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

[ken dog]

Also, since PPM and TDS are mathematically factored off of the EC scale, and PPM and TDS are both estimates ( they are not exactly .5 or .7), then that makes their measurement an estimation.
EC is exact.

 

[ken dog]

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.

Like a Wild West cowboy!... Screw the measurements, full steam ahead! :)

 

[Junk]

@ 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.

Uh huh...

Tell me Ken, are you saying the chart cannot be re-arranged to make it look like it is the EC that fluctuates? That is what I'm saying. Are you saying that is wrong? It'a simple yes or no. Can I put ppm in the left column and make it look like EC is what fluctuates?

Then why are you hassling me.

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.

The premise is not false, you are just intellectually impotent.

Also, since PPM and TDS are mathematically factored off of the EC scale, and PPM and TDS are both estimates ( they are not exactly .5 or .7), then that makes their measurement an estimation.
EC is exact.

You don't see that what you just wrote is contradictory? And even if it wasn't, what you are saying, I talked about above. You are just too full of yourself to look at it.

EC is exact.

Uh huh... exact what Ken?

Another one I'd like answered Ken. Is 3.2 EC, the same relative hotness (lets say we copy the lucas ratios) with the .5 scale as the .7 scale. You say EC is "exact." "Exact." Exactly what? and how does that translate across scales? You feel it's "universal?" Because that is the only thing I'm talking about, crossing scales.

 

[ken dog]

That's right, if you want to read below 70 ppm, then you need to read EC in hundreds not just tenths... you can even read it down beyond thousands.
.0714285 EC. That is the EC of 50 PPM's on the 700 scale.

Intellectually impotent?. Lol, I have a genius IQ. Lol

That said, your arguments are constantly based upon false assumptions.

 

[Junk]

That's right, if you want to read below 70 ppm, then you need to read EC in hundreds not just tenths... you can even read it down beyond thousands.
.0714285 EC. That is the EC of 50 PPM's on the 700 scale.

Intellectually impotent?. Lol, I have a genius IQ. Lol

That said, your arguments are constantly based upon false assumptions.

That doesn't change the fact that I can make it look like it is EC that fluctuates Ken. Just put PPM in the left column. Do you agree or disagree?

With your genius IQ you are unable to see my point? Cmon, genius.

Please see the revised edit above.

 

[ken dog]

First I do not agree that they fluctuate... they are all the same measurement, just expressed differently.

What I did point out, is that both the 500 scale and the 700 scale are based on approximate multiples, which are then factored, based on the EC scale.... Which by definition, makes the EC scale more accurate.

 

[Junk]

First I do not agree that they fluctuate... they are all the same measurement, just expressed differently.

With your genius iq, you still cannot understand what I'm saying? Or are you ducking the question?

What I did point out, is that both the 500 scale and the 700 scale are based on approximate multiples, which are then factored, based on the EC scale.... Which by definition, makes the EC scale more accurate.

lol, you are no type of genius I'm familiar with. Ignore....

 

[ken dog]

3.2 EC on the 500 scale is 1600 PPM

3.2 EC on the 700 scale is 2240 PPM.

Of course they are not the same, which is why you need to define which scale you are using with regards to PPM.

 

[ken dog]

Well, I tried. :)

 

[GreenLion]

This thread went way off course, love the info tho.... I run 500 ppm in early veg 700 veg and 900 flower to a 10ppm flush. I've never had nute burn. I've only pushed to 1000ppm. Due to being a chicken.. I run dwc 4x5 gal buckets. 600w to 1000w and my water is hard at 350ppm.. gh. Lucas blend..

 

[Midwestjay]

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.

I measure everything... as far as a regimented schedule, not at all. People like to turn it to brain surgery... it's growing a plant, if you keep it happy it'll produce. Start light on the Nutes and increase as you go.

 

[Midwestjay]

Like a Wild West cowboy!... Screw the measurements, full steam ahead! :)

Lol nah I measure. Just don't get super technical with it. Just keep her happy and shell make you happy. A lot of people get scared away from growing cause people make it seem like you need a botany degree to grow a plant lol. Just putting it out there for the new guys, it's not that technical. You can make it technical if you wish to. But I like to "kiss" it, (keep it simple stupid).

 

[Midwestjay]

This thread went way off course, love the info tho.... I run 500 ppm in early veg 700 veg and 900 flower to a 10ppm flush. I've never had nute burn. I've only pushed to 1000ppm. Due to being a chicken.. I run dwc 4x5 gal buckets. 600w to 1000w and my water is hard at 350ppm.. gh. Lucas blend..

Yea that's the range I grow in. It's not to often they stay happy after you get above that range.

 

[Junk]

Yea that's the range I grow in. It's not to often they stay happy after you get above that range.

With your setup, you can safely go higher. You could go up to 1400 easily. You don't have to...I'm just saying, don't be scared.

@GreenLion Your water is something else man, 350? Are you hydro? You would notice a large difference moving to an RO unit. Get rid of all the minerals in there and replace those PPMs with food. The plants will love you for it.

I been working with people's water a long time...and I have never seen 350 at the tap. Yikes. You must have stains from the water everywhere!

 

[ken dog]

You really have no accurate idea of the value, unless the scale is specified.

It's either.7 or .5... impossible to know for sure

 

[Midwestjay]

With your setup, you can safely go higher. You could go up to 1400 easily. You don't have to...I'm just saying, don't be scared.

@GreenLion Your water is something else man, 350? Are you hydro? You would notice a large difference moving to an RO unit. Get rid of all the minerals in there and replace those PPMs with food. The plants will love you for it.

I been working with people's water a long time...and I have never seen 350 at the tap. Yikes. You must have stains from the water everywhere!

Yea highest I've been was around 1500ppm with flora nova. But everytime I'm up that high the ppm starts climbing as the water level drops. I like to keep them so as the water drops the ppm is the same or slightly higher. They do worse if I have the ppm to high and the ppm climbs.

 

[Midwestjay]

And for instance with AN at full strength I'm around 8-900, you recommend going over full strength?

 

[Junk]

And for instance with AN at full strength I'm around 8-900, you recommend going over full strength?

I'm not familiar with them at all.

Based on what I've said throughout this post, I think you can probably guess that if you are mixing scales, I would go by ppm over EC. Or, you can just go by an "adjusted ec"....which is when you realize that you are on the 700 scale so you drop the ec levels a bit verses a 500 scale, which essentially converting to tds.

But I've never used AN at all. I was joking earlier.

 

[bdank]

Ive always understood it as @ken dog explains. It tried really hard to understand what @Junk was trying to say but i must be too dense...

ppm pens measure the value based on EC and then convert the EC value to display the ppm value. Having different conversion factors between differing manufacturers is why we have this problem communicating nutrient measurments between one another". "

USA 1 ms/cm (EC 1.0 or CF 10) = 500 ppm .5 scale

European 1 ms/cm (EC 1.0 or CF 10) = 640 ppm .64 scale

Australian 1 ms/cm (EC 1.0 or CF 10) = 700 ppm .7 scale

^notice how the EC is 1.0 in all cases. PPM is calculation on a .5-.7 scale which gives you the different ppm numbers

There is the 442 conversion (40% sodium sulfate, 40% sodium bicarbonate, and 20% sodium chloride) which some say is the closest thing to a hydroponic solution. The 442 conversion is approximately 700 x EC in millisiemens (mS).

Then there is the NaCl conversion (sodium chloride) which others say is the closest thing to a hydroponic solution. The NaCl conversion is approximately 500 x EC in millisiemens (mS).

You can see where the confusion comes from because the same solution will read 2100 ppm(@.7) on one meter and it will read 1500 (@.5) ppm on the other.
The EC on the other hand is the same 3.0 o both meters and if used would avoid the confusion and need to specify which conversion is being used. That being said, i think this is why people including myself believe that EC is a more universal number.

 

[RichRon]

They use two scales (3 actually) because ppm meters are typically just EC meters. & some nute bases use materials that are the same PPM, but are more, or less, electrically conductive per PPM. So a different correction factor is applied. The EC meter needs to know what the multiplication factor is - to give you ppm.

But EC is not the "end all, be all" of measurements. As I just explained, different types of salts can have different conductivity. PPM is also an easier number, mentally, to adjust your nutes on. It's just easier to wrap your head around.

I don't think you understand how it works. Aside from that, ppm is what the OP asked for, ppm during veg & flower.

It doesn't matter what scale people are on. It doesn't matter that the scale changes depending on the nute line. So long as everyone has calibrated their TDS meters correctly. TDS meters are simply EC meters that multiply by a factor to give you PPM. PPM is an easier denominator to work with small numbers.

So, I'm on the 500 scale, others can be on the 700 scale. So long as their meters know that, we can talk in PPM & all be talking about the same thing (roughly). It doesn't matter that the scales change, so long as you are using the proper correction factor for your nutes, & we are using the proper correction factor for our nutes, PPM is now the same (in theory).

It doesn't matter what scale people are using, or the fact that it changes for some people. Everyone (pretty much) is using an EC meter that converts to TDS, which is given as a PPM measurement. So long as they have the correct multiplier for their nute line, we are talking about the same thing. After your meter does it's thing & gives you a PPM reading, we now have a common denominator. The fact that EC is a hard, constant, reading, doesn't make it inherently superior for our purposes. I don't find it to be easier to measure.

It's based on the nute line, & what they have used for their base, not where you live. Because of different national laws & regulations, there is often a location correlation, but it's not the the inherent cause.

Sorry I missed this bud. Sometimes I have like 22 alerts & I forget some of them.

For the rez, I have one of these (Eco Plus 5)
https://www.hydroponics.net/i/132951

I split it & run two of these (Eco Plus Aqua lung x 2)
https://www.hydroponics.net/i/140866

Then I have one of these (Eco Plus 7)
https://www.hydroponics.net/i/136485

That powers the air stones that are in all the buckets, including the control bucket. 17 buckets in all, excluding the rez. So each bucket has it's own air stone powered by the EP7. The res has two aqua lungs powered by the EP5. I don't have any test results to prove it, but I have yet to see a setup that did not benefit from more/better aeration.

There are 4 main reasons I'm able to feed at such a high ppm. 1. I am pumping the entire setup so full of oxygen that the plants can metabolize a lot. 2. Right now I'm giving the space 100w of light per ft^2. 3. I supplement Co2 4. I use Botanicaire Liquid Karma. I don't work for Botanicaire, or associated with them in any way. But that Liquid Karma stuff, is liquid gold. I don't know what it does, or how it does it, but you can slam the plants with higher nute levels, & they take it. If I removed the LK from the recipe, I would have to drop the nute levels a bit.

People who say the plants can only use a certain amount of nutes are 100% correct. But you can force the plant to need/use more nutes. More light, more Co2, more oxygen. My environment is on steroids, which is why I'm able to give the plants steroid level nutes. I've gone as high as 2k ppm (my meter just reads "----")

When people say the plant can only use so much...While that is true, it's an oversimplification. Most nutes are correlated. In order to uptake one nutrient most efficiently, it has to uptake another nutrient, which is related to another etc.

A very simple example of what I mean is the Liquid Karma. I would burn my plants at the levels I use without it. But if I add it, they take it & explode with growth. & they are using most of it, some days they drink 25 gallons in 24 hours.



That picture I showed was about 5 weeks. Here is one of my current plants at 4 weeks. Steadily taking 1600 ppm with every feed/water.
View attachment 571509





Indeed, but we raise that threshold with other means like I expressed above. I wasn't picking on you when I said that....yours just happened to be the next quote in the series. But I agree with you, that you can't just dump more nutes in & expect performance to increase.

Thanks for the detail, im going to look into that additive and give it a try.