Xlr8's "Flo N Gro" Hydro Multiple Strains 2011

[Xlr8]

I ordered seed last night, but left out Chocolope Haze. I couldn't find fem and I'm not happy with any balls near me except... Just ask my cat, he found out.
Someday, I'll deal with it. Description is of a plant that can be mastered by experts. A worthy challenge perhaps, reading into your desire for more.

It's good stuff - first weed to really make a marked improvement on the nerve pain I deal with - the indicas knock me out and make me forget about it, but the Chocolope took the pain away and replaced it with warm pleasant tingling or made the pain just go away.

It's also great for daytime use, as my productivity seems to improve with Chocolope. Lucy does that for me too, but not quite as well as the Chocolope.

Taste and flavor are amazing too. Mine doesn't taste so much like chocolate, but quite a bit like fruity pebbles.

I'm so bummed that I only have a few nugs left... I highly recommend this for anyone with nerve pain, or anyone who likes a good uplifting motivating high. Seems like it's often hard to find in stock. I wish I'd have ordered more, but if my last one germs okay, she'll be a tiny little mom in a coco coir filled smart pot. She's feminized --- I think... hm.

 

[Xlr8]

What became of the Chocolope trim - a tragedy:

I don't think I ever shared what became of the Chocolope trim from my last harvest (several weeks ago now). I had it in a paper bag, dried and ready for making cannabis infused oil for making my magic snickerdoodles. I made some a few months back, and a couple of friends have been begging me for more.

No kidding, i fumbled the bag, sent the trim flying right into the kitty litter box and the area surrounding it. I nearly cried - of all the places to have dumped it! I contemplated ways to sanitize it or use it anyway, then brushed the insanity away and mournfully scooped it with the poop and out to the rubbish bin.

True story, it still depresses me! That cat purred every time it had a BM for a month*.

*(not really, though she does love the plants - they really are like catnip for her).

P.S. If you choose to like this post, I'll assume it's for the cute/funny kitty, and not for my misfortune, so like away if you wish.

 

[Xlr8]

FYI...for anyone that hasn't seen them, here's one of Heath's older 420 journals...Check out the size of the buds on his tree!

Heath's Latest Tree Grow

Thanks Mr. Krip! I actually didn't realize Heath had an account or thread here, so I didn't want to push his name too hard - I'm glad you posted that link. Cool that he posted pics of some of his plants here. He is able to measure the yield on those indoor trees in pounds.

 

[Mr. Krip]

Thanks Mr. Krip! I actually didn't realize Heath had an account or thread here, so I didn't want to push his name too hard - I'm glad you posted that link. Cool that he posted pics of some of his plants here. He is able to measure the yield on those indoor trees in pounds.

Yeah, he said the one Chiesel, weighed in at 76 OZ!!!

 

[jandre2k3]

Problem was, I liked it a TON and wish I'd have given it half the tent...

And people think I'm crazy for ALWAYS having a sativa rooting for the flower. caught it back then, and I'm catching it now. I let her smoke some of my <<GK>>Migraine Meds (20%THC 1.9%CBD). She saw the light . . . . . . she didn't sit down for two hours! (ping-ping-PIIIIiiiIIiiiNG.....Ricochet Rabbit!) So yeah when I found the clones she had no problem shelling out the bones for one to flower and one to add to the Maternity Ward. Hehe, she even handed me the training wire! um... she also wants me to find a supplier of Lucy, but I told her the co-ops I go to I've never seen it and weedmaps dot com only shows clones down in long beach. meh.... guess it's a Barney's or nothing, huh?


Sorry about the trim incident: Puddy Tat wuv'd yoo for the chocolope litter!

 

[jandre2k3]

This chart sums it up well:

You know my take on heresay, and what someone else says right? The horses mouth is only source for me. So, I did some reading up on the correct conversion that Hanna uses. It seems that the chart is outdated. Hanna Instruments, on their website states the following:

"How is TDS measured?
By means of a conductivity meter. The conductivity is measured and the TDS is calculated by a fixed mathematical formula in the meter.


What about conversion factors?
Research has shown that a conversion factor between .64 and .70 to be the best indication of Total Dissolved Solids in growing applications.


If I have a TDS meter with a 0.5 conversion factor how do I convert to the correct 0.7 value?
Multiply by 1.4; ex: 500 x 1.4 = 700."

By the last question in this copy/paste, they expressly state that 0.7 is the correct value. Thus, it stands to reason that if their research shows 0.7 to be the most accurate conversion from EC, that they would not manufacture meters with an incorrect conversion factor. This may have been done within the past few years, though, which is why I suggested that the chart may be outdated instead of just flat wrong. Not being snippy, just thought you should know.

EDIT: I forgot to say that I did the checking because I have a Hanna meter.

 

[Numba03king]

Hey xlr8,

I just skimmed through this journal using the Titan flo n gro and I'm glad to see that you had a positive experience using it for the first time. I'm currently on my first run with the system and just had a couple concerns I was hoping to get your opinion on. My roots have just started to reach the stagnant reserve water at the bottom of each bucket and Im concerned that this might deprive them of oxygen if they are continuously submerged. It seems as though you had no ill effects with this so I might just be overly paranoid. I flood 3 times while lights are on but do you think I should increase the flood frequency to circulate the reserve water more? Any recommendations using this system to keep the roots pearl white would help and be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

 

[Xlr8]

You know my take on heresay, and what someone else says right? The horses mouth is only source for me. So, I did some reading up on the correct conversion that Hanna uses. It seems that the chart is outdated. Hanna Instruments, on their website states the following:

"How is TDS measured?
By means of a conductivity meter. The conductivity is measured and the TDS is calculated by a fixed mathematical formula in the meter.


What about conversion factors?
Research has shown that a conversion factor between .64 and .70 to be the best indication of Total Dissolved Solids in growing applications.


If I have a TDS meter with a 0.5 conversion factor how do I convert to the correct 0.7 value?
Multiply by 1.4; ex: 500 x 1.4 = 700."

By the last question in this copy/paste, they expressly state that 0.7 is the correct value. Thus, it stands to reason that if their research shows 0.7 to be the most accurate conversion from EC, that they would not manufacture meters with an incorrect conversion factor. This may have been done within the past few years, though, which is why I suggested that the chart may be outdated instead of just flat wrong. Not being snippy, just thought you should know.

EDIT: I forgot to say that I did the checking because I have a Hanna meter.

Common sense and logic! That is a concept many companies still don't understand!

In taking a quick look on their website, I saw at least 2 handheld meters/testers of theirs that use .5 as the conversion, and one that uses .65. There may have been more than one at .65, but not that I saw. I know a number of them are adjustable, but in looking at the manuals they seem to infer that the adjustable ones are set to .5 at the factory. I didn't look them all over for specifics (looked at several though), but that was the impression I got.


Models HI 98301, and HI 98302 are .5 and not adjustable as far as I can tell.
HI 98300 is set at .65 and not adjustable as far as I can tell.

Several are adjustable, probably set to .5 at the factory, (they don't say in the manual, but use .5 as an example when they are talking about setting the factor). They sell calibration solution for .5 and .65 conversion factors.

Kind of interesting that they make meters with different conversion percents, especially if they are saying .7 is the most accurate!

As far as I could tell, none of their meters are set to .7, though many are adjustable (looks like they can be adjusted between .45 and 1.0).

My Oakton meter was adjustable, but set at the factory to .7, the same amount their "fixed" conversion meters were at - I would be surprised honestly if the adjustable Hanna's weren't default at .5, as that seems to be the one they reference in examples and use in more of their "fixed" conversion meters.

Based on my quick research, I don't think that chart is out of date, per se at least regarding Hanna.

One last thought - Could these companies make this ANY more confusing?!?! I would make darn sure you really understand the conversion percent for your particular meter if you aren't already.

Was it set at the factory, or is yours adjustable?

Oh, and I'm with you on heresay, and good for you! I wouldn't have posted the chart if I wasn't confident that it is representative, at least for a lot of people, and the meters they are using. Not to say I haven't been wrong or make mistakes, but I agree with you about spreading "heresay" fully!

The overarching point is that there are differences to be understood if one really wants to use their meter correctly and fully understand their level of nutrient concentration. I find that most new growers especially are clueless that this isn't consistent from meter to meter - and rightfully so, the manufacturers make this utterly confusing for those of us new to measuring dissolved solids.

 

[Xlr8]

Hey xlr8,

I just skimmed through this journal using the Titan flo n gro and I'm glad to see that you had a positive experience using it for the first time. I'm currently on my first run with the system and just had a couple concerns I was hoping to get your opinion on. My roots have just started to reach the stagnant reserve water at the bottom of each bucket and Im concerned that this might deprive them of oxygen if they are continuously submerged. It seems as though you had no ill effects with this so I might just be overly paranoid. I flood 3 times while lights are on but do you think I should increase the flood frequency to circulate the reserve water more? Any recommendations using this system to keep the roots pearl white would help and be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

Congrats, it's a great system! I had no trouble with the small amount of water/nutrients left in the buckets. None. My roots were bright white and as healthy as any roots I've had.

During the veg period, 3 flushes is probably enough in a day if you are using hydroton. Are you using hydroton? I think I'm flooding 4 times right now in veg, but it's probably overkill. In bloom phase, I flush about once every 3 hours during lights on, and once during lights off just to keep the roots damp, though that may not be necessary either. Worked great, and I'll do it the same this round.

I've had people suggest I should put an airstone in the reservoir to keep it aerated, but this is NOT necessary. The process of flooding and draining exposes the water/nutrients to PLENTY of oxygen and is sufficient. I've also had people suggest putting small airstones in each bucket to keep that "stagnant" water you mentioned full of D.O. (dissolved oxygen) but again, this did not prove necessary at all in my first run, and I've had growers with much experience in similar systems tell me these airstones aren't necessary as well.

The only thing I do outside of normal operation, is that I have a small waterpump that I just dangle into the reservoir that continually keeps the nutrients circulated to prevent settling/hot spots in the reservoir - I don't think this is necessary, but I had the pump and it does seem to do what I wanted from it. It's just sitting in the bottom of the reservoir churning the water/nutes gently.

One thing I am religious about: I use a product by Dutch Master Nutrients called "Zone" with every nutrient change. (Actually, I use a custom made version by Blue Planet Nutrients, but I don't think he has this for sale publically - at least yet). It's purpose is to keep the root zone healthy and happy, but will only work if you are using synthetic (non-organic) nutrients (it destroys beneficial organisms found in organics). Again, might not be necessary, but it's part of my process.

To recap some - other than the standard set-up, I use "Zone" and a waterpump that keeps the reservoir stirred up. No airstones, and I don't worry about that stagnant water. My roots looked brilliant white and incredibly healthy. You'll love the Flo N Gro - it's a terrific product from my initial experiences.

and let me know if I can ever answer any questions about the Flo N Gro or anything else for that matter!

Oh, and to

X

 

[jandre2k3]

Common sense and logic! That is a concept many companies still don't understand!
<snip>
Oh, and I'm with you on heresay, and good for you! I wouldn't have posted the chart if I wasn't confident that it is representative, at least for a lot of people, and the meters they are using. Not to say I haven't been wrong or make mistakes, but I agree with you about spreading "heresay" fully!

The overarching point is that there are differences to be understood if one really wants to use their meter correctly and fully understand their level of nutrient concentration. I find that most new growers especially are clueless that this isn't consistent from meter to meter - and rightfully so, the manufacturers make this utterly confusing for those of us new to measuring dissolved solids.

Oh, please don't think that I was checking up on you! I was unsure of the origin of the chart! LOL! That's the only reason I checked.

Now here's the question of the century..... if Hanna on their website says 0.64 to 0.7 is the most accurate conversion rate, why would the be manufacturing meters that convert at any other scale??

 

[Mr. Krip]

You know my take on heresay, and what someone else says right? The horses mouth is only source for me. So, I did some reading up on the correct conversion that Hanna uses. It seems that the chart is outdated. Hanna Instruments, on their website states the following:

"How is TDS measured?
By means of a conductivity meter. The conductivity is measured and the TDS is calculated by a fixed mathematical formula in the meter.


What about conversion factors?
Research has shown that a conversion factor between .64 and .70 to be the best indication of Total Dissolved Solids in growing applications.


If I have a TDS meter with a 0.5 conversion factor how do I convert to the correct 0.7 value?
Multiply by 1.4; ex: 500 x 1.4 = 700."

By the last question in this copy/paste, they expressly state that 0.7 is the correct value. Thus, it stands to reason that if their research shows 0.7 to be the most accurate conversion from EC, that they would not manufacture meters with an incorrect conversion factor. This may have been done within the past few years, though, which is why I suggested that the chart may be outdated instead of just flat wrong. Not being snippy, just thought you should know.

EDIT: I forgot to say that I did the checking because I have a Hanna meter.

FYI...I have a Hanna 98130. I can switch it from a 500 to a 700, so even Hanna will/should acknowledge there is NO correct coversion. The actual PPM is 100% dependent on your nute mix.

In other words, BPN nutes at 1.0 EC would have a different ACTUAL PPM than GH nutes (for example) at 1.0 EC even though both would read the same PPM's on the SAME meter, regardless of the conversion factor.

The conversion factor, by its very nature, is presumed to be inaccurate because different nute manufacturers use different mixes!

 

[Xlr8]

FYI...I have a Hanna 98130. I can switch it from a 500 to a 700, so even Hanna will/should acknowledge there is NO correct coversion. The actual PPM is 100% dependent on your nute mix.

In other words, BPN nutes at 1.0 EC would have a different ACTUAL PPM than GH nutes (for example) at 1.0 EC even though both would read the same PPM's on the SAME meter, regardless of the conversion factor.

The conversion factor, by its very nature, is presumed to be inaccurate because different nute manufacturers use different mixes!

Now, I'm confused. I'm sorry Mr. Krip, but no matter how hard I try, I'm not quite following. PPM is "Parts Per Million" which doesn't equate to a percent - so what do you mean "100%"?

My understanding is that the meter measures electrical conductivity, which can then be extrapolated into a number that hypothetically represents "Parts Per Million" based on a conversion factor (i.e. .5, .65, .7). In you example of 1.0EC, the totals would be measured consistently, correct?

I believe what you are eluding to, is that all it gives us is the total number, not what goes into that number. For example, the total number of 1.0 could consist entirely of phosphorus, while another nutrient solution could be a mixture of a dozen things (calcium, magnesium, sulfur...) to get to that 1.0ec. Just because the totals measure the same, doesn't mean they are composed of the same stuff.

I think of that like 2 people weighing themselves on a scale. They might both be 200lbs., but perhaps one person is more composed of muscle, and another body fat... In other words, their weight only tells part of the story, much like our TDS meters only tell us the total without what composes it. Is that what you were referring to?

I'm worried that we're going to confuse everyone... I'm getting there now too! I probably should have started a unique thread for this topic, as it's developed a lot of great discussion. I mean that sincerely - this is good discussion as long as we don't leave people utterly confused in the end.

 

[Xlr8]

Oh, please don't think that I was checking up on you! I was unsure of the origin of the chart! LOL! That's the only reason I checked.

Now here's the question of the century..... if Hanna on their website says 0.64 to 0.7 is the most accurate conversion rate, why would the be manufacturing meters that convert at any other scale??

Didn't take it wrong at all, Jandre, but I appreciate your concern (we don't need to go there again!) I know you better now, and won't read into things the wrong way again...

I think (not to read into his comment too much) Mr. Krip was alluding to the fact that these numbers are somewhat arbitrary anyway, and only tell part of the story, so the conversion factor is somewhat a moot point other than one must understand that they ARE different when reading PPM numbers in the forums here. In other words, .5, .7,.... only matters if you are comparing to other peoples numbers, and as long as you understand what it means to your plants and process.

I personally think they are clinging to a standard they've used for a long time vs. changing things.

 

[Mr. Krip]

Now, I'm confused. I'm sorry Mr. Krip, but no matter how hard I try, I'm not quite following. PPM is "Parts Per Million" which doesn't equate to a percent - so what do you mean "100%"?

My understanding is that the meter measures electrical conductivity, which can then be extrapolated into a number that hypothetically represents "Parts Per Million" based on a conversion factor (i.e. .5, .65, .7). In you example of 1.0EC, the totals would be measured consistently, correct?

I believe what you are eluding to, is that all it gives us is the total number, not what goes into that number. For example, the total number of 1.0 could consist entirely of phosphorus, while another nutrient solution could be a mixture of a dozen things (calcium, magnesium, sulfur...) to get to that 1.0ec. Just because the totals measure the same, doesn't mean they are composed of the same stuff.

I think of that like 2 people weighing themselves on a scale. They might both be 200lbs., but perhaps one person is more composed of muscle, and another body fat... In other words, their weight only tells part of the story, much like our TDS meters only tell us the total without what composes it. Is that what you were referring to?

I'm worried that we're going to confuse everyone... I'm getting there now too! I probably should have started a unique thread for this topic, as it's developed a lot of great discussion. I mean that sincerely - this is good discussion as long as we don't leave people utterly confused in the end.

OK...Corey could probably give a better example than I, but, as what's probably a bad example, here it is...

There could be multiple ways to deliver Magnesium (again, an example) to a plant. One nute manufacturer may use Magnesium Chloride while another uses Magnesium Sulfate (in reality, I don't know if either are used to deliver Mg!). So, even though they may have the same EC, because the compounds themselves are different, in reality, they have different PPM's, even to deliver the same amount of Mg.

But, a PPM pen doesn't actually measure the PPM's. It measures EC (the only thing it's capable of measuring accurately), and then uses the conversion to GUESS at the PPM's.

So, even though the two compounds above will have different PPM's in reality, because they have the same EC, the TDS meter will display both as the same PPM's.

Does that help, or confuse more???

 

[Xlr8]

OK...Corey could probably give a better example than I, but, as what's probably a bad example, here it is...

There could be multiple ways to deliver Magnesium (again, an example) to a plant. One nute manufacturer may use Magnesium Chloride while another uses Magnesium Sulfate (in reality, I don't know if either are used to deliver Mg!). So, even though they may have the same EC, because the compounds themselves are different, in reality, they have different PPM's, even to deliver the same amount of Mg.

But, a PPM pen doesn't actually measure the PPM's. It measures EC (the only thing it's capable of measuring accurately), and then uses the conversion to GUESS at the PPM's.

So, even though the two compounds above will have different PPM's in reality, because they have the same EC, the TDS meter will display both as the same PPM's.

Does that help, or confuse more???

I think we're mostly on the same page - not sure if it's more or less confusing for others. Definitely same page as far as measuring EC and "guessing/extrapolating" at PPM's.

Reminds me of a scale I saw that uses electrical impulse on your feet to give you a reading of your body fat. Is that going to REALLY be an accurate measure of your body fat? Not exactly, but the formula applied to the reading will give you a good idea of it and tell you whether to lay off the Snickers bars!

Lastly - if this HAS confused anyone, please let me know and I'll try to help clarify - even if I have to defer to someone else more knowledgable. The last thing I want is to create more confusion or steer anyone wrong. The point initially was to bring more clarity to how it all really works based on the different meter manufacturers and how they arrive at the numbers. They aren't all apples to apples.

 

[Mr. Krip]

Didn't take it wrong at all, Jandre, but I appreciate your concern (we don't need to go there again!) I know you better now, and won't read into things the wrong way again...

I think (not to read into his comment too much) Mr. Krip was alluding to the fact that these numbers are somewhat arbitrary anyway, and only tell part of the story, so the conversion factor is somewhat a moot point other than one must understand that they ARE different when reading PPM numbers in the forums here. In other words, .5, .7,.... only matters if you are comparing to other peoples numbers, and as long as you understand what it means to your plants and process.

I personally think they are clinging to a standard they've used for a long time vs. changing things.

Actually, that's correct, but more specifically, the numbers are BOTH nute specific and, if displayed in PPM, they're meter specific, too.

So, just because you want to imitate someone who's feeding 1300 PPM of GH nutes, without knowing the conversion factor, you're only guessing. And, if you're not using the same GH nutes, it's probably not the same PPM levels, even at the same EC, which is why I said 100% dependent on the nute mix.

 

[jandre2k3]

Didn't take it wrong at all, Jandre, but I appreciate your concern (we don't need to go there again!) I know you better now, and won't read into things the wrong way again...

ROFL! Mind reader!! Thank you, I got a real laugh when I read the above! I haven't forgotten about that and have been trying not to be so crass, but I find that when talking numbers, and my own experience it can be perceived that way.

Regarding data, and interpretation of such, I'm glad you know that I'm very direct and really don't mean any disrespect at all. People sometimes compare me to Temperance Brennan, a character on Bones when it comes to my research. I can sound abrasive, but if emotion is removed (as I do when referring to empirical data), there really is nothing more than a sharing of information in its truest form: Honest and straightforward...

I only mean to give a clear idea of my understanding through my own research. If your findings differ from mine, I find that highly desirable. When the two are compared and combined it means a better understanding for all.

 

[jandre2k3]

I'm still confused though:

If Hanna on their website says 0.64 to 0.7 is the most accurate conversion rate, why would they be manufacturing meters that convert at any other scale?? I mean to say that if 0.5 is as they say, not correct, then, why would the set their meters to an incorrect setting?

Mine is a H.I. Primo (Didn't have the money for the one I wanted HI 98130 and yes I'm jealous as hell) and as yet have not found a way to change to 0.5, 0.64, or 0.7. I've looked everywhere and I cannot find if this one uses the 0.5, 0.64, or 0.7 scale!! I can only hope mine is on 0.7. ugh.

I'm also interested in knowing where you found that HI manufactures TDS/PPM testers with the setting of 0.5. I can't seem to find that anywhere on their site. I did, however see this from their main page, to to Conductivity/TDS on the left sidebar....

EDIT: I went back to look at exactly those meters you stated, and sure enough, they're set just as you said. Now here is another question. If they DO NOT specify as is the case with mine, should one assume they use 0.7?

What is EC?

Electrical Conductivity (EC) is defined by the ability of a solution to conduct an electrical current.
What is TDS?

Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) is defined as the amount of solids dissolved in a solution.
How does an EC/TDS meter work?

Two electrodes with an applied AC voltage are placed in the solution. This creates a current dependent upon the conductive nature of the solution. The meter reads this current and displays in either conductivity (EC) or ppm (TDS).
How is TDS measured?

By means of a conductivity meter. The conductivity is measured and the TDS is calculated by a fixed mathematical formula in the meter.
What is the difference between microSiemens and milliSiemens?

Both are units of conductivity. 1000 microSiemens (µS) = 1 milliSiemen (mS).
If I have a TDS meter with a 0.5 conversion factor how do I convert to the correct 0.7 value?

Multiply by 1.4; ex: 500 x 1.4 = 700.

Needless to say, I'm now more confused and I am thinking about just getting a straight EC meter

 

[Mr. Krip]

I'm still confused though:

If Hanna on their website says 0.64 to 0.7 is the most accurate conversion rate, why would they be manufacturing meters that convert at any other scale?? I mean to say that if 0.5 is as they say, not correct, then, why would the set their meters to an incorrect setting?

Mine is a H.I. Primo (Didn't have the money for the one I wanted HI 98130 and yes I'm jealous as hell) and as yet have not found a way to change to 0.5, 0.64, or 0.7. I've looked everywhere and I cannot find if this one uses the 0.5, 0.64, or 0.7 scale!! I can only hope mine is on 0.7. ugh.

I'm also interested in knowing where you found that HI manufactures TDS/PPM testers with the setting of 0.5. I can't seem to find that anywhere on their site. I did, however see this from their main page, to to Conductivity/TDS on the left sidebar....

EDIT: I went back to look at exactly those meters you stated, and sure enough, they'er set just as you said. Now here is another question. if they DON'T specify, should one assume they use 0.7?

What is EC?

Electrical Conductivity (EC) is defined by the ability of a solution to conduct an electrical current.
What is TDS?

Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) is defined as the amount of solids dissolved in a solution.
How does an EC/TDS meter work?

Two electrodes with an applied AC voltage are placed in the solution. This creates a current dependent upon the conductive nature of the solution. The meter reads this current and displays in either conductivity (EC) or ppm (TDS).
How is TDS measured?

By means of a conductivity meter. The conductivity is measured and the TDS is calculated by a fixed mathematical formula in the meter.
What is the difference between microSiemens and milliSiemens?

Both are units of conductivity. 1000 microSiemens (µS) = 1 milliSiemen (mS).
If I have a TDS meter with a 0.5 conversion factor how do I convert to the correct 0.7 value?

Multiply by 1.4; ex: 500 x 1.4 = 700.

Needless to say, I'm now more confused and I am thinking about just getting a straight EC meter

If you look under "Additional Info" here:

Hanna HI 98130 pH & Conductivity Pen High Range - Mitchell Instrument Company

You'll see the TDS Conversion Factor = "adjustable from 0.45 to 1.00"

The way you convert to/from a 500 to 700 meter is to first convert to EC, since all TDS meters measure the EC, then multiply by the conversion factor of the unit to display the TDS in PPM.

I'm going to re-state that, because it's so important:

TDS meters are INCAPABLE of an actual PPM reading, so they measure the EC and then multiply by SOME conversion factor to display "approximate" PPM's (which can vary greatly, depending on the conversion factor!).

So, for example, 1400 PPM on a 700 conversion meter is 2 EC (1400/700). 2 EC on a 500 conversion meter is 1000 PPM (2*500). So, what displays as 1400 PPM on a 700conversion meter, will read 1000 PPM on a 500 conversion meter. Get it???

EDIT: Just to take it one step further, a 500 conversion meter means it displays 1 EC as 500 PPM while a 700 meter will display 1 EC as 700 PPM.

 

[Xlr8]

I'm still confused though:

If Hanna on their website says 0.64 to 0.7 is the most accurate conversion rate, why would they be manufacturing meters that convert at any other scale?? I mean to say that if 0.5 is as they say, not correct, then, why would the set their meters to an incorrect setting?

Mine is a H.I. Primo (Didn't have the money for the one I wanted HI 98130 and yes I'm jealous as hell) and as yet have not found a way to change to 0.5, 0.64, or 0.7. I've looked everywhere and I cannot find if this one uses the 0.5, 0.64, or 0.7 scale!! I can only hope mine is on 0.7. ugh.

I'm also interested in knowing where you found that HI manufactures TDS/PPM testers with the setting of 0.5. I can't seem to find that anywhere on their site. I did, however see this from their main page, to to Conductivity/TDS on the left sidebar....

EDIT: I went back to look at exactly those meters you stated, and sure enough, they'er set just as you said. Now here is another question. if they DON'T specify, should one assume they use 0.7?

What is EC?

Electrical Conductivity (EC) is defined by the ability of a solution to conduct an electrical current.
What is TDS?

Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) is defined as the amount of solids dissolved in a solution.
How does an EC/TDS meter work?

Two electrodes with an applied AC voltage are placed in the solution. This creates a current dependent upon the conductive nature of the solution. The meter reads this current and displays in either conductivity (EC) or ppm (TDS).
How is TDS measured?

By means of a conductivity meter. The conductivity is measured and the TDS is calculated by a fixed mathematical formula in the meter.
What is the difference between microSiemens and milliSiemens?

Both are units of conductivity. 1000 microSiemens (µS) = 1 milliSiemen (mS).
If I have a TDS meter with a 0.5 conversion factor how do I convert to the correct 0.7 value?

Multiply by 1.4; ex: 500 x 1.4 = 700.

Needless to say, I'm now more confused and I am thinking about just getting a straight EC meter

Nice post Jandre, brings light to some things left mostly unstated as far as what it all means when it's measured.

Honestly, I would assume .5 on the Primo as it's the more common conversion number from what I can tell that Hanna uses. I really don't know why they use the .5 sometimes, other than it might be a legacy thing, where many loyal users are "used to" .5 and might freak if they have to get used to something new. Possible that they didn't always advocate .7 as more accurate, or .5 was an industry thing years back.

I can't vouch for this info, as it's not from the company, but found this list posted on another forum and it looks credible to me, however, I have not verified this list:

"Meters that use the 0.5 conversion are:
Hanna Primo
Tri-Meter
Hanna HI981504

Meters that use the 0.7 conversion are:
Hanna HI 9813-0
Hanna HI 9813-6
Hanna HI 983301N
Hanna HI 983311

Meters that are adjustable are:
Hanna HI98129
Hanna HI98311
Hanna HI981404
Hanna HI981404N
Oakton Meters

The Blue Lab Truncheon TDS/EC meter will display in PPM using both 0.5 and 0.7 factors and also display the EC."