Update on New Water Conservation Device
We've been playing with the new water saving device and noticed a couple of things.
We normally flush our lines prior to nozzle installation. We already have the spray head installed and flush through the orange flush cap at the top of the head. This flow is too great and the water saver shuts down before the line can be completely flushed.
Some contractors don't flush through the flush cap, but flush out the swing joint prior to head installation.
We'll just have to change the way we do things to accommodate the new device and so will others. I know people don't like change, but O well. If the benefits to the customer are worth it, contractors should learn to deal with it.
The lines will need to be completely flushed before water saver and spray or rotor head installation.
I know that you've already produced many units, but I'd like to make a suggestion for an updated design. The water saver device would work a lot better for us if the input side was female threaded and the output side was male threaded.
Here's why: My initial plan of installing the product directly into the threaded tee or 90 before the swing joint won't work because I need to flush the lines out without the device installed. This won't be an issue with those who don't use swing joints because they can flush straight out the threaded fitting, up into the air.
Our threaded fitting point sideways in the ditch and you have to flush them out through the swing joint otherwise water would flood the ditch and mud would enter the system. We are planning to install the device after the swing joint and directly before the head.
In order to use the current version of your product properly with swing joints, we are forced to use two extra fittings per head, not including the device itself. Right now we'll have to use a 1/2" threaded coupling to connect the input side of the device to the swing joint, and then have to use a small 1/2" closed nipple (riser) to connect the output side of it to the sprinkler head.
If this new product could have a "reverse" version" we would not have to use these two extra parts per head! The cost and time of two extra parts per head (average of 30 -50 heads per system) will really add up. This will probably be a major issue with contractors who use swing joints. Every system I've seen in Florida with systems that are 15 years old or newer have swing joints unless done by a homeowner.
I really think the current version of this product will do well, and if there is anyway to have a different version, it would be accommodating many modern contractors who use the same methods that I do.
I will continue to give more info...
Scott Young
http://www.autolawnsprinklers.com
We normally flush our lines prior to nozzle installation. We already have the spray head installed and flush through the orange flush cap at the top of the head. This flow is too great and the water saver shuts down before the line can be completely flushed.
Some contractors don't flush through the flush cap, but flush out the swing joint prior to head installation.
We'll just have to change the way we do things to accommodate the new device and so will others. I know people don't like change, but O well. If the benefits to the customer are worth it, contractors should learn to deal with it.
The lines will need to be completely flushed before water saver and spray or rotor head installation.
I know that you've already produced many units, but I'd like to make a suggestion for an updated design. The water saver device would work a lot better for us if the input side was female threaded and the output side was male threaded.
Here's why: My initial plan of installing the product directly into the threaded tee or 90 before the swing joint won't work because I need to flush the lines out without the device installed. This won't be an issue with those who don't use swing joints because they can flush straight out the threaded fitting, up into the air.
Our threaded fitting point sideways in the ditch and you have to flush them out through the swing joint otherwise water would flood the ditch and mud would enter the system. We are planning to install the device after the swing joint and directly before the head.
In order to use the current version of your product properly with swing joints, we are forced to use two extra fittings per head, not including the device itself. Right now we'll have to use a 1/2" threaded coupling to connect the input side of the device to the swing joint, and then have to use a small 1/2" closed nipple (riser) to connect the output side of it to the sprinkler head.
If this new product could have a "reverse" version" we would not have to use these two extra parts per head! The cost and time of two extra parts per head (average of 30 -50 heads per system) will really add up. This will probably be a major issue with contractors who use swing joints. Every system I've seen in Florida with systems that are 15 years old or newer have swing joints unless done by a homeowner.
I really think the current version of this product will do well, and if there is anyway to have a different version, it would be accommodating many modern contractors who use the same methods that I do.
I will continue to give more info...
Scott Young
http://www.autolawnsprinklers.com
posted by Irrigationman at
6:56 AM
<< Home