|
#41
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#42
|
||||
|
||||
|
I could see using three 240-degree nozzles, to even out the overlap.
|
|
#43
|
||||
|
||||
|
I still like the multiple Netafim rings.
|
|
#44
|
||||
|
||||
|
Why not use drip (either inline emitter tubing or individual emitters evenly spaced around the treewell)? Why spend the money on spray heads and bubblers? Drip components are cheap, provide a ton of flexibility with emission rates, and can be added on to or deducted from if water requirements change.
|
|
#45
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mike,
I like the idea of using bubbler nozzles on a pop-up head for this project. Consider digging some wells around the trees to assure that they retain water. I personally don't like the Rain Bird 1400 series bubblers and I hate the fact they require a pa-80 adapter to work with a spray head. And after that they stick up. I much prefer the Hunter bubbler nozzles because they retract into the spray head body like a normal nozzle does. It also protects it and keeps it clean. They are also pressure compensating and come in multiple GPM's http://www.hunterindustries.com/irri...ubbler-nozzles If I was doing this I would do two or three .25 or .5 GPM nozzles per tree and set it up as flood irrigation. |
|
#46
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
So there's no right answer to this question, I guess I need to really weigh the options and pic the best way to go.
__________________
Scag, Exmark, Honda, Shindaiwa, Redmax. Commercial and residential Lawncare, Irrigation (LI and BPAT), and Landscaping. Fully insured. Mikegyver Pics Thread Quote:
|
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
















Linear Mode
