True HP Aero For 2011

[r0m30]

oops, yeah... Sorry for the mixup r0m...

Not a problem, good edit BTW

r0m's building his own [timer] for fairly cheap, and honestly I think if he looks at mouser electronics he'll probably even be able to make it for under 10-20 bucks.

Good estimate, about $21 + shipping

Petflora,
Do you have any pics from Pod Racer or Fatman that show the same root structure as g-love`s?

I love irony

 

[Trichy Bastard]

Petflora,
Do you have any pics from Pod Racer or Fatman that show the same root structure as g-love`s?

That's a good point. I can completely respect a person's right to privacy and other legal concerns. But we all have different ideas of what the perfect roots look like. I figure if I look at the methods and advice of someone I can at least visually confirm they have the results I am looking for, then that's the person's advice I want to follow first... Some people seem to not even post pics that wouldn't be incriminating in the least way, and you have to be somewhat suspectful, after all- there are men posting as women out there flirting with other guys... I'd hate to waste time and money on someone's advice like that. It seems the hardest part in trying to sort things out proper is all the misinfo out there. People have a tendancy to re-post what they read as their own advice, if they believe it themselves as fact(myself included), but plants grow on their own specific conditions, none of which are rumors...

 

[Trichy Bastard]

Not a problem, good edit BTW

Yeah, I didn't like the way it sounded upon re-reading it

 

[aerojunkie]

This could help answer some design/setup questions. thefatman aka fatman also mixes his own nutes: A simple description is I use an air atomized system using Delevan SN waste oil nozzles (I use several sizes)and an oil less compressor. I us most of the nozzles gravity fed instead of siphon. There is a small electric solenoid valve on each nozzle nutrient feed inlet and several larger electrical solenoids to control the air feeding the air inlets. The chambers which are under the plants are 36 inches deep and 1 square foot of space is allowed per plant. I use two nozzles per 4 square foot chamber. One is all I really need per chamber but I like redundancy in case one nozzle clogs. I list spray cycles based as dependent upon nozzle size. I run drain to waste in all phases of growth except the clone rooting stage where I recirculate and therefore use siphon feed for the nozzles. I do not user foggers in conjunction with the sprayers and I spray the same nutrients day and night even though I could spray just pH balanced water at night. I use Omron brand timers.

hth

I never understood why fatman (or anyone for that matter) uses individual solenoids for each nozzle. I am not as familiar with the delevan nozzles as I would like to be, mainly because I try to avoid using brass in all components but my air supply. I would imagine these air assisted nozzles would prevent any if not all residual flow, post cycles... Has anyone tried using their nozzles without individual solenoids? Why do most people insist on one solenoid/nozzle? I run single solenoids/chamber and have no problem with instantaneous flow to multiple nozzles. A simple vacuum produced by a closed solenoid slightly elevated above the nozzles should be more than sufficient to prevent ones nutrient solution from escaping (whether or not the nozzles are gravity, siphon, or pressure fed). Furthermore when the solenoid is activated (at any location) the pressure spike would also be instantaneous due to the volume of all lines being filled almost to capacity.

The only concerns I can foresee would be water hammer due to not elevating the solenoid, or a slight over-misting due to engorged feed lines. However I would think a simple check valve before each nozzle would prevent this and at the same time be a hellofalot cheaper.

Any thoughts or experience disagreeing or refuting this hypothesis would be interesting to look at... I think it would save a lot of coin in the long run for some individuals. It would also make more sense to use single solenoids as there are fewer components left to fail.

 

[Mike Young]

I agree that one solenoid per nozzle is a bit extreme, but the people crazy enough to venture into HPA seem to wanna leave no stone un-turned, and that's a good thing. I was certainly too cheap to use 1 solenoid per nozzle, but tried to do my best to keep the 2 nozzles as short & close as possible. I agree that more solenoids=more fail points, but it could also mean if one fails, another is there to pick up the slack. It's about safeguard as much as it is about control. It would probably take some serious measuring, (atomizer) but I think you could run a test with one nozzle per vs several. I do believe that if you looked close enough, however small the difference, it's likely that one would exist. I'm comfortable with 2 nozzles per solenoid, but not every situation may permit such.

 

[Trichy Bastard]

I agree with Mike and was just going to say, it's a matter of more fail points, but also a safety net incase your one and only fails. The more independent solenoids you have such as one per mister, means only one nozzle is down at a time- if a failure were to occur. I can't speak from experience- so the rest of it will have to be answered by someone else. I imagine 2 misters per solenoid will be not that big of a difference if the length of tubing between is minimal, but I think the issue is that the closer to the nozzle the solenoid is, the crisper the on/off response is. A slower response, considering such short timing cycles, will have more liquid drizzling in the chamber and wetting the roots- not mention that sort of run on is probably like a spit, and not the fine atomized mist developed at full pressure. Imagine the difference between turning a spigot on and off on the side of your house versus turning it on/off while a hose with spray nozzle are attached, I think it's sort of like this, but obviously not as bad considering the JG tubing being so resistant to stretch and it's smaller diameter. Does this sound about right Atomizer?

 

[aerojunkie]

I agree that one solenoid per nozzle is a bit extreme, but the people crazy enough to venture into HPA seem to wanna leave no stone un-turned, and that's a good thing. I was certainly too cheap to use 1 solenoid per nozzle, but tried to do my best to keep the 2 nozzles as short & close as possible. I agree that more solenoids=more fail points, but it could also mean if one fails, another is there to pick up the slack. It's about safeguard as much as it is about control. It would probably take some serious measuring, (atomizer) but I think you could run a test with one nozzle per vs several. I do believe that if you looked close enough, however small the difference, it's likely that one would exist. I'm comfortable with 2 nozzles per solenoid, but not every situation may permit such.

As a safeguard to loss of moisture in a chamber, I understand the idea that multiple solenoids rather than a single prevents plant loss. However, the asco solenoids I am using I feel (in my opinion) have a very small fail rate as opposed to a clogged nozzle or filter, failing pump or pressure switch (shurflo 12v), or other components needing much more careful monitoring.

As far as immediate discharge is concerned, I still feel one solenoid/nozzle is overkill. When I was running teffen anti-drip nozzles in a manifold to fill a 96 cubic foot chamber, I still had immediate discharge. I dont recall the amount of nozzles but I believe I ran close to 24-26 nozzles/solenoid/chamber, without an interruption in discharge or cutoff. If 1/100 or even 1/10 of a second difference between cycles becomes an issue for someone, they really need to up-size their chamber and stop growing out of a beer can.

 

[aerojunkie]

I agree with Mike and was just going to say, it's a matter of more fail points, but also a safety net incase your one and only fails. The more independent solenoids you have such as one per mister, means only one nozzle is down at a time- if a failure were to occur. I can't speak from experience- so the rest of it will have to be answered by someone else. I imagine 2 misters per solenoid will be not that big of a difference if the length of tubing between is minimal, but I think the issue is that the closer to the nozzle the solenoid is, the crisper the on/off response is. A slower response, considering such short timing cycles, will have more liquid drizzling in the chamber and wetting the roots- not mention that sort of run on is probably like a spit, and not the fine atomized mist developed at full pressure. Imagine the difference between turning a spigot on and off on the side of your house versus turning it on/off while a hose with spray nozzle are attached, I think it's sort of like this, but obviously not as bad considering the JG tubing being so resistant to stretch and it's smaller diameter. Does this sound about right Atomizer?

Maybe its just me, but I cant wrap my mind around the reason for close proximity of nozzles and short tubing. A more pressing matter to me, would be the volume of air in the line post solenoid and pre nozzle. If there is no air, one would have instant misting upon discharge of solenoid. flow would only be deterred by the volume of air in said line. Therefore a check valve in replacement of a second or third solenoid would in essence replicate the same parameters as the replaced solenoid.

TB - If you have the time while waiting on parts, you could always perform a test with your solenoids... Run a length of tubing... 25' if you want, doesn't matter, and add 2 nozzles and 2 solenoids on opposite ends. Perform a few cycles then remove the latter solenoid and run a few more cycles. You may or may not choose to replace the solenoid with a check valve. If you are getting relatively the same results between both cycles @ 25'... I would think its safe to presume your surplus of solenoids is unnecessary. For a safeguard, you can always run 2 solenoids parallel each other and tee both the inlet and outlet into the main supply. Then you could run as many nozzles, or chambers, as you would like.

FYI I have done similar tests and I am not asking you to this for my benefit as I already have reasons for my opinion, but if you can return a few of the solenoids you have accumulated, it may be to your advantage, or at least your pocketbooks. After all, you most likely have plenty of other components to spend your green on.

 

[Trichy Bastard]

I see your point AJ, and my initial common sense has me agreeing with you. I guess I will run some tests when I can- the problem is one of the things that didn't arrive yet is the npt adaptors for the nozzles to connect to the jg tubing-argh.

I like what Atomizer does- it's a very scientific approach to measuring the mist. I believe he would take video of a mist cycle and go through the footage in video editing software and measure quite precisely the actual length of the mist cycle by advancing frame by frame from when the first and last shot of spray is seen in the footage and noting the time in milliseconds. He would also have a mister spray into a collection cup/syringe for a single mist cycle and note the volume, and with those two measurements he can figure out with exactly how much volume of water is being sprayed for each fraction of a second.

AJ- would you have any video of just an empty chamber spray cycle, or have you taken any precise measurements of the actual volume of water being delivered in a spray cycle from a single nozzle? Would you say your roots look like the g-love ones I reposted? Sorry for all the questions, but I am really trying to get a firm grasp on all this from other people's experiences to help me finalize my design.

Edit- lol- I was writing this at the same time as your last post AJ... But we were thinking along the same lines

 

[aerojunkie]

I see your point AJ, and my initial common sense has me agreeing with you. I guess I will run some tests when I can- the problem is one of the things that didn't arrive yet is the npt adaptors for the nozzles to connect to the jg tubing-argh.

I like what Atomizer does- it's a very scientific approach to measuring the mist. I believe he would take video of a mist cycle and go through the footage in video editing software and measure quite precisely the actual length of the mist cycle by advancing frame by frame from when the first and last shot of spray is seen in the footage and noting the time in milliseconds. He would also have a mister spray into a collection cup/syringe for a single mist cycle and note the volume, and with those two measurements he can figure out with exactly how much volume of water is being sprayed for each fraction of a second.

AJ- would you have any video of just an empty chamber spray cycle, or have you taken any precise measurements of the actual volume of water being delivered in a spray cycle from a single nozzle? Would you say your roots look like the g-love ones I reposted? Sorry for all the questions, but I am really trying to get a firm grasp on all this from other people's experiences to help me finalize my design.

Edit- lol- I was writing this at the same time as your last post AJ... But we were thinking along the same lines

Sorry, the only pics I have are during the build stage and I dont have video. I may eventually start a thread or blog but I am refraining from it for the time being.

As far as solenoid placement, perhaps there are nozzles being utilized that do require close proximity to the solenoid. If anyone wants to elaborate on their specific nozzles feel free. Otherwise, I would definitely run a test using fewer solenoids and see how far it gets you.

 

[aerojunkie]

I like what Atomizer does- it's a very scientific approach to measuring the mist. I believe he would take video of a mist cycle and go through the footage in video editing software and measure quite precisely the actual length of the mist cycle by advancing frame by frame from when the first and last shot of spray is seen in the footage and noting the time in milliseconds. He would also have a mister spray into a collection cup/syringe for a single mist cycle and note the volume, and with those two measurements he can figure out with exactly how much volume of water is being sprayed for each fraction of a second.

I am genuinely curious to know how much of a difference there is between atomizer's findings and the manufacture's specifications, and also, how much variation he has between one nozzle to the next. I can appreciate atomizers attention to detail, I just don't have the need for such detailed experimentation.

 

[Atomizer]

.TB,
These days i use a poly bag to catch the mist and weigh it on a set of digital scales (0.001g resolution), its more accurate than a syringe
Video footage and editting software are essential tools imho. If you take your timer and nozzles at face value you could potentially overmist by 100% and not even realise it. You calibrate your ph/ec meters to make sure they are accurate, why not do the same with the timer and nozzles using video and scales.
I took a vid of the timers relay contacts (close/open) to check the accuracy. I video the misting pulse, deduct the timer result and that gives me the hydraulic/electrical delay and any mist run-on unique to the system. The digital scales test tells me how much liquid the nozzles are delivering compared to the lab report. Testing is the only way to know for sure.

 

[aerojunkie]

.TB,
These days i use a poly bag to catch the mist and weigh it on a set of digital scales (0.001g resolution), its more accurate than a syringe
Video footage and editting software are essential tools imho. If you take your timer and nozzles at face value you could potentially overmist by 100% and not even realise it. You calibrate your ph/ec meters to make sure they are accurate, why not do the same with the timer and nozzles using video and scales.
I took a vid of the timers relay contacts (close/open) to check the accuracy. I video the misting pulse, deduct the timer result and that gives me the hydraulic/electrical delay and any mist run-on unique to the system. The digital scales test tells me how much liquid the nozzles are delivering compared to the lab report. Testing is the only way to know for sure.

So how often and by how much do the flows of your nozzles vary from one to another. And how much is that variable compared to the manufacturers specs? Do you measure each nozzle and group them according to similar flow rates in your findings? I just ask because as far as I know... nozzle flows slightly increase and decrease over time due to both the abrasive qualities of nutrient solutions as well as the precipitation of salts on unclean heads. More so in brass than plastic but flows do vary in plastic as well. I can not verify this with the accuracy involved in your experiments nor can I define the percentages of those increases... I only bring this to light because I am constantly adjusting flows in my own chambers dependent on the condition and size of my roots, I only presume you do the same. I do calibrate sensors, but for the most part, those calibrations remain constants provide I maintain them correctly. Whereas the parameters of my mist cycles are constantly varying. Your primary measurements would give a great advantage to both your chamber dimensions and initial timing settings, but they would still be variables needing adjustment as the volume of your chamber decreases due to the increase of root mass. I am all about control over my environment, but even with the most strict initial parameters my chambers need adjustments throughout the entire grow cycle which in turn eliminates imho my need for such stringent initial calculations.

 

[PetFlora]

Petflora,
Do you have any pics from Pod Racer or Fatman that show the same root structure as g-love`s?

Pod's lengthy thread is on IC. You would need to sub to see pics. Keep in mind he (and his mates) were working it out on the fly. I do not recall them using < one second timers, so the amount of roothairs might be questionable. Here is one of his links http://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=52431&highlight=pod+racer


I am unaware of Fatman posting pics.

 

[hammer21]

This thread just keeps getting better and better..............................................

 

[Atomizer]

If you test the flowrate of your nozzles initially you`d be in a much better position to quantify changes in nozzle performance. I do periodic testing and compare the results to the initial readings, which tells me if something has changed, by how much and in which direction. If you make a note of the initial readings its an easy task to retest a suspect nozzle and decide on the appropriate action based on the degree of change. If the nozzles deteriorate uniformly you wouldnt be aware of any change until it was significant enough to throw up a red flag. Eyeballing the nozzles is enough to tell if they are working but if they are wearing uniformly i doubt you`d even notice a 10%-20% increase/decrease in flow by eye. With the measurement and comparison method you`d have a definitive answer in minutes.

 

[aerojunkie]

If you test the flowrate of your nozzles initially you`d be in a much better position to quantify changes in nozzle performance. I do periodic testing and compare the results to the initial readings, which tells me if something has changed, by how much and in which direction. If you make a note of the initial readings its an easy task to retest a suspect nozzle and decide on the appropriate action based on the degree of change. If the nozzles deteriorate uniformly you wouldnt be aware of any change until it was significant enough to throw up a red flag. Eyeballing the nozzles is enough to tell if they are working but if they are wearing uniformly i doubt you`d even notice a 10%-20% increase/decrease in flow by eye. With the measurement and comparison method you`d have a definitive answer in minutes.

So do you make a point to check on a regular basis i.e. every other week, or once a month? And when you do recognize a change in flow your only rectification (besides replacing faulty nozzles) is adjusting your timing correct? If you are checking regularly I can truly understand the full benefits of your methods, who knows, I may eventually try replicating your testing in my own system just to note data changes over the period of a full cycle. Quite intriguing actually...

 

[Trichy Bastard]

So do you make a point to check on a regular basis i.e. every other week, or once a month? And when you do recognize a change in flow your only rectification (besides replacing faulty nozzles) is adjusting your timing correct? If you are checking regularly I can truly understand the full benefits of your methods, who knows, I may eventually try replicating your testing in my own system just to note data changes over the period of a full cycle. Quite intriguing actually...

I agree... New thing on my list? Super accurate scale... Already have the software. I'd imagine the testing only needing being done every other month or so, but I'd still be curious to hear Atomizer's schedule. To be honest Aerojunkie, the pics of your building stage are exactly what I was hoping for. I've seen plants, I've seen roots, but I have never seen an air-atomized setup besides the Atomix, and it was usually covered in plants blocking my view of it's engineering. There are alot of things that could be answered as in a pic being worth 1000 words- rather than me asking so many different questions. Anyway- anything your up to showing, would be greatly appreciated.

I think you were basically hinting that in your personal testing, you hadn't noticed any difference in mist run on between long runs and short runs of tubing between the solenoid and mister? I am curious and will have to do some tests as well. Although I think watching it in video is probably the best way to do it now. The timer has a light on it that turns on/off with the mist cycle, so I can likely use that to judge the time the mist still sprays after the light turns off, and also possibly look for changes in the spray pattern in slow motion. Perhaps I should also consider viewing the relay contacts too, so the relay delay will be out of the equation, I can compare the differences and deduce the actual relay delay timing too just to be thorough.

I don't see how any certain nozzles could run on differently than any others after the end of cycle with varyied lengths of tubing, but I think it's common sense that the issue could only be in the run of tubing in that case, and not in the nozzle itself. Perhaps orientation of the mister in relation to gravity and the lines may make a difference, but I plan to have mine at the top few inches of my chamber aiming in horizontal, at the highest points in the jg tubing. I'll do a full loop around the chamber of tubing T'd to itself at the main connection leading back to the regulator, with riser tubes leading up to each solenoid, and a couple inches higher to an L that penetrates the chamber with the nozzle- so gravity should be on my side and help to hold the fluid in the nozzles as opposed to pulling it out. (Hope that made sense)

 

[konagirl420]

TB I like coming to this thread and reading all the ideas even though I don't understand all the terminology hahahaha keep working hard for the marijuana growing of the future!!!

 

[Trichy Bastard]

TB I like coming to this thread and reading all the ideas even though I don't understand all the terminology hahahaha keep working hard for the marijuana growing of the future!!!

Thanks Kona- Team-aero needs a cheerleader sometimes anyway... I think you fit the bill