Register free!
Search
 
     

Click for Weather
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 08-05-2011, 04:05 PM
Wet_Boots's Avatar
Wet_Boots Wet_Boots is online now
LawnSite Fanatic
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: metro NYC
Posts: 39,644
I play through some U-Click games on a daily basis, and the scoring system for Jumble Jong keeps eight-letter words in mind, especially those with combinations of high-value letters.

Today, I got to use "Galoshes"

Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-05-2011, 07:10 PM
Kiril Kiril is offline
LawnSite Fanatic
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: District 9 CA
Posts: 18,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by FIMCO-MEISTER View Post
your opinion is pretty worthless because you have serious credibility issues with the real world. this latest July 2011 study has not been posted here.
You need to get a clue Pete. You posted a link to the study. Further, until you can post an opinion of tech that isn't based on where it is manufactured .... the only persons opinion who cannot be trusted here is yours.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FIMCO-MEISTER View Post
If you don't want to discuss it without behaving in your usual splenetic fashion then go over to the organic forum.
If you want to discuss something then provide the specific details on how the controllers were programmed .... otherwise you are pissing in the wind.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-05-2011, 07:24 PM
Kiril Kiril is offline
LawnSite Fanatic
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: District 9 CA
Posts: 18,323
Here Pete .... since you apparently missed this while you were looking at the pretty charts.

http://itc.tamu.edu/documents/Comple...%207-15-11.pdf
Programing smart controllers for specific site conditions continues to be a problem. Only two (2) of the eight (8) controllers tested could be programmed directly with all the parameters needed to
define each zone.
And yet I have not been able to find any specific details on how the controllers were programmed. It is however of no surprise to me you deem this detail insignificant.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-05-2011, 11:49 PM
FIMCO-MEISTER's Avatar
FIMCO-MEISTER FIMCO-MEISTER is offline
LawnSite Fanatic
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Red State America
Posts: 18,734
Texas A&M University vs Kiril the splenetic anonymous internet pissant

Texas A&M's credibility
Centers and Institutes
http://ci.tamu.edu/
Texas A&M University pursues teaching, research, and service at the exceptionally high levels expected of America’s great universities. Having achieved international recognition as a leading research and teaching institution and as one of only 62 invited members of the Association of American Universi*ties (AAU), Texas A&M is a top tier public research university.

In the realm of research, Texas A&M is well on its way to achieving its goals. Here are some recent rankings and assessments from the National Science Foundation (NSF), other influential organizations, and studies that illustrate the university's growing stature among institutions of higher education nationwide.

National Science Foundation
Texas A&M reported $630,655 million in the National Science Foundation Survey of Science and Engineering Research and Development Expenditures for 2009 and was ranked #20 nationally in the recently released Info Brief. By field of science, engineering led with $216,875 million in expenditures; life sciences and environmental sciences followed with $193,967 million and $130,662 million, respectively.

The Center for Measuring University Performance
Texas A&M is ranked in the top 20 nationally (#17 overall) in the Center's The Top American Research Universities 2010 report, with three performance measures in the top 25 nationally and four measures in the top 26-50 nationally. For example, Texas A&M is ranked #12 in National Merit & Achievement Scholars, #16 in endowment assets, and #18 in advanced training in the report.

The Center for Measuring University Performance collects data from over 600 institutions and determines the Top American Research Universities by their rank on nine different measures: Total Research, Federal Research, Endowment Assets, Annual Giving, National Academy Members, Faculty Awards, Doctorates Granted, Postdoctoral Appointees and SAT/ACT range.

Coyne/Summers/Williams Study
The Mays Business School's Department of Accounting Faculty was ranked #2 (taxation), tied for#1 (archival, tied with University of Chicago) and #1 (average ranking across all topical areas), in terms of publications and "intellectual capital created" by current faculty over the most recent six years, in a recent study (Coyne, J.G., S.L. Summers, and B. Williams, “Accounting Program Research Rankings by Topical Area and Methodology”). (Rankings are #1 among all public institutions and among Vision 2020 schools).

Podsakoff/Mackenzie/Podsakoff/Bachrach Study
The Mays Business School Department of Management ranked #6 world-wide (behind Harvard, Wharton, Stanford, Michigan, and Illinois), in terms of impact to the literature over a 25-year period, in a recent study (Podsakoff, P.M., S.B. MacKenzie, N.P. Podsakoff, and D.G. Bachrach, “Scholarly Influence in the Field of Management: A Bibliometric Analysis of the Determinants of University and Author Impact in the Management Literature in the Past Quarter Century,” Journal of Management (Volume 34, Issue 4, 2008), pp. 641-720)).

kiril?Whointhef*ckknows
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-06-2011, 10:03 AM
Kiril Kiril is offline
LawnSite Fanatic
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: District 9 CA
Posts: 18,323
What does any of that have to do with the study Pete? Can you answer the questions ..... or is all you are good for is irrelevant cut and paste?
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-06-2011, 10:15 AM
Kiril Kiril is offline
LawnSite Fanatic
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: District 9 CA
Posts: 18,323
Here you go Pete .... a book just for you.

http://www.texasclimate.org/Home/Imp...1/Default.aspx
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-06-2011, 11:19 AM
FIMCO-MEISTER's Avatar
FIMCO-MEISTER FIMCO-MEISTER is offline
LawnSite Fanatic
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Red State America
Posts: 18,734
Once again Kiril shows his I hate Texas side. This from the same guy who defended a left wing California professor that used incorrect data to claim turf added to climate warming.
Texas A&M did the study over three years. I took a course from the two authors of this report. I'm not going to waste my time arguing minutiae when I have full faith in the methods and accuracy of the report. I hope others will take the time to read the report to see its results and realize how inconsequential Kiril's comments are to the discussion.

So another FAILBLOG starring Kiril
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-06-2011, 11:39 AM
Wet_Boots's Avatar
Wet_Boots Wet_Boots is online now
LawnSite Fanatic
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: metro NYC
Posts: 39,644
I dunno, I have more doubts about smart controllers than I have faith in Texas academians....
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-06-2011, 11:45 AM
FIMCO-MEISTER's Avatar
FIMCO-MEISTER FIMCO-MEISTER is offline
LawnSite Fanatic
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Red State America
Posts: 18,734
It will certainly give you reason to keep your doubts. It covers several manufacturers controllers and the results are spotty.

Here is the summary.

SUMMARY
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. Controllers are tested using the
Texas Virtual Landscape which is composed of 6 different zones with varying plant materials,
soil types and depths, and precipitation rates.
This report summaries the results from the 2010 evaluations. Eight controllers were evaluated
over a 238 day period, from March 29 - November 22, 2010. Controller performance is analyzed
for the entire evaluation period as well as seasonally (spring, summer, fall). Controller
performance is evaluated by comparison to the irrigation recommendation of the TexasET
Network and Website (http://texaset.tamu.edu). This year, we introduce a new evaluate
methodology: irrigation adequacy in order to identify controllers which apply excessive and
inadequate amounts of water.
Programing smart controllers for specific site conditions continues to be a problem. Only two (2)
of the eight (8) controllers tested could be programmed directly with all the parameters needed to
define each zone.
The 2010 results showed an increase in controller performance compared to the Year One and
Year Two results. However, we continue to see controllers irrigating excessively; some irrigated
in excess of ETc even though 17 inches of rainfall fell during the study.
Total Irrigation Amounts
• When looking at total irrigation amounts for the entire landscape, one (1)
controller was within +/- 20% the recommendation of the TexasET Network for
five (5) stations
• Two (2) controllers applied greater than a simple ETc model (ETo x Kc, neglecting
rainfall) and one (1) controller was greater than ETo.
Adequacy Analysis

• No controllers were consistently able (across all 6 stations) to adequately meet the
plant water requirements throughout the entire season.
• The results showed inconsistency in performance by the 8 controllers, with three
(3) controllers irrigating excessive volumes and four (4) controllers irrigating
inadequate volumes.
• Two (2) controllers had five (5) stations irrigate adequate amounts and two (2)
controllers had four (4) stations irrigate adequate amounts.

Factors that could have caused over/under irrigation of landscapes are improper ETo calculations
and insufficient accounting for rainfall. Only three (3) controllers were equipped with “tipping
bucket” type rain gauges which actually measure rainfall. Two of these were consistency among
the top 3 performing controllers.
Based on 2010 performance, controllers which used onsite sensors for ET calculations irrigated
closer to the recommendations of the TexasET Network than those which operate on an ET
subscription. It was observed that controllers that used on site sensors more often produced
inadequate irrigation amounts compared to ET subscription controllers that generally produced
excessive irrigation amounts.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-06-2011, 12:02 PM
Kiril Kiril is offline
LawnSite Fanatic
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: District 9 CA
Posts: 18,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by FIMCO-MEISTER View Post
Once again Kiril shows his I hate Texas side. This from the same guy who defended a left wing California professor that used incorrect data to claim turf added to climate warming.
WTF are you talking about?

I gave you the link to the book because you believe anything that comes out of TAMU is gospel ..... therefore you must support the climate change consensus as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FIMCO-MEISTER View Post
Texas A&M did the study over three years. I took a course from the two authors of this report. I'm not going to waste my time arguing minutiae when I have full faith in the methods and accuracy of the report. I hope others will take the time to read the report to see its results and realize how inconsequential Kiril's comments are to the discussion.
First off .... the study is currently in it's fourth year.

Second, the quote I provided from the authors demonstrates why you can't compare the controllers against each other in this report.

Third, all of these controllers can be tweaked to produce better results .... hence the need to see the specific details of how the controllers were programmed. Why are these details not included in an appendix?

Fourth, bench testing against virtual landscapes has inherent drawbacks and the values chosen for these virtual landscapes are subject to question.

Fifth, the study parameters and methodology has not been consistent throughout.

Finally, given water conservation is the goal here, and inadequate irrigation was the predominant result in the most recent summary report .... I would say the majority of the controllers are doing their job ..... conserving water.

Oh ... and btw .... based on your high praise and recommendation of the WMSL I installed quite a few of these controllers ..... and have subsequently lost well over $1000 in warranty work troubleshooting and replacing those controllers. So what does that leave me (and everyone else) with? Your recommendations and opinions with regard to controllers and subsequently anything related to irrigation management are worthless.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump






Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1998 - 2012, LawnSite.comô - Moose River Media
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:20 PM.

Page generated in 0.12883 seconds with 8 queries