Stand alone sprinkler controller or ELK M1?

[Jeepasaurus]

Currently I have a stand alone sprinkler controller (made by Hunter) and I just recently purchased the Elk M1 and I'm fascinated with all the features. It looks fairly simple to hook up a sprinkler system with the output expander and then set a "task" to water the yard. I only have a 5 zone sprinkler system, nothing huge.

I'm wondering how many of you use the Elk to control your sprinkler system?
What would be the advantage of using the Elk M1 over the existing controller, if any?
Do you see it being a "problem" for resale of the house? Meaning... do you think a buyer would like it integrated to the ELK or on it's own separate sprinkler controller like it is now? I don't plan on moving out of my house anytime soon... but just in case.

-Kyle

PS - This is my first post... but definitely not my last. I look forward to contributing what I can.
Little background: First house, hence, first security system. About 2400 finished sq. ft. Unfinished basement. When we bought the house each room had one cat5 connection (phone) and one coax connection... all home runs to the basement. I ran a cat6 cable to each room because I wanted gigabit ethernet (I'm a little bit of a nerd... IT consultant, AKA Microsoft .NET code monkey). Let's just say I got pretty good at fishing cable through the walls, but, I have a feeling fishing wires for the security system is going to be harder. I'm prepared for the worst... but hoping for the best.

 

[BraveSirRobbin]

Hi Kyle;

There are a lot of different lines of thinking on this one. A lot of people do use their Elk to control their sprinklers with the relay expansion module as you stated. I posted schematics and such here on CT if you need them.

I don't use an Elk for sprinkler control, rather a WGL Designs product (just because I happen to have it at the time). But, one thing I like to do is to link my weather station with my sprinkler controls. This way if it's raining, or if it's to windy I can elect not to turn the sprinklers on.

Of course I have a 'hot' button near my front yard camera so if I see a dog owner letting their dog on my grass I can easily turn on the front sprinklers. So lots of options that you don't have with a conventional controller.

I would keep the wiring fairly intact so that you can replace the original controller after the home's resale though.

 

[Steve]

I have my 4 zones on an M1RB. Sometimes I wish I had a control box outside, but you can always use a cordless phone or other interface to access the M1 remotely. All I did was remove the controller that was there and ran a Cat5 out there so all the connections and power are all still just like it was. I can simply put the old controller back in any time I want if needed. You do get alot more flexibility through the M1.

 

[BraveSirRobbin]

I have my 4 zones on an M1RB. Sometimes I wish I had a control box outside, but you can always use a cordless phone or other interface to access the M1 remotely. All I did was remove the controller that was there and ran a Cat5 out there so all the connections and power are all still just like it was. I can simply put the old controller back in any time I want if needed. You do get alot more flexibility through the M1.

Steve, you need to interface an X-10 RF solution and use a cheap palm pad remote. I forgot about that feature, I love it when trying to trouble shoot the system (you can turn the valve on and off right at the sprinkler heads).

 

[Steve]

I have my 4 zones on an M1RB. Sometimes I wish I had a control box outside, but you can always use a cordless phone or other interface to access the M1 remotely. All I did was remove the controller that was there and ran a Cat5 out there so all the connections and power are all still just like it was. I can simply put the old controller back in any time I want if needed. You do get alot more flexibility through the M1.

Steve, you need to interface an X-10 RF solution and use a cheap palm pad remote. I forgot about that feature, I love it when trying to trouble shoot the system (you can turn the valve on and off right at the sprinkler heads).

Don't really need that with the M1. Of course if you already have one no harm in using it, but the M1 phone menu works easy enough. Or simply CQC or iPhone interface on the cell. I usually just go where I need and use cordless phone. The wish for control box is more if someone else needs to do something without you available.

 

[JimInSoCal]

I'm wondering how many of you use the Elk to control your sprinkler system?
What would be the advantage of using the Elk M1 over the existing controller, if any?
Do you see it being a "problem" for resale of the house? Meaning... do you think a buyer would like it integrated to the ELK or on it's own separate sprinkler controller like it is now? I don't plan on moving out of my house anytime soon... but just in case.

I don't have an Elk controller, but I installed a Stargate controller about 10 years ago and I am sure that if I ever sold my house I would first have to remove it and all of thw switches and other loads that it controls first.

If your sprinklers are on their own dedicated controller they have the advantage of still working if your Elk system goes down and more importantly, a person would only have to learn how to use the sprinkler controller in order to have the lawn watered.

I have lights and video and audio controlled and I like it, but some other people expect household things that they are used to, like lights, to work first time every time. If I had to meet that criteria, I probably would not have any home automation.

Cheers, Jim.

 

[fleetz]

I have an Orbit controller and also a M1 relay board. I have wired them both in such a way that I can have

1 a master relay that enables/disables all solenoid control
2 a manual mode that allows me to control any zone from the M1. THe Orbit is switched out in the mode,
3 total automatic mode overiding the manual control.

Works a treat. Used custom timers for timed zone watering in the manual mode.

Like BSR I have pesky dog that loves to do his business out front.!

Cheers,

Fleetz

 

[jlehnert]

I'm with fleetz. Use both the M1 and the standalone controller. The standalone handles the daily chores without interference. I can use the M1 (actually an old HAI OmniPro in my case) to override the controller, trigger zones individually as needed, etc. If you pull up stakes and the new owner can't handle the automation, then you can just leave the controller.

 

[briankelly63]

I have a Hunter also but with about 36 zones.... If you already have it I'd keep using it. Unfortunaltey no one has developed an external interface for the Hunter unit and their's is thousands of dollars. I WOULD wire the rain disconnect into the M1G so that you can prevent the unit from running when YOU chose (perhaps seasonally). You could also schedule it to run a continious pattern (retaining the time per zone) and use the rain disconnect to suspend it... kind of a reverse control.

If it ever dies an external relay board for the M1 could easily replace the controller if its only five zones. Using the M1 in a setting that has lots and lots of zones I don't think is a great idea. There is something to be said for isolated sub-systems that communicate in some way while maintaining some functional independence.

Brian

 

[JimS]

We have a lot of zones too. Before the additions I had a Hunter ProC with max of 16 zones. Other models can do more but for a lot more money. And, as pointed out, their isn't a way to control them from the home automation that is an open protocol. I plan to build my own based on the info here:

http://www.rgbled.org/sprinkler/index.html

I have moved the code to a free compiler and a slightly newer, bigger chip but still don't have quite enough I/O. I plan to either go with a PIC with more I/O (would be surface mount so I would like to find a low cost development board with pin headers that can be used as a controller) or use 74HCT595 shift registers to expand the I/O. The 595 solution is well documented various places on the web.

It isn't quite the same as a regular sprinkler timer and needs the timing downloaded for each cycle. I plan to use Misterhouse to drive it, factoring in weather conditions. But this isn't real high on the list so we may just limp through for now with the Hunter control and 3 plugs for sets of zones that have to be manually switched. Last year we didn't have to water much.

 

[briankelly63]

I have some information on the protocol used to control Hunter controllers... Its a simple serial protocol. If there is a hardware person around I'm sure they could figure out how to make an interface... Anyone interested?

Brian

See Attachments..

Comments from source:

"I don't have a command list, but I can tell you how our receiver interfaced with the hunter DCI. When a user selects a station they want to activate, our receiver interprets that information form the transmitter and outputs a clock pulse, data pulse and a strobe. Say a user selected station 29. the clock will start, the receiver will pulse 29 times the strobe is used to reset the shift registers. that is basically what the data out of receiver does. I hope this helps."

 

[fcwilt]

I have a Hunter ICC that is connected to my HomeLogic home automation system via a small serial device from HomeLogic. While from the point of view of the HomeLogic system the ICC is write-only, the HomeLogic system can control the ICC system when the ICC system is in the OFF position.

So it can be done though I don't know the details of how.

 

[briankelly63]

Interesting.... looks like this is the element that does the interfacing... Wonder if they'd release the commands...



http://www.homelogic.com/pdfs/notes/irrigation/hunter.pdf

 

[BraveSirRobbin]

One thing I forgot to mention with the WGL Designs products, they have an internal "run-away" max timer that will turn the valves off in case the communication to the automation control (whatever that may be) is lost. It's a great feature.

 

[[email protected]]

Kyle,

Here's another approach for automated irrigation control. Considering you have an Ethernet network in place and as you say you are "Microsoft .NET code monkey" you might consider an Ethernet irrigation controller.

The EtherRain sprinkler valve controller is available at a low cost. This irrigation controller has a direct Ethernet connection, has .NET irrigation control software called OptiRain, that will run on your .NET server (I assume you most likely are running Windows server given the way you describe yourself).

If you don't have Windows server but you have a DSL or Cable Internet connection you can use the LawnCheck irrigation scheduling service. LawnCheck is an Internet irrigation scheduling and control system. If you use LawnCheck you'll have remote access via the Internet without having to open a port on your home network and without the need for DYN dns.

The product name is EtherRain. You can do a search for more information.

This is also a great alternative if you are into water conservation as this approach, both LawnCheck and OptiRain have built in conservation features that are easy to use. The EtherRain controller also has a built-in rain detection input.

Hope this alternative gives you some good ideas.

H2oSaver,