Hey HPA Aeroponic Growers... are you still out there?

Mad Lab

Mad Lab

Active Member
Atomizer said:
Still running hpa, aa, ebb/flo and nft.
tbh i stopped by to see if there was anything new and exciting in the aero forum and the answer to that one seems to be a no. There`s a surprise lol

HPA threads dont need support :) if you`re interested enough in hpa, you`ll build one and get it to work. If you cant get it to work then you did something wrong, figure out what and have another go.
If you cant figure what you did wrong then you`re probably not cut out for hpa. If you cant admit you did something wrong, you`ll likely blame the system and become a naysayer :)

Note that the above is applicable to any/every other growing method ever devised by man. I cant grow in soil to save my life, i havent launched a campaign against it even though its obviously useless for growing stuff lol
Click to expand...

Lol, new no, but we both know the beauty of HPA, and maybe it's clique to say but shouldnt we share this beauty and spread the awareness?

You've done more in regards to spreading awareness by knowledge then maybe anyone around these parts so I hope that you'll pop in once in awhile and correct me when applicable.

Like you, posting pictures has never been my thing. I wish I had more pictures for these guys but I just started participating in the threads after 15 yrs of being around. And pictures were always taboo for me until recreational legalization recently where I am at..


Some questions, I remember a debate you had with a company CEO a year or so ago. It was about nozzle placement. I believe your thoughts were nozzles located on top of chamber pointing down. The other thought was placing on the bottom facing upwards.

I have found, doing many tests with both, in a 2foot deep chamber with nozzles on bottom at 2 feet and having a second set of nozzles at 1 foot spraying up as well, fans the roots to the point where I get better results.

Do you still find that placement on top facing down to be superior?
 
A

Atomizer

Well-Known Member
The nozzles i use are different to IH`s, they are mounted at the top but they fire horizontally not downwards so gravity does most of the work. They have a much longer throw than tefens, if i mounted them firing upwards,apart from needing 10x as many for the same coverage, they`d blast the underside of the lid and create rain.
Heres another example, I have 8 top mounted nozzles in a 1.2m diameter x 2m high (160 site) tower that grows lettuce/basil in summer, a 2 second pulse generates a cloud of mist at the top that drops to cover the entire 2000L volume evenly. The hardware cost was minimal, (one 12v solenoid, a bit of pipe and 8 nozzles), as it tee`s into the main line feeding the rest of the outdoor chambers. Its silent running apart from the intermittant hiss of the nozzles (no pump noise), run to waste and zero maintenance.
 
Mad Lab

Mad Lab

Active Member
Atomizer said:
The nozzles i use are different to IH`s, they are mounted at the top but they fire horizontally not downwards so gravity does most of the work. They have a much longer throw than tefens, if i mounted them firing upwards,apart from needing 10x as many for the same coverage, they`d blast the underside of the lid and create rain.
Heres another example, I have 8 top mounted nozzles in a 1.2m diameter x 2m high (160 site) tower that grows lettuce/basil in summer, a 2 second pulse generates a cloud of mist at the top that drops to cover the entire 2000L volume evenly. The hardware cost was minimal, (one 12v solenoid, a bit of pipe and 8 nozzles), as it tee`s into the main line feeding the rest of the outdoor chambers. Its silent running apart from the intermittant hiss of the nozzles (no pump noise), run to waste and zero maintenance.
Click to expand...
Sounds harmonic.
 
Mad Lab

Mad Lab

Active Member
Atomizer said:
The nozzles i use are different to IH`s, they are mounted at the top but they fire horizontally not downwards so gravity does most of the work. They have a much longer throw than tefens, if i mounted them firing upwards,apart from needing 10x as many for the same coverage, they`d blast the underside of the lid and create rain.
Heres another example, I have 8 top mounted nozzles in a 1.2m diameter x 2m high (160 site) tower that grows lettuce/basil in summer, a 2 second pulse generates a cloud of mist at the top that drops to cover the entire 2000L volume evenly. The hardware cost was minimal, (one 12v solenoid, a bit of pipe and 8 nozzles), as it tee`s into the main line feeding the rest of the outdoor chambers. Its silent running apart from the intermittant hiss of the nozzles (no pump noise), run to waste and zero maintenance.
Click to expand...
Nice coverage. I too like the downward pointed nozzles to prevent rain.

Care to share which nozzles you use? at what psi you run?

And why the 2 second burst instead of 1 with the good coverage of your misters and the gravity pushing down? Is your solenoid close to nozzles or backed off?

You using a Aquatech? how many times do you charge your accumulator per day(or week)

And whats your opinion on solution sitting in larger accumulator tanks for long periods of time vs charging frequently?

:) Lota Q's
 
A

Atomizer

Well-Known Member
Mad Lab said:
Nice coverage. I too like the downward pointed nozzles to prevent rain.

Care to share which nozzles you use? at what psi you run?
netafims, 80psi at the nozzles

And why the 2 second burst instead of 1 with the good coverage of your misters and the gravity pushing down? Is your solenoid close to nozzles or backed off?
Big difference between a climate controlled room and running HPA outdoors in full sun. Solenoids are close to nozzles but when using netafim adv`s its not so critical
I use upto 4 different timing cycles throughout the day in midsummer and a different one at night.

You using a Aquatech? how many times do you charge your accumulator per day(or week)
I have 2 aquatecs but i dont use them for the outdoor due to the low flowrate, the 160psi 5lpm (12v) pump is much quicker at getting the 100L accumulator upto 140psi. I top up the accumulator daily, takes less than 5 minutes incl mixing the nutes.

And whats your opinion on solution sitting in larger accumulator tanks for long periods of time vs charging frequently?
I`ve purposefully left nutes sitting in an accumulator for a month without any problem. YMMV if you use non synthetics or nutes that arent crystal clear when they go into the tank.

:) Lota Q's
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Mad Lab

Mad Lab

Active Member
Atomizer, what is your favored support system for indoor grows? If your doing something like 4 plants a 5x5 area for the sativa dominant grower.

I know alot of people have trouble supporting larger plants in HPA when not doing a SOG. Multiple tiers of hortanova netting supported very well seems to work for me, but wondered what you thought.
 
A

Atomizer

Well-Known Member
bondage ;) but nets work well.
I just clocked IH`s latest chamber test on YT, the whining noise, big droplets launched skyward before misting and mist run on illustrates the drawbacks of using a predominently pump driven HPA with upward firing, non-anti drip nozzles.
 
Mad Lab

Mad Lab

Active Member
So if choosing to be pump-driven the solution would be non-anti drip nozzles spraying downwards?
 
A

Atomizer

Well-Known Member
If its pump driven, anti drip nozzles will help but they wont be enough to make up for it being pump driven. As a product, compromises are acceptable (inevitable), when building something for yourself compromise typically isnt an option ;)
Downwards facing nozzles alleviates standing water but it can be as bad as upwards depending on the pattern and throw. not much point having a narrow cone, short throw nozzle (like a tefen) firing downwards. By the same token, an AA nozzle firing upwards or downwards wouldnt be much good either.
 
K

Koolredrah

Active Member
First time poster here.

Brief description of my HPA system components before firing off my question: accumulator tank (pressured to 120 PSI), solenoid valve, and a deep cycle timer/controller (self programmed) that allows .1 second adjustments.

I have a question concerning nozzles......I am currently testing two types of nozzles. The first type is the heavily tested/used Tefen Nozzles. The second type is a brass anti-drip nozzle. Both operate at my pressure (~120 PSI) and I am wondering whether there are any drawbacks to using brass nozzles as opposed to plastic (e.g., Tefen) nozzles. Based on a short period of testing, there is no marked difference in performance. Has anyone experimented with plastic v brass/metal nozzles? My thinking is that the brass nozzles will perform better over a longer period of time. Any thoughts?

Any help is appreciated!
 
Mad Lab

Mad Lab

Active Member
brass and stainless steel nozzles are more prone to clog.

tefens are industry standard and are good.

but as atomizer stated above, he uses netafims which are also anti-drip, and i would take his advice over anyone else currently lurking in HPA threads.
 
K

Koolredrah

Active Member
Clogging hasn't been an issue with my system as I've incorporated several stages of filtering. Aside from clogging, is there any downside to brass/stainless steel? Again, I assumed that brass/stainless steel would wear better than the plastic nozzles. I actually like the anti-drip feature with these nozzles as they will not crack until at least 90 PSI, which helps reduce any residual spray after the solenoid closes (or at least I think so!).

I agree with you about Atomizer, I've been following the HPA and AA threads for awhile and he is definitely on top of the subject. Would love to get a chance to run some things by him and see if he needs a job, haha.

Speaking of AA systems, I cannot wait to get my HPA system dialed in so I can move on to designing/testing an AA system.
 
A

Atomizer

Well-Known Member
The pattern and throw of the brass (amfog?) and tefens are likely pretty similar, the brass have a slight edge controlwise due to the 90psi opening pressure. Might be interesting to do a test with brass in half the chamber and tefens in the other half (if its big enough) and see what results you get.

Here`s some droplet specs i received from Amfog about 4 years ago! for their 0.3mm orifice (black o-ring) nozzles. I have the spec for Fogco`s and others but nothing for Tefens :)
Amfog 0.3mm black nozzles.jpg
 
Last edited:
A

Atomizer

Well-Known Member
More info would be useful as it could be a number of things or a combination. Minor heat, ph and ec issues can become major if you`re not providing enough mist.
 
K

Koolredrah

Active Member
Atomizer - I believe I am providing enough mist to the roots as they look more like LPA roots than HPA. I can provide a picture of the roots if that would help.

The root reservoir is ~90-100 Gallons
Nozzles: Sixteen (16) .4mm Brass Nozzles (I have a controller and solenoid valve that can control response times down to .2 seconds)
On Time: 1.5 Seconds (making sure they weren't dry and was fine with LPA if plants came back strong)
Off Time: 4 mins
PSI is 100-120
Room Temp: 73 degrees
Nute Holding Tank Temp: 66 degrees
Nute Delivery Temp: 68 degrees
pH: 5.8 (has been very consistent no swinging)

FYI - the roots on most of the plants look pretty good.

Could my issue be that I was feeding HPA concentration (low PPM/EC) but in actuality, due to 1.5 second on time, I am in LPA and the nutes need to be stronger? Thanks for the help!
 
A

Atomizer

Well-Known Member
HPA and AA can be run as LPA if you mist the hell out of the chamber :) its an expensive way to emulate a pond pump and sprinklers. The EC is just geared to the time it takes for the water to be absorbed, drain or evaporate. Not easy to do with a recirculating res but monitoring the feed and runoff PH/PPM will tell you a lot about whats happening in the rootzone.
 
K

Koolredrah

Active Member
I'm keeping the on time at 1.5 seconds, the off time at 4 mins, raising the EC, and continuing to go drain to waste. I've seen many LPA setups running misters 24/7, 10 mins/10mins off, 15 seconds/5 mins off, etc, which makes going drain to waste very difficult as you'd need to continuously make large nutrient batches. To me, if I am able to achieve LPA quality at 1.5 seconds on/4 mins off, its still feasible to go drain to waste and not be too terrible inefficient (at least more efficient than LPA spraying 24/7). I've run the same setup before with a 1 second on time and a 4 min off time some time ago and it seemed to result in LPA, but I was still able to efficiently go drain to waste (i.e., the nutrient mixing task was manageable).

Do these assumptions make sense? In your opinion, does a 1.5 second on time result in LPA (assuming that the mist fills the chamber, which I think it does)? I can provide some root pictures if that'd help your assessment. Also, in your experience, how long does it take a plant to switch from LPA to HPA and vice versa?
 
A

Atomizer

Well-Known Member
The misting time doesnt determine much as how much liquid is delivered vs time.
If the 16 nozzles are 1gph each, the 1.5sec misting puts 25ml of liquid into the chamber every 4 minutes, or a little over 9L per day. Best thing to do is check how wet the roots are after one misting, then kill the timer and check again 4 minutes later when the next misting pulse would normally arrive. They shouldnt be dripping wet after the misting or feel dry/sticky after the 4 minutes, evenly damp is ideal. LPA to HPA transitions are fairly rapid, only days, Soil to HPA takes a week or more as its a bigger change. HPA to LPA takes a few heavy mistings but they revert back within hours when the settings are put right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top