|
Some of these posts are very old and might contain outdated information. You may wish to search for newer posts instead.
|
insanemike

Registered: 02/23/14
Posts: 4,272
|
Re: Monotub Improvement Project preliminary test run #1 [Re: insanemike]
#22027260 - 08/01/15 07:58 AM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
...and I responded
I think what I need to do is choose a part of the system to change and then record changes within conditions. This will give me a chance to push the limits of each part of the system. I think it may not be a matter of making one change but rather making slight changes to each part of the system, one at a time. This system is built through the sum of its parts. So expecting enough of a change in one part of the system to solve everything, is kind of narrow minded of us.
Since hole size; inlet and outlet and hole height differential are the only parts we can change, I think I will first push the limits of the outlet hole size. This part of the system is the least likely to cause drastic changes with slight increases and will set up a leaping point for the other parts of the system that are a little more sensitive to change.
I will only feel comfortable when I can reach 95% rh that I accounted for when calculating air density inside of the tub. Maybe the problem is that rh is the only variable that is not accounted for in the big equation.
Does having levels of inlet/outlet holes to account for mushroom growth sound too far fetched? Like as the mushrooms grow above the outlet holes, the outlet holes become inlet holes. You know like having levels of holes that keep the same height differential, starting from substrate level all the way up the height of the tub. Of course since the lower the inlet holes the smaller the open area, so as the height of the holes increases so does hole size. What do you think of that craziness?
|
mustangbob3
Mad Myrmecologist



Registered: 10/15/14
Posts: 1,685
|
Re: Monotub Improvement Project preliminary test run #1 [Re: insanemike]
#22027604 - 08/01/15 10:11 AM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
lol

i wouldnt go that far just yet lol but
Quote:
I think what I need to do is choose a part of the system to change and then record changes within conditions. This will give me a chance to push the limits of each part of the system. I think it may not be a matter of making one change but rather making slight changes to each part of the system, one at a time. This system is built through the sum of its parts. So expecting enough of a change in one part of the system to solve everything, is kind of narrow minded of us.
this sounds a plan 
even if it just highlights what range of effect each control has
it will only come in handy. an extra tool and understanding in your arsenal 
every time everything is tweaked it seems their is always 1 thing out of balance!
im sure with the numbers and patience you will see it through.
any mistakes that are made now are best made now, and will ensure a solid design in the end.
--------------------
|
insanemike

Registered: 02/23/14
Posts: 4,272
|
Re: Monotub Improvement Project preliminary test run #1 [Re: mustangbob3] 1
#22027667 - 08/01/15 10:31 AM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
mustangbob3 said: lol

i wouldnt go that far just yet lol but
Quote:
I think what I need to do is choose a part of the system to change and then record changes within conditions. This will give me a chance to push the limits of each part of the system. I think it may not be a matter of making one change but rather making slight changes to each part of the system, one at a time. This system is built through the sum of its parts. So expecting enough of a change in one part of the system to solve everything, is kind of narrow minded of us.
this sounds a plan 
even if it just highlights what range of effect each control has
it will only come in handy. an extra tool and understanding in your arsenal 
every time everything is tweaked it seems their is always 1 thing out of balance!
im sure with the numbers and patience you will see it through.
any mistakes that are made now are best made now, and will ensure a solid design in the end.
I know. I know. I was getting way too far a head of myself. I probably should have posted the more sound plan to conclude my post but that's just two of the personalities that are me. They came to me simultaneously but I only have the ability to present one and then the other. Meaning I should have further planned the direction of my last post.
Anyway, yeah I will always go with the more logical plan.
|
taGyo
Strainiac/AMU



Registered: 10/16/14
Posts: 18,802
Loc: Journal Land
Last seen: 5 years, 3 months
|
Re: Monotub Improvement Project preliminary test run #1 [Re: insanemike]
#22027944 - 08/01/15 11:11 AM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
,
I wish I majored in some science instead of philosophy
-------------------- Gyo's Better Grows TNF Q&A AMU Q&A Dominus fortunae meae sum
|
insanemike

Registered: 02/23/14
Posts: 4,272
|
Re: Monotub Improvement Project preliminary test run #1 [Re: taGyo]
#22028267 - 08/01/15 12:55 PM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
After digging into some of the data I have recorded for the past 17 hours now, there are some interesting trends to note.
Average outside temp has been right on point with the number plugged into the system before building the observation tubs. 70*F.
Average outside relative humidity has been off by +9% but when I observed average outside relative humidity, the hygrometer wasn't sitting near 2 respirating tubs either. This may explain why the numbers are so far off.
Average temp differential is another statistic that my original observation was completely off from. It seems that bob and I gave the mycelium a little more credit than they deserve. The average temp differential is only +2*F, with the average inside temp so far being 72*F.
I decided to take my new trends for a test drive through the system just to see how it would effect total inlet area and the results so far are staggering. As of right now with the way trends are going, the total inlet area has increased +235%. That is pretty damn significant if you ask me.
With all of that said, I will need to make sure I plug the complete 24 hours of trends into the system and determine where I need to make my corrections to get me back on course.
I will be posting all of my statitistics in comprehensible format as soon as I finish my 24 hour observation. So stay tuned tonight or stop by tomorrow when you have the time. Thank you.
Edited by insanemike (08/01/15 12:57 PM)
|
mustangbob3
Mad Myrmecologist



Registered: 10/15/14
Posts: 1,685
|
Re: Monotub Improvement Project preliminary test run #1 [Re: insanemike]
#22028354 - 08/01/15 01:09 PM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
mind blowing.
Quote:
Average temp differential is another statistic that my original observation was completely off from. It seems that bob and I gave the mycelium a little more credit than they deserve. The average temp differential is only +2*F, with the average inside temp so far being 72*F.
seems so or that the tubs lose the heat faster than expected.
either the myc dosent make as much heat or the myc is making alot but the tub dosent hold on to it and loses to the room fast?
either way its good that it stays at more or less a constant
from that and your tub volume you could work out how much the myc adds to the system per hour per amount of sub (good just to know lol) then if you find out the rate of how much heat the tub loses per hour, you can work exactly the heat output of the myc per volume of sub (might be useful in other areas.
your work is shedding light on so many aspects. very interesting stuff. first time many of us have seen the figures!!
iam interested to see if the heat output stays the same at all stages of growth or if in later stages as enzymatic process slows breaking down nutrients if heat drops and if the myc maintains temps like we do.
like if they have a running temp but when doing more work runs higher and as they come to a finish and drop spores heat output drop noticably!
again mike all ground breaking interesting stuff! soon you will know all the ins and outs like the back of your hand!
mind the pun
Edited by mustangbob3 (08/01/15 01:18 PM)
|
insanemike

Registered: 02/23/14
Posts: 4,272
|
Re: Monotub Improvement Project preliminary test run #1 [Re: mustangbob3]
#22028611 - 08/01/15 01:47 PM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Thanks bob. I think you have given me the premise for preliminary run # 2. I will make my initial adjustments after plugging in the new figures and then I will observe conditions again but next time it will be observed from spawn run to harvest.
|
mustangbob3
Mad Myrmecologist



Registered: 10/15/14
Posts: 1,685
|
Re: Monotub Improvement Project preliminary test run #1 [Re: insanemike]
#22028649 - 08/01/15 01:56 PM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
--------------------
|
Darkhome
•Shaman•N•Training•



Registered: 07/10/15
Posts: 517
Loc: United States
Last seen: 7 years, 1 month
|
Re: Monotub Improvement Project preliminary test run #1 [Re: mustangbob3]
#22028978 - 08/01/15 03:12 PM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I can't wait for your final conclusions Mike...You might just change the way we view (and utilize) Mono tubs!
-------------------- “The shaman is not merely a sick man, or a madman; he is a sick man who has healed himself.” ~Terence McKenna~ "NOTHING"...I post or say is "TRUE"...Any pictures are taken from the Web and any conversation is just research for a fictional character. That being said; He is constantly seeking knowledge and evolving.
|
insanemike

Registered: 02/23/14
Posts: 4,272
|
Re: Monotub Improvement Project preliminary test run #1 [Re: Darkhome]
#22032255 - 08/02/15 06:54 AM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
24 HOUR OBSERVATION the figures below are not conclusive, further study must be conducted
time Tub 1 Tub 2 Room
09pm 75*F. 75*F. 72*F 10pm 73*F. 73*F. 70*F 11pm 72*F. 72*F. 70*F 12am 72*F. 73*F. 70*F 01am 72*F. 73*F. 70*F 02am 72*F. 72*F. 70*F 03am 72*F. 72*F. 70*F 04am 70*F. 72*F. 68*F 05am 70*F. 72*F. 68*F 06am 70*F. 72*F. 68*F 07am 70*F. 70*F. 68*F 08am 70*F. 70*F. 68*F 09am 72*F. 70*F. 70*F 10am 72*F. 72*F. 70*F 11am 73*F. 73*F. 72*F 12pm 73*F. 73*F. 72*F 01pm 75*F. 75*F. 73*F 02pm 75*F. 75*F. 73*F 03pm 75*F. 75*F. 73*F 04pm 77*F. 75*F. 72*F 05pm 75*F. 75*F. 72*F 06pm 75*F. 75*F. 72*F 07pm 75*F. 75*F. 72*F 08pm 73*F. 73*F. 72*F 09pm 73*F. 72*F. 70*F
Lights Off: 9pm Lights On: 6am
As of this morning, I have opted for a 12on/12off light cycle starting at 7am which will be used for these observations from here on out. After going through the trends, I really wish I had a way to keep my grow room at a constant temperature. Within the trends of the chart above, it's obvious that the mycelium is doing work and the chart clearly shows when the work is at its highest and when the work is at it's lowest.
Today I will be working on drilling holes that are sized to cooperate with the averages collected from my 24 hour observation. I'm hoping this will drop the rh in the tubs enough so that I can start collecting data for humidity differentials which will help me better understand the mycelium at work.
My only regret so far is not having a more temperature controlled room. If I had that, the work the mycelium is doing would be more emphasized throughout the chart because the differentials would only pertain to what's going on inside of the tub where as the outside temps would be constant.
For those who love numbers, trends and percentages as much as I do, go a head and dig right into this chart. I ask just one favor, report any interesting trends that you might find. I would love to discuss them with you.
|
Buck513
Registered: 04/17/14
Posts: 5,682
|
Re: Monotub Improvement Project preliminary test run #1 [Re: insanemike] 1
#22032269 - 08/02/15 07:03 AM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
An insane thread made by insanemike.

I've never seen someone fit their username so well.
-------------------- Fail to plan and you plan to fail. Enter the Ban Lottery
|
mustangbob3
Mad Myrmecologist



Registered: 10/15/14
Posts: 1,685
|
Re: Monotub Improvement Project preliminary test run #1 [Re: Buck513]
#22032313 - 08/02/15 07:37 AM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
notice both tubs took 5 hours to drop 3 degrees. the timing is diff tub 1 11-4am it took tub 2 1- 6am it took
but both lose the heat the same, as expected.
it the same time frame the room only lost 2. so it seems the myc actively chose to decrease temp because of some other cue if was just based on room temps then it would be equal.
the myc chose to decrease activity at around that time. well both tubs did.
was this when you turned lights off or was it way before at 7 pm?
and it took along time to slow enzymatic processes. and it took 2 or 3 hours ish for the system to slow down. so it took a few hours after deciding to sleep and conserve energy for the next light period before it could slow itself down enough. makes sense for a chemical process. difficult to turn off and on.
i would say there is a slight difference in input from the myc in each tub. and thats why they not in sync with each other.
each is adding slightly different amounts so timing are a little different.
but both lose the heat from the tub at the same rate.
both subs are very similar and i dont think you will get both to be exactly the same as the subs ect will have little differences. over the course over time these differences will show in the numbers.
the more time the greater the effect may be seen or it may balance out and instead of running on 2 parallel lines they might just criss cross each other and keep meeting in the middle.
also would i be right in thinking that the light went on at 7am and it seem it took 2hours for the myc to respond and get back into full swing?
around the same as it does to wind down the enzymatic processes?
am i making sense or just babbling lol
--------------------
Edited by mustangbob3 (08/02/15 07:50 AM)
|
insanemike

Registered: 02/23/14
Posts: 4,272
|
Re: Monotub Improvement Project preliminary test run #1 [Re: mustangbob3]
#22032504 - 08/02/15 09:13 AM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
mustangbob3 said: notice both tubs took 5 hours to drop 3 degrees. the timing is diff tub 1 11-4am it took tub 2 1- 6am it took
but both lose the heat the same, as expected.
it the same time frame the room only lost 2. so it seems the myc actively chose to decrease temp because of some other cue if was just based on room temps then it would be equal.
I have to change a few outside parameters just to be sure that the temp differentials are biologically related or environmental. The way that I have my tubs set up could be affecting the numbers. My tubs were designed to have exhaust holes on the lid. The top of the bottom tub is mere inches away from the bottom of the top tub. If the heat from the sub in the top tub is warming the air above the exhaust on the bottom tub, it could be the difference that we're seeing. The force of gravity has a different effect depending on air densities. Meaning less air needs to be displaced. You could be right though bob and that's why I am going to lean more toward a mono tub type hole set up.
I will keep my 12 hole design for the inlet holes but lower them closer to substrate level. Then I will lower the exhaust holes down on to the walls of the tub while still maintaining the same height differential. The exhaust holes will be the same in number as the inlet holes and will be placed directly above them as well. I am also going to put six inches between the top and bottom tubs. I have already worked the numbers and have found that as long as the height differential is the same, the hole size will not.
the myc chose to decrease activity at around that time. well both tubs did.
was this when you turned lights off or was it way before at 7 pm?
Lights went off at 9pm and came back on at 6am
and it took along time to slow enzymatic processes. and it took 2 or 3 hours ish for the system to slow down. so it took a few hours after deciding to sleep and conserve energy for the next light period before it could slow itself down enough. makes sense for a chemical process. difficult to turn off and on.
I would say that is an educated guess at best. I haven't presented rh as of yet. I thought those numbers were just not conclusive enough to present because of the tubs constant reading of 99% rh. You have to remember that temperature only tells part of the story when talking about work being done. Humidity is next on the list. This is what will be observed next along with temperature. This way we can see how they relate and interact with one another. Once these two things are dissected then I will be observing repsiration.
i would say there is a slight difference in input from the myc in each tub. and thats why they not in sync with each other.
each is adding slightly different amounts so timing are a little different.
but both lose the heat from the tub at the same rate.
both subs are very similar and i dont think you will get both to be exactly the same as the subs ect will have little differences. over the course over time these differences will show in the numbers.
Again, you may be right but I have reason to believe that the differences are minute and will prove this with the changes that I will be making for the next observation.
the more time the greater the effect may be seen or it may balance out and instead of running on 2 parallel lines they might just criss cross each other and keep meeting in the middle.
it would be interesting to see some long term trends but I have to focus on the now and worry about later when it's more appropriate.
also would i be right in thinking that the light went on at 7am and it seem it took 2hours for the myc to respond and get back into full swing?
around the same as it does to wind down the enzymatic processes?
I don't want to jump to any conclusions just yet. There were some radical changes in room humidty that occured between the hours of 10 - 11pm and again between the hours of 7 - 8am. These two occurences took place exactly 2 hours after there was a change in light exposure. With himidity increasing by 7% 2 hours after lights were turned off and decreased by 7% 2 hours after lights were turned back on. My problem with these numbers are that there isn't anything related to compare them to. The tubs rh are both at a constant 99%. If the holes were the correct size, the humidity inside of the tub should be affected by the humidity outside of the tub and vice versa.
|
Ajahn Don
Stranger


Registered: 07/05/15
Posts: 482
Loc: The buckle of the Bible belt
Last seen: 9 months, 1 day
|
Re: Monotub Improvement Project preliminary test run #1 [Re: taGyo]
#22032781 - 08/02/15 10:28 AM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
taGyo said:
,
I wish I majored in some science instead of philosophy 
So do the philosophy of science. Somebody has to tell us what it means.
Sapiens: A Brief History of Mankind HIGHLY recommended. 5 stars
We now return you over my head.
-------------------- "He's not altogether dense, but he's not altogether there."
|
insanemike

Registered: 02/23/14
Posts: 4,272
|
Re: Monotub Improvement Project preliminary test run #1 [Re: Ajahn Don]
#22032845 - 08/02/15 10:45 AM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Ajahn Don said:
Quote:
taGyo said:
,
I wish I majored in some science instead of philosophy 
So do the philosophy of science. Somebody has to tell us what it means.
Sapiens: A Brief History of Mankind HIGHLY recommended. 5 stars
We now return you over my head.
Have you checked out my monotub improvent project journal? It goes into detail about what is now being studied.
|
taGyo
Strainiac/AMU



Registered: 10/16/14
Posts: 18,802
Loc: Journal Land
Last seen: 5 years, 3 months
|
Re: Monotub Improvement Project preliminary test run #1 [Re: insanemike]
#22032892 - 08/02/15 10:57 AM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
insanemike said:
Quote:
Ajahn Don said:
Quote:
taGyo said:
,
I wish I majored in some science instead of philosophy 
So do the philosophy of science. Somebody has to tell us what it means.
Sapiens: A Brief History of Mankind HIGHLY recommended. 5 stars
We now return you over my head.
Have you checked out my monotub improvent project journal? It goes into detail about what is now being studied.
I actually took a few courses in Quantum Mechanics but that was more physics then anything.
For instance I would have taken the medium between the three humidity readings.
-------------------- Gyo's Better Grows TNF Q&A AMU Q&A Dominus fortunae meae sum
|
insanemike

Registered: 02/23/14
Posts: 4,272
|
Re: Monotub Improvement Project preliminary test run #1 [Re: taGyo]
#22033076 - 08/02/15 11:42 AM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
taGyo said:
Quote:
insanemike said:
Quote:
Ajahn Don said:
Quote:
taGyo said:
,
I wish I majored in some science instead of philosophy 
So do the philosophy of science. Somebody has to tell us what it means.
Sapiens: A Brief History of Mankind HIGHLY recommended. 5 stars
We now return you over my head.
Have you checked out my monotub improvent project journal? It goes into detail about what is now being studied.
I actually took a few courses in Quantum Mechanics but that was more physics then anything.
For instance I would have taken the medium between the three humidity readings.
The problem with charting the average rh readings (which I have done) is that it's not quantifiable at this point. If the tub rh is at a constant 99% at the level of the exhaust holes then that would mean that the surface level is of that rh or higher. As long as the rh in the room is lower than the rh at surface level, the tub rh should decrease as the altitude in the tub increases, due to pressure differential and temperature differential gradients. The tub rh should fluctuate as the room rh fluctuates just as it does with temperature and it may be the key to figuring this whole thing out.
|
mustangbob3
Mad Myrmecologist



Registered: 10/15/14
Posts: 1,685
|
Re: Monotub Improvement Project preliminary test run #1 [Re: insanemike]
#22033101 - 08/02/15 11:46 AM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
sorry mike could you answer me one question...
inside the tubs how much difference in temps is there between surface level and the top of the tub?
bit irrelevant , just for my own understanding
cheers for your time mate
--------------------
|
insanemike

Registered: 02/23/14
Posts: 4,272
|
Re: Monotub Improvement Project preliminary test run #1 [Re: mustangbob3]
#22033119 - 08/02/15 11:51 AM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
mustangbob3 said: sorry mike could you answer me one question...
inside the tubs how much difference in temps is there between surface level and the top of the tub?
bit irrelevant , just for my own understanding
cheers for your time mate
That's such a fucking coincidence, I was just thinking about doing this. I tested the temp differentials between upper and lower apperture's when this idea was still premature. I just did think of it as I posted my last post. I'm right on top of it bob. Give me a few minutes.
|
mustangbob3
Mad Myrmecologist



Registered: 10/15/14
Posts: 1,685
|
Re: Monotub Improvement Project preliminary test run #1 [Re: insanemike]
#22033139 - 08/02/15 11:58 AM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
--------------------
|
|