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 2733 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 The thread may already be out of date.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 6 posts

Monday, June 4th 2007, 6:48pm

by burley

Thanks guys. Sounds like I'll have to go with the RPZ.

Monday, June 4th 2007, 10:39am

by Fertigation Guru

RPZ is definitely the way to go on this one. You do have to have them inspected annually, but it would be the simplest option for your situation.

Monday, June 4th 2007, 5:39am

by Wet_Boots

Who commanded the upstream pipe to be forever unbreakable? Use an RPZ at the point of connection, and it's job done, and everything beyond the RPZ is isolated from the drinking water.

Sunday, June 3rd 2007, 3:10pm

by burley

Why would protection of the pipe upstream of the AVB matter? We're talking about 40' of pipe between the valve and the AVB. There's another 100' or so of mainline that wouldn't be protected too. But why would that matter? Is the main concern that a backflow condition might occur at the same time as a pipe failure incident?


Friday, June 1st 2007, 3:19am

by Wet_Boots

I could only see an AVB as a retrofit item, and an inferior one at that, since all the pipe on the hill upstream of the AVB would not be protected.

Thursday, May 31st 2007, 9:06pm

by burley

backflow preventer for uphill zone

I have one uphill zone on a rather steep 40' slope. I understand I can use a reduced pressure principle (RPP) assembly, and I can afford the 15 psi pressure loss, but I'm concerned about the cost, complexity, and testing requirements.

I'm considering using one PVB for all the downhill zones and using an AVB on the top of the hill for the uphill zone. I know AVB's are frowned upon, but I know a lot of people (in Southern California at least) use anti-siphon valves which are really just a valve with an integral AVB. Is an AVB really any worse than an anti-siphon valve? I suppose I could use an anti-siphon valve, but I really don't want the wires exposed on the hill and I don't want to run a pressurized mainline up the hill either.

Are there any other options for dealing with an uphill zone?