If I can review the recent runs with time stamps for start and stop of each zone, then I can open a second window on the Flume data and plot those times. Having a smarter and connected irrigation system does make some of that easier to do by hand, to be fair. I’m not sure I care where the analysis gets done. Or perhaps feed actual irrigation event information to Flume to better tune their alerts and analysis tools. If the network is alive and Flume’s servers are responding, then it could tie the watering schedule to Flume’s data in a way that would allow historical review. That base station does need power, and I really ought to put mine on a UPS one of these days.īut not all benefits require real-time connections. I haven’t noticed significant data loss during times when I’ve had network connection issues, so that seems plausible. My understanding is that its base station component stores some amount of data during network disruption, and will forward it to the cloud when connections are restored. I do wish that Flume would allow their data stream to be stored locally rather than operating always and entirely in the cloud. Then it could take some actions immediately like calling for help, shutting off the zone, and whatever else makes sense. Especially if that sensor is inline with only the irrigation. So yes, a directly connected flow meter would allow it to discover in low-latency real time that the zone is not drawing water, or that it is drawing way more water than expected. With more information, it can do a better job. Obviously, you want the irrigation to continue to operate as long as water and power to open the valves is available. Keeping as much information and control as possible local is a great goal. I am interested in hearing if there is something in particular that is preventing you from using the two systems at the same time without intercommunication between them. I do not have Flume (personally waiting for a model, with power over Ethernet support, I can leave berried in the yard) so I do not know the challenges you are otherwise left with regarding irrigation controllers. My advice? Buy a $100 flow meter and dedicate it to your irrigation controller, let Flume worry about your whole house and rachio about your yard. Points of failure is thereby doubled, whereas if anything goes wrong in this chain you may end up with a large water bill regardless of protection you’ve expected. Integration with something like Flume is that even though both devices are local to you, they cannot talk directly to each-other. Let me emphasize this, leak detection is performed by your controller locally (unless something has changed that I’m not aware of), in case a leak is detected, your controller tells the server about it, rather than the other way around. If something goes wrong with local wifi, ISP, Rachio servers, etc, your controller will still be able to run a scheduled watering and monitor for leaks when combined with a supported flow meter. Rachio was always careful not to make internet connectivity a must for normal operation. Big issue with supporting online connected sensors is that leak detection will not work offline.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |