SPRINKLER TALK FORUM - You Got Questions, We've Got Answers

Quoted from "Wet_Boots"

Strictly from an energy-consumption standpoint, these toys are wasteful. Standalone sprinkler controllers are very low-energy devices, as befits something that might have the need for extended battery-powered timekeeping during power failures. If you want to do it right, use a standard controller, and investigate one of these toys as an add-on.

How do you come to that conclusion? I only see a 24v power supply listed without any details.

The computer that runs my entire saltwater reef pulls 4-6w (network, webserver, etc), similar size roughly.

Looks like it uses NVRAM (so the config is never lost, no matter how long it's down) and being that it's network connected time is irrelevant (NTP should just update the time automatically).

I sent them a note from their website with a few questions on Thursday, no response yet....

Installed my first zone (front) today... good to see SC is full of rock lawns just like OH

Received the item today, and am pretty happy. It's easily 1/6th the size of my old rainbird unit I used. Network, rain sensor, master control valve, the works. While I'm more than your average homeowner network/computer wise, it was only 5 minutes from the time I plugged in the power to the unit to standing in my front yard manually flipping through the zones checking valves in my front yard via my phone. Very simple setup.

One down side for those with "fat fingers", arthritis, or a little less nimble. The screws are very small and due to the size of the unit the contacts are quite close to one another. It was far from impossible, but not the easiest to get all the wires into place.

With all the intelligence built into this controller, I would have expected to be able to renumber the zones. You can name the zones, but in any given program you can still only run from number 1 to number 10 (you can have zones with zero minutes, i.e. skip). You can't run 2, 4, 3, 8, 5, etc. Seems like something that would have been very easy to include. Granted you can always run multiple programs to get the same function. I had to go back and change two of the connections to match the order I wanted.

Power wise, it pulls 5w and .08a when a program is running, and an incredibly wasteful (yes sarcasm ) 1w and .03a when idle. I'm sure that is as good if not better than my old junky (in comparison) rainbird I had at my last residence. Technology has passed it by for those that want to embrace it.

We'll see how the operations and stability work over the next month or so. I'll report back if I run into any issues.

Quoted from "Wet_Boots"

I still don't see getting around the need to install a conventional controller when the house goes up for sale.

I have to be honest, I don't understand at all the point you're trying to make. Remember, this doesn't require anything fancy or "crazy modern" like smartphone (sarcasm), I did it because I could. All it requires is a computer and benefits from a home network (wireless or not). Almost anyone with Internet access (almost the entire US population including you) has that at their fingertips. Even if they're so anti-technology they don't want the controller, a cheap conventional controller is the least of my concerns (not that we have plans of moving anytime soon). Your typical paint job to spruce up a house just to increase inside/outside curb appeal is 10-20x that price easy. It's not like I installed something that runs and operates in German and you need a translator or a course at your local college, even mother who is "dangerous" on a computer could work this thing.

Again, I completely understand your personal want to not install these at customer sites from a support perspective. Perhaps you're trying to imply an ongoing support issue with a sprinkler maintenance contract. For that I would state that of all the people I know that have sprinklers (20 or so maybe), I only know of one that is 100% hands off and requires a company to make any changes. If said company was not willing to work on the controller, I guarantee there is someone else that will. I guess I just don't understand the thought process that any significant portion of the population under say 70 would prefer to have a perfectly functional more modern piece of hardware replaced at an expense for something that is older and serves the same function is perplexing. I bow down to your obvious knowledge of all things irrigation (serious), but it seems like you're scared of change and think that everyone else is too. Seriously no offense meant, but I don't understand the thought process at all.