- This topic is empty.
April 6, 2013 at 5:32 pm #22382
I recently stumbled upon OpenSprinkler when looking for an IP irrigation controller, and am looking forward to putting one to work in my yard.
I watched the videos about the hardware and programing as well as looked at the user manual. IF the controller operates as I understand, then I will it will be more difficult to implement a multiple start-time cycle that I currently experience with my recent-generation Orbit controllers.
Two of my irrigation circuits are used to water citrus trees. They typically run for 60 minutes during the summer months. I prefer to split this period into multiple cycles rather than in one continuous watering period, so the water is driven deeper rather than wider and more shallow. I see that I can specify that the cycle repeats every X hours, but I don’t see any way to limit the number of cycles other than adjusting the start time so the day ends before I exceed the number of cycles I want. I know multiple programs will handle this, but it makes for a lot of program clutter, and makes it more difficult to make seasonal changes in the watering schedule.
One way that comes to mind is to add another field to the program data so that a program specifies the number of times to repeat as well as the time between cycles. Another way is to allow multiple start times in a program. Either of these would increase the flexibility of the controller and reduce the complexity of the programming when a specific number of cycles are desired within a program.April 6, 2013 at 6:18 pm #23463
Note that each program also has an ‘end time’. For example, if the program starts at 8am, repeats every 4 hours, and ends at 4pm, then it will execute exactly 3 times: 8am, noon, and 4pm. So by changing the start/end time you can control the number of cycles.
Of course one limitation of this is it doesn’t do irregular intervals. For example, if you want the program to start at 8am, 10am, and then 4pm, you have to use at least 2 programs.April 6, 2013 at 11:32 pm #23464
Duh! I completely missed the fact that the TIME field specifies Start and End of the program period. I guess I assumed it was Start time only and I managed to ignore the extra fields. I can certainly live with the way it is.
But, IF there were a choice, I would prefer something like I mentioned, because specifying the number of cycles explicitly describes what you desire, with zero chance of error. Achieving the desired results through a calculation that implicitly defines them would be a distant second choice for me. As a user, the program end-time is one of things I don’t expect to have to care about (other than making sure the day doesn’t end before the cycle finishes).April 7, 2013 at 2:52 pm #23465
Yup, that makes sense. I agree it’s more intuitive to set the number of cycles directly rather than setting an end time (and it saves a byte too, since storing an end time requires a couple of byte more than number of cycles). So it’s on my todo list for the next software update. Thanks.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.