Redox media (that Cu/Zn mix) backwash issues?

Users who are viewing this thread

Messages
52
Reaction score
1
Points
8
Location
West Olive, Michigan
Website
ky8d.net
Was reading up on the Cu/Zn mix named "Redox". Given my iron-bacteria issue, chemistry-wise, it seems ideal. Then there's the issue of how much backwash it needs. Reputedly, this is because of weight, flow sufficient to make turbulent the heavy beads. Which does make sense.

Also, as I understand it, whatsoever flow there is needs to have a certain concentration of salt in order for the required chemistry to happen.

Those two things need to be simultaneous, and the simplest way to achieve it is to flow hundreds of gallons. What if, however, a trapped volume of brine just only great enough to contain the required amount of Na and Cl ions were to be re-circulated in a closed loop by means of a sufficiently forceful pump and motor?

In short, re-circulate just enough brine around and around, fast enough, and long enough, and only then dispose of it as effluent. Not a gear or piston pump, obviously. But maybe a vane pump? Or a diaphram pump (smaller version of the kind used in car washes, maybe)?

Now, before anyone reaches immediately for their LMAO emoticon, do know this. In the test laboratory where I have worked these past 15 years, we use small motors and vane pumps for re-circulating a heavy slurry of, ahem 'calibrated dirt'. this mixed into kerosene for a result so that it is nearly opaque with crud. Not sludge, mind, still a very liquid slurry. But said mixed-in 'dirt' is comprised of 0-10 micron iron oxide powders, Arizona road dust, and ground up quartz. In bakers units, a heaping cup full into every 5 gallons of liquid.

The only modification we've made to those vane pumps (ordered from McMaster-Carr) is to turn down the vane wheel's outer circumference just a little, enough so that the quartz grains won't bind between it and the wall. It's a smallish pump on a smallish 110VAC-powered motor, maybe 1/2 HP, no more. Direct drive, no belt.

That particular test stand does sit idle for months on end, but when it runs, also runs for a month or two at a stretch. And it's the same motor and pump on that test stand since it was built back in the 80's. So then, maybe not completely outrageous?

--------------

Another thought, perhaps truly outrageous? I had formerly worked on Unimate robots. Monstrous beasts, hydraulically powered, mainly employed at investment casting plants. Think of the "lost wax" casting method. The robot would pick up a heavy 'tree' of many delicate wax models, then dip the lot of theml into thin cement slurry, twirl it a bit, then next dip it into sand and also twirl it. After drying, they'd melt out the wax and have a mold for casting titanium turbine blades.

Here is the thing. The wax models on that tree were delicate, so the sand was made 'liquid' for dipping by vibrating it. Jiggling the grains. A whole hopper's worth of sand as tall as I am myself. Not the hopper itself, just only the sand inside. A hundred and more pounds worth of sand in each hopper. Some kind of ultra-sonic transducer did that. Like what they use in humidifiers only bigger, I think. Or maybe instead it was pumped air. No way could I engineer this at home, but wondering if maybe they do it to media inside of commercial water treatment tanks? If not, then here is maybe an idea worth trying?
 
Last edited:

ditttohead

Water systems designer, R&D
Messages
6,091
Reaction score
456
Points
83
Location
Ontario California
I assume you are referring to KDF which requires 30 gpm per ft2 of bed area to backwash properly, so a 10" diameter tank would require 15+ GPM to backwash adequately. This typically should be done daily or every other day. it is not a regenerating media. It does not use salt.

Literature on KDF Fluid Treatment Water Filter Media (kdfft.com)

upload_2021-2-1_8-41-46.png
 

Water Pro

In the Trades
Messages
365
Reaction score
33
Points
28
Location
syracuse
Was reading up on the Cu/Zn mix named "Redox". Given my iron-bacteria issue, chemistry-wise, it seems ideal. Then there's the issue of how much backwash it needs. Reputedly, this is because of weight, flow sufficient to make turbulent the heavy beads. Which does make sense.

Also, as I understand it, whatsoever flow there is needs to have a certain concentration of salt in order for the required chemistry to happen.

Those two things need to be simultaneous, and the simplest way to achieve it is to flow hundreds of gallons. What if, however, a trapped volume of brine just only great enough to contain the required amount of Na and Cl ions were to be re-circulated in a closed loop by means of a sufficiently forceful pump and motor?

In short, re-circulate just enough brine around and around, fast enough, and long enough, and only then dispose of it as effluent. Not a gear or piston pump, obviously. But maybe a vane pump? Or a diaphram pump (smaller version of the kind used in car washes, maybe)?

Now, before anyone reaches immediately for their LMAO emoticon, do know this. In the test laboratory where I have worked these past 15 years, we use small motors and vane pumps for re-circulating a heavy slurry of, ahem 'calibrated dirt'. this mixed into kerosene for a result so that it is nearly opaque with crud. Not sludge, mind, still a very liquid slurry. But said mixed-in 'dirt' is comprised of 0-10 micron iron oxide powders, Arizona road dust, and ground up quartz. In bakers units, a heaping cup full into every 5 gallons of liquid.

The only modification we've made to those vane pumps (ordered from McMaster-Carr) is to turn down the vane wheel's outer circumference just a little, enough so that the quartz grains won't bind between it and the wall. It's a smallish pump on a smallish 110VAC-powered motor, maybe 1/2 HP, no more. Direct drive, no belt.

That particular test stand does sit idle for months on end, but when it runs, also runs for a month or two at a stretch. And it's the same motor and pump on that test stand since it was built back in the 80's. So then, maybe not completely outrageous?

--------------

Another thought, perhaps truly outrageous? I had formerly worked on Unimate robots. Monstrous beasts, hydraulically powered, mainly employed at investment casting plants. Think of the "lost wax" casting method. The robot would pick up a heavy 'tree' of many delicate wax models, then dip the lot of theml into thin cement slurry, twirl it a bit, then next dip it into sand and also twirl it. After drying, they'd melt out the wax and have a mold for casting titanium turbine blades.

Here is the thing. The wax models on that tree were delicate, so the sand was made 'liquid' for dipping by vibrating it. Jiggling the grains. A whole hopper's worth of sand as tall as I am myself. Not the hopper itself, just only the sand inside. A hundred and more pounds worth of sand in each hopper. Some kind of ultra-sonic transducer did that. Like what they use in humidifiers only bigger, I think. Or maybe instead it was pumped air. No way could I engineer this at home, but wondering if maybe they do it to media inside of commercial water treatment tanks? If not, then here is maybe an idea worth trying?
you conflating two completely different processes. Salt is used for softening, which is an ion exchange process not involving redox. I have a blog on my website which explains this process here https://www.curtiswater.com/blog Removal of hydrogen sulfide is a redox reaction which doesn't involve salt, but instead uses an oxidizer, (usually combined with a media, such as katalox light) to remove oxidized Fe, Mn or S. These are the elements which iron or sulfur reducing bacteria reduce to produce H2S. Here is an explanation. When hydrogen sulfide (H2S) reacts with chlorine (Cl2), sulfur (S) and HCl are formed. In this reaction, the H2S is changing into 'S' i.e, hydrogen is being removed from hydrogen sulfide. Removal of hydrogen from a substance is known as oxidation. ... Further, chlorine (Cl2) is changing to HCl i.e, addition of hydrogen. You can substitute Cl for any strong oxidizer (such as oxygen, ozone or H2O2). although (for reasons I'm not aware of) H2O2 not as good as the others for oxidizing H2S.
 

Reach4

Well-Known Member
Messages
38,884
Reaction score
4,434
Points
113
Location
IL
although (for reasons I'm not aware of) H2O2 not as good as the others for oxidizing H2S.
I was under the impression that H2O2 was better than chlorine for that, but I don't have a citation.
 

Water Pro

In the Trades
Messages
365
Reaction score
33
Points
28
Location
syracuse
I was under the impression that H2O2 was better than chlorine for that, but I don't have a citation.
it's a better oxidizer overall yes. I think it may have something to do with contact time. Sulfur has 5 oxidation states, manganese has 6. while iron only has 3. Cl and ozone provide more contact time to fully oxidize. Its possible I'm wrong. maybe others can weigh in.
 
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