AeroJunkie's High Pressure Air-Assisted Hydro-Atomized Aeroponic System (HPAAHAAS)

Trichy Bastard

Trichy Bastard

Well-Known Member
indrhrvest said:
I seemed to have missed a few posts.. To answer your question..



I've purchased quite a bit of useless equipment, it's part of my secret formula for success though ;p
Click to expand...
You've a very tough road ahead, and we know it firsthand- that's all... I also know I don't want to go down in history like one of the people who condemned the science who said the world wasn't flat, so for what it's worth I applaud anyone who tries and I know anyone who makes a breakthrough usually has to go up against alot of resistance from people even in their own field. It would seem you are rather confident while we see all the obstacles and holes, which is why it's easy to tell you what a rough road you're in for...
 
I

indrhrvest

New Member
Trichy Bastard said:
It would seem you are rather confident while we see all the obstacles and holes, which is why it's easy to tell you what a rough road you're in for...
Click to expand...
The infrastructure would be the same irregardless of the end point delivery. This much I know. I know that simple low pressure aero can be made scalable for commercial use. I know this because I've already proven it to myself. I'm now pushing a basic design further in an attempt to eliminate as much cost as I can so I'm experimenting with HP aero.

Low pressure requires recirculating, ultimately that's what I'm trying to eliminate. I'm not striving for perfect Aero roots, I'm simply trying to find a method that eliminates a cost.
 
Trichy Bastard

Trichy Bastard

Well-Known Member
indrhrvest said:
The infrastructure would be the same irregardless of the end point delivery. This much I know. I know that simple low pressure aero can be made scalable for commercial use. I know this because I've already proven it to myself. I'm now pushing a basic design further in an attempt to eliminate as much cost as I can so I'm experimenting with HP aero.

Low pressure requires recirculating, ultimately that's what I'm trying to eliminate. I'm not striving for perfect Aero roots, I'm simply trying to find a method that eliminates a cost.
Click to expand...
Makes sense. But as I mentioned before I believe to get to the point of being able to drain to waste economically, you'll need some pretty fuzzy roots. Otherwise they will require alot more misting than you'll economically be able to toss down the drain. I'm sure it can be done, just not sure about the upfront costs being worthwhile. Perhaps the increased growthrate, crop health and water/nutrient savings will make it prove to be a sound investment. I've pondered this myself... It's definitely more easily justifyable for high dollar crops over something like lettuce...
 
A

Atomizer

Well-Known Member
I`d say LP aero would be cheaper to setup and operate on a commercial scale, moving large volumes of water at fairly low pressure costs far less than producing compressed air.
A commercial setup with 100 chambers would need 37,300 cubic feet of air per day based on the earlier nozzle spec and cycle timing.
 
Trichy Bastard

Trichy Bastard

Well-Known Member
Atomizer said:
I`d say LP aero would be cheaper to setup and operate on a commercial scale, moving large volumes of water at fairly low pressure costs far less than producing compressed air.
A commercial setup with 100 chambers would need 37,300 cubic feet of air per day based on the earlier nozzle spec and cycle timing.
Click to expand...
Yes, and at first hydraulic HP might sound a better choice, but when you figure all of the nozzles and solenoids and possibly clogging due to those large scales, it seem alot of hurdles to overcome. Atomizer, do you think if using steel tubing that much farther spans could be gone with a single solenoid? I have no idea of the expansion of those tubes, but imagine it's better than pex... The Genesis V is HP and sells comercially for around 5-6k I think. It doesn't seem to offer as tight of control as we use here either with lower resolution timings and a single solenoid for the whole pod... I'd put tf's root pics up to theirs anyday from the ones I have seen so far on their site.. :D
 
Trichy Bastard

Trichy Bastard

Well-Known Member
P.S. - wonder if you could keep a closed environment with dehumidifiers to extract the transpirational losses, and combine that with the DTW effluent processed through r.o. and completely cut out all irrigation water supply costs in a closed loop environment. That might start offsetting some things perhaps? Especially in parts of the world where water supplies are meager... Solar panels and wind turbines could be used to power the climate control systems and pumps, while natural sunlight comes in through the roof. But only if the r.o. process is really efficient. Perhaps distillation through solar steaming would be a good idea for the r.o. runoff concentrate.
 
I

indrhrvest

New Member
aerojunkie said:
What do you estimate the retail price of a single chamber and required nozzles to be?
Click to expand...
It's not really that kind of system design. The system we are designing requires a centralized physical plant. I imagine we could simply sell the 4x8 root chambers to DIY'ers though. I need to find out what nozzles are going to work best first, then I will seek to become a distributor. I'm already working on becoming a distributor for EFDL's.

I imagine we could sell the 4X8X2 tanks for about $850 and the 4X8X1 tanks for about $700. The lids are around $300 or so. This is heavy duty stuff though, not that flimsy ABS plastic stuff.
 
I

indrhrvest

New Member
Atomizer said:
I`d say LP aero would be cheaper to setup and operate on a commercial scale, moving large volumes of water at fairly low pressure costs far less than producing compressed air.
A commercial setup with 100 chambers would need 37,300 cubic feet of air per day based on the earlier nozzle spec and cycle timing.
Click to expand...
But a recirculating system would require higher labor costs.. labor can kill you in a large commercial operation. There are some very efficient compressors on the market these days. But this is ultimately what I working on. I need the actually raw data so I can determine scalability. Everything we do will be monitored with flow meters, electrical consumption etc..
 
A

aerojunkie

Well-Known Member
Considering the atomix system ran around 4k, your starting figures have potential considering the much larger footprint. If you gave a system to atomizer, trichy, or Mikey at cost or less, Im sure they would be more than willing to put the system to the test and run a thread on their findings. They have quite a bit of clout around here and if the system worked others would purchase them. I thought I recalled a certain LED manufacturer trying the same marketing strategy but I dont recall the results. I don't know if you care to expand your market to diyers but this thread is full of them.
 
I

indrhrvest

New Member
Atomizer said:
A commercial setup with 100 chambers would need 37,300 cubic feet of air per day based on the earlier nozzle spec and cycle timing.
Click to expand...
I'm looking at another nozzle, which according to the manufacturer would only require one single nozzle for our application. The nozzle would use about 5-6 SCFM. The rep told me he figured the one nozzle could fill the chamber in 20-30 seconds. So at let's say 3 SCFM per cycle, that would be 864 cfm per day. That's only 8,640 CFM per day for 100 units. That's really not much for a large commercial compressor.
 
I

indrhrvest

New Member
aerojunkie said:
Considering the atomix system ran around 4k, your starting figures have potential considering the much larger footprint.
Click to expand...
I imagine we could get them under 4K per system pretty easy if we designed a single use system. Hell, for $5K, we can probably build a stackable system (64 s/f growing in a 32 s/f foot print) We would just need to add a reservoir since our systems are being designed to run off a plant wide system manifold.

The individual buyer really isn't our target market, but money is money..

I'm sure you guys have had your share of trolls.. but just know I've already put close to $35K cold hard cash into this with having to purchase the domain (we had to deal with a domain squatter), trademarks, test facility, tooling.. so this is a real venture, not just hot air.
 
A

Atomizer

Well-Known Member
indrhrvest said:
I'm looking at another nozzle, which according to the manufacturer would only require one single nozzle for our application. The nozzle would use about 5-6 SCFM. The rep told me he figured the one nozzle could fill the chamber in 20-30 seconds. So at let's say 3 SCFM per cycle, that would be 864 cfm per day. That's only 8,640 CFM per day for 100 units. That's really not much for a large commercial compressor.
Click to expand...
100 nozzles (6 CFM) on a 30 sec/ 5 min cycle would use 300 cubic feet per cycle.
You`d have approx 266 cycles in 24hrs so 300 cubic feet x 266 cycles = 79,800 cubic feet per day.
Cubic Feet and CFM are very different units.
 
I

indrhrvest

New Member
Atomizer said:
100 nozzles (6 CFM) on a 30 sec/ 5 min cycle would use 300 cubic feet per cycle.
You`d have approx 266 cycles in 24hrs so 300 cubic feet x 266 cycles = 79,800 cubic feet per day.
Cubic Feet and CFM are very different units.
Click to expand...
SCFM and CFM are different.. much like SAE and STD on a Dyno sheet. My math would be 86,400 per day, higher than yours (100 units). Compressed air works out to about $0.0002 per CFM @ $.06 kWhr fyi.. ($0.02 per 100 CFM).. yes compressed air is very costly.

Here is the tank tooling in progress for our larger tank design for use with the rotary atomizer. The system was designed for commercial SCROG's and has a frame built for that purpose. Using the rotary design will allow growers a broad range of nutrients due to the clogless nature of the system. It would be a recirculating system. I suppose folks could use the tank for a DIY aero application as well.. but our 12" deep tank would probably be a better solution.

image2.jpg
 
Trichy Bastard

Trichy Bastard

Well-Known Member
indrhrvest said:
SCFM and CFM are different.. much like SAE and STD on a Dyno sheet. My math would be 86,400 per day, higher than yours (100 units). Compressed air works out to about $0.0002 per CFM @ $.06 kWhr fyi.. ($0.02 per 100 CFM).. yes compressed air is very costly.

Here is the tank tooling in progress for our larger tank design for use with the rotary atomizer. The system was designed for commercial SCROG's and has a frame built for that purpose. Using the rotary design will allow growers a broad range of nutrients due to the clogless nature of the system. It would be a recirculating system. I suppose folks could use the tank for a DIY aero application as well.. but our 12" deep tank would probably be a better solution.

View attachment 2220548
Click to expand...
Something I've always pondered with rotary atomizers is how to deliver the mist without worrying about root entanglement with the atomizer, or at the very least root obstruction of the mist pattern. Do you see this an a possible issue? I wonder if perhaps multiple smaller rotary atomizers instead of one large one might be a better design from a coverage point of view.
 
I

indrhrvest

New Member
Trichy Bastard said:
Something I've always pondered with rotary atomizers is how to deliver the mist without worrying about root entanglement with the atomizer, or at the very least root obstruction of the mist pattern. Do you see this an a possible issue? I wonder if perhaps multiple smaller rotary atomizers instead of one large one might be a better design from a coverage point of view.
Click to expand...
Same way we looked at dealing with nozzle spatter.. a simple baffle. You had mentioned needing to insulate the tanks. I wanted to point out that with a manifold system, our nutrient would be run through a chiller. So spraying 60-65 degree nutrient through an atomizer head would be more than enough to keep temps down in a CEA setup. After all, fog/mist nozzles are primarily used for cooling.

Edit: Ingersoll Rand has been nice enough to take my info and provide me with some duty/cost information.. just waiting on the figures. Over the phone, cost to run 100 units per year was about $15K.
 
I

indrhrvest

New Member
indrhrvest said:
Edit: Ingersoll Rand has been nice enough to take my info and provide me with some duty/cost information.. just waiting on the figures.
Click to expand...
UP6 -15c-125 Ingersoll Rand Compressor (15hp)
Run 24hrs/7days a week all year (365days) = 8760 total hours. Running 100% full load at 100% of the time
Motor efficiency – 90.2
(15hp)(0.746kW/hp)(8760 hr/yr)($0.14kWh*)(1.0 time)(1.0 full-load hp) = $15,214.43
0.902

Raw Formula

Cost per year =
(hp)(0.746 kW/hp)(hr/yr)($/kWh)(% time)(% full-load hp)/motor efficiency
 
Trichy Bastard

Trichy Bastard

Well-Known Member
indrhrvest said:
Same way we looked at dealing with nozzle spatter.. a simple baffle. You had mentioned needing to insulate the tanks. I wanted to point out that with a manifold system, our nutrient would be run through a chiller. So spraying 60-65 degree nutrient through an atomizer head would be more than enough to keep temps down in a CEA setup. After all, fog/mist nozzles are primarily used for cooling.

Edit: Ingersoll Rand has been nice enough to take my info and provide me with some duty/cost information.. just waiting on the figures. Over the phone, cost to run 100 units per year was about $15K.
Click to expand...
That's what I thought too, but the nozzles won't cool without evaporation, and there isn't much evaporation once the chamber reaches 100% relative humidity saturation. You could bring in fresh air, but then have other issues, so it goes back to insulation... Since there is such a low volume of mist entering the chamber, it doesn't have as much pulldown effect as you might need even when chilled, although chilling the nutes as well as the air are good practice and running both lines through a simple cool water bath does the job.

edit: I suppose the aa nozzles do bring in a certain amount of fresh air, but if you use low cfm nozzles you are also hindering additional air with evaporation potential.
 
Trichy Bastard

Trichy Bastard

Well-Known Member
Hey, I just thought as a courtesy to Aerojunkie that we should move this conversation to it's own thread. If it's not too much trouble indrhrvest, I am sure if you start one we will all join in, but not clutter up the thread here. Sorry AJ, you've been quite a good sport... :D
 
A

Atomizer

Well-Known Member
Using a simple baffle to prevent nozzle spatter will only make things worse. You`ll get a river of liquid water flowing off the baffle and the impact of the mist into the liquid film on the baffle will create even larger droplets than the spatter you`re trying to prevent. Its better to have the right mist without any spatter ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top