MP Rotator vs Single Stream Rotor

[txirrigation]

Originally Posted by Wet_Boots

Are you speaking of the Toro 300 series Stream Rotor? Or maybe the V-1550?

I am not too sure, it was a multi stream nozzle that had click adjustments from 1/4, 1/2, 3/4. It had a tool (plastic wrench) with it to help click between. It is supposed to be gear driven so it does not spin really fast like the RainBird/Hunter Multi Streams in higher psi situations.

I didn't have much time to look at it, and have not read anything on it.

[Wet_Boots]

Originally Posted by txirrigation

I am not too sure, it was a multi stream nozzle that had click adjustments from 1/4, 1/2, 3/4. It had a tool (plastic wrench) with it to help click between. It is supposed to be gear driven so it does not spin really fast like the RainBird/Hunter Multi Streams in higher psi situations.

I didn't have much time to look at it, and have not read anything on it.

Find it, and post a link.

[Kiril]

Originally Posted by txirrigation

"Dude," I was comparing them because they were similar GPM.

I would say all the same things about a PGP-R2 as a R7

The reason you don't care "Dude" is because I just dont say I know what I am talking about, I have taken the steps to get licensed to PROVE I know what I am talking about. And no, just because I have a license doesnt mean I am an expert. The experinced gained over 100's of installs means I am an expert.

Again .... don't care. I have audit numbers sitting in front of me on a MPR system and a PGP system, and guess what ..... it is taking twice as long to put down the same amount of water for the PGP system than the MPR system. So you can say what you want, and make all the claims you want, but the numbers don't lie.

[ArTurf]

Originally Posted by txirrigation

What do you guys think?

In my experince many customers end up running the MPR so much longer that the water savings by the design goes null. Seems like I also get more coverage complaints on the MPR's. I space the 3000's @ 25', 2000 @ 17' (although they are pretty good at 20), and I do not use the 1000's bc they dont work that great.

Also if the customer does not keep the grass cut, the grass blades KILL the MPR streams while the single stream seems to perform OK in long grass. Although the grass should be cut to keep it under the riser hight, we all know the "I mow once every 3 weeks/month customer." Then they wonder why the grass is soooo grean by the sprinkler head, and dead out in the yard.

All this being said, the MPR definitly has advantages. If the customer cuts the grass and understands the concept, they will have much more uniformly green grass with the MPR.

I always try to gauge the home owner before I suggest one or the other.

I like the MP's if the situation is right (spacing within the range and right pressure). See the post I started about MP spacing. I don't like to knock regulars rotors down to say 25' when they would normally spray 35'. I feel this results in a poorer distribution pattern and more misting.

As far as run times if you are using a 2-4 gpm nozzle in a regular rotor then the precipitation rate is similiar to the MP. In reality the MP does not save water in that it takes a certain amount of water to cover an area no matter what head you are using. I feel it makes more efficient use of water by less vaporization in the before mentioned situations.

I never use 4" heads on MP's or sprays for new installation, always at least 6". One reason my bids are probably higher than my competitors. I have seen the grass overcome the riser height of a 4" head even in well kept lawns. If you are using 6" heads and the customer is letting the grass overcome them turn the system on so they can visually see this. If they can't get it then I guess there's not much more you can do. I always put a note on the bill about things like this so I can say "I informed you" if they bring it up again.

[FIMCO-MEISTER]

Have you or TXI tried the low angle rotor nozzles? I think they do a better job in wind that any nozzle that is spraying 25' plus. They also do a nice job picking up the edges.
Just be curious to hear what you guys think. The LA comes standard on the RB 5000 but you need to request them for the pgp.

I notice RB has added a new rotor 5500 that they say can go down to 17'.

[Kiril]

Originally Posted by FIMCO-MEISTER

Have you or TXI tried the low angle rotor nozzles? I think they do a better job in wind that any nozzle that is spraying 25' plus. They also do a nice job picking up the edges.
Just be curious to hear what you guys think. The LA comes standard on the RB 5000 but you need to request them for the pgp.

I notice RB has added a new rotor 5500 that they say can go down to 17'.

According to TXI and TX law ..... you FAIL with a single drop of water on the hardscape/buildings, so you might as well forget any single stream rotor in areas that are bordered by hardscape and buildings. For all the whining and complaining about edge performance of the MPR, I sure would like to see anyone on this forum edge water hardscape with a standard single stream rotor without getting a single drop of water on the hardscape.

[bcg]

Kiril, that's not true. The law says that overspray should be minimized, not eliminated. From 344.63(g) of the code (http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/assets/p...uid_063008.pdf) -

"(g) Irrigation systems shall not spray water over surfaces made of concrete, asphalt, brick, wood, stones set with mortar, or any other impervious material, such as, but not limited to, walls, fences, sidewalks, streets, etc."

This says we can't spray over it, not that we can't touch it. Enforcement of "no water allowed to touch hard surfaces" is overzealous interpretation and enforcement by the inspector. I've clarified this with TCEQ on more than one occasion and the intent of that paragraph is to prevent the systems where rotors are intentionally spraying over sidewalks, etc., not to stop any edge overspray.

[Kiril]

Originally Posted by bcg

Kiril, that's not true. The law says that overspray should be minimized, not eliminated. From 344.63(g) of the code (http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/assets/p...uid_063008.pdf) -

"(g) Irrigation systems shall not spray water over surfaces made of concrete, asphalt, brick, wood, stones set with mortar, or any other impervious material, such as, but not limited to, walls, fences, sidewalks, streets, etc."

This says we can't spray over it, not that we can't touch it. Enforcement of "no water allowed to touch hard surfaces" is overzealous interpretation and enforcement by the inspector. I've clarified this with TCEQ on more than one occasion and the intent of that paragraph is to prevent the systems where rotors are intentionally spraying over sidewalks, etc., not to stop any edge overspray.

Tell that to TXI ... he's the one who said not a single drop of water can get on hardscapes or buildings in order to pass inspection.

[bcg]

Originally Posted by Kiril

Again .... don't care. I have audit numbers sitting in front of me on a MPR system and a PGP system, and guess what ..... it is taking twice as long to put down the same amount of water for the PGP system than the MPR system. So you can say what you want, and make all the claims you want, but the numbers don't lie.

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.

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.

[Kiril]

Originally Posted by bcg

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.

Originally Posted by bcg

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).