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.

wsommariva

Supreme Member

Posts: 332

Location: Northern New Jersey

21

Monday, April 11th 2011, 7:21pm

I appreciate the help given by everyone here and don't doubt that the PVB is the better protection. However, I have a big concern about PVB gushing water out for hours until I get home and notice it. I can remove my auto drain valves and that will solve my current problem, probably. I want to install the DCVA for peace of mind. As far as contaminated water, my system covers less that 1,000 sq ft. I used 180 feet of poly tubing. With the auto drain valves I should have little water if any backflowing into my whole house filter with three seperate filters. I think the risk is low even with a DCVA failure. But I also want an ok from you guys/gals on this board.

Alternatively, how about a reduced pressure assembly? Febco for about $190.

Mitchgo

Supreme Member

Posts: 502

Location: Seattle

22

Monday, April 11th 2011, 7:29pm

lol.. I've installed many rp's below ground with 'eliberate ' drainages.. In My area. All houses that are lake front property must have a RP on the domestic service line. People pay good bucks to keep it out of sight

wsommariva

Supreme Member

Posts: 332

Location: Northern New Jersey

23

Tuesday, April 12th 2011, 8:26am

Yes I now realize that. I think I'll stick with the double check unit. In my case the risk is low. And I am uncomfortable with the PVB and potential floods. And it seems to be an adequate device although not the best perhaps.

Question about installation and testing. I'll install it vertically in this order. Water meter, sprinkler shut off valve, sprinkler drain and then the DCV. This ok?

To test it, if I turn the water off to the system after the meter, open the drain and then open the DCV unit, NO water should come out. Is this a good test?

Thank you

Wet_Boots

Supreme Member

Posts: 4,063

Location: Metro NYC

24

Tuesday, April 12th 2011, 11:50am

Yes I now realize that. I think I'll stick with the double check unit. In my case the risk is low. And I am uncomfortable with the PVB and potential floods. And it seems to be an adequate device although not the best perhaps.

Question about installation and testing. I'll install it vertically in this order. Water meter, sprinkler shut off valve, sprinkler drain and then the DCV. This ok?

To test it, if I turn the water off to the system after the meter, open the drain and then open the DCV unit, NO water should come out. Is this a good test?

Thank you
YOU ARE AN EFFING IDIOT !! ~ to do what you describe is, in New Jersey, to make your house unsaleable. I bet you'd remove the emergency brakes from your cars, because you believe there's a "low risk" of your brakes failing. Understand one important thing. If fate decides that it is your part to be the chump that a "backflow event" happens to, insurance companies will gut you like a fish.

Fix the existing system inadequacies. You put them in. Man up. Look in the mirror. Make it right. Don't go looking for any assent or compliments for your doing the wrong thing.

wsommariva

Supreme Member

Posts: 332

Location: Northern New Jersey

25

Tuesday, April 12th 2011, 12:55pm

I wouldn't say that. I respect your opinion and passion, (although I think you need to calm down and not call people fuc&(*ing idiots.) So much so that I will ensure to test the DCV unit carefully yearly. Also, if and when I sell the house I can simply re-install a PVB and tell the owner the downside of that unit. I don't think you read my explanations about my low risk, my concerns about the PVB, the fact that my township's ordinance on their website allows DCV units and the fact that my pressure problem is fixed. And, do you call everone a Fu*&ing idiot who now have a DCV unit and don't want to replace it?

wsommariva

Supreme Member

Posts: 332

Location: Northern New Jersey

26

Tuesday, April 12th 2011, 1:41pm

I just spoke to the plumbing inspector. He said that the double check valves are ok. You will most likely say that he is wrong, the web site ordinance is wrong, I'm wrong or a Fu&*(ing idiot, etc etc.

Bottom line, you seem to think the DCV units are crap, the PVB are the only way to go. At least one other person on this site seems to think that the DCV units are ok.

So, I'm sticking with the DCV unit. But, again, I do take your passion on the matter seriously and I apprciate your input. Call me a fu^&*ing idiot, doesn't bother me.

Wet_Boots

Supreme Member

Posts: 4,063

Location: Metro NYC

27

Tuesday, April 12th 2011, 1:52pm

Of course your town official is wrong. New Jersey did not change their building codes. You are too much of an idiot to actually visit your library and read the truth. It's there. They keep copies of codes and ordinances in the reference section. Only toxic-rated backflow is allowed. This is law. Even your chubby Governor can't give you an exemption. There are towns that are clueless about how the plumbing rules have changed. An official that learned his stuff in the 70's or 80's may not know it's a new deal these days. But insurance companies know. No one in their right mind makes himself a possible target over his nonsensical high opinion of his own do-it-yourself work.

-

PVBs work all the time without gushing water on a continuing basis, but most of them are installed by people that don't install screwed-up sprinkler systems that cause the supply pressure to drop too low. It's the zones that need to be fixed. Not the backflow prevention.

wsommariva

Supreme Member

Posts: 332

Location: Northern New Jersey

28

Tuesday, April 12th 2011, 2:16pm

Again, you don't read what I write. The system is fixed.

So if the inspector says DCV are ok, the town's web site says it's ok, you still think I'm an idiot, but not a Fu&*&*ing idiot, so I guess I'm doing better.

I'd rather have the DCV, it's easier to install. If you spent the time convincing me that it wouldn't gush water then I'd still have it installed.

So you're saying that if I remove my auto drain plugs I will not ever have gushing water, correct? How about when my town flushes hydrants, would that cause a problem?

And lastly, and I ask all the installers here, have you had any experiences where the PVBs have gushed water for hours for any of your customers? And what caused it?

wsommariva

Supreme Member

Posts: 332

Location: Northern New Jersey

29

Tuesday, April 12th 2011, 2:44pm

I think I'll indeed go with the PVB as it's a better device.

Do I need to remove my auto drain plugs?

Will my town's hydrant flushings cause a gushing problem?

I'll buy a Febco unit as my Toro plastic one is, well, plastic. Is there a better manufacturer?

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "wsommariva" (Apr 12th 2011, 2:52pm)


Wet_Boots

Supreme Member

Posts: 4,063

Location: Metro NYC

30

Tuesday, April 12th 2011, 4:03pm

Pros do not use the Toro PVB - we can get brass ones for not much more money. Although the Febco is going to be most common, the Wilkins 720 is physically stronger, and it's the one I prefer. Curiously enough, it is also the one PVB I commonly see that can spill water whenever the pressure drops very low. Not a problem on my own installs, with the exception of well-water systems with poorly performing wells, where there can be a pronounced dip in pressure when the system is first opened in the spring, at the point when I cycle from one zone to the next. (the PVB does not keep spilling water, but seals tight when the pressure goes back up)

-

More details about your particular system would help. If the only time your PVB spills, is when you cycle from one zone to the next, then you look to set up a delay between zones. That way the pressure is back up when the next zone activates. If the PVB spills when any zone is opened, then you have to deal with each problem zone, and you might as well start with the drains. If you didn't have drains to remove, the next thing to look at would be whether you could reduce the flow in the zone, by reducing nozzle sizes. The very last thing to try, short of redesigning the system to have more zones, with fewer heads on each zone, would be to have heads with built-in check valves, although that is more of a solution for sloped properties, as water will be draining from the lowest heads on a zone.

-

One more thought about a possibility for keeping the supply pressure up while cycling from zone to zone, is to throttle down the flow controls on each valve, if by chance you have flow controls on your zone valves.

Similar threads

Rate this thread