Site based plus tipping rain guage

[Kiril]

Originally Posted by SoCalLandscapeMgmt

frequency along with run time if needed.

These need weekly adjustment in SoCal? How are you determining this? Soil moisture mapping, historical ET along with site collected data, real time remote ET (cimis) in conjunction with site data, on-site environmental data collection and appropriate calculations .......

[SoCalLandscapeMgmt]

Originally Posted by Kiril

These need weekly adjustment in SoCal? How are you determining this? Soil moisture mapping, historical ET along with site collected data, real time remote ET (cimis) in conjunction with site data, on-site environmental data collection and appropriate calculations .......

No.... We just randomly pull numbers out of our a$$es and plug them into the controllers. Sometimes we throw darts at the dartboard out in the shop to pick run times as well. It seems to work quite well. The clients really appreciate the often huge and random spikes in their water bills as well.

[FIMCO-MEISTER]

Originally Posted by Kiril

Pete .... unlike you I actually read the studies ..... not just skimmed them. You can skip the copy and paste routine.

If the goal is to evaluate these controllers under "Texas conditions", then as I have already stated, they need to be field evaluated under typical field conditions found around the state.

Again .... if the goal is to conserve water .... then the majority of these controllers operating in this virtual landscape have performed admirably based on the latest report.

If the goal is to evaluate these controllers under "Texas conditions"

No "if" needed. "If" you are going to read stuff then quote it accurately.

The manufacturers make a standard controller for all areas of the country with parameters they feel make the controllers accurate in the necessary watering needs of the different landscapes. If it is accurate in College Station based on the manufacturer recommended settings then it should be just as accurate in Houston or Dallas based on the manufacturer's recommended settings. SOME controllers performed well in this study. THOSE controllers need to be brought to the attention of Texas cities. A virtual landscape works fine for this type of study as long as the sensors are exposed to the elements.

[Kiril]

Originally Posted by SoCalLandscapeMgmt

No.... We just randomly pull numbers out of our a$$es and plug them into the controllers. Sometimes we throw darts at the dartboard out in the shop to pick run times as well. It seems to work quite well. The clients really appreciate the often huge and random spikes in their water bills as well.

Are you going to answer the question or is all you are capable of is being a smart ass?

[Kiril]

Originally Posted by FIMCO-MEISTER

No "if" needed. "If" you are going to read stuff then quote it accurately.

Excuse me? Where did I misquote anyone?

Originally Posted by FIMCO-MEISTER

The manufacturers make a standard controller for all areas of the country with parameters they feel make the controllers accurate in the necessary watering needs of the different landscapes.

Wrong .... and that is the reason why you shouldn't be commenting on controllers. For example .... entering a zipcode makes the controller location specific.

Originally Posted by FIMCO-MEISTER

If it is accurate in College Station based on the manufacturer recommended settings then it should be just as accurate in Houston or Dallas based on the manufacturer's recommended settings. SOME controllers performed well in this study. THOSE controllers need to be brought to the attention of Texas cities. A virtual landscape works fine for this type of study as long as the sensors are exposed to the elements.

Again wrong. The assumption of 100% system efficiency invalidates this study as an accurate reflection of field performance.

[FIMCO-MEISTER]

Once again you are missing the point to the study because of your incessant need to be brilliantly dumb.

Some Texas cities and water purveyors are now mandating smart
controllers. If these controllers are to become requirements across the state, then it is important
that they be evaluated formally under Texas conditions.

The issue of being able to tweak a smart controller is not the purpose of the study. If you would like education on that I suggest you attend Guy Fipps water auditing course among others. The issue of the study is whether smart controllers can be considered a water conservation tool in Texas using the parameters and sensors provided by the manufacturer. If they don't then the manufacturers need to keep improving on the necessary parameters as they have done from previous studies. If the claim is that this is not possible then fine don't mandate them.

[SoCalLandscapeMgmt]

Originally Posted by Kiril

Are you going to answer the question or is all you are capable of is being a smart ass?

Let's be honest here. You don't care what answer I give you. You just want something to argue over in an attempt to display what you seem to feel is your superior knowledge on the subject. So I choose not to give you that option.
Posted via Mobile Device

[Kiril]

I see Pete ..... keep on reading the report so you can finally get it right. So you are insisting the parameters of the virtual landscape and assumptions made are an accurate reflection of landscapes and related irrigation systems across the state? If that is what you believe, then the only person who is being brilliantly dumb is you.

And again .... the majority of the controllers are conserving water. So why exactly have we revisited this topic again?

[Kiril]

Originally Posted by SoCalLandscapeMgmt

Let's be honest here. You don't care what answer I give you. You just want something to argue over in an attempt to display what you seem to feel is your superior knowledge on the subject. So I choose not to give you that option.

I fail to see the need for weekly adjustments in your region given CIMIS data does not indicate a need for weekly adjustments at this time of the year, hence the question how you are determining this need for weekly adjustments. Your refusal to answer the question just supports my initial belief that you are FOS and you are in fact pulling numbers out of your ass. No offense man .... but it would seem the only reason anyone would have to be on a commercial site every week is to mow & blow .... which puts you squarely into the meddling lawn boy category. Water and fertilize to justify the weekly stop .... please correct me if I am wrong.

Lets assume you are doing something like soil moisture monitoring ... which means you would need to be on site the day before every zones scheduled irrigation .... which is pretty damned unlikely.

[SoCalLandscapeMgmt]

Oh.... Gee Kiril. You really got me. You're so amazing that you can make such an assessment of me from a couple of posts on a message board. Now that the great Kiril has putted me as a meddling lawn boy I guess I should hang my head in shame and leave the industry!
Posted via Mobile Device