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 949 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 The thread may already be out of date.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 4 posts

Saturday, May 12th 2012, 11:39am

by Wet_Boots

Unless the maintenance man writes his own paychecks, there is someone over his head that can require that a proper pressure regulator(s) be installed.

Saturday, May 12th 2012, 11:30am

by Steve E

Thanks for the response. Am I correct in thinking the split valve was caused by me reducing the flow and there by increasing the velocity past the safe limits. This particular system has 98 static and is constantly splitting heads (rotors and sprays) at the threads. I cannot get the management to authorize a regulator, I just keep replacing heads every month or so. What makes things worse now, is the duty cycle has increased due to cycle soak programming (we have water restrictions). So I'm afraid that the time between replacements due to failure will be shorter now due to the three start program. That's why I did that to the DCV, trying anything to slow the constant head failure. I guess I don't understand the difference between slowing the flow in a flow control valve and partially closing a ball valve. I'm really just trying to do the best thing for my customers, but I don't want to cause more trouble by doing the wrong thing. If closing a ball valve is the wrong approach I need to know. I'll need facts so I can sell them on the idea that what they are doing is not the way to handle this excessive pressure. Sorry to be so thick about this, I'm trying to understand what is really happening in this case. Any help is appreciated.

Friday, May 11th 2012, 8:13pm

by Wet_Boots

a pressure reducer needs to go into the feed to the house, and the sprinkler system should get unrestricted pressure

a partially-shut ball valve is a problem waiting to happen

Friday, May 11th 2012, 9:05am

by Steve E

velocity question

Recently, I was at at a property where the maintenance man had reduced the source flow by closing the ball valve about half or so. He said that the high pressure was causing trouble with his toilets etc. My sprinkler is fed from this same (closed) valve and has always been a little weak. My question is about what is really going on when you do this. I think I understand the concept of increasing velocity through a restriction, but this has me wondering about handling high pressure this way. When you turn down a flow control valve handle to reduce fogging, is it the same as this? It may just be a coincidence but I reduced the flow at a DCV on another system I maintained and it split the valve on the next cycle. Did I increase the velocity to the point that it caused the damage? I replaced that valve and left the DCV full open for now. I would appreciate any help on understanding this.