mist king

Seems like it would work fine. I don't know about the pump quality though. I like my Aquatec pump and .8gph nozzles. The nozzles are easy to clean and the pump has lasted 2 years now. For my money I would go with a name brand pump. You can try their nozzles for $15 each or buy the Digg ones for 75cents each. I have used the digg nozzles and love em. Especially when I can buy them for 20x less
 

oxanaca

Well-Known Member
i didnt really see anything worth buying there.
off brand pumps connected to spec-less nozzles.

i would look into netafim coolnet four way nozzles. best hydrolic nozzle ive seen yet very robust mist pattern, if you buy the orange pin anti drip, youll find you get very crisp mist response with no dripping, even with a fair amount of volume between the solenoid and the nozzle. im currenly using one in a cloner i just built. ill post a video when i find my camera i lost it.:)
 

indrhrvest

New Member
Anyone have any real life experience with them?
I'm sure it's not TAG but depending on water consumption it may work for my needs
They're just an OEM reseller. Get you a 100 PSI Shurflo, or a 200 PSI Aquatec and some Teffen nozzles. Solenoids come in all flavors.



 

oxanaca

Well-Known Member
i would recommend buying the black teffens and the netafim coolnet quad. so you can watch the quad blow away four teffens. in terms of mist throw and, response time.

im using one in my cloner at the moment. and the houseplants in it are loving it. just starting to develop some little roots. gonna try growing two medium sized cannabis plants in it just to see what happens.
 

indrhrvest

New Member
i would recommend buying the black teffens and the netafim coolnet quad. so you can watch the quad blow away four teffens. in terms of mist throw and, response time.
Nothing wrong with Netafim's, the Teffens will get you about 10-15 micron finer mist though. Netafim's are rated at 65 micron and the Teffens 55 microns. I think what's probably more important is how the plant grows, than how attractive the nozzle throws the mist.

We just concluded a R&D program. Our Ruby Red grew to almost 100 grams in just 34 days from seed on only 11 watts of LED per square foot (the LED's stomped the T5's by almost 30 grams). In our particular setup, a quad nozzle head wouldn't work in the same way our current configuration does.


 

Atomizer

Well-Known Member
I think what's probably more important is how the plant grows, than how attractive the nozzle throws the mist.
Here`s the roots from a high flowrate netafim quad (4x grey 7.5LPH), 50psi with no adv in a cramped chamber that were seriously overmisted. Nowhere near optimum but the roots still look better than the lettuce which is a bit wispy in comparison.
The bulk of your mist is striking the bottom of the roots before it gets a chance to spread. Imagine what would happen if you grew something that takes longer than 34 days, has a more rampant root system than lettuce and finishes at 30" high.

netafim.jpg
 

indrhrvest

New Member
Here`s the roots from a high flowrate netafim quad (4x grey 7.5LPH), 50psi with no adv in a cramped chamber that were seriously overmisted. Nowhere near optimum but the roots still look better than the lettuce which is a bit wispy in comparison.
"Wispy" roots are exactly what we are striving for.

The bulk of your mist is striking the bottom of the roots before it gets a chance to spread.
They wouldn't be "wispy" if that was the case.

Imagine what would happen if you grew something that takes longer than 34 days, has a more rampant root system than lettuce and finishes at 30" high.
We have, that's why we also have a 24" deep tray. Our design is intended to reduce the roots tendency to run to the bottom, but instead form "wispy" roots.
 

oxanaca

Well-Known Member
We just concluded a R&D program. Our Ruby Red grew to almost 100 grams in just 34 days from seed on only 11 watts of LED per square foot (the LED's stomped the T5's by almost 30 grams). In our particular setup, a quad nozzle head wouldn't work in the same way our current configuration does.
do you ever measure the amount of usable light using a par meter. i would be interested to know what intensities your using.
 

oxanaca

Well-Known Member
Here`s the roots from a high flowrate netafim quad (4x grey 7.5LPH), 50psi with no adv in a cramped chamber that were seriously overmisted. Nowhere near optimum but the roots still look better than the lettuce which is a bit wispy in comparison.
The bulk of your mist is striking the bottom of the roots before it gets a chance to spread. Imagine what would happen if you grew something that takes longer than 34 days, has a more rampant root system than lettuce and finishes at 30" high.

View attachment 2779864
that pod sort of looks like the work of treefarmer, is it? nice to see the netafims can get the job done
 

CaliJoe

Member
do you ever measure the amount of usable light using a par meter. i would be interested to know what intensities your using.
PAR is meaningless when comparing different lighting technologies unless you know the exact spectral output and can measure spectrums independently. Even comparing PAR from a 'white LED' grow to a 'Red/Blue LED' grow doesn't work.
 

oxanaca

Well-Known Member

PAR is meaningless when comparing different lighting technologies unless you know the exact spectral output and can measure spectrums independently. Even comparing PAR from a 'white LED' grow to a 'Red/Blue LED' grow doesn't work.
im not trying to compare different lighting technologys. im only interested in learning how many photons in the 400-700nm range are striking his growing surface.
 

CaliJoe

Member
Curious what that would tell you? An example I like to use is 'You can give a plant 2000 PAR but if it is only in the 550nm area it will do nothing for plants, where as you give them 100 PAR of blue/red light they will grow like crazy'. So knowing what the PAR is from 400-700nm doesn't really tell you much. What is important is 'what is the PAR in the 400-500nm range and 600-700'. PAR meters put more weight on the green/yellow spectrum also, and under value the blue spectrum. So you can get an overall reading of 2000 PAR thinking that is great, but reality may be completely different. It is a very crude from of measurement (learned this after I spend $500 on my own PAR meter).
 

oxanaca

Well-Known Member
im not really up on leds as these are far from maturity, and in my opinion not viable for a commercial op, at least not for sometime.

i agree with you when you say "PAR is meaningless when comparing different lighting technologies" as cheaper quantum meters such as apogee under report wavelengths near 400nm and dont report wavelengths greater than 670nm. with $1200 par meters such as li-cor this is not the case

i cant agree with you when you say that the area around 550nm is useless, if you look at the photosythetic response curve you will notice that this is wrong. and that light in the 550nm range is only slightly less effective than red or blue light. actually green light is used in the synthesis of auxin within plants.

quantcomp1.jpg
 

CaliJoe

Member
I am here to learn.. so I appreciate your insights. I agree the Li-Cor meter is much better than the Apogee. With the Apogee you must use the 'Sun' setting to get a semi-accurate reading with LEDs. The electric setting is way off. These are the graphs I go off of for chlorophyll, first one is from a university in Germany (found googling 'photosynthetic absorption spectrum') the second one pertains more to corals/zooxanthellae algae than plants though which I use for my other hobby. I understand there is more to photosynthesis than just chlorophyll, carotenoids use a little spectrum in the 500nm range, so having a 'full spectrum' is better overall than just red/blue, but the relative power needed in the 525-600nm range is actually very low. Bottom line is I think we need a better/more accurate method of measuring light, specific spectral ranges, and intensity to really nail down the ideal lighting needed for various things. I use a $3500 spectrometer at my work along with my PAR meter to measure LEDs independently, but I can't take the spectrometer home to test an assembled light in a working environment unless every spectrum of LED is on its own dimmer.



 

oxanaca

Well-Known Member
honestly you know more than i do about leds.
i think im going to give this one to you.
i should probably be in the growroom rather than dicking around on the computer talking about technicalities

im going to be starting a reef tank soon, as well
 

Atomizer

Well-Known Member
"Wispy" roots are exactly what we are striving for
Seems your goal is to negate half your root system. Its clear to anyone looking at the pic the lower root growth is a lot more dense compared to the upper roots. Notice how they resemble a ball? The lower roots are receiving more mist and grow better, the upper roots suffer as a result. The plant focuses on the lower roots because they are the most viable and that compounds the mist blocking issue .You`ll end up with an impenetrable barrier and a shedload of issues.
 

indrhrvest

New Member
Seems your goal is to negate half your root system. Its clear to anyone looking at the pic the lower root growth is a lot more dense compared to the upper roots. Notice how they resemble a ball?
As opposed to them running to the bottom and bunching up there? We found placing the nozzles under the roots actually reduced the size of the root mass some 20%. We started out doing tests with horizontal nozzle placement like everyone else. We've probably tested a dozen different nozzles and half as many placement locations. We've been at this for 3 years now. We even played around with AAA. I still have a 2HP medical grade air compressor collecting dust. We've been improving our current method for the past 8 months and have increased grams per watt considerably from when we first started.

In the end what matters is the product that is grown, we are not in the business of selling roots.
 
Top