Site based plus tipping rain guage

[FIMCO-MEISTER]

Once again not all the smart controllers offer all the parameters necessary to calculate the watering needs of any landscape whether they be virtual, in Big Bend, or in Nacogdoches. This was one of the points to the study. What the controllers have available is all those manufacturers feel are necessary to be generally accurate in any landscape environment. Controllers that allow for more parameters combined with accurate tipping rain gauges and other onsite sensors outperformed controllers that depended on offsite weather data or had fewer parameters. Instead of grouping all the controllers together and making an inaccurate statement that they performed well why don't you study it and determine which controllers performed the best.
Posted via Mobile Device

[FIMCO-MEISTER]

Originally Posted by 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

Yes and Texas A&M should toss out a 3 year study because of one Kiril post.

[Kiril]

Originally Posted by 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!

Well Gee dude .... you can't answer a simple question, can't/won't provide any information, but instead just smart ass comments, so what else am I supposed to think? The fact of the matter is I am curious why you need weekly adjustments in your area and how you are determining this given I know from ETo data that you don't need weekly adjustments at this time of the year.

So continue on with your smart ass comments since that is all you seem capable of.

[SoCalLandscapeMgmt]

Originally Posted by Kiril

Well Gee dude .... you can't answer a simple question, can't/won't provide any information, but instead just smart ass comments, so what else am I supposed to think? The fact of the matter is I am curious why you need weekly adjustments in your area and how you are determining this given I know from ETo data that you don't need weekly adjustments at this time of the year.

So continue on with your smart ass comments since that is all you seem capable of.

I will.....it's actually kind of amusing to F#&@ with you man.....

[Wet_Boots]

Absent any onsite instrumentation, what would make a good tell-tale for watering needs? (the canary in the cage, so to speak)

[Kiril]

Originally Posted by FIMCO-MEISTER

Once again not all the smart controllers offer all the parameters necessary to calculate the watering needs of any landscape whether they be virtual, in Big Bend, or in Nacogdoches. This was one of the points to the study.

Ummmm Pete .... I'm the one who pointed this out .... but nice try.

Originally Posted by FIMCO-MEISTER

Controllers that allow for more parameters combined with accurate tipping rain gauges and other onsite sensors outperformed controllers that depended on offsite weather data or had fewer parameters.

Gee Pete .... I have been saying that for years on this forum and I didn't need a modified SWAT protocol report from TAMU to tell me that ..... go figure. In fact, I have been criticized repeatedly by you for taking too many variables into consideration ..... now your tune changes because of a single TAMU report. Heck ... earlier this year you were on a crusade against all smart controllers .... especially the complex ones ..... now your tune is the more complex the better .... make up your damn mind!

Originally Posted by FIMCO-MEISTER

Instead of grouping all the controllers together and making an inaccurate statement that they performed well why don't you study it and determine which controllers performed the best.

Study what Pete? I read the reports ...... ALL OF THEM! In fact, I have been watching this study since it's inception.

For the last damn time, without details on how the controllers were programmed the results are meaningless to anyone in the field especially given no system operates at 100% efficiency.

Since you still apparently can't read the papers ....

http://itc.tamu.edu/documents/Comple...%207-15-11.pdf

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.

Now tell me Pete ..... would a qualified and professional end user tweak the controller per site conditions or not? Are you going to continue to maintain that details on how the controllers were programmed are unimportant? Let's take the WMSL for example. What would the effect be on the performance of the controller if you were to move the automatic rain delay from it's default to it's maximum setting? If you don't think these types of details are important then you have NO business discussing irrigation management because you are simply not qualified to do so .... which is a fact I was already very much aware of.

[Kiril]

Originally Posted by SoCalLandscapeMgmt

I will.....it's actually kind of amusing to F#&@ with you man.....

.... and at your own expense .... continue on dude.

[SoCalLandscapeMgmt]

Originally Posted by Wet_Boots

Absent any onsite instrumentation, what would make a good tell-tale for watering needs? (the canary in the cage, so to speak)

You just have to be awesome like Kiril. I wouldn't even try to figure it out Boots. Unless you're all knowing like him you'll never get it right and you're just a hack.

[Wet_Boots]

C'mon, work with us, dude. Sure, enjoy the squabbling, but try to add a bit to the knowledge base.

[FIMCO-MEISTER]

Originally Posted by Kiril

Study what Pete? I read the reports ...... ALL OF THEM! In fact, I have been watching this study since it's inception.

I'm calling bullshit on this one. Watching it from inception? My azz.

I'm also calling you out for misrepresenting my argument concerning smart controllers. I have never said a smart controller can't be a good tool for a water manger. I've said that cheap chinese smart controllers being installed in non-managed situations is a recipe for disaster. Casting false aspersions means you have a delusional memory or you are unethical. Which is it?

For the rest of you this is an excellent report done by an outstanding university with all the elements necessary to do a fair evaluation of the ten controllers used in this study. If you want to be misled by Kiril's ranting then power to you. I'd still read the study and judge for yourself. What Kiril has to say about it is totally irrelevant in my opinion.

The controllers reviewed.