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 3167 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 The thread may already be out of date.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 10 posts

Thursday, August 18th 2005, 4:47pm

by RidgeRun05

I gotcha. I guess I didn't realize the valves in question had flow control. I was assuming that he was replacing all of the valves with flow control valves. I understand now, thanks for the clarification.

Thursday, August 18th 2005, 2:42pm

by Wet_Boots

Adding a pressure regulating valve would be wasteful because the zone valves in this particular system already have flow controls that haven't been adjusted yet. With a static pressure of less than 80 psi, with a RPZ backflow besides, there is no high pressure the system needs protection against. Your standard brass pressure regulating valve has a very high pressure loss, in comparison to a pressure regulating solenoid valve. And even those are intended for a pressure drop of at least 10 to 15 psi. Maybe this system can afford the pressure drop. Maybe not. But to ignore the flow controls already there on the zone valves would be wasteful.

Thursday, August 18th 2005, 1:23pm

by RidgeRun05

Ok, suppose you don't have pressure regulated valves. Why would it be wasteful to install a pressure reducing valve on the mainline? Seems to me that it would be more cost effective than replacing the valves. As for the well over 100 PSI, I find that quite frequently irrigation installers will use a pressure regulating valve on the mainline over regulated valves almost every time. Which one is more likely to fail first? If a plastic valve gives way, or the pressure regulator is not set right, bam, there goes all of your heads and pipe about 200 feet into the air. A preset pressure regulator right off of the mainline near your point of connection is far more reliable. Most of them come preset anywhere from 50-70 PSI. Im sorry but I don't agree with you on that one, unless you can show me how it is more effective another way.

Thursday, August 18th 2005, 7:24am

by Wet_Boots

Depends on the layout. If I was looking for coverages only between 15 and 27 feet, I'd use the old Toro 300 Stream Rotor heads, which, by the way, have no distance adjustment whatsoever. But they are reliable.

Thursday, August 18th 2005, 5:33am

by sss25

Again, what's your thoughts on using I-20 for short radius from 14 to 27 feet?

Thursday, August 18th 2005, 5:32am

by sss25

Irrigation subject is very new to me and only knowledge I have about them are from reading books and web. I really appreciate comments from you all. The only reason I am here is because you pros are there. I do not want to make mistakes by doing the way I like it. Please provide me reasons for not doing something and I will get it. Like, when you said 100PSI is the range to use Pressure regulator, I understand that. I will try the flow control ajustments on the valves to see if I can get it down to reduce the PSI.

Thanks.

Thursday, August 18th 2005, 5:14am

by Wet_Boots

The only time a pro uses pressure regulation is when the supply pressure exceeds 100 psi by more than just a few psi. You can do anything you wish, whether or not it makes any economic sense, but adding pressure regulation in your situation is wasteful. If you want less distance from the existing heads, throttle down the flow controls on the zone valves. That's one reason why they're there. Don't ask questions about it, just go out and try the adjustments.

Thursday, August 18th 2005, 4:39am

by sss25

I might consider installing a pressure regulator (or ICV valve with accuset) on main line. This also will function as a master valve. ICV being a regular valve, if I am loosing too much pressure, I could take Accuset off the line and use it just as a master valve.

Regarding the I-20 radius, I went by the specifications provided by Hunter. They say I-20 is the one for all rotor. There are short radius nozzles available for I-20 which can go down to 17 feet. I am using the breakup screws on them to get down to 14 feet.

Wednesday, August 17th 2005, 2:32pm

by Wet_Boots

Unless the nozzles are blowing fog, just use the breakup screw on the rotors, or perhaps you need to install larger nozzles, to get a higher flow and lower pressure, with reduced spray distance as a result. If you were expecting the rotors to be spraying at radii of 14 to 27 feet, you have misread the performance charts. You normally are calling for a I-20 to spray 35 feet or even more.

Wednesday, August 17th 2005, 12:56pm

by RidgeRun05

You could just put a pressure regulator on your mainline right after your point of connection, and simply use the set screw on that to regulate your PSI. That would be cheaper than replacing all of your valves.