You could be, but not from growing weed. You rub me the wrong way, I don’t like people who try to sell growers bs that won’t help them be successful. And I don’t believe you could. But again, it’s only because I’ve seen it a dozen times. But please, come back with results and prove me wrong. Till then please stop the bs about how much better it is.
High Voltage Aeroponics
- Thread starter fmx1988
- Start date
I've literally told you so many times, I'm not trying to sell anything! It might seem like I'm trying to sell how amazing my system is, but I was just trying to address the concern that was raised about the complexity in the technology without any apparent benefits... I had to break it down bit by bit and explain my logic as to why I think it's beneficial. He's now able to read what I wrote and explain to me why I'm right/wrong with a much better understanding which will be invaluable to me in gaining a better perspective of what is good/bad about the product.
Sorry if my attempt at explaining my technology and understanding the market is rubbing you up the wrong way... Perhaps you want to try to show off your superiority somewhere else?
To be fair, that post was talking about the features I've implemented and the benefits I believe to be true... I don't have to prove my designs to you, just imagine I'm talking about a hypothetical technology.
If you have a problem with me saying that Aeroponics has the 'potential' to grow plants the fastest (not biggest), than perhaps you could just as easily go out of your way to prove why this is wrong?
As for why I believe Aeroponics has alot of unique benefits compared to other systems... I found it's easier to clean, move plants around, inspect/maintain roots, quicker to set up, less chance of leaks (externally) and also no medium to buy/clean. It's just alot more efficient to work with when you have it setup properly and growing appropriately.
That's not to say it doesn't come with some big risks and disadvantages... but that's what I'm trying to address and it's helpful to learn from everyones experience so I can work out where the real value lies and try to make something that is beneficial to a select group of growers.
I’ve already proved it was wrong for myself after doing it for 10 years. First few weeks you would see the explosive growth but then yield less compared to other methods and the other problems with it made it a poor choice.
And all those advantages you talk about don’t hold up. Aero systems are no easier to clean compared to other systems depending on their design. And leaks? You still move the water around so there are still leaks. And you can’t move the plants once the roots get mingled, not that changing plants out or around was ever something that I thought I wanted to do.
now if anybody saw my Aeroponics grows they would call them a success, because they were, but they weren’t worth it. Pumps fail, sprayers fail, lines fails. Do something long enough and everything fails, including your back up battery. Lose 1 crop over 10 years and what ever little advantage you believe you had just went out the window.
and for anybody who reads this who is thinking of going Aeroponics, here is something to think about. Aero growers love to show you their root porn from within the first few weeks and that is where most of their photos end. See pics from after that and you’ll just see average sized good looking plants, not any more special than any plant grown in a pot. They will try to convince you that it’s different if done the “right way” which means this timing vs that timing, water droplet size compared to that size. Anything that gets them closer to “true aero gardens,” that they abbreviated into T.A.G. Like a cult of foolish. I’ve seen this for 20 years and done it myself for 10 and I have never seen people outgrow any other style this way.
And all those advantages you talk about don’t hold up. Aero systems are no easier to clean compared to other systems depending on their design. And leaks? You still move the water around so there are still leaks. And you can’t move the plants once the roots get mingled, not that changing plants out or around was ever something that I thought I wanted to do.
now if anybody saw my Aeroponics grows they would call them a success, because they were, but they weren’t worth it. Pumps fail, sprayers fail, lines fails. Do something long enough and everything fails, including your back up battery. Lose 1 crop over 10 years and what ever little advantage you believe you had just went out the window.
and for anybody who reads this who is thinking of going Aeroponics, here is something to think about. Aero growers love to show you their root porn from within the first few weeks and that is where most of their photos end. See pics from after that and you’ll just see average sized good looking plants, not any more special than any plant grown in a pot. They will try to convince you that it’s different if done the “right way” which means this timing vs that timing, water droplet size compared to that size. Anything that gets them closer to “true aero gardens,” that they abbreviated into T.A.G. Like a cult of foolish. I’ve seen this for 20 years and done it myself for 10 and I have never seen people outgrow any other style this way.
There's a reason why alot of the serious commercial growers are adopting Aeroponics based on actual research and trial grows. It comes with high risks but they realise that when it's properly implemented, it can help to reduce harvest times, improve labour efficiency and energy consumption.
Whether these benefits can effectively be transferred over to the hobbyist market, remains to be seen. But i would argue that if you used this method to grow for 10 years, than you obviously saw potential, but never applied creative logic behind your processes to overcome the challenges you faced to achieve the results you could envision for those 10 years - hence why you are so angry against the use of such a system.
Now I completely agree that their seems to be a cult like group devoted to the idea of T.A.G, but I'm not devoted to the idea of the perfect droplet size. I'm devoted to producing technology that I believe has potential to offer real benefits, whether that is based on growth rates, simplicity or reliability, it really doesn't matter so long it makes it worth while.
It just so happens that I have successfully achieved this in the commercial market, and I'm now exploring the possibility of recycling the core of my technology to try and offer the same benefits for smaller growers. I'm simply here to get feedback and share some concepts of a unique technology that some people might be interested in hearing.
I look forwards to sharing the trial grow report being done by a third party in September. It will not only show a side by side grow comparison of the technology against another system (and nutrient analysis etc etc), but will also highlight some of the more unique techniques that were implemented to achieve the result.
Maybe you have a preferred growing method you would like to see in the trial grow? I believe the research body is still open for minor modifications to the planned experiment. Should be easy to add on another grow system for the hell of it
lol, grow weed in aeroponics for 10 years and come back and report is all I can tell you. There are no real challenges, the fact is that the roots are always going to hit the bottom of whatever container you are in and from that point you have an NFT system. You'll only get the benefits of aero for 2 weeks max. You keep talking commercial, obviously you're talking another crop with vastly different root size. And I don't care what you compare it to, ebb/flow, not, pots and medium. They will all outgrow and out produce aero in the long run.
Well we could be here all day debating the potential of Aeroponics. It reminds me of when I used to tell people I could achieve 50oz plants indoors easily every time and people just wouldn't believe it because they could only get 15oz plants - it just comes down to using the right techniques to achieve the desired outcome.
You are correct in assuming I've only used this on other crops so far, but the roots are very similar to the crops I'm focused on. In particular, seed potatoes can get pretty large and yet still works well in such a set up...
Either way, I think we have covered alot of info that is unrelated to the essence of this thread. Would be nice to move on from this discussion
I will be sure to link up a copy of the trial grow report in a few months when it's donelol, I didn't even bother bringing up something like the pic in A because the majority of people who grow weed can't afford to sacrifice that much lateral space for a root zone, but yes, if you do that with certain crops then you are real aeroponics. Can't see that working with Cannabis. But maybe you could put growers on stilts.
edit: it’s nothing like your example because you haven’t done it yet.
edit: it’s nothing like your example because you haven’t done it yet.
Last edited:
Galvatron1
Member
Are you doing this with your "fancy fogger?"
Hi Galvatron, yeah you can think of it like a fancy fogger in that it produces a mist, but it's a slightly larger droplet size. I'm doing this with my tech in a similar setup to do seed potatoes like in the pic and generally smaller plants like chili and sweet pepper plants. I haven't done this with cannabis yet as we don't currently have a license and we're focused on other, 'easier' markets at this stage.
I believe I can extract the key benefits of the technology from the commercial side and use it within the hobbyist market, but my concern is whether there is a market for it and if so, what are the key aspects people want in a "fancy fogger?". I have many other concerns too, but I won't bore you all that haha
What kind of method do you use for growing?
Galvatron1
Member
I'm all for advancing tech. gadgets. Experiments are fun and surprising, at times. I'm not aware of an advantage growing cannabis with aeroponics unless it's just the fact that you "did it." Do you expect the result to be different than, say, using an ultrasonic mister?
Haha yeah that would be nice! Wouldn't bother trying with technology tho... genetically modified seeds perhaps!
@Galvatron1 Well i'm not really hear to say I've invented some device and you are going to yield X% more than any other system. I just thought it would be good to chat with some passionate growers and get some feedback about a technology that is fairly unique.
Personally, I don't think the end result would be much different between Aeroponics and Misters in most cases haha it's crazy to think that X droplet is going to yield X% more just because the droplets are X% bigger when everybody grows plants in a small chambers. But if we were to say, enlarge the root chamber to a height of 80cm and grow auto-flowering plants with a front opening face to the chamber for easy root management/pruning, than at least you can start to reap some of the unique advantages that Aeropononics are able to offer.
Now if we forget about all the obvious stuff, like reliability, complexity, heat, noise etc etc, and strictly focus on the main point that i think you are trying to make, then yes, the properties of the mist between my "fancy fogger" and a normal "fogger" will absolutely produce a different result. Good difference or bad? Big difference or small? I'm not gonna say either way... it depends on how you use it.
It's silly to think that changing the properties of the mist and time intervals doesn't have an impact on the structural development of the roots, and it's also silly to think that the structure of the root doesn't have an impact on the rest of the plant. If that was the case, why is it possible to grow 50oz plants in RDWC but not ultrasonic foggers? It's because they develop different root structures and RDWC has different limitations to misters.
The main difference between the "fancy fogger" and a normal ultrasonic fogger (specifically related to potential yield differences) is the level of control. A normal fogger only has one settings, whereas I've tried to incorporate much more into the fancy version.
If i were to increase the flow rate with a much bigger pump, and then adapt one of the rotary atomizer to something more suitable, then increase the on time to 100%, i could potentially make it so that it absolutely soaks everything. Like literally, absolutely drown the f*ckers! There's no chance the ultrasonic fogger would replicate the same root structure and therefor the results would be a lot different. Good difference or bad? I'm still not going to say... it depends on how you use it.
Alot of people would then say, well that's not true Aeroponics then because its not the right droplet size and it's too wet. Well then I would say, who gives a f*ck?! Why be constrained to the terminology used to describe a certain way of growing when there's so many possibilities to explore.
Galvatron1
Member
Very good!
Keesje
Well-Known Member
The most high tech greenhouses are located in the region where I live. They collaborate with the Nr. 1 agricultural university in the world.
How many of these growers do you think use Aeroponics?
0.0001% maybe. And that is an optimistic number and it will only apply to special plants like orchids or something.
There are reasons for this:
The system does not perform better than any other system in terms of yield.
The system is also too technical with a high risk of errors.
And they can not afford failures that take time to repair. It will cost them their crop.
It will be to expensive in labour because you need highly skilled technicians to repair stuff. Even low key set ups break down all the time; let alone something high tech like aeroponics.
If aeroponics was really the wonder system some people think, commercial growers would use it.
But they don't. And there is a reason for that.
It is not because they are narrow minded or old-fashioned. They use techniques that we can only dream of.
They don't use because it is not interesting for them for the reasons I mentioned.
Aeroponics is a fun system if you like techniques and playing around with nozzlers, pumps, arduino, etc.
But don't fool us that it is a superior system, because it is not.
The fact that you come to a forum like this - where there are mainly well-meaning amateurs (some better then others
) - to ask for advice, is also a reason for me to doubt your knowledge about the whole matter.Well I guess you live in Netherlands then? Which is awesome, and you're a lucky guy. I've been there a few times for work and it is an amazing place in regards to high-tech greenhouses. But in the kindest way possible, you're still completely wrong in your assumptionsThe most high tech greenhouses are located in the region where I live. They collaborate with the Nr. 1 agricultural university in the world.
How many of these growers do you think use Aeroponics?
0.0001% maybe. And that is an optimistic number and it will only apply to special plants like orchids or something.
There are reasons for this:
The system does not perform better than any other system in terms of yield.
The system is also too technical with a high risk of errors.
And they can not afford failures that take time to repair. It will cost them their crop.
It will be to expensive in labour because you need highly skilled technicians to repair stuff. Even low key set ups break down all the time; let alone something high tech like aeroponics.
If aeroponics was really the wonder system some people think, commercial growers would use it.
But they don't. And there is a reason for that.
It is not because they are narrow minded or old-fashioned. They use techniques that we can only dream of.
They don't use because it is not interesting for them for the reasons I mentioned.
Aeroponics is a fun system if you like techniques and playing around with nozzlers, pumps, arduino, etc.
But don't fool us that it is a superior system, because it is not.
The fact that you come to a forum like this - where there are mainly well-meaning amateurs (some better then others
Firstly, because you've just made up that 0.0001% number up lol but yeah, you're right that Aeroponics is hardly used there. But your reasons are not completely accurate and dumbs down the complexity of the business dynamics behind large scale grow facilities that have been operating successfully for decades - It's just so much more to it. I won't even begin to explain it, but if you look at all the of the more agile startup vertical farms springing up across the world that raise hundred's of millions in investments and you'll see 9 times out of 10, they use Aeroponics - that's alot more than 0.0001%.
I'm sure you will try and say it's completely different because it's small herbs etc, but the fact remains, they use it because the scientific evidence suggests that Aeroponic has the 'potential' to grow plants faster. Eitherway, it completely goes against the notion that Aeroponics "does not perform better than any other system in terms of yield" Moreover, why would they spend millions on using more complicated and unreliable systems when it yields less?
I've not tried to say Aeroponics is superior, I've just tried to explain that Aeroponics does have the potential to grow plants faster and that there are some advantages to this method of growing when used in a certain way. And to be honest, I didn't even want to do that - this whole thread has derailed into something else entirely because some people want to enforce their experience/belief that Aeroponics suck. I even went to the extreme of suggesting that my device can absolutely drown plants just to get away from the whole "true Aeroponic" topic - yet i'm back here again to explain a method of growing I don't even care about. Also not going to even warrant an answer as to why i'm on a forum collecting consumer opinions about a technology that is evidently so controversial - similarly to what you think, that's enough reason to doubt your knowledge about the whole matter.
@DaFreak Yeah you could use any system you like and the yield would be the same if you were able replicate the same environment with my device. The key point which I was trying to make though, is that with the device you don't have to because you can change the environment so easily when ever you want.
For instance, you may want to grow in phases where you strategically plan to grow predominately root hairs at first, before switching to soaking the roots for big feeder roots because your temps are getting higher and transpire more water. Maybe you want to conserve electricity and reduce lighting and decide that you want your plant to focus it's energy on producing it's root's structure in a particular way to support this period of time. Maybe you decide to experiment to see how high voltage plays an impact on the plants when using low lighting so you increase the voltage to 4000 volts.
Will this make a difference to your yields? Obviously... good or bad? Again, i'm not gonna say, it's depends on how you use it. The main point is that if you want to find ways to increase your yield, then it's easy to do when you only have to press a button.
You already admitted that 1) your gadget when implemented in hobby grows won’t increase yield, 2) your gadget when implemented in hobby grows won’t be real Aeroponics, and 3) you’ve never used your gadget to grow cannabis.
you are so full of shit guy. Is that good or bad? I won’t say ffs
you are so full of shit guy. Is that good or bad? I won’t say ffs
“but if you look at all the of the more agile startup vertical farms springing up across the world that raise hundred's of millions in investments and you'll see 9 times out of 10, they use Aeroponics - that's alot more than 0.0001%.”
point to one or two if you can. Lol now try to point to even one that grows cannabis. Like I said, full of shit 100%
Edit: verticals farms are the future! Lol
point to one or two if you can. Lol now try to point to even one that grows cannabis. Like I said, full of shit 100%
Edit: verticals farms are the future! Lol