You are not logged in.

Reply

Dear visitor, welcome to SPRINKLER TALK FORUM - You Got Questions, We've Got Answers. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains how this page works. You must be registered before you can use all the page's features. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.

Attention: The last reply to this post was 4833 days ago. The thread may already be out of date. Please consider creating a new thread.

Message information
Message
Settings
Automatically converts internet addresses into links by adding [url] and [/url] around them.
Smiley code in your message such as :) is automatically displayed as image.
You can use BBCode to format your message, if this option is enabled.
Security measure

Please enter the letters that are shown in the picture below (without spaces, and upper or lower case can be used).

The last 5 posts

Saturday, February 12th 2011, 10:09pm

by Kiril (Guest)

14789

Quoted from "Wet_Boots"

Don't forget that water spreads horizontally once it hits the ground. Catch cans do not tell the entire story, since it is possible to have an area receive zero water, yet still thrive from the water landing half a foot away.


Damn Boots, you actually are listening to the stuff I post.

Monday, September 13th 2010, 6:39am

by Wet_Boots

Don't forget that water spreads horizontally once it hits the ground. Catch cans do not tell the entire story, since it is possible to have an area receive zero water, yet still thrive from the water landing half a foot away.

Sunday, September 12th 2010, 3:14pm

by Lou2221

You are correct, I should have said application rate, not coverage.

In one zone I placed six identical, numbered tuna cans evenly spaced within that 14' X 30' rectangular shaped area. I ran the the sprinkler for 30 minutes. I used a digital counting scale to measure the amount of water in each can and converted that to inches. The hourly result for each can was:
  1. 1.42"
  2. .92"
  3. .76"
  4. 1.44"
  5. 2.36"
  6. 2.22"
The cans were placed in the area so that 1 & 2 and 5 & 6 were at the ends, and 3 & 4 were in the middle.

Sunday, September 12th 2010, 2:33pm

by Fireguy97

RE: Coverage uniformity?

Quoted from "Lou2221"

How much variation should there in coverage for a given zone?

I had a new system installed for which I have accurately measured the coverage in each zone. In a few zones there is a difference of from over 2"/hr to less than 1/2"/hr (in a single zone, not between zones).

Is this acceptable? To me it's not.

Your wording/description is confusing me.

Are you asking about the difference in coverage or application? Coverage is square footage, and application rate is how much water is applied to a given area over a given time.


Then I'm not sure if you're asking about application rate(?) differences from each head inside of a zone, or different application rates in each zone.

It's perfectly acceptable to have different application rates in different turf zones. Sun/shade aspects, slope/flat, physical shape of area, size of area to be covered, turf type, and soil conditions will all change the watering requirements and needs for each zone.

What you should be looking for is consistent and even head-to-head coverage in each zone.

If zone 1 is evenly distributing 2” of water an hour, running for fifteen minutes, you get ½” inch of water over that area. If zone two is pushing out ½” of water per hour, running for one hour, your get the same amount of water as zone 1. Not a problem with that

Mick

Sunday, September 12th 2010, 1:01pm

by Lou2221

Coverage uniformity?

How much variation should there in coverage for a given zone?

I had a new system installed for which I have accurately measured the coverage in each zone. In a few zones there is a difference of from over 2"/hr to less than 1/2"/hr (in a single zone, not between zones).

Is this acceptable? To me it's not.