View Single Post
  #46  
Old 08-06-2011, 05:46 PM
Kiril Kiril is offline
LawnSite Fanatic
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: District 9 CA
Posts: 18,325
Quote:
Originally Posted by FIMCO-MEISTER View Post
Once again not all the smart controllers offer all the parameters necessary to calculate the watering needs of any landscape whether they be virtual, in Big Bend, or in Nacogdoches. This was one of the points to the study.
Ummmm Pete .... I'm the one who pointed this out .... but nice try.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FIMCO-MEISTER View Post
Controllers that allow for more parameters combined with accurate tipping rain gauges and other onsite sensors outperformed controllers that depended on offsite weather data or had fewer parameters.
Gee Pete .... I have been saying that for years on this forum and I didn't need a modified SWAT protocol report from TAMU to tell me that ..... go figure. In fact, I have been criticized repeatedly by you for taking too many variables into consideration ..... now your tune changes because of a single TAMU report. Heck ... earlier this year you were on a crusade against all smart controllers .... especially the complex ones ..... now your tune is the more complex the better .... make up your damn mind!

Quote:
Originally Posted by FIMCO-MEISTER View Post
Instead of grouping all the controllers together and making an inaccurate statement that they performed well why don't you study it and determine which controllers performed the best.
Study what Pete? I read the reports ...... ALL OF THEM! In fact, I have been watching this study since it's inception.

For the last damn time, without details on how the controllers were programmed the results are meaningless to anyone in the field especially given no system operates at 100% efficiency.

Since you still apparently can't read the papers ....

http://itc.tamu.edu/documents/Comple...%207-15-11.pdf
A smart controller testing facility was established by the Irrigation Technology Center at Texas
A&M University in College Station in 2008 in order to evaluate their performance from an “end-
user” point of view. The “end-user” is considered to be the landscape or irrigation professional
(such as a Licensed Irrigator in Texas) installing the controller.
Now tell me Pete ..... would a qualified and professional end user tweak the controller per site conditions or not? Are you going to continue to maintain that details on how the controllers were programmed are unimportant? Let's take the WMSL for example. What would the effect be on the performance of the controller if you were to move the automatic rain delay from it's default to it's maximum setting? If you don't think these types of details are important then you have NO business discussing irrigation management because you are simply not qualified to do so .... which is a fact I was already very much aware of.

Last edited by Kiril; 08-06-2011 at 05:52 PM.
Reply With Quote
 
Page generated in 0.05332 seconds with 7 queries