2 questions about softeners

Users who are viewing this thread

F6Hawk

New Member
Messages
166
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Alaska
It looks like you've never done this type thing before because you've got some very serious errors in that.

Can you point out the errors above, please? Cuz I got basically the same info from multiple sites, including http://www.qualitywaterassociates.com/softeners/sizingchart.htm
The article above DID fail ot mention that you will basically never reach the manufacturer's capacity of 32K/48K/64K etc. without dual-regens.

And not sure why you say Mr. Sawyer doesn't know what he is talking about, since the only error I noticed is that he spelled their website with only one "L". Otherwise, it's a copy/paste. Perhaps your argument is with Aquatell?
 

Tom Sawyer

In the Trades
Messages
3,625
Reaction score
34
Points
48
Location
Maine
Ahhhhh you must understand that in Gary's mind, he is the only person on the face of the planet capable of doing simple multiplication. LOL Indeed, you will find much the same information on just about everybody's web site and from most of the professionals as well but....we are all wrong and Gary is right. At least in his mind anyway LOL
 

ditttohead

Water systems designer, R&D
Messages
6,088
Reaction score
455
Points
83
Location
Ontario California
I did see a minor potential error, if it is a cut and paste, I can see where the "fuzzy math" is being applied by Aquatell, but who cares. Also, the biggest sin of all, Tom left out a zero while typing, he meant 48,000 not 4800. Tom should be banned for a typo! I will lead the charge!!!! :) They claim that 36 pounds of salt is needed to get 32,000 grains per cu. ft, we usually use 18 pounds to get 30,000 beacuase anything beyond 30,000 becomes difficult to achieve since you are hitting the uppermost limits of the medias potential capacity and the charts level off so dramatically that we realy dont calculate beyond 30000 Grains. Just like we dont bother going below 3 pounds of salt per cubic foot because the capacity charts and efficiencies show that less than 3 lbs. is insignificant in the rise in efficiency.

The point remains, Tom is correct in that a 2 or maybe even a 2.5 cubic foot system would be ideal for your application. A 7000 valve would almost ensure you would never have any flow issues, and you could regenerate with 6 pounds of salt per cu. ft. of resin for very high salt efficiency. If you are planning on adding a lot of people to the house, this is one of the rare times a twin alternating would become ideal. A Fleck 9100SXT would be in order if you are going to exceed 4 people in the future, but even this is hard to justify. You could achieve very similar effieicnecies with a 7000XTR with variable brining, but these are not typically available except through exclusive dealers. Watts has a modified 7000 valve that has this function and it works exceptionally well for very high hardness applications with a lot of people. It is one of the few ways to get extreme efficiency without having to go to a twin alternator.
 

Tom Sawyer

In the Trades
Messages
3,625
Reaction score
34
Points
48
Location
Maine
Oh my god, now I am red faced with embarrassment because I did indeed miss the zero but in my defense I think I was in the middle of breaking up a fight while typing. LOL
 

F6Hawk

New Member
Messages
166
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Alaska
In the interest of experimentation, I am using Morton iodized salt instead of salt pellets, and only 1.3 lbs/cu ft in an attempt to establish a lower boundary of efficiency. I'm sure it's going to work, but I am typing this as I stand beside my brine tank, pouring shaker after shaker of salt into the tank... one hand pours, the other types. Been at it for 3 hours and 22 minutes, estimating another 13 hours will be needed to have enough to do the next regen cycle. More to follow as data "flows" in...
 

ditttohead

Water systems designer, R&D
Messages
6,088
Reaction score
455
Points
83
Location
Ontario California
In the interest of experimentation, I am using Morton iodized salt instead of salt pellets, and only 1.3 lbs/cu ft in an attempt to establish a lower boundary of efficiency. I'm sure it's going to work, but I am typing this as I stand beside my brine tank, pouring shaker after shaker of salt into the tank... one hand pours, the other types. Been at it for 3 hours and 22 minutes, estimating another 13 hours will be needed to have enough to do the next regen cycle. More to follow as data "flows" in...

:) I have been on at least 100 service calls in my time in the feild to restaurants where the manager ran out of salt and decided to use their 50 lb bags of table salt in the softener. It would instantly seize up the check/brine draw tube every time. I would go out, put a garden hose from their water heater into the tank, dissolve the entire tank of salt to the drain, sanitize/clean the brine tank, refill it with rock/solar salt and all was good, except for the lost salt and $100 labor charge.
 

Gary Slusser

That's all folks!
Messages
6,921
Reaction score
22
Points
38
Location
Wherever I park the motorhome.
Website
www.qualitywaterassociates.com
Oh my god, now I am red faced with embarrassment because I did indeed miss the zero but in my defense I think I was in the middle of breaking up a fight while typing. LOL
You didn't miss just one zero. And now after dittohead has pointed out other mistakes, you conveniently aren't acknowledging them.

F6hawk, please show me the same errors on my web site.
 

Fabricator

Member
Messages
64
Reaction score
0
Points
6
Location
Illinois
ok, fella's. i have to admit , this stuff is a bit over my head.
so i am just going to ask.

on the short list. 5600sxt, 7000sxt. either 48000 or 64000. saving $$$ on salt is a GOOD thing. as is easy of operation(though i would figure it out after a lil while :eek:) and reliability.

now "if you were me", what would you choose ? if any of these.
 

Tom Sawyer

In the Trades
Messages
3,625
Reaction score
34
Points
48
Location
Maine
You didn't miss just one zero. And now after dittohead has pointed out other mistakes, you conveniently aren't acknowledging them.

F6hawk, please show me the same errors on my web site.

You are right, I missed two zero's....so what? with the exception of you, everyone else knew what I was talking about and I fixed it and I acknowledged that I mistyped and that I edited my mistake. Are you now satisfied or do we have to continue with this supercilious nonsense? You spend so much of your time trying to discredit everyone and only succeed in discrediting yourself.
 

Tom Sawyer

In the Trades
Messages
3,625
Reaction score
34
Points
48
Location
Maine
ok, fella's. i have to admit , this stuff is a bit over my head.
so i am just going to ask.

on the short list. 5600sxt, 7000sxt. either 48000 or 64000. saving $$$ on salt is a GOOD thing. as is easy of operation(though i would figure it out after a lil while :eek:) and reliability.

now "if you were me", what would you choose ? if any of these.

No brainer for me to recommend you. Fleck 7000SXT and 2 cu/ft

Any "typo's" or serious mistakes in that LOL
 

Gary Slusser

That's all folks!
Messages
6,921
Reaction score
22
Points
38
Location
Wherever I park the motorhome.
Website
www.qualitywaterassociates.com
You are right, I missed two zero's....so what? with the exception of you, everyone else knew what I was talking about and I fixed it and I acknowledged that I mistyped and that I edited my mistake. Are you now satisfied or do we have to continue with this supercilious nonsense? You spend so much of your time trying to discredit everyone and only succeed in discrediting yourself.
Other than the 6 lbs/cuft, go look at the salt doses you say are needed, they are all way wrong. And I say if you knew how to do this stuff you wouldn't have made the mistakes or would have been able to find them when you were told of errors and went to correct them. And all that is on you.

BTW, not everyone else knew what you were talking about, Outcast says he doesn't understand all this stuff. So help him out by correcting your remaining mistakes and then explain things to him until he does understand it. Or take the easy way out and have him click on the Click Here in my signature.
 

Gary Slusser

That's all folks!
Messages
6,921
Reaction score
22
Points
38
Location
Wherever I park the motorhome.
Website
www.qualitywaterassociates.com
ok, fella's. i have to admit , this stuff is a bit over my head.
so i am just going to ask.

on the short list. 5600sxt, 7000sxt. either 48000 or 64000. saving $$$ on salt is a GOOD thing. as is easy of operation(though i would figure it out after a lil while :eek:) and reliability.

now "if you were me", what would you choose ? if any of these.
I suggest a 2.0 cuft (64K) programmed for 3333 grains/lb of salt with the 5600 SXT. That will give you a constant SFR of 13 gpm and the 5600 costs the least, is easy to troubleshoot and rebuild when needed and parts are easy to find locally or online.
 

ditttohead

Water systems designer, R&D
Messages
6,088
Reaction score
455
Points
83
Location
Ontario California
a 2 or 2.5 Cu. Ft. 7000 SXT would be the first choice, it will handle your needs with ease. The 2.5 cu. ft. may be slightly more efficient. The 5600SXT will also handle your needs with ease. The 7000SXT is the larger, higher flowing control valve. Both are made by Pentair/Fleck, one of the oldest and most respected companies in the control valve industry. Either way, you will be happy with your choice. Once you have decided and recieved your system, let me know and I will post the programming cheat sheet for you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Gary Slusser

That's all folks!
Messages
6,921
Reaction score
22
Points
38
Location
Wherever I park the motorhome.
Website
www.qualitywaterassociates.com
Please click on my signature, please please please. Seriously, it is simple and stop trying so desperately to direct traffic to your website. .
pppssssstt HINT... If it were simple Outcast would not be saying this stuff is still over his head.

My dinky little original Sept 2003 web site has from 4000 to 5000+ unique (first time) visitors per month. I have no advertising on it and don't make a penny off of it, with one exception. The exception is that I 'advertise' this web site for Terry (at no charge). I've done that for about 7 or 8 years. I'll continue to donate my time and money until I get tired of having fun with you anonymous "Professionals".
 

F6Hawk

New Member
Messages
166
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Alaska
I can't point out the errors, because his numbers are basically the same as yours. Well, not HIS, but Aquatell's. Now quit your childish sniping and help the OP, will ya? As in ANSWER his questions, quit saying Click Here. The reason I ended up using this site was because you plainly state you are retired, and your site, while it was a step in the right direction for me, left as many questions as I found answers. I'd wager that with a little more effort, you could tweak your info so that a newbie such as Outcast or I would be able to understand this whole softening thing better. While you are (usually) not guilty of ultracrepidarianism, you are quite often inimical and bellicose.

Outcast, I cannot say anything about the 5600 except that several on here say it's reliable... but I will say that I chose the 7000SXT over it because it is newer, improved, and typically, newer technology ends up replacing the old. Not ALWAYS true, but based on the pro recommendations here, I went with the 7000SXT myself, and am very happy. as far as sizing the tank goes, having a bit more capacity (2.5 vs 2.0 cu ft) gives you more options down the road, IMHO. Bear in mind that as you use less salt per regen (8 or 6 lbs/cu ft, or 16/12 lbs per regen on a 2.0 cu ft tank, vs. 20/15 lbs per regen on a 2.5 cu ft), you also need more water to do the cycle. The more salt you use (up towards 15 lbs/cu ft), the less water the regen cycle takes. I found this site to be useful when making my decision: http://www.watertreatmentguide.com/achieving_brine_efficiency_in_softening.htm

In my case, I pay a flat fee for water, and it is plentiful, so I don't mind trying for more salt efficiency with higher water usage, but if you have any restrictions on water supply, you might be better served by using more salt per cycle. 8 lbs per cu ft seems to strike a good balance between salt usage, water usage, and not having to worry about hard water leakage, provided you buy a big enough resin tank.

So here's how I'd do the math: You said 37 or 39gpg. Let's use 40 for simplicity. You can use 60 Gal Per Person Per Day (GPPPD) X 2 X 40 = 4800 grains per day worth of softening. If you multiply that times 7 days between regens (a general average used, but more is ok; I personally went with 15 days between regens to save wear on the valve), you will need 7 X 4800 = 33,600 grains of sodium. But wait... let's say you go over your 120 GPD of usage... you want a reserve to get to 0200 the next morning for the regen (standard used in most applications), so add another 4800 grains of capacity, now we are up to 38,400. Using 6 lbs/cu ft on a 2.0 cu ft tank (12 lbs per regen) will net you 40,000 grains as per http://www.qualitywaterassociates.com/softeners/sizingchart.htm, so not much wiggle room. If you step up to 8 lbs/cu ft on a 2.0 (16 lbs per regen), you will get 48,000 grains capacity, so you get a buffer there. But as you can see from that same chart, using a 2.5 cu ft softener will net you 50,000 and 60,000 grains, respectively. What does this get for you? Either a couple more days between regens (assuming 4800 GPD), or more of a "reserve" left in the tank in case you have a power outage, and a regen cycle doesn't happen on day 7 + a few hours (typically, an electronic meter will wait til the NEXT day to regen if power is lost around the normal regen time).

Hope this helps you make your decision. If not, feel free to holla back and I'm sure someone will help you understand it all.
 

Tom Sawyer

In the Trades
Messages
3,625
Reaction score
34
Points
48
Location
Maine
Just for the record F6, I did mention that 60 GPD is pretty much what most of us are using for a water usage per day number while quite a few of the sizing charts out there are still going with 75 and even 80-100 gpd and of course, which ever you use changes the capacity etc. However I think it's important for anyone sizing equipment to make an honest assessment of their water use.
 

Tom Sawyer

In the Trades
Messages
3,625
Reaction score
34
Points
48
Location
Maine
I suggest a 2.0 cuft (64K) programmed for 3333 grains/lb of salt with the 5600 SXT. That will give you a constant SFR of 13 gpm and the 5600 costs the least, is easy to troubleshoot and rebuild when needed and parts are easy to find locally or online.


Funny how we both come up with the same capacity LOL I have no problem with the Fleck 5600 SXT either. It is a solid, valve that is pretty easy to service if needed. It is a bit less expensive although not much. We sold a crap load of them over the years and I have nothing bad to say about the valve. However, we are selling more 7000SXT's lately mostly because the valve has a higher flow rate and that means less inventory on my shelves which is admitadly good for me and maybe a little more expensive for the customer but it does not seem to have had much effect on sales. Unlike internet drop ship guys we do stock our shelves. Oh yes, we also personally service our stuff as in knock on your door with tool bag in hand. Not over the telephone and.........if its under warranty.....we do it for free.
 

F6Hawk

New Member
Messages
166
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Alaska
Just for the record F6, I did mention that 60 GPD is pretty much what most of us are using for a water usage per day number while quite a few of the sizing charts out there are still going with 75 and even 80-100 gpd and of course, which ever you use changes the capacity etc. However I think it's important for anyone sizing equipment to make an honest assessment of their water use.

Absolutely, Tom. I personally used 60 in sizing mine because it seemed to be the most-used "magic number" among those in the know on this forum. I too have seen numbers up to 80GPPPD on different sites.

Truth is, no one will know unless they have a meter on their house before install, or until after they install a softener what their true usage is. Since installing mine, I have been writing down daily usage (anal, I know, but it's MY softener, dang it, and it gives me an excuse to go down and admire it), and I have seen a max of 272GPD and a min of 137GPD. In 11 days, the average is 48.75 GPPPD. So 60 worked out fine for us, even gave a bit of a buffer.

Hope I didn't seem to be disagreeing with you about the use of a proper GPPPD, Tom. Sorry if it came across that way.
 

Gary Slusser

That's all folks!
Messages
6,921
Reaction score
22
Points
38
Location
Wherever I park the motorhome.
Website
www.qualitywaterassociates.com
I can't point out the errors, because his numbers are basically the same as yours. Well, not HIS, but Aquatell's.
You're not trying very hard.

He used, and he said he typed it, 36 or 39 lbs of salt for the two smallest softeners he mentioned. It's 15 lbs max per cuft of regular mesh resin, regardless of how many cuft you have.

The reason I ended up using this site was because you plainly state you are retired, and your site, while it was a step in the right direction for me, left as many questions as I found answers. I'd wager that with a little more effort, you could tweak your info so that a newbie such as Outcast or I would be able to understand this whole softening thing better.
The only piece of info not on my sizing page is the gpm of the person's peak demand flow rate, which only he can provide.

Outcast, I cannot say anything about the 5600 except that several on here say it's reliable... but I will say that I chose the 7000SXT over it because it is newer, improved, and typically, newer technology ends up replacing the old. Not ALWAYS true, but based on the pro recommendations here, I went with the 7000SXT myself, and am very happy.
The 5600 is the most popular control valve in the world and has been for a long time. The design (invented about IIRC 1960 something), seals, spacers and piston with a separate brine valve is used in the 7000 and all other Fleck residential valves. A great improvement huh.

as far as sizing the tank goes, having a bit more capacity (2.5 vs 2.0 cu ft) gives you more options down the road, IMHO. Bear in mind that as you use less salt per regen (8 or 6 lbs/cu ft, or 16/12 lbs per regen on a 2.0 cu ft tank, vs. 20/15 lbs per regen on a 2.5 cu ft), you also need more water to do the cycle. The more salt you use (up towards 15 lbs/cu ft), the less water the regen cycle takes.
There are a couple errors in that and no one should follow your thinking. I see Tom mentions something about it in a follow up post but isn't very clear. BTW, the salt dose and the water used per regeneration is all adjustable. You'd oughta stick with landlording.

And there are errors in the rest of your post. One is that saving wear on the control valve. Not regenerating frequently enough can cause problems in the valve. Basically a valve is rated for daily operation for numerous years.
 
Top
Hey, wait a minute.

This is awkward, but...

It looks like you're using an ad blocker. We get it, but (1) terrylove.com can't live without ads, and (2) ad blockers can cause issues with videos and comments. If you'd like to support the site, please allow ads.

If any particular ad is your REASON for blocking ads, please let us know. We might be able to do something about it. Thanks.
I've Disabled AdBlock    No Thanks