Learning Energy Fundamentals

[Glaucus]

I think he means that from some soil consultancy startup, they concluded that a concentration of potassium over sodium should be 4 (though I remember something about magnesium and calcium as well, so just going with what you are saying).
And that this is not related to charge. They each would have counter-ions.

 

[FreshAirSunshine]

Akadama is a naturally occurring zeolite - the counter ion is the oxide material itself. Maybe the 4:1 is just the ratio of the +1 charge-compensating ions (80% potassium occupancy and 20% sodium). Akadama is largely clinoptilolite zeolite, which is an aluminosilicate material. It’s a Si(+4)O(-2)2 silica based material, that has some aluminum replacing silicon sites. Aluminum is present as Al(+3), which creates a negatively charged structure (+3 - 2(2)) = -1 for each Al replacing Si. The cation exchange capacity is the amount of these -1 sites, which are charge neutralized by bringing in +1, +2, +3 (possibly) ions of Na, K, Fe, Mg, and Ca into the pore structure of the zeolite framework. So you could have the 4:1 ratio of K to Na as cations - that would make more sense.

 

[FreshAirSunshine]

Akadama is a naturally occurring zeolite - the counter ion is the oxide material itself. Maybe the 4:1 is just the ratio of the +1 charge-compensating ions (80% potassium occupancy and 20% sodium). Akadama is largely clinoptilolite zeolite, which is an aluminosilicate material. It’s a Si(+4)O(-2)2 silica based material, that has some aluminum replacing silicon sites. Aluminum is present as Al(+3), which creates a negatively charged structure (+3 - 2(2)) = -1 for each Al replacing Si. The cation exchange capacity is the amount of these -1 sites, which are charge neutralized by bringing in +1, +2, +3 (possibly) ions of Na, K, Fe, Mg, and Ca into the pore structure of the zeolite framework. So you could have the 4:1 ratio of K to Na as cations - that would make more sense.

I guess my point is just that there are experts on each of these topics in bonsai and in science, and due diligence should be done to be sure you’re getting information from the appropriate expert source.

 

[leatherback]

Yes, I do find the reluctance to that on this forum to be very odd! It seems like such an easy and straight-forward technique, and I don't see a downside to it really.

Basic arborist experience is that covering cuts with anything causes more rotting and less healing than when left uncovered. This is now common practice: To not cover cut areas.
When it comes to bonsai, there is a translastion from that experience where people claim that you should not cover wounds. Unfortunately, the scale and aims that we have with bonsai are different from "life size" tree management, but somehow the effect of scale does not seem to stick.

how I’ve always interpreted it is spring and summer, energy is directed up to the foliage, and fall/winter it goes down to the roots. If you chop off a bunch of the plant as the buds are swollen in spring, all that energy was wasted.

In oractice most of the energy is stored all around the tree, with long term and short term storage setups. The energy stores for the spring push are typically in /near the buds rather than in the roots.

 

[BobbyLane]

As a newbie, I have seen discussions of things like "how to thicken trunks", how to prune to direct energy, etc. Is there a text anywhere that explains all the ramifications of directing energy in a tree?

I shall try to keep it as simple as possible. To thicken trunks you want to allow lots of unrestricted free growth, preferably in the ground or a grow box. In apically dominant trees, to build up strength or direct energy into the lower parts of the tree you keep the upper, more dominant areas usually the crown in check. I know it as 'balancing' the energy throughout the tree and there's more on that here:

tons of resources on spring pruning, summer pruning, fall pruning all over the net. and most usually get into the whys and what not.

 

[Glaucus]

Akadama is a naturally occurring zeolite - the counter ion is the oxide material itself. Maybe the 4:1 is just the ratio of the +1 charge-compensating ions (80% potassium occupancy and 20% sodium). Akadama is largely clinoptilolite zeolite, which is an aluminosilicate material. It’s a Si(+4)O(-2)2 silica based material, that has some aluminum replacing silicon sites. Aluminum is present as Al(+3), which creates a negatively charged structure (+3 - 2(2)) = -1 for each Al replacing Si. The cation exchange capacity is the amount of these -1 sites, which are charge neutralized by bringing in +1, +2, +3 (possibly) ions of Na, K, Fe, Mg, and Ca into the pore structure of the zeolite framework. So you could have the 4:1 ratio of K to Na as cations - that would make more sense.

You would say that the Ca2+, K+, Fe2+, Mg2+, Ca2+ would all come from the mineral? and not from soluble fertilizer or tap water? My understanding if that a substate offers bonding sites on the surface. And that soluble ions would associate and disassociate in a aqueous environment. And that the ratios of these ions would depend on tap water and fertilizer. The different affinities of different ions with different bonding sites for different type of minerals is pretty high level.
Akadama is mostly silicon dioxide, aluminum oxide and iron(III)oxide . But not sure about the exact type of mineral.

As someone who did a 'chemistry' degree with zero anorganic chemistry (because it was filled with physics and life sciences instead), the way you can make endless minerals with just SiO2 and Al2O3 is pretty astonishing. But does one really need to test different types of zeolites, clays and pumices for their specific crystalline nature to determine if they have good CEC for plants? Aren't plants just able to grow in most of these because that is what plants do?

Is Akadama even crystalline? Is it not an amorphous solid or a mineraloid?

 

[FreshAirSunshine]

You would say that the Ca2+, K+, Fe2+, Mg2+, Ca2+ would all come from the mineral? and not from soluble fertilizer or tap water? My understanding if that a substate offers bonding sites on the surface. And that soluble ions would associate and disassociate in a aqueous environment. And that the ratios of these ions would depend on tap water and fertilizer. The different affinities of different ions with different bonding sites for different type of minerals is pretty high level.
Akadama is mostly silicon dioxide, aluminum oxide and iron(III)oxide . But not sure about the exact type of mineral.

As someone who did a 'chemistry' degree with zero anorganic chemistry (because it was filled with physics and life sciences instead), the way you can make endless minerals with just SiO2 and Al2O3 is pretty astonishing. But does one really need to test different types of zeolites, clays and pumices for their specific crystalline nature to determine if they have good CEC for plants? Aren't plants just able to grow in most of these because that is what plants do?

Is Akadama even crystalline? Is it not an amorphous solid or a mineraloid?

Akadama is crystalline. And you’re right about the exchange - it will swap out based on the energetics of the hydrated cation versus the surface-bound species (to some extent influenced by the degree of association with the salt anion). Different Al:Si contents of the same zeolite may have different acid concentrations and ion-exchange capabilities, different cation ratios potentially, different mesoporosity/nanostructures. With that in mind it’s not surprising that two people using “akadama” may see different results even if the particles are the same macroscopic size, etc…it’s simply not well-characterized.

That level of detail is probably way past what’s needed for bonsai, but it’s interesting to think about. Maybe that’s why some people swear by certain brands. It’s my understanding that the latest bout of “bad lava” may have also been attributed to an unusually large amount of a mineral component or element in a particular supply.