Site based plus tipping rain guage

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

  1. Wet_Boots

    Wet_Boots LawnSite Fanatic
    Messages: 50,754

    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"

  2. Kiril

    Kiril LawnSite Fanatic
    Messages: 18,335

    You need to get a clue Pete. You posted a link to the study. :hammerhead: 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.

    If you want to discuss something then provide the specific details on how the controllers were programmed .... otherwise you are pissing in the wind.
  3. Kiril

    Kiril LawnSite Fanatic
    Messages: 18,335

    Here Pete .... since you apparently missed this while you were looking at the pretty charts. 2010 Smart Controller Report 7-15-11.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. :rolleyes:

    Messages: 18,668

    Texas A&M University vs Kiril the splenetic anonymous internet pissant

    Texas A&M's credibility
    Centers and Institutes
    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)).

  5. Kiril

    Kiril LawnSite Fanatic
    Messages: 18,335

    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?
  6. Kiril

    Kiril LawnSite Fanatic
    Messages: 18,335


    Messages: 18,668

    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
  8. Wet_Boots

    Wet_Boots LawnSite Fanatic
    Messages: 50,754

    I dunno, I have more doubts about smart controllers than I have faith in Texas academians....

    Messages: 18,668

    It will certainly give you reason to keep your doubts. It covers several manufacturers controllers and the results are spotty.

    Here is the 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 ( 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.
  10. Kiril

    Kiril LawnSite Fanatic
    Messages: 18,335

    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.

    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.

Share This Page