will 7000 sxt do for 13 grains and 2ppm iron?

Users who are viewing this thread

gcsherwood

New Member
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Points
1
Location
Florida
My last two water softener were WaterBoss City (don't remember the number) but I was on city water and just wanted to clean and soften it a bit and installed them myself. Well, the kidlings are fleeing the nest, and we've purchased a smaller house which has a well. Never had one of those before, and everthing I've read says Fleck is a significant upgrade over what I was used to. Testing says 13 grains of hardness and 2ppm of iron. There is an old Kinetico system there (local Kinetico office had installed it for the previous owner and found the records -- but were quite unforthcoming as to what the system did. Odd.). Whatever it is doing, it reduces sediment drastically (though not perfectly) and iron from 5 ppm to 2 ppm. No change to hardness (and without a salt tank that doesn't surprise me). Local guys (not from K) are going to come out and look at the system and do whatever recharging etc it needs (we bought it from the heirs to the estate and they knew nothing about the house). Because pre-filter sample was lower in iron than the post-filter sample they think I have an iron filter. If true, they think maybe they can get the iron down with new media. I'm leaving town in two weeks (for 5 months in Ireland) and would like to get this fixed before I go, if possible.

So I plan to tap into the piping after the Kinetico system because it is obviously doing something good. I will run it through a softener, then a 50 micron filter for the bigger stuff, thence to a 5 micron, thence to a UV unit (we tested positive for bacteria). The UV unit uses 3/4", so I sized the filters for the same. The Kinetico uses 1" pvc.

I've been reading the threads on this forum and know Gary prefers the 5600sxt and Dittohead the 7000sxt. On balance I'm persuaded to the 7000sxt. We are just two people, and we need to keep the flow to less than 8-10 gpm for the UV. We have two bathrooms -- but it will be exceedingly rare for the second shower to be used at all. An occasional house guest, perhaps. Because of the iron, Gary's calculator came out to 1.5 cuft of media.

The turbulator says it is good for iron, but others indicate it is more trouble than it is worth (and perhaps my 2ppm of iron can be reduced further anyway). Fine mesh resin is also recommended for iron. Worth it? And finally, Morton has an iron removing salt that says it removes 15x the amount of iron as regular salt. More expensive, of course. Does it really work as intended and is it worth the extra cost. It isn't that much and if it is better I'm certainly fine with it, but I hate to throw money away if there is no point!

Have I overlooked anything? Doing something stupid? Any suggestions or help would be much appreciated!

thanks,

Geoff
 

NHmaster3015

Master Plumber
Messages
833
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Location
The granite state
5600, 7000 both are outstanding valves and either will do what you want it to do. The 7000 is capable of higher SFR but you won't necessarily use its full flow capabilities. Either way, its not going to make a difference to the UV. Regular mesh resin is fine. The Vortex is nice and works well but IMO, you don't need it but hey, its your money. The 2ppm iron hopefull will go away once you have the Kinetco unit serviced and there are a few here that have no problem letting the softener take care of up to 3ppm. Personally, I don't like to see iron at the softener at alll but yes, "properly serviced and maintained" the softener will take care of 2ppm iron. Morton Iron salt is good stuff, expensive and really, if you learn how to add a bit of Iron out or similar product to the brine tank you don't need anything other than quality salt.
 

Reach4

Well-Known Member
Messages
38,796
Reaction score
4,412
Points
113
Location
IL
You did not mention well disinfection. The method described in http://www.moravecwaterwells.com/disin_test.htm seems really good to me, and that is what I plan for spring. You also did not mention what bacteria. Iron and sulfur-reducing bacteria are not harmful for drinking, but they interfere with iron and sulfur treatment. Coliform bacteria are an indicator of surface contaminiation and could include pathogens. Pathogenic bacteria are the bad ones; pathogenic means they can make you sick. You plan on putting the UV last. I don't know what the norm is on that

With a planned flow of 10 GPM, either of those controllers can handle way more than that flow with a very small drop in pressure.

What order should things go in? I don't know. It would seem to me that there could be advantages to more than one way. Mine goes backwashing catalytic carbon filter, filter elements ( PENTEK-DGD-5005-20 (50...5 micron followed by WP1BB20P 1 micron). Then comes the pre-existing water softener. No UV. My thinking was that the backwashing filter is made to be at the front end. Let the filter housings handle the smaller amounts. I changed my elements after 13 months. The first looked very slightly darkened. The 1 micron string-wound filter looked new. Only use polypropylene elements with a well.

Now with UV, I see that you don't want particles in the water to be able to shade bacteria. But I could see an advantage to killing IRB and SRB bacteria before the catalytic carbon (in my case) because I envision the bacteria as possibly sequestering iron and sulfur from the reaction. I am figuring that is the job of well shock/disinfection for me. I guess putting UV later in the cycle, as you plan, may be best. I am just musing on this, and it will be interesting to hear the more knowledgeable people comment. I wonder if there is consensus right way, or if there is some difference of opinion. http://www.moravecwaterwells.com/disin_test.htm is more complex than than most well shock treatments, but it is what I am planning.

What does your Kinetico system look like? A single 10" x 54" 1.50 cu. ft. tank with a controller as, or are there more pieces?

Regarding the Morton iron removing salt, it contains citric acid. By having that built in, it would be convenient. Super Iron Out treatments are effective, and the experience Stockman20 describes in https://terrylove.com/forums/showth...Iron-Out-horrific-smell-when-used-in-softener is unusual.

Not a pro, but I do own my own water system.
 

Mialynette2003

In the Trades
Messages
944
Reaction score
17
Points
18
Location
Ocala, Florida
I prefer chlorination vs UV. UV only scrambles the DNA of bacteria so they can not reproduce whereas chlorination will kill the bacteria. You can not test to insure the UV is working properly. With chlorination, you can test the residual to insure you have the proper amount to do the job. Maintenance is also cheaper with chlorination vs UV. It will also oxidize the iron into a solid so a media can filter it out. The media I use is carbon because it removes the chlorine as well as the iron. Iron filter medias are heavy and some wells do not produce the flow rate required to properly back wash them. If this happens, you are at the same point you were before installing the iron filter
 

gcsherwood

New Member
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Points
1
Location
Florida
Thanks much for the replies. I guess I named the topic poorly as I know I wouldn't be taxing the capabilities of either unit. I've seen the arguements from the adherents of both valves (plus one site that loves the old mechanically metered 5600 and thinks the 5600sxt has way too many problems). I remember one post (though not from whom) who said that with the exception of the mechanical 5600 somebody hates every valve he sells for some reason or another. In the end, I guess it is a crap shoot and I just want the best odds in my favor. The current plumbing is all 1", so I think I'll plumb in a 7000sxt with that, then reduce it afterwards to 3/4" for the filters and UV unit.

Regarding chlorination, I'll be sanitizing my pipes from time to time (there is a venturi installed right after the last tank with a hose on in. I can feel a slight suction on it when the water is running, so my guess is that this there to allow simple sanitization -- drop the hose in some bleach and it will feed it into the lines. I hadn't considered full-time chlorination, but I did some reading on it after seen the reply and I don't think it is something I want to deal with at this point. Installation looks quite a bit more difficult as it should go before the pressure tank so there will be sufficient contact time. Chlorine is tough on the resin so I think it needs to be filtered out before the softener. Anyway, I'll definitely keep it in mind. Thanks for bringing it up.

As to the type of bacteria, the water test showed positive for non-coliform and negative for coliform. If I gotta have them, that's the best way to go I guess. Before I had the water tested I had a nice tall glass of water while the home inspection was going on (I never had a well before, what did I know?). A few hours later I did have, to put it politely, gastric distress, and a strong desire not to be far from bathroom facilities. Can't say for sure that the two were related, but I didn't care to repeat the experiment. For what its worth, the water did not taste or smell bad. A bit minerally, perhaps.

The Kinetico equipment I have consists of two units. the first is a double tank connected at the top, which has two black hoses connected to the top which run out through the garage wall. There is no salt tank, so it isn't a softener. All of the water runs through the double tank. The double tank does appear to have a backwashing valve on it. There is then a T, with some of the water running out to the outside tap, and the rest of it running into a single black tank about 4' tall (same height as the double tank). There is a pressure relief bypass on this tank, so that water will flow around it if the pressure is too high. The output of this tank runs past a venturi (with a bypass around it) and thence into the wall where I presume it is my main water supply. I do have a water softener company coming to look at it Tuesday to tell me what I have and to service it. I didn't have a good feeling about the Kinetico guys so it is somebody else.

thanks again for your insights!

Geoff
 

Mialynette2003

In the Trades
Messages
944
Reaction score
17
Points
18
Location
Ocala, Florida
Regarding chlorination, I'll be sanitizing my pipes from time to time (there is a venturi installed right after the last tank with a hose on in. I can feel a slight suction on it when the water is running, so my guess is that this there to allow simple sanitization -- drop the hose in some bleach and it will feed it into the lines.

I believe this is a venturi assemble for the iron or H2S. If so, you should have some type of air bleed tank to release the air after injection.
 

gcsherwood

New Member
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Points
1
Location
Florida
I believe this is a venturi assemble for the iron or H2S. If so, you should have some type of air bleed tank to release the air after injection.

Interesting. It is following a tank of unknown purpose, but the venturi is sucking air into the system past all processing, just before it goes off to the rest of the house (or I am very confused about the direction of water flow -- which I kind of doubt because I can trace it from the pressure tank to where it goes into the block wall). Wouldn't an air bleed tank need to be downstream of the venturi? My knowledge of iron tanks is almost non-existent, so that is real question, not a statement in question form!

thanks for any info!

Geoff
 

gcsherwood

New Member
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Points
1
Location
Florida
A water softener guy pushing Safeway came out to look at the existing Kinetico system. I was much less than impressed. He did point out that my understanding of the waterflow was completely wrong, but he didn't seem to understand too much about the equipment (except to talk it down "its a great system for city water, but..."). Everything I've read says its a great system, period, except that for the price it should be gold plated.... But whatever. I want a system I understand and can service myself. What I didn't understand (though obvious in retrospect) was that the pressure tank connection is both an in and an out. Duh, but hey, this is new to me. So the water flows in from the well, all of the water goes through the venturi (well, it is bypassed with a partially open valve, so whatever bypasses is mixed with the venturi water immediately thereafter) and into what I guess is an aeration tank (there is a Watts valve of some sort sitting on top, venting the excess entrained air, maybe?) but all of the water goes through that tank (though there is a pressure-release bypass valve around it). At this point it splits. One leg goes to the pressure tank (untreated except for this aeration) and the other leg goes to the Kinetico filter. It appears to be a backwashing filter, but what I guess is a brine inlet and outlet are T'ed together and go out the wall to a hose which disappears underground. It does look like it might be headed for my septic tank when it disappears.... Safeway guy convinced it is a softener with no brine tank completely installed wrong. Doubtful..... Oh, and Kinetico aeration tanks all break within the first year so it isn't doing anything. Even though the venturi is demonstrably sucking air.

The rep did test for sulfur, but I don't recall the value (I got nothing from him in writing; I think I remember 2, but whether 2 or .2 I couldn't say). I turned on the shower after he left, and yep, I got sulfur. Wow. In your face kind.... As must be obvious we haven't moved in yet, so we hadn't (still haven't) taken a shower. He could fix everything (he said) with a softener and his Iron Zapper. Yep, kills or filters out all the coliform bacteria, too. Only $2800. Special deal! He installs this system for people and removes their UV filters and they have great water.

Right. I don't think for an instant it will do anything about the bacteria. And the cost seems a bit much.... I've been scouring this site and others, and like mialynette2003 mentioned above, it looks like chlorine->retention tank->GAC->softener is the way to go. The chlorine makes the UV redundant while oxidizing the iron and H2S. The carbon should work to improve the taste as well. Dittohead linked to a water-powered feeder in another posting from Dema Engineering for $275 which looks pretty cool -- I use a Stenner to inject bleach into my pool at my current house (works great!) but since this doesn't need any control and doses any time water flows I like the idea.

So my questions......
I've looked at the mixing tank Gary has been touting, and it looks great but quite pricey. A 40 gallon retention tank is much more reasonable in price. I guess if everything were going full bore we might drain that, but any makeup water will have bleach mixed in with it and even if it doesn't have full contact time it would be a whole bunch better than what we currently have -- and it would be a rare event for everything to line up so we overran that. Am I missing something?

On the GAC, would coconut shell or centaur be preferable? If we've oxidized the H2S and iron, are the catalytic properties of the centaur doing anything for us?

Should the pressure tank get water straight from the well, or should there be some processing on it first?

Finally, we already have the venturi and the aeration tank. Should I keep that in the mix, or is it just redundant with the chlorine injection? It's free (obviously) but does take up space if it's pointless.

thanks much for your help -- and the help provided through all the other postings I've read here!

Geoff Sherwood
 

ditttohead

Water systems designer, R&D
Messages
6,088
Reaction score
455
Points
83
Location
Ontario California
Safeway... LOL, most of their equipment is fake, cheap knockoff equipment made in China that they actually try to charge more money for. I could go on, but I know a lot of the guys over there and don't want to say too much other than spend your money on an American made product, from an American company that innovates rather than imitates.

Post some pictures of your existing equipment. If you are looking for reduction of iron and salt efficiency, I can send you a PM on some equipment designs that are very cost effective. The newest design is in the final testing phases and should be ready for release in about 2 months. I may post a video on it once the testing is complete. It utilizes a new hybrid media that has been under development for over 5 years and we currently have a few thousand cubic feet in the field for testing. Unfortunately, it can not be released until final testing phases are complete.
 

gcsherwood

New Member
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Points
1
Location
Florida
Thanks, Dittohead. I'll see if I can figure out how to submit the picture. Frankly, though, I don't care much about what we have -- unless there is some reason to keep it. The Kinetico filter thingee is 10-15 years old so what the hell. I figure that is gone regardless. The aeration tank, ???? Salt efficiency would be nice (of course -- no, I really want to spend as much as I can on salt!!!!) but I just want something that solves my problems. Salt isn't that expensive. I have 5 ppm of Iron (according the the Safeway guy, anyway, but I think I believe that), enough sulfur to knock me back when I turn on the shower, 13 grains of hardness, and coliform bacteria. On the last, the house did sit empty for many months and I've been told that can happen -- but I want to solve the sucker once and for all. We are going to spend the warm months in Ireland (well, as warm as it gets....) and the cold ones in Florida, and while I don't mind doing a carbon filter bypass to chlorinate all my lines each year I'd like a real solution so I know my water is safe. A bit anal here maybe, but I'm not used to not having city water. As an aside, I know of houses in my part of Ireland that use open springs as their water supply.... And it has *worked* for many a year. With sheep covering the hills, doing what sheep do.... This is rural Donegal! But, I'd rather not be there (our house there is on the municipal water scheme, whatever that means!).

And.... I'm leaving for Ireland in less than a week -- for six months -- so hopefully the testing phases of the product you are descrbing will be passed by the time I get back. I'm not saying I commit to it, but if it as good as you are saying I'd surely like it as an option! I was really hoping to get stuff done before I left so my wife can use the house without worrying about using bottle water for teeth brushing, proper showering, etc, but that isn't going to happen. We have a year before we move there full time, anyway.

One other question to Dittohead if you are following.... You had high praises for the Dema injector I mentioned above. But then I saw on other posts you also highly praised the HN55 -- which is both cheaper and has a lot of very positive reviews. The Dema recommendation I saw was more recent. Are you saying both are really good, or is there some reason to prefer the Dema. Thanks!

Geoff Sherwood
 

gcsherwood

New Member
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Points
1
Location
Florida
Oops, Dittohead, I'd appreciate the PM on the designs you have. You know what issues I'm looking at.....

geoff
 

Gary Slusser

That's all folks!
Messages
6,921
Reaction score
22
Points
38
Location
Wherever I park the motorhome.
Website
www.qualitywaterassociates.com
There are limitations to UV, they are; no H2S, iron, manganese, any type of reducing bacteria, and most UV manufacturers will say no more than 0 gpg hardness or 7 gpg. No hardness is best because the heat of the light will cause hard water scale that will coat the quartz sleeve and that prevents the UV from getting into the water with correct dosage of UV light. So, a UV light always go inline last, after all other equipment.

In this case, chlorination would be best because it eliminates those things that prevent the use of UV and chlorine kills all the life forms in the water at the same time. Plus you are already familiar with a solution feeder.

UV lights come in different classes, A or B and with various dosage, of course the higher dose the better. Many have monitors that alarm if/when the dose falls below adequate limits and all UV lights are flow controlled by max gpm. Some have warning audio and/or visual alarms which tells you when the lamp needs replacement (should be annually regardless) and/or if the quartz sleeve needs to be cleaned. You can always install a solenoid valve to shut off water if there is a power outage.

Shocking a well.... I did a lot of it over many years and learned it can cause a number of serious and expensive problems such as reduced water quality (colloidal iron), the steel casing, steel drop pipe, power cable and pump problems. And from many years experience and follow up testing I found that it is very unlikely to permanently get rid of a bacteria problem. And I shocked the same as the instructions at the link above.
 

Mialynette2003

In the Trades
Messages
944
Reaction score
17
Points
18
Location
Ocala, Florida
I do not recommend using a smaller retention tank than 120 gallons if you have coliform bacteria. You want a minium of 20 minutes contact time to insure all bacteria is killed. Carbon can be a breeding ground for bacteria so if some slips through the retention tank......well you know.
 

ditttohead

Water systems designer, R&D
Messages
6,088
Reaction score
455
Points
83
Location
Ontario California
The DEMA and HN55 pumps are both excellent. I use both and have no preference other than both have some pluses and minuses. On the whole, either unit is excellent.

Final testing is way ahead of schedule, I can assume it will be completed very shortly.

The pictures would be helpful to see what if anything can be re-used while we modernize and update your equipment.
 

gcsherwood

New Member
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Points
1
Location
Florida
Okay, its an old thread. I'm still here, but bad things happened in the meantime. My insurance cancelled on me because of junk in the back yard while we were in Ireland with no way to solve the problem -- and then later in the summer our toilet pipe split and flooded us out. What a wonderful thing to come back to! So we've been digging our way out of that -- with no insurance to help -- slowly and painfully. We haven't been living in the house until this past month (its our retirement home) so the water was on the back burner while we dealt with everything else. My situation is still the same, except that I did figure out I was totally wrong in how the water flowed. After the pressure tank the water flows through the Kinetico aeration tank (first in the line, not last!) which does indeed oxidize most of the iron -- my water is clear at the outside tap drawn just after the pressure tank, and is full of black gunk at the clear spin-on filter I added just before it feeds the house). Some iron still gets through, as does the sulfur smell and an off taste. We are leery of the bacteria, but haven't had any ill effects from brushing teeth with the water (our only exposure).

The solution Reach4 used sounded interesting with the centaur carbon filter that backwashes with bleach, but I'm not convinced the chlorine adsorbed onto the centaur carbon would really take care of the bacteria -- and the company didn't respond in any way to my email asking questions about their product, so I am skeptical. I've got an email in to ditttohead about the solution that was in testing when I last posted, and am awaiting his reply. We live here now, and not being comfortable to drink the water is getting really old, so while I await his reply I want to see if anyone has any comments on what I put together (plumbed in this order):

(existing pressure tank)
Chemilizer HN55 1:500
120 gallon Flex-lite retention tank w/vacuum relief valve (semi-local so I can pick it up to save $125 shipping!).
1.5 cu ft centaur carbon backwashing filter w/7000sxt (quality water for less)
48000 grain water softener w/7000sxt (quality water for less)

total a bit over $2100, not counting bits and pieces of pvc (t's, check valve, valves, etc).

Does this sound like a reasonable solution to my solution problem? And does the centaur carbon buy me anything over GAC after the chlorination? If it does, great. If not, why spend the money?

I think that the existing kinetico stuff will just be taking up space -- why bother to aerate if you are going to inject chlorine? And of course it takes up valuable real estate so I think it's history.

thanks for any help!

Geoff Sherwood
 

Reach4

Well-Known Member
Messages
38,796
Reaction score
4,412
Points
113
Location
IL
Does this sound like a reasonable solution to my solution problem? And does the centaur carbon buy me anything over GAC after the chlorination? If it does, great. If not, why spend the money?

I would use coconut shell carbon for chlorine removal. I would not use Centaur Carbon for that.
 

gcsherwood

New Member
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Points
1
Location
Florida
Thanks Reach4. You have the standing of the only poster I have ever been able to find on any forum who used the eliminator plus. You've said it works for you, and other than the bacteria problem it sounds ideal for me -- and they even say that they have evidence that it reduces bacteria in general, but..... As I understand in this area, if the well goes unused for a while (the house was unoccupied for quite a while before we bought it) bacteria starts to build and the locals shock it and all is good. This does seem kind of iffy to me..... Maybe city-boy over-fastidiousness.

All that aside, are you saying that centaur carbon is not suitable for that purpose, or that it is overkill? This is something I've been trying to figure out. Does Centaur carbon do everything that GAC, such as coconut shell carbon does, plus have the catalytic properties? Or have the standard GAC benefits been compromised for the catalytic functions?
 

Reach4

Well-Known Member
Messages
38,796
Reaction score
4,412
Points
113
Location
IL
Not suitable, I don't think. Centaur Carbon is catalytic media, and is quite different from the adsorbing activated carbon. My water and probably most have enough oxygen for doing its job. My system would work without the chlorine wash during regen. They sell a version that uses air during the regen. Your iron is more than mine. Mine should work well with 2 ppm, but mine does not face that.

With a chlorine injection system, the chlorine does the reaction, and activated carbon both filters out the precipitate and removes the chlorine. The chlorine injection system predates the catalytic carbon by a long time.

The Katalox/Catalox light is a newer media still. It is heavier than Centaur Carbon, so it needs more backwash rate. It appears to work on even more contaminates. It is more expensive, but it seems worth it to me.
 
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