You are not logged in.

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.

21

Saturday, May 13th 2006, 5:55pm

Wow, I don't know what to say. Are you saying to cut back the distance on a rotor so it performs like a spray head? I'm just spitballin, but I think that might be a waste of money. Hey, if you poke enough holes in your garden hose, you can run that at the same time as your rotors and sprays too.

Wet_Boots

Supreme Member

Posts: 4,054

Location: Metro NYC

22

Saturday, May 13th 2006, 11:24pm

People cut back on rotor spray distance for a number of reasons. A rotor spraying 25-30 feet is less effort to install than the equivalent number of sprayheads, and might accomplish something the sprayheads couldn't, like spraying over some obstacle too high for a sprayhead to clear.

brad44

Active Member

23

Sunday, May 14th 2006, 8:29pm

49'x 82', unless you've got a tremendous amount of PSI, at least 50 would be ideal to start, I don't think 6 will cut it. At the very least 8 on the edges to get the job done with proper coverage. If you've got the pressure then 6 could do it, but the heads had better be either a Rain Bird Falcon/7500 series or Hunter I-25/I-40 series. X factors include hills and trees.

Wet_Boots

Supreme Member

Posts: 4,054

Location: Metro NYC

24

Sunday, May 14th 2006, 9:51pm

Just cut down every tree that you ever encounter, and the mathematical perfection of your head-to-head layouts will be ensured. While you're at it, insist that all slopes be regraded to near-flat perfection. Because, as has been vigorously expounded, the sprinkler layout is the all-important concern, and no others need apply.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, all those triangular-spacing layouts are still covering their lawns. One can be reminded of all the aeronautical analysis that was done in respect to the flight of a bumblebee, and how the scientists would claim that their calculations insisted the bumblebee could never fly.

Funny thing, if you get your hands on some older manufacturer's catalogs, you will see their technical sections describing system layouts with triangular spacing, and not head-to-head square spacing. Kind of makes you wonder when they figured out that a change in layout philosophy would sell more sprinkler heads.

Tom

Supreme Member

25

Monday, May 15th 2006, 4:16am

You'll still get head to head coverage with triangular spacing if your spacing at 50% of diameter (like you would with square spacing). Many older systems that used triangular spacing simply streched the spacing to 60% or even to 80% of diameter. So these systems had very poor uniformity. All one had to do was up the time on the controller as an easy fix-but that wastes water.

Wet_Boots

Supreme Member

Posts: 4,054

Location: Metro NYC

26

Monday, May 15th 2006, 6:09am

I don't have any old manuals around, but I know for a fact that they did not recommend head-to-head triangular spacing. The 20 foot spacing on the old all-brass sprays would work out to around 70 percent. Those systems worked. They worked extremely well.

As for the wasting of water, I would want to see genuine proof of that. Side-by-side comparisons of identical properties. Not just conjecture and speeches. Every time a tree gets in the way of someone's 'perfect' head-to-head layout, some of the lawn doesn't get its share of water. Would you install extra sprinklers to make up for it? Cut down all the trees? Or maybe run the zone for the extra time needed for the area getting the least water to receive what it needs? The last option is the one that works in the real world, however the water usage is affected.

Rate this thread