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 553 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 The thread may already be out of date.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 3 posts

Monday, March 18th 2013, 11:54am

by daniels

Elevation problems with hydraulic controls

If the controller worked in its current location, then the electric/hydraulic converter will work in the same location. In the case of the normally closed system, which is quite rare since the 1960's (anywhere in the world), water pressure from the controller will open the valve. Lack of pressure will cause it to stay closed. A leaking control tube will probably cause the valve to remain closed even when actuated by the controller.
Most hydraulic systems installed since the 60's were either Hydraulic Normally Open (HNO) or normally open pin-type (PT). Controllers, for both, release pressure from the valve tube through a drain at the controller to open the valve. The difference is that HNO has a supply source tube to pressurize the system. PT gets its water pressure directly from the valve. I am still repairing both normally open and pin-type systems in Spokane, Washington even though the end is in sight and they are somewhat compatible when combined in many systems (although it makes repairs more confusing).
The Hotmail account I have used for many years to answer personal questions, I am told by Microsoft, is about to be declared obsolete, so with permission, I would like to give this address as replacement danielssprinklersolutions@gmail.com. If anyone would like to contact me with questions I am very happy to reply.

Wednesday, August 29th 2012, 1:34pm

by Wet_Boots

Your most economical solution might be to replace all the hydraulic valves with modern ones, and employ a standard controller.

As it is, I wouldn't be inclined to worry about elevations. If the original valves worked with a controller at the proposed location, the replacement should be fine.

Wednesday, August 29th 2012, 2:32am

by superpapi

Replacement of a 40 years old failing Toro Hydraulic controller

Hello,
This is a call for help from the French Riviera.
To replace my failing Toro Hydraulic controller (dates back to 1972) for my PIN NC Type Toro valves I
found an alternative on the Sprinkler House site. That alternative is based on the following parts:
  1. ATMC-424 E controller with a TSM-8 expansion module or a TIS-12 ID controller
  2. The electric to hydraulic converter EHC-08-12 for NC valves.
Having read the description I am concerned by the EHC-08-12 description of because of the following
statement:

Normally closed:
Valve elevation should not exceed 0' (0m) above or 70' (21,3m) below controller elevation

My property is located on hill and if I define the controller’s place that cannot be changed as “Ground Zero” then my highest valve elevation is +23 feet (7 meters). As a consequence and if my understanding is
correct then the EHC-8-12 cannot be used in my environment. Please can you
confirm?
If confirmed can you propose an alternative allowing me to solve that problem?

Thanks in advance for your reply.
Rene