Site based plus tipping rain guage

Discussion in 'Irrigation' started by FIMCO-MEISTER, Aug 5, 2011.

  1. Kiril

    Kiril LawnSite Fanatic
    Posts: 18,298

    These need weekly adjustment in SoCal? How are you determining this? Soil moisture mapping, historical ET along with site collected data, real time remote ET (cimis) in conjunction with site data, on-site environmental data collection and appropriate calculations .......
     
  2. SoCalLandscapeMgmt

    SoCalLandscapeMgmt LawnSite Bronze Member
    Posts: 1,746

    No.... We just randomly pull numbers out of our a$$es and plug them into the controllers. Sometimes we throw darts at the dartboard out in the shop to pick run times as well. It seems to work quite well. The clients really appreciate the often huge and random spikes in their water bills as well.
     
  3. No "if" needed. "If" you are going to read stuff then quote it accurately.

    The manufacturers make a standard controller for all areas of the country with parameters they feel make the controllers accurate in the necessary watering needs of the different landscapes. If it is accurate in College Station based on the manufacturer recommended settings then it should be just as accurate in Houston or Dallas based on the manufacturer's recommended settings. SOME controllers performed well in this study. THOSE controllers need to be brought to the attention of Texas cities. A virtual landscape works fine for this type of study as long as the sensors are exposed to the elements.
     
  4. Kiril

    Kiril LawnSite Fanatic
    Posts: 18,298

    Are you going to answer the question or is all you are capable of is being a smart ass?
     
  5. Kiril

    Kiril LawnSite Fanatic
    Posts: 18,298

    Excuse me? Where did I misquote anyone?

    Wrong .... and that is the reason why you shouldn't be commenting on controllers. For example .... entering a zipcode makes the controller location specific.

    Again wrong. The assumption of 100% system efficiency invalidates this study as an accurate reflection of field performance.
     
  6. Once again you are missing the point to the study because of your incessant need to be brilliantly dumb.

    Some Texas cities and water purveyors are now mandating smart
    controllers. If these controllers are to become requirements across the state, then it is important
    that they be evaluated formally under Texas conditions.


    The issue of being able to tweak a smart controller is not the purpose of the study. If you would like education on that I suggest you attend Guy Fipps water auditing course among others. The issue of the study is whether smart controllers can be considered a water conservation tool in Texas using the parameters and sensors provided by the manufacturer. If they don't then the manufacturers need to keep improving on the necessary parameters as they have done from previous studies. If the claim is that this is not possible then fine don't mandate them.
     
  7. SoCalLandscapeMgmt

    SoCalLandscapeMgmt LawnSite Bronze Member
    Posts: 1,746

    Let's be honest here. You don't care what answer I give you. You just want something to argue over in an attempt to display what you seem to feel is your superior knowledge on the subject. So I choose not to give you that option.
    Posted via Mobile Device
     
  8. Kiril

    Kiril LawnSite Fanatic
    Posts: 18,298

    I see Pete ..... keep on reading the report so you can finally get it right. So you are insisting the parameters of the virtual landscape and assumptions made are an accurate reflection of landscapes and related irrigation systems across the state? If that is what you believe, then the only person who is being brilliantly dumb is you.

    And again .... the majority of the controllers are conserving water. So why exactly have we revisited this topic again?
     
  9. Kiril

    Kiril LawnSite Fanatic
    Posts: 18,298

    I fail to see the need for weekly adjustments in your region given CIMIS data does not indicate a need for weekly adjustments at this time of the year, hence the question how you are determining this need for weekly adjustments. Your refusal to answer the question just supports my initial belief that you are FOS and you are in fact pulling numbers out of your ass. No offense man .... but it would seem the only reason anyone would have to be on a commercial site every week is to mow & blow .... which puts you squarely into the meddling lawn boy category. Water and fertilize to justify the weekly stop .... please correct me if I am wrong.

    Lets assume you are doing something like soil moisture monitoring ... which means you would need to be on site the day before every zones scheduled irrigation .... which is pretty damned unlikely.
     
  10. SoCalLandscapeMgmt

    SoCalLandscapeMgmt LawnSite Bronze Member
    Posts: 1,746

    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
     

Share This Page