Mostly because soil has micro organisms that change and buffer the ph constantly where as hydro does not. It’s recommended that you let full hydro system ph float a little bit so you get a range of ph’s. Ie if you notice your ph rises after a few days start a little lower at say 5.6ish and let it walk up to 6.2ish before adjusting back down. But that’s mostly for guys who aren’t pushing the limits with their feed levels and are generally using those expensive meters that are accurate to 2 dp’s.
The beauty of the drops I find is that they allow a little bit of fluctuation but keep it well within range.
As for the hydro shop meter shit, have a look what they charge for base model blue lab or Milwaukee meters often 2-300% markup and bluelabs a New Zealand company ffs.
Also I believe the link thing has to do with how much rep your profile has received from other users not how long you’ve been around, could be wrong though.
Yeah it was only, the time, everything else was well over. But I'm good to go now. When I give advice or opinions about growing the sacred herb, do remember that I'm not talking to experienced growers who will want to do their own research, I'm mainly talking to bewildered newbies to this, who's eyeballs pop out when they see cola pr0n and don't know what it what or which is why. So I fully agree with you that the indicator drops are quite good, precisely because you can't tell a .1 or .2 difference here or there. Everything always has a context.
I get it that people here know what they are doing, and robust discussion of ideas do not have to be a battleground.
Regarding coming across as a smart ass, I know that when I am talking about the one subject that I am an expert in which is my work to do with sex, as irksome as it may be to people, I know what I know. Believe me when I say I've been talking to academics about this for the past eight years as I am not going to be able to get this knowledge out through a brick wall, so being aware of this I've adopted all different strategies. I've used colloquial language, I've given them the 'respect' that I feel they need, I've been humorous, I've been serious, I've met them on every level that they require. It doesn't matter. So in the end I have given up trying to work out how to get this stuff across.
You may wonder why I bother and that is an excellent question. It's because I see it as a duty. While it may sound like I'm claiming this knowledge as something that I've done, I recognise that all the tools that enabled it to evolve, were given. All the circumstances and people who pushed back, all the resources, all the tools that somehow magically appeared right when I needed them, were give. In reality, "I" didn't do anything. I just follow the breadcrumb trail.
But this knowledge is not an academic knowledge, it's for everyone. I'm 62 now but I don't feel much different to when I was growing up in Daceyville and riding my bicycle to SSBHS, with no hands all the way home. And I sometimes imagine, what if I knew what I know now, then. And I try and put myself in the position I was in then and be me in the future giving me advice. Because to find this knowledge out, the journey and road I travelled...well let's just say that when it was all going on before I knew what exactly was going on, there were times of great suffering and terror. I'm pretty relaxed about it all now, but it's like climbing the south face of Mount Everest in the winter.
The following is my attitude even to discussing technical stuff like LED lighting...
The Nyaya school identified various types of arguments that hindered or obstructed the path of genuine scientific pursuit, suggesting perhaps, that there may have been considerable practical resistance to their unstinting devotion to truth-seeking and scientific accuracy.They list the terms...
jalpa - an argument not for the sake of arriving at the truth but for the sake of seeking victory (this term was coined perhaps to distinguish exaggerated and rhetorical arguments, or hyperbole from genuine arguments);
vitanda (or cavil) to identify arguments that were specious or frivolous, or intended to divert attention from the substance of the debate, that were put-downs intended to lower the dignity or credibility of the opponent; and
chal - equivocation or ruse to confuse the argument.
Three types of chal are listed:
vakchala - or verbal equivocation where the words of the opponent are deliberately misused to mean or suggest something different than what was intended;
samanyachala or false generalization, where the opponents arguments are deliberately and incorrectly generalized in a way to suggest that the original arguments were ridiculous or absurd;
uparachala - misinterpreting a word which is used figuratively by taking it literally.
Also mentioned is
jati, a type of fallacious argument where an inapplicable similiarity is cited to reject an argument, or conversely an irrelevant dissimiliarity is cited to reject an argument.