Does anyone have a source for a waterproof programmable termostat for
a greenhouse that can control a 110v heater?

There's Charley's GH and also Grainger's Both are online.

K Barrett

wrote in message
...
Does anyone have a source for a waterproof programmable termostat for
a greenhouse that can control a 110v heater?

Does anyone have a source for a waterproof programmable termostat for
a greenhouse that can control a 110v heater?

After more than thirty yers of growing in a GH, I have had umteen units , in
ALL price ranges, with cheap ones lasting as long as the expensive ones, and
currently I have a digital which can regulate 4 different time intervals, and
cost about 1/3 of the top of the line-works just fine. See at Sears.
Wilford Neptune

Does anyone have a source for a waterproof programmable termostat for
a greenhouse that can control a 110v heater?

After more than thirty yers of growing in a GH, I have had umteen units , in
ALL price ranges, with cheap ones lasting as long as the expensive ones, and
currently I have a digital which can regulate 4 different time intervals, and
cost about 1/3 of the top of the line-works just fine. See at Sears.
Wilford Neptune

After more than 30 years of orchid growing, I still vote with "old-timers"
that taught me way-back-when, and support NOT artificially raising the
daytime temperature of greenhouses, but letting solar heat gain do the work.

Light is a more important factor to healthy plant growth than is warmth.
Artificially warming the GH on gray days will result in leggy, soft growth
that in extreme cases cannot support its own weight, let alone that of added
blossoms.

Save your money and buy a single-setpoint thermostat, set it to the minimum
temperature you'd like your plants to experience, and let it go at that.

--

Ray Barkalow - First Rays Orchids - www.firstrays.com
Plants, Supplies, Books, Artwork, and Lots of Free Info!
..
wrote in message
...
Does anyone have a source for a waterproof programmable termostat for
a greenhouse that can control a 110v heater?

Try this page
http://www6.mailordercentral.com/igc....asp?dept=1022 . If
it's not there, then I don't know where else to find it. I particularly like
the computer controlled system. It's trustworthy enough to go away for a
week or 2 and not come back to dead plants.
Gary

wrote in message
...
Does anyone have a source for a waterproof programmable termostat for
a greenhouse that can control a 110v heater?

Try this page
http://www6.mailordercentral.com/igc....asp?dept=1022 . If
it's not there, then I don't know where else to find it. I particularly like
the computer controlled system. It's trustworthy enough to go away for a
week or 2 and not come back to dead plants.
Gary

wrote in message
...
Does anyone have a source for a waterproof programmable termostat for
a greenhouse that can control a 110v heater?

Ray,

Thanks for the comments.

Here in Vancouver BC if I would let the solar heat do my heating for
me during the winter I would be looking at growing just Cymbidiums and
even then marginally. As my gh is on the north side of the house, in
winter partially shaded by the house, on a property that is the second
highest point in Vancouver, you can see why I need to raise my
temperatures to some realistic figures Also I use HPS lights during
the winter. I agree with you that light is more important than
temperature except when the temperature is too low. If the plants are
too cold then no amount of light will make them grow.

The reason I want a programmable is that so I can set the max, but
more importantly the minimum temperature so in case it gets very cold
I can have three heaters running instead of just two as I do now using
single point thermostats and timers.



On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:34:14 -0400, "Ray"
wrote:

After more than 30 years of orchid growing, I still vote with "old-timers"
that taught me way-back-when, and support NOT artificially raising the
daytime temperature of greenhouses, but letting solar heat gain do the work.

Light is a more important factor to healthy plant growth than is warmth.
Artificially warming the GH on gray days will result in leggy, soft growth
that in extreme cases cannot support its own weight, let alone that of added
blossoms.

Save your money and buy a single-setpoint thermostat, set it to the minimum
temperature you'd like your plants to experience, and let it go at that.

Ah HAH! Where you are living plays no role in my analysis of the
situation, but that "minor detail" of the HPS lighting makes a big
difference!

As to the light versus temperature thing, you're right that at some point
it's just too cold, but growing most plants on the cool side of their normal
temperature range with high light levels will actually give fantastic
results. Not that I am capable of that on a regular basis, mind you...

--

Ray Barkalow - First Rays Orchids - www.firstrays.com
Plants, Supplies, Books, Artwork, and Lots of Free Info!
..
wrote in message
...
Ray,

Thanks for the comments.

Here in Vancouver BC if I would let the solar heat do my heating for
me during the winter I would be looking at growing just Cymbidiums and
even then marginally. As my gh is on the north side of the house, in
winter partially shaded by the house, on a property that is the second
highest point in Vancouver, you can see why I need to raise my
temperatures to some realistic figures Also I use HPS lights during
the winter. I agree with you that light is more important than
temperature except when the temperature is too low. If the plants are
too cold then no amount of light will make them grow.

The reason I want a programmable is that so I can set the max, but
more importantly the minimum temperature so in case it gets very cold
I can have three heaters running instead of just two as I do now using
single point thermostats and timers.



On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:34:14 -0400, "Ray"
wrote:

After more than 30 years of orchid growing, I still vote with "old-timers"
that taught me way-back-when, and support NOT artificially raising the
daytime temperature of greenhouses, but letting solar heat gain do the
work.

Light is a more important factor to healthy plant growth than is warmth.
Artificially warming the GH on gray days will result in leggy, soft growth
that in extreme cases cannot support its own weight, let alone that of
added
blossoms.

Save your money and buy a single-setpoint thermostat, set it to the
minimum
temperature you'd like your plants to experience, and let it go at that.

Ah HAH! Where you are living plays no role in my analysis of the
situation, but that "minor detail" of the HPS lighting makes a big
difference!

As to the light versus temperature thing, you're right that at some point
it's just too cold, but growing most plants on the cool side of their normal
temperature range with high light levels will actually give fantastic
results. Not that I am capable of that on a regular basis, mind you...

--

Ray Barkalow - First Rays Orchids - www.firstrays.com
Plants, Supplies, Books, Artwork, and Lots of Free Info!
..
wrote in message
...
Ray,

Thanks for the comments.

Here in Vancouver BC if I would let the solar heat do my heating for
me during the winter I would be looking at growing just Cymbidiums and
even then marginally. As my gh is on the north side of the house, in
winter partially shaded by the house, on a property that is the second
highest point in Vancouver, you can see why I need to raise my
temperatures to some realistic figures Also I use HPS lights during
the winter. I agree with you that light is more important than
temperature except when the temperature is too low. If the plants are
too cold then no amount of light will make them grow.

The reason I want a programmable is that so I can set the max, but
more importantly the minimum temperature so in case it gets very cold
I can have three heaters running instead of just two as I do now using
single point thermostats and timers.



On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:34:14 -0400, "Ray"
wrote:

After more than 30 years of orchid growing, I still vote with "old-timers"
that taught me way-back-when, and support NOT artificially raising the
daytime temperature of greenhouses, but letting solar heat gain do the
work.

Light is a more important factor to healthy plant growth than is warmth.
Artificially warming the GH on gray days will result in leggy, soft growth
that in extreme cases cannot support its own weight, let alone that of
added
blossoms.

Save your money and buy a single-setpoint thermostat, set it to the
minimum
temperature you'd like your plants to experience, and let it go at that.

What exactly do you mean "on the cool side" ?


On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 23:49:13 -0400, "Ray"
wrote:

As to the light versus temperature thing, you're right that at some point
it's just too cold, but growing most plants on the cool side of their normal
temperature range with high light levels will actually give fantastic
results. Not that I am capable of that on a regular basis, mind you...

Think of "on the cool side" this way: if your plant can typically be
expected to see daytime temperatures between 65°F and 85°F, for the same
light intensity, growing it at 70° will give "better" plants than if they
are grown at 80°. Let me explain the (probably oversimplified) logic.
Please keep in mind that these are generalities, and the applications to
individual plants is quite varied.

More light results in greater generation of food and energy, and their
assimilation into the plant. Higher temperatures result in faster
metabolism, hence growth, with the accompanying consumption of those
reserves.

The application of more light intensity, however, is accompanied by
increased localized heating of the plant tissues, and too much can be bad
for the plant, even if not outright damaging. By having the environment be
a bit cooler, it offsets that heating effect to a degree.

If we consider that the plant's metabolism will also be reduced by the
cooler temperatures, we can see that those conditions will give the plant an
opportunity to benefit from making and storing more reserves while expending
less on vegetative growth - hence a sturdier plant that has more energy for
blossoms.

I also am aware of (but will not claim to "know" anything about) differences
in tissue growth rates effected by light levels - cell walls thicker in
higher light, cells elongated and thinner-walled in low light - which
explain the "soft and leggy" comment I made in an earlier post, but I'm sure
there's someone else out there who can explain that better than I.

--

Ray Barkalow - First Rays Orchids - www.firstrays.com
Plants, Supplies, Books, Artwork, and Lots of Free Info!
..
wrote in message
...
What exactly do you mean "on the cool side" ?


On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 23:49:13 -0400, "Ray"
wrote:

As to the light versus temperature thing, you're right that at some point
it's just too cold, but growing most plants on the cool side of their
normal
temperature range with high light levels will actually give fantastic
results. Not that I am capable of that on a regular basis, mind you...

Think of "on the cool side" this way: if your plant can typically be
expected to see daytime temperatures between 65°F and 85°F, for the same
light intensity, growing it at 70° will give "better" plants than if they
are grown at 80°. Let me explain the (probably oversimplified) logic.
Please keep in mind that these are generalities, and the applications to
individual plants is quite varied.

More light results in greater generation of food and energy, and their
assimilation into the plant. Higher temperatures result in faster
metabolism, hence growth, with the accompanying consumption of those
reserves.

The application of more light intensity, however, is accompanied by
increased localized heating of the plant tissues, and too much can be bad
for the plant, even if not outright damaging. By having the environment be
a bit cooler, it offsets that heating effect to a degree.

If we consider that the plant's metabolism will also be reduced by the
cooler temperatures, we can see that those conditions will give the plant an
opportunity to benefit from making and storing more reserves while expending
less on vegetative growth - hence a sturdier plant that has more energy for
blossoms.

I also am aware of (but will not claim to "know" anything about) differences
in tissue growth rates effected by light levels - cell walls thicker in
higher light, cells elongated and thinner-walled in low light - which
explain the "soft and leggy" comment I made in an earlier post, but I'm sure
there's someone else out there who can explain that better than I.

--

Ray Barkalow - First Rays Orchids - www.firstrays.com
Plants, Supplies, Books, Artwork, and Lots of Free Info!
..
wrote in message
...
What exactly do you mean "on the cool side" ?


On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 23:49:13 -0400, "Ray"
wrote:

As to the light versus temperature thing, you're right that at some point
it's just too cold, but growing most plants on the cool side of their
normal
temperature range with high light levels will actually give fantastic
results. Not that I am capable of that on a regular basis, mind you...

Thank You Ray!
In my gh that is almost what exactly happens. During the winter I
rarely see temps over 75, which are quite common in summer inspite of
the cold location. The gh is heated only to 70 in the winter and on
some days the temps do not reach even that. The plants, as you state,
do quite well.

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 08:56:46 -0400, "Ray"
wrote:

Think of "on the cool side" this way: if your plant can typically be
expected to see daytime temperatures between 65°F and 85°F, for the same
light intensity, growing it at 70° will give "better" plants than if they
are grown at 80°. Let me explain the (probably oversimplified) logic.
Please keep in mind that these are generalities, and the applications to
individual plants is quite varied.

More light results in greater generation of food and energy, and their
assimilation into the plant. Higher temperatures result in faster
metabolism, hence growth, with the accompanying consumption of those
reserves.

The application of more light intensity, however, is accompanied by
increased localized heating of the plant tissues, and too much can be bad
for the plant, even if not outright damaging. By having the environment be
a bit cooler, it offsets that heating effect to a degree.

If we consider that the plant's metabolism will also be reduced by the
cooler temperatures, we can see that those conditions will give the plant an
opportunity to benefit from making and storing more reserves while expending
less on vegetative growth - hence a sturdier plant that has more energy for
blossoms.

I also am aware of (but will not claim to "know" anything about) differences
in tissue growth rates effected by light levels - cell walls thicker in
higher light, cells elongated and thinner-walled in low light - which
explain the "soft and leggy" comment I made in an earlier post, but I'm sure
there's someone else out there who can explain that better than I.

I live in New England. My GH is also on the north side of my home. It receives
no direct sun during Nov, Dec, and Jan. I have two temp zones, and maintain a
min nite temp of 46F in one, and 60F in the other one. I heat to keep the min
temp at night, and a min temp of 10F higher during the day. Rarely does the
temp go higher than the set temp on the thermostat. I have always stressed that
light is the most important factor in flower production, and to make up for my
decreased light, due to area, and location, I use high output lights for
supplemental lighting the entire year, in both zones. I grow 155 genera, and
although all of us can always do better, I seem to have done fairly well with
this set up.