I should do catch cup tests, but I don’t see how that fits in here…
Another way to say this is if I have a single piece of lawn with two zones, those zones should be tied together to run on the same day, otherwise the border between the zones does not get as deep a watering as the rest of each zone. If each zone ran on a different day, that border area would get two half-deep waterings rather than the full deep watering the rest of each zone (with internal overlaps) got. Right?
You’re right. This only happens once a week or so, so it would probably take a while to get off.
A more realistic example is this:
I was working on a couple of sprinkler heads in Zone 1 and needed up manually running that zone for 6-8 minutes and not Zone 2 on the same lawn. Later that week, Zone 2 reached depletion and watered, but Zone 1 did not (since it was a little ahead). They weren’t too far off, so sometimes they’d probably run together and other times not (depending on their moisture graphs). I chose to get them back in sync by running Zone 2 manually until their moisture graphs were back at the same value. Awkward, but it worked
So, it seem like it would be nice to link some zones that have overlapping sections so they run on the same day. I realize that makes the per-zone moisture calculation weird and I don’t know the right way to deal with that. Hey, just come up with questions, I let others find the solutions!
@franz How does that happen exactly? I know a zone will not start watering if above water balance capacity, but what if that capacity is reached in the middle of a watering cycle? Will the zone prematurely stop once capacity is reached?
Sorry, saturation can actually go up to 50% based on soil type. It won’t stop running. Once depleted, will be schedule for run, and then won’t run again till balance goes back to zero.
Again I think you need to think about why someone would run a zone for more than a few minutes, Is it because the area is dry but the system is saying it is wet? Manual watering is the only other quick easy way to make correction to actual ground conditions vs system conditions other than the Empty/fill tool. If you allow the manual watering to impact the flex schedule you negate the infield corrections. To the argument of watering in fertilizer; Water as needed to water in the fertilizer, then make the correction if necessary with the empty/fill tool. I guarantee there are many more times quick easy corrections will need to be made throughout the season that should not affect flex than corrections do to a specific instance that should affect flex. This is an easy decision for me, Manual water Should NOT affect the Flex Schedule.
What about top dressing? I know I had to cycle soak my yard like hell before I top dressed given the mount of nitrogen that went down. Those were unautomated waterings that significantly impacted my soil moisture levels. I mean maybe you right, maybe we are both right, manual watering beyond a certain interval gets counted and the others dropped on the floor. It would be interesting to look at my manual events and evaptrAns and see if there is a reasonable pattern hiding in that data. I still think there is an opportunity to estimate the amount of manual water for the day and the evap loss and through out remainder under .01 inch.
@emil do you mean taking away the manual button? If that is the case I will become a sad panda, maybe a rabbid dog. If you need more convincing, I hope you become one obtuse sob.
@ETIrrigation, all valid points. We had users argue both sides, which is why I think some users recommended a slider to have more control over the moisture balance in these situations. In full transparency, no changes are planned for this functionality in the short term.
Nevertheless, great conversation. Keep the ideas and feedback flowing
This is exactly to my point, how many times did you top dress this season? Once maybe twice, how many times did one zone or multiple zones need a little adjustment (two ways to do this, manually in the field or through the empty/fill tool on the controller)? Unless your weather data, including rainfall, was 100% correct my guess is many more than once or twice. (In the mid west rainfall is usually the culprit, unless rainfall data is coming from a rain gage on the site)
Just providing you with some other reasons to your statement.
No kidding, I have never needed the adjust button, not once after beta but I have not had a head fail on me since I hooked up this hotness. And I don’t care if Emil validates that for you. for me, the system has truly been fire and forget. Maybe if I was super proactive I would have needed the adjust button to artificially push moisture levels up as there is effectively no transpiration after the scalp, only evap, but that is such a small percentage of what is loss so I didn’t care. But rain data has reported less than what I really received, so maybe I’ll have your problem when I install my own weather station next spring.
Maybe because I’m in the southeast, it never rains, it pours, so my soil reaches saturation at least 2 times a month, but even August didn’t present any problems for me or maybe your percip rate is configured too high, maybe your soil type is wrong or something else is wrong, or maybe the weather data for your area is really that bad, or maybe you are right, but the problem is not universal is what I’m really suggesting.
So I could see not counting the manual run, but maybe that needs to be configurable.
@plainsane, interesting idea. If I’m following this right, you’re referring to comparing the evap loss in real time to the manual run application?
Nope, no plans to remove any manual buttons
@ETIrrigation, that’s a fair argument I hadn’t considered when making that statement. Perhaps some sort of reconciliation tool could fix this?
That’s awesome to hear!
Interesting questions to consider – could any of the default settings we use be throwing off your zone data @ETIrrigation? Or do you think the issue is rooted in bad weather data that requires extra watering to correct?
Do you see this as a global setting to the account? i.e. all or nothing for manual runs?
Just taking the percip for manual runs, computer what the transevap lost of that water is for the day,many if the remainder is <= .01 inch, discard the entire percip. I think to start just assume the water sat on the yard the whole day, or whatever would compute the most loss.
@plainsane, I’ll run some numbers on this over the winter once things slow down. In short, this is very similar to effective rain calculations. Here’s a few resources for your reading pleasures:
Yea I would suspect that manually applied water gets the same treatment as rain but somehow I convinced myself that the absolute value gets added to the soil moisture.
I’m personally pleased with the way Manual water is currently being handled. Just trying to put out alternatives to the idea of not counting the manual watering because I DO believe that is the worst approach to a solution to this problem.
