Fog prep

[Observer]

Nope. No idea where that came from, but chalk that up to broski help.

Dry fog? WTF? It's atomized water. Standing water means disease? Nope. Not only is it not standing water, but running sterile or with bennies would eliminate that anyhow if there were.

ok cool, dryfog didnt make sense to me.

thanks moe.

2023 fog.

 

[TomH]

You guys are above my pay grade right now, but I intend to eavesdrop and learn as much as I can.

 

[Observer]

ill get a fog system set up so i can start to observe things.

moving today.

perhaps ill start priortizing it more, i love the science.

may just get some cheap ultrasonic disk from amazon to get started with

 

[Observer]

all that extra oxygen allows for more chemical reactions, perhaps.
and a very well balanced nute solution.

the/a catalyst perhaps as franksta mentioned

 

[Observer]

That seems counterintuitive to me Mr. Chat GPT.

It's not unusual for the electrical conductivity (EC) to be higher in a fogponics system compared to RDWC. This is because fogponics relies on the atomization of nutrient solution into tiny droplets, which can lead to faster nutrient uptake by the plants. When the nutrient solution is misted, it can more efficiently come into contact with the roots, leading to faster growth.

So faster nutrient uptake means you need to run a higher EC? Why does this not burn the plants?

What I am seeing is deficiency at lower EC. It makes me feel like less nutes are being delivered, not more.

i see the logic, it has very efficient nutrient delivery system, so you think ok, less nutrients should work (?)
but because its so efficient, the weed wants to grow, ergo more nutrients.

hence counter-intuitive.

because its so efficient it just wants to fuckin grow man, you hacked em, lol. so of course a lower ec is not going to be sufficient

ergo, lots of oxygen but not so much reactants.

(?)

 

[Observer]

I understand your perspective, and it's important to clarify the apparent paradox in fogponics systems:

1. Efficient Nutrient Delivery: Fogponics, due to its efficient atomization of nutrient solution into tiny droplets, does provide an excellent method for delivering nutrients to plant roots. The fine mist allows for better nutrient contact with the roots, which can lead to faster nutrient uptake.
2. Lower EC: The apparent contradiction is that, despite this efficient nutrient delivery, you might observe nutrient deficiencies at lower electrical conductivity (EC) levels. This can be perplexing because you'd expect less nutrient demand with such efficient delivery.

Here's a way to reconcile this paradox:

• Plant Growth and Nutrient Demand: In a fogponics system, the improved nutrient contact with roots can indeed stimulate faster plant growth. Faster-growing plants have higher nutrient demands. So, while the nutrient delivery system is efficient, the plants respond by growing more vigorously and thus requiring more nutrients overall.
• EC and Nutrient Availability: EC measures the concentration of total dissolved salts in the nutrient solution. If you maintain a lower EC in a fogponics system, you may be limiting the overall nutrient availability to the plants. This is because, despite the efficient delivery, there might not be enough total dissolved salts to meet the growing plant's demands.
• Balancing Act: Achieving the right balance is key. If you observe nutrient deficiencies at lower EC levels, it suggests that the nutrient solution might be too dilute to meet the accelerated nutrient demands of your fast-growing plants. To address this, you may need to gradually increase the EC of your nutrient solution to ensure that there are enough nutrients available to support the enhanced growth rate.

So, in essence, while fogponics provides an efficient nutrient delivery system, the accelerated plant growth it promotes means that you may need to increase nutrient concentrations (EC) to ensure that there are sufficient nutrients available to meet the heightened demands of your rapidly growing plants.

-ChatGPT

 

[Observer]

Smart

 

[Observer]

That seems counterintuitive to me Mr. Chat GPT.

It's not unusual for the electrical conductivity (EC) to be higher in a fogponics system compared to RDWC. This is because fogponics relies on the atomization of nutrient solution into tiny droplets, which can lead to faster nutrient uptake by the plants. When the nutrient solution is misted, it can more efficiently come into contact with the roots, leading to faster growth.

So faster nutrient uptake means you need to run a higher EC? Why does this not burn the plants?

What I am seeing is deficiency at lower EC. It makes me feel like less nutes are being delivered, not more.

So by doing so, oxygenation is increased(oxygen), one side of the formula, but decreasing ec, decreasing the other side of the chemical synthesis formula

 

[GrumpAzz]

My ignorant thoughts on the higher EC required is basically Occam's razor but , do you see your EC increasing through time?

If so, my explanation would be that not all of the nutrients in the solution are taken up to the plant via atomization. Like.. you're maxing out the saturation of the droplets and leaving the excess in the resevoir.

That all might be totally wrong as I'm only spitballing.

@Observer, I don't think chatgpt can make sense of something that isn't already fully understood and documented. I admit that I refuse to read any of those posts because there's no way of knowing whether or not it's truth and all it seems to do is add unnecessary confusion to something I already don't understand.

 

[Observer]

My ignorant thoughts on the higher EC required is basically Occam's razor but , do you see your EC increasing through time?

If so, my explanation would be that not all of the nutrients in the solution are taken up to the plant via atomization. Like.. you're maxing out the saturation of the droplets and leaving the excess in the resevoir.

That all might be totally wrong as I'm only spitballing.

im reading that the nutrients can fall out of the fog, how that compares to reality i dont know.

@Observer, I don't think chatgpt can make sense of something that isn't already fully understood and documented. I admit that I refuse to read any of those posts because there's no way of knowing whether or not it's truth and all it seems to do is add unnecessary confusion to something I already don't understand.

yea bard and chatgpt dont know fully as theres not even alot of research on these more advanced methods.
and they do acknowledge it.

however, it does bring up points that people with more experience can work with or against.

"

"The relationship between EC and growth in fogponics is not fully understood, and there is some debate about the best way to manage it."

-Google BARD

 

[Observer]

but yeah i agree and see youre point @GrumpAzz

 

[Observer]

i see the logic, it has very efficient nutrient delivery system, so you think ok, less nutrients should work (?)
but because its so efficient, the weed wants to grow, ergo more nutrients.

hence counter-intuitive.

because its so efficient it just wants to fuckin grow man, you hacked em, lol. so of course a lower ec is not going to be sufficient

ergo, lots of oxygen but not so much reactants.

(?)

"Yes, that is the logic. A fogponics system has a very efficient nutrient delivery system, so you would think that a lower EC would be sufficient. However, the plants are able to take up nutrients so quickly that they may need more nutrients to support their growth."
-chatGPT


if im just posting nonsense or "well, no shit" info then lmk and ill fuck off lol @Moe.Red


till im actually experimenting with it my self too

 

[Observer]

If so, my explanation would be that not all of the nutrients in the solution are taken up to the plant via atomization. Like.. you're maxing out the saturation of the droplets and leaving the excess in the resevoir.

That all might be totally wrong as I'm only spitballing.

@Observer, I don't think chatgpt can make sense of something that isn't already fully understood and documented. I admit that I refuse to read any of those posts because there's no way of knowing whether or not it's truth and all it seems to do is add unnecessary confusion to something I already don't understand.

like each droplet can only hold so many elements?

good point

 

[Observer]

is it possible that the nutrient solution is not being evenly distributed throughout the root zone?
or enough water?

 

[moe.red]

I just think that "fogponics" is not one thing. May sound crass, but nobody is doing what I am doing, chat or bard are clueless so it does not really matter to me what they say. Are they even referring to cannabis?

I have plenty of probes and software on my side, I'll get it figured out via experimentation.

 

[Observer]

I just think that "fogponics" is not one thing.

May sound crass, but nobody is doing what I am doing,

as in O2 injected Fogponics?

chat or bard are clueless so it does not really matter to me what they say. Are they even referring to cannabis?

I have plenty of probes and software on my side, I'll get it figured out via experimentation.

correct, just "general Fogponics"

 

[Observer]

So by doing so, oxygenation is increased(oxygen), one side of the formula, but decreasing ec, decreasing the other side of the chemical synthesis formula

this wrong?

 

[Observer]

I just think that "fogponics" is not one thing. May sound crass, but nobody is doing what I am doing,

not if i have anything to do about it, lol.

 

[TomH]

This thread has tension of the 1st season of "24".

If Dennis Heysbert doesn't show up somewhere along the way, I'll be just a little bit disappointed!

 

[moe.red]

this wrong?

I don't know what chemical synthesis you are referring to. If Photosynthesis, yes, that is incorrect. Nutrients are not a part at all.

6CO2 + 6H2O → C6H12O6 + 6O2

CO2 comes from the atmosphere. H2O from the roots. There is no N P or K anywhere to be seen in that equation.

 

[Observer]

I don't know what chemical synthesis you are referring to. If Photosynthesis, yes, that is incorrect. Nutrients are not a part at all.

6CO2 + 6H2O → C6H12O6 + 6O2

CO2 comes from the atmosphere. H2O from the roots. There is no N P or K anywhere to be seen in that equation.

does the oxygen not interact with all of these molecules?

 

[Observer]

I don't know what chemical synthesis you are referring to. If Photosynthesis, yes, that is incorrect. Nutrients are not a part at all.

6CO2 + 6H2O → C6H12O6 + 6O2

CO2 comes from the atmosphere. H2O from the roots. There is no N P or K anywhere to be seen in that equation.

ok i see what youre saying, strictly in the photosynthesis aspect, im thinking of it as a whole, its a biological reactor/synthesizer,
input>output.

you are providing the plant with more oxygen, which it needs to carry out photosynthesis, which it needs more "vitamins" to do so.

for "Good/efficient" photosynthesis to take place it needs good/healthy chlorophyll, which is made "better" with said nutrients (?)

fuck im on 4 hours of sleep every night

 

[Observer]

@Moe.Red

and again, youre the teacher, im the student.

all i can do is run things by/through you and either

"no"

"completely wrong"

"hmm good point, maybe i overlooked that detail"

"good idea"

"maybe"

idk

 

[GrumpAzz]

like each droplet can only hold so many elements?

good point

Not necessarily "so many elements" just that it will eventually reach it's saturation level. It might have already been addressed by moe cuz I'm replying to that before I've read the rest of the thread.

 

[Observer]

im working on this whole EMF/Mfields variable on plants too and see where that goes.

 

[moe.red]

@Moe.Red

OK, I'm short on time here, I am at work. So I'm going to say this and move on.

In RDWC, Coco, Rock Wool - if the plant is growing fast, you get more leaves. More transpiration. More water up the stalk. More nutes with it. Not a higher concentration or ratio, just more overall because they are in the water.

If you then double your EC trying to "help the plant grow faster" you end up burning it. Or N tox. or or or...

The rate of plant growth regulates the amount of water they suck up.

Nutrient needs change throughout the grow - that's not what I am talking about. At a cellular level, you want a specific amount of water and a specific amount of nutes to be delivered to the cell. If you change the proportion of water to nutes by increasing EC, those nutes get stranded in the vegetation which causes burns, imbalances, etc.

What you want is for the plant to drink more in a day to supply the new growth, not to up the nutes ratio in the water. This is self managed by just how much leaf surface area the plant has assuming the environment is not a factor. Remember, you want 6H2O in that photosynthesis equation, you need to match the nutrients to that amount of water to deliver to the cells. Let the plant decide how many H2O molecules it needs naturally based on transpiration, which is based on leaf surface area.

By me needing to raise EC in fog over what I would typically run in RDWC, it's telling me that something is inherently different.

Yes, the plants grow faster in fog. But the amount of water being used by the plants is pretty much linear between RDWC and fog - plants at the same stage with the same amount of vegetation drink the same amounts. So by my way of thinking, EC should be about the same. But they are not. So something in the delivery is different. Is it because certain molecules do not get carried by fog well? Is this about tuning the micron size of the fog droplets to account for all the different molecules? Are my ultrasonics at a bad frequency that has harmonics that hurt the capacity of some nutrient carrying capability? Do I need multiple size / frequency disks to get iron to become airborne as easily as calcium? If this turns out to be true, I need to re-learn my nute mixes completely, or adjust the delivery to be on par with standard hydro.

Now add to all that I am super oxygenating the res well above anything that has been tested.

Dunno. Like I said, I cannot yet explain it.

This is the kind of thing I am referring to

 

[moe.red]

This thread has tension of the 1st season of "24".

If Dennis Heysbert doesn't show up somewhere along the way, I'll be just a little bit disappointed!

Do you even smoke bro?

 

[Observer]

OK, I'm short on time here, I am at work. So I'm going to say this and move on.

In RDWC, Coco, Rock Wool - if the plant is growing fast, you get more leaves. More transpiration. More water up the stalk. More nutes with it. Not a higher concentration or ratio, just more overall because they are in the water.

If you then double your EC trying to "help the plant grow faster" you end up burning it. Or N tox. or or or...

The rate of plant growth regulates the amount of water they suck up.

Nutrient needs change throughout the grow - that's not what I am talking about. At a cellular level, you want a specific amount of water and a specific amount of nutes to be delivered to the cell. If you change the proportion of water to nutes by increasing EC, those nutes get stranded in the vegetation which causes burns, imbalances, etc.

What you want is for the plant to drink more in a day to supply the new growth, not to up the nutes ratio in the water. This is self managed by just how much leaf surface area the plant has assuming the environment is not a factor. Remember, you want 6H2O in that photosynthesis equation, you need to match the nutrients to that amount of water to deliver to the cells. Let the plant decide how many H2O molecules it needs naturally based on transpiration, which is based on leaf surface area.

By me needing to raise EC in fog over what I would typically run in RDWC, it's telling me that something is inherently different.

Yes, the plants grow faster in fog. But the amount of water being used by the plants is pretty much linear between RDWC and fog - plants at the same stage with the same amount of vegetation drink the same amounts. So by my way of thinking, EC should be about the same. But they are not. So something in the delivery is different. Is it because certain molecules do not get carried by fog well? Is this about tuning the micron size of the fog droplets to account for all the different molecules? Are my ultrasonics at a bad frequency that has harmonics that hurt the capacity of some nutrient carrying capability? Do I need multiple size / frequency disks to get iron to become airborne as easily as calcium? If this turns out to be true, I need to re-learn my nute mixes completely, or adjust the delivery to be on par with standard hydro.

Now add to all that I am super oxygenating the res well above anything that has been tested.

Dunno. Like I said, I cannot yet explain it.

This is the kind of thing I am referring to

Cant separate quotes on mobile like you can on desktop sigh ..

 

[smoke]

Cant separate quotes on mobile like you can on desktop sigh ..

I can.
Save one at a time then post them all at once.

 

[smoke]