View Single Post
  #30  
Old 08-07-2011, 01:57 PM
Kiril Kiril is offline
LawnSite Fanatic
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: District 9 CA
Posts: 18,305
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcg View Post
That's for that system the way it's nozzled. That doesn't mean that will always be the case, I promise you I can build a PGP zone that will put down water at 2x the rate of the MPR also.
No one said you couldn't with a honking big nozzle, but then you also wouldn't be attempting to water the same area with MPR's .... at least I hope you wouldn't.

The point is, if you are comparing a single stream rotor to a MPR in a layout/design where they can be interchanged, most (not all) nozzles for the single stream rotor will have a PR lower than the MPR. No one in their right mind is going to design a system with MPR's when long range rotors would be more appropriate and economical .... therefore comparing high output rotor nozzles to the MPR is a pointless exercise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bcg View Post
At any rate, I'm pretty sure that when the manu's say that they use 1/3 less water, they mean compared to sprays, not rotors. MPRs are usually used in place of sprays and they are more efficient than sprays but also do require longer run times than sprays (about 2 - 3 times as long). Any place a traditional rotor can be used, it really should be.
Now that is true (see bold).
Reply With Quote
 
Page generated in 0.04427 seconds with 7 queries