other form of measurement. It's just an easy form of measurement...THAT's IT! Pure water doesn't conduct electricity, the stuff in our nutrients does. So we can dump it in and measure it by how much electricity it is passing, because that will be relative to how much we dumped in.
You and I are mixing nutes together...say, over the phone. RO water. The first thing you dump in is GH Micro, and I say to you, "How much did you put in?" You say, "1 EC"
What you just said is I dumped in, what is = t0, with this product, one unit of EC. Nothing more...understand?What does that mean to me? Absolutely nothing....unless...
Unless I know what 1 unit of EC of GH Micro = in ml. (I realize you could just give me ml in the first place, but this is not to be efficient, it's to prove a point/show the math)
We go on mixing like that. You tell me what EC you put in. That means nothing to me dude. It's going to be hard for me to add the same amount, unless I know the EC to ml ratio, for every product. Because for each product, 1 unit of EC will not = the same ml right? 20ml of GH Armor SI, does not = the same EC as 20 ml of GH Micro. If you need, I can do this and take pics to show you. But I assure you, 20 ml of Armor and 20 ml of Micro do not have the same EC.
This is math. So if the answer is correct, the problem will work backwards, and forwards. So if every products ml, does not have the same EC value, that means every EC value does not = the same ml (Is there "not equal" to sign on the keyboard. Mine is covered in shortcut stickers. But it's the = with a / through it?)
So, if someone were to tell you every EC = the same ml, you would say that is blatantly false, and you would be right. But do you truly understand why? It's not because you proved it to yourself (although that doesn't hurt), it's because on it's face, mathematically, linguistically, everything about it...the equation could never work in the first place universally. An EC's relationship to ml is variable with different products because EC, by itself, has no bearing on total contents, the volume of those contents or anything like that. It's telling you how electrically conductive those contents are. BUT, we can figure out the relationship of ml to EC...make a table and then we can equate the two. 2ml of this = .4 EC
Saying an EC of every product is the same is demonstrably untrue. In the same way you wouldn't say that every EC correlates to the same ml figure, every EC does not correlate to the same measurement of contents. So someone made the tables. So EC is easy to measure, and the companies have told us what 1 EC = with their product. That's all the tables are. PPM has "always" existed. Someone did an evaporation test and figured out the correlation of EC to PPM. All products on the 700 scale have a higher concentration per EC. So my point is, EC alone, does not carry "universally."
I was measuring the other day and with a tape measure it was too hard. It kept bending, getting caught etc. So I measured a piece of wood to be 4 ft long. Then I measured in those "sticks." 4.5 sticks, which = 18 ft.
I'm going to be intentionally hyperbolic for a moment. What people are doing by saying/assuming that EC is the ultimate/better/more relevant measure across all scales (e.g. it's superior, it's universal, you don't need the scales etc) is no different than if I told you to cut a stick, and measure to 4.5 sticks. But I didn't tell you how big the stick was.
Then I can do the math and know how much to dump in. But I need to know that conversionBut after you do thatPPM is absolute. 1 EC of nutes on the 500 scale, is not equivalent to 1 EC on the 700 scale. That's the main notion I'm trying to dispell, this "universal" thing. Some people, because if the phrasing used on this issue actually believe that EC is the only true measurement, and that ppm is a gimmick. "I don't use ppm, I use EC, because it's the oldest, tried and true method. Stick with the original. " < That reflects a huge misunderstanding of what all this is. EC and PPM coexist at all times. PPM was not invented later by nute companies. It's been around a long time. And it's actually the only thing relevant to us. What people are doing is correlating their EC values with "amounts." WITHIN A GIVEN READING, WITHIN A GIVEN PLATFORM, NEITHER ONE IS MORE ACCURATE. Because we USE one to DETERMINE the other. TDS is determined using EC and the formula's below (there are hundreds of tables, because once we know the TDS to EC ratio, it's an easy way to measure) That is all that is happening. Whether you choose to convert to TDS or not, the TDS figure is there. And if you jumped to the 700 scale, you would adjust your EC down because it's "hotter." In such a case, what you are effectively doing (but trying to avoid the knowledge of it) is adjusting so that the TDS is roughly the same.
No matter which you choose to read, they are both there. Some people don't understand that. They are both absolutely linear, they are both accurate inside a given platform. The correlation of EC to PPM though is not ALWAYS the same. 1 EC does not always = the same ppm. So, with regards to universality, it doesn't work if you cross platforms (from one scale to the other) Search "EC best" or something similar, you will find hundreds of them. I'm really spent as to how to explain it.
EC is a unit that we are using to measure by because it's easy. It is not universally potent. It has not been "standardized" to mean the same thing with regards to nutrient measurements everywhere. But that is what some people think.
I'm on the 500 scale running 3.2 EC right now. If EC were all that mattered...right....If EC was the only thing that mattered. I could tell you my lucas ratios and YOU could run 3.2 EC. It doesn't work "universally" because if you are on the 700 scale, you are now at 2240 ppm, and unless you have a GIGANTIC plant in hydro, with co2, you are gonna torch it. 3.2 EC, while having the same EC value, does not have the same potency (I switched to potency because people don't seem to be getting "concentration.") across scales. That is fact. Read this paragraph again and again, and again if you need to. I had a chemist check it just to be certain.
So when people say it's been universally standardized, I use EC because it's more accurate than PPM, I use it because it's linear, because PPM's change and EC doesn't etc. They don't get it. I just want them to get it. Like that last one, about ppm changing, but EC stays the same, they are looking at that idiosyncracy backwards. PPM's changing but EC staying the same...reflects a problem with EC measurement.
EC units do not all have the same potency. That's not what EC is for. That's a fact. Choose to believe it, and understand what is happening now... or wait 10 years for someone with a bigger name than me to explain it and then change your mind. E.g. If this was Clockworkz (I love that guy's posts) I think there would be a little more open mindedness. EC CAN be relative to potency...yep, absolutely. But you know how we know that relative potency? The tables.
On the 500 scale, 3.0 EC = 1500 parts of dissolved solids. If you were on the 700 scale, THE VERY SAME EC would equal 2100 parts of dissolved solids. If this is the case (this is the cross platform, "universal", "Standardized" "EC is supreme" argument I'm trying to help people see) EC is not what you should go by, it's misleading, PPM would be the better number. PPM is what carries universally. It's a fraction. It works everywhere. An EC does not. It cannot.
So, I'm specifically talking about this situation - If EC was "universal" or "standardized" in any way. I should be able to tell someone the lucas ratio's I run, and they should be able to replicate it, based on EC alone. You cannot involve the tables because now, whether you know it or not, you've factored in that the TDS is different. So no tables, no nute manufacturers. All I give you is my ratio's and EC. It can't be replicated accurately that way. You could guess, but if you are not on the same scale, the mixture will be different.
With ppm, it is literally a %. Percents carry anywhere. My solution is 1% N etc. Doesn't matter where you are, or what you mix, if we are in ppm, you can easily make your solution 1% N.
One of you, and I, are both at my house and you magically have all your stuff here and are on the 700 scale, unbeknownced to either of us. I am on the 500. We don't even know about the scales, we are that dumb. However, we both have an EC only meter, and correctly calibrated TDS meter for our appropriate scale. K? To understand what I'm saying, we have to all be measuring correctly. You can't put your .7 meter, in my .5 solution. Agreed? And the scales are only talked about in this post for reference. At my house, we never mention them. 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?
Same scenario (with the gear, your scale is .7, I'm .5, but we have no idea in the moments that we are mixing.) Now I give you my lucas ratio's in PPM. You measure them out with the TDS meter on your proper scale. Same thing. Now in the end, YOU are at 1600....I am also at 1600 (yeah!) Same number of contents per volume. I'm at 3.2 EC, however, YOU are at 2.3 EC.
Which is more important to you? That the EC be the same and you are going to dump 2240 on the plants? Cuz 2240 is realllllly hot dude. Or that the potency/concentration is the same because in the end, and you said it yourself above (I believe both of you did), the EC number really doesn't matter?
I explaining, and you can disbelieve this till you die, it doesn't make it less true; that units of EC, do not all have the same number of contents. So if you use EC alone, across scales, you can experience up to a 40% swing in concentrations.
That doesn't happen with PPM. Call that BS if you want, maybe you just haven't thought about it long enough...
Someone helped me arrive at a good way to explain it.
We take two buckets, one is .7 solution, the other is .5 solution. We mix them to 3.2 EC (we are just using that number cuz it's what I'm actually using) We have two EC only meters, and two, properly calibrated, TDS meters, a .7 and a .5....each in their proper bucket.
So, mix to 3.2 EC. Check the meters. They all say 3.2 EC, but they read different ppm. This is somehow = to a fault in ppm, or a "better-ness" of EC. You are standing on EC road again, judging everything from it's "superior" condition...
The buckets all read 3.2, because we mixed them using EC units. Change it to PPM, and measure out to 1600 (also what I'm at). Now check all the meters. PPM will all read the same, EC will read different.
So the very same "principle" that is causing you to see EC as better, is true of PPM. If I make PPM the same, EC fluctuates.
Neither one is bad. The two numbers directly correlate to one another. One set, PPM, has just been taken an extra math step to make it universal. And a lot of people don't understand that relationship, or they think about it backwards. PPM is the extra math step to make it universal, NOT EC.
EC is pre-unversilizing
PPM is post universilization
So the very same reason you judge EC superior, is not only cancelled out...but it's causing you to argue EC is superior, for a reason which is demonstrably false. It is not universal. It is the opposite. It = the pre-universal number.
I'm sorry if you can't understand that, I truly am. But I assure you, it is correct. As I said from the beginning, I don't care how you measure, a lot of people don't understand how the numbers work. I feel like most still don't. I have tried my best.
And in honor of my difficulties, a new sig quote,
"It's hard to make people see that the world is round when you are by yourself...I really respect Einstein for that." - Junk 2016
No hard feelings Ken Dog or Dumme. I love a debate.
