We've been using Uniseals on our modules for well over 6 years, with reliable results. Cost comparatively when working with 2 & 3" pvc, bulk heads are priced too high given the frequency of junctions on our systems. Look into larger bulkheads to learn more.
1" is not an option as it restricts flow too much for the UC design to operate properly. 1" tub fittings work well for hobby & lower flow set ups but fall short for higher flow apps like the UC.
As for "tail bucket" feature sounds like it works well for you. Given we already add length to our system with our Epicenter, the inclusion of yet an additional bucket isn't an option for standard UC applications. Though for those preferring to add this feature, is an easy addition/ substitution for the return manifold.
You can be certain that CC's R&D has some game changing products, features in the pipeline that will make operating hydro systems more efficient and convenient. Based on your observations, I can assure you they are features and tools you'll be able to appreciate.
.......
No disrespect interepreted on this end....seems like you've got lots of good insight you share with the Farm. Thanks for sharing and keep up the good work.
The reason I asked about this wasn't to poke holes in the design choices, but rather to gain some insight into what central design philosophy the CC team was following when they made their choices.
The difference between a 1" opening and 2" or larger IS significant- I can attest that I see a water level drop between the first bucket in a row and the last when using 1" bulkheads, which is why I don't recommend using 1" openings for more than 6 or 8 buckets in a line.
You're definitely right about larger size bulkheads being expensive! I chose 1" mainly because it was the largest affordable size. As you know, anyone can design 'the best' when cost is no object- good engineering happens when taking as much of those 'best' features as possible and designing a well rounded system everyone can afford.
I'm also quite aware of how expensive plastic injection molding machinery is, in a way that perhaps the average gardener may not be. There is no way CC could afford to mold their own plastic buckets, let alone in multiple sizes, and still offer an affordable product. Besides, what would be the point in re-inventing that particular wheel when companies that specialize in this work do it so well- at least most of the time?
I do notice, at least with 5 gallon round plastic pails, that they're available in somewhat different styles. Some are definitely thicker than others, which leads to some advantages:
1. thickness helps reduce the likelihood of cracking (although I bet the plasticizer mix recipe in the plastic itself makes a big difference too)
2. better light control
3. possibly less acknowleged is that the thicker plastic helps insulate the bucket better which helps the end customer keep the temperatures in their system more consistent, and reduces condensation issues in humid environments.
Since one of my personal design criteria was low cost, I ended up painting my buckets- which turned out to be an effective means of insulation and condensation reduction in its own right! I would not recommend this approach for commercial systems, however, since the paint doesn't adhere well enough to the plastic to meet durability and longevity standards.
If you can find a way to offer your buckets in an 'extra thick' variety- even at additional cost, I'd be very interested in taking a closer look at them for myself and my clients.
