MP Rotator vs Single Stream Rotor

Discussion in 'Irrigation' started by txirrigation, Aug 6, 2011.

  1. txirrigation

    txirrigation LawnSite Senior Member
    from Texas
    Posts: 977

    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.
     
  2. Wet_Boots

    Wet_Boots LawnSite Fanatic
    Posts: 46,910

    Find it, and post a link.
     
  3. Kiril

    Kiril LawnSite Fanatic
    Posts: 18,298

    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.
     
  4. ArTurf

    ArTurf LawnSite Gold Member
    Male, from Ark
    Posts: 3,412

    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.
     
  5. 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'.
     
  6. Kiril

    Kiril LawnSite Fanatic
    Posts: 18,298

    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. :rolleyes:
     
  7. bcg

    bcg LawnSite Bronze Member
    from Tx
    Posts: 1,835

    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/...rrigation/forms_li/rulesforregguid_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.
     
  8. Kiril

    Kiril LawnSite Fanatic
    Posts: 18,298

    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.
     
  9. bcg

    bcg LawnSite Bronze Member
    from Tx
    Posts: 1,835

    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.
     
  10. Kiril

    Kiril LawnSite Fanatic
    Posts: 18,298

    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.

    Now that is true (see bold).
     

Share This Page