Review my Fleck 5810 SXT settings

Users who are viewing this thread

w3ss

New Member
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Points
1
Location
Ontario, Canada
I moved into a home with a Fleck 5810 SXT installed. 4 people.

I want to start it with being salt efficient and curious how to tweak it with alternative C/BF pairs to have better water quality (use more salt). I've seen the "Resin capacity chart" but that is in increments of 2lbs/ft3 (the salt to resin grains capacity is not linear). Is there a formula that can be shared? Since my BLFC is 0.25 I'd bump up the sale .75lbs salt per min.

BLFC = 0.25 (I checked it manually as there was no sticker/label that I could find)
1 cu ft (tank is 48" tall)
City water with 7.3 GPG, Iron 0.008mg/L

VT 5810
RF df2b
CT Fd
C 20
H 8 (I changed it from 9)
RS SF
SF 5
DO 28 (I changed it from 14)
RT 230
B1 5 (I changed it from 10)
BD 60
B2 4
RR 6
BF 8 (I changed it from 10)
FM t1.2
RE OFF
VR OFF

Thanks!
 

Reach4

Well-Known Member
Messages
38,649
Reaction score
4,373
Points
113
Location
IL
The less salt per cubic ft, the more salt efficient, but more hardness breakthrough.​
BLFC
0.25​
cubic ft resin
1​


lb/cuft
C=
BF=
grains/pound of salt
0​
0.0​
0​
0​
2.3​
11.1​
3​
3282​
3.0​
13.8​
4​
3073​
3.8​
16.1​
5​
2861​
4.5​
18.0​
6​
2666​
5.3​
19.6​
7​
2491​
6.0​
21.0​
8​
2335​
6.8​
22.2​
9​
2197​
7.5​
23.3​
10​
2073​
8.3​
24.3​
11​
1963​
9.0​
25.2​
12​
1863​
9.8​
25.9​
13​
1773​
10.5​
26.6​
14​
1691​

I agree that BF=8 is a good place to start. Going lower will reduce softeness, but maybe you will find that acceptable.
 

Bannerman

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,752
Reaction score
749
Points
113
Location
Ontario, Canada
I suspect the chart you have seen is the one shown below. The chart is not linear because the ratio of salt to grains capacity is not linear, which is why Hardness Reduction Efficiency (HRE) changes considerably between each vertical column.

Higher salt efficiency settings mean a compromise of lower water quality and lower usable capacity which will result in a higher frequency for regeneration and therefore, a greater quantity of water utilized for regeneration when considered over time.

To achieve the best balance of hardness reduction efficiency, soft water quality and usable capacity, the most common recommendation is 8lbs salt per cubic foot (ft3) resin, which is appropriate to regenerate 24,000 grains usable capacity per ft3. Using these setting choices, HRE (salt efficiency) will be 3,000 grains per lb, and hardness leakage will gradually rise over time to 6ppm.

If you want to further increase salt efficiency, 6 lbs/ft3 will regenerate 21,000 gr/ft3 of usable capacity, thereby increasing efficiency to 3,500 gr/lb but with lower soft water quality (hardness leakage will gradually rise to 10ppm), and additional water will be consumed per year for regeneration. FYI, 17.1 ppm hardness = 1 GPG.

As water quality (higher hardness leakage) will further decline with a lower salt setting, less than 6lbs/ft3 is not generally recommended.

index.php
 

w3ss

New Member
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Points
1
Location
Ontario, Canada
The less salt per cubic ft, the more salt efficient, but more hardness breakthrough.​
BLFC
0.25​
cubic ft resin
1​


lb/cuft
C=
BF=
grains/pound of salt
0​
0.0​
0​
0​
2.3​
11.1​
3​
3282​
3.0​
13.8​
4​
3073​
3.8​
16.1​
5​
2861​
4.5​
18.0​
6​
2666​
5.3​
19.6​
7​
2491​
6.0​
21.0​
8​
2335​
6.8​
22.2​
9​
2197​
7.5​
23.3​
10​
2073​
8.3​
24.3​
11​
1963​
9.0​
25.2​
12​
1863​
9.8​
25.9​
13​
1773​
10.5​
26.6​
14​
1691​

I agree that BF=8 is a good place to start. Going lower will reduce softeness, but maybe you will find that acceptable.
Should I change C = 21 (currently set at 20)

How did you come up with the grains/pound of salt? I was taking (Cx1000)/ (lb/cuft). ie: second row = 11100/2.3 = 7482.6 grains/lb of salt.
 

w3ss

New Member
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Points
1
Location
Ontario, Canada
I suspect the chart you have seen is the one shown below. The chart is not linear because the ratio of salt to grains capacity is not linear, which is why Hardness Reduction Efficiency (HRE) changes considerably between each vertical column.

Higher salt efficiency settings mean a compromise of lower water quality and lower usable capacity which will result in a higher frequency for regeneration and therefore, a greater quantity of water utilized for regeneration when considered over time.

To achieve the best balance of hardness reduction efficiency, soft water quality and usable capacity, the most common recommendation is 8lbs salt per cubic foot (ft3) resin, which is appropriate to regenerate 24,000 grains usable capacity per ft3. Using these setting choices, HRE (salt efficiency) will be 3,000 grains per lb, and hardness leakage will gradually rise over time to 6ppm.

If you want to further increase salt efficiency, 6 lbs/ft3 will regenerate 21,000 gr/ft3 of usable capacity, thereby increasing efficiency to 3,500 gr/lb but with lower soft water quality (hardness leakage will gradually rise to 10ppm), and additional water will be consumed per year for regeneration. FYI, 17.1 ppm hardness = 1 GPG.

As water quality (higher hardness leakage) will further decline with a lower salt setting, less than 6lbs/ft3 is not generally recommended.

index.php
Yes, this was the chart I have seen. I was just trying to figure out how the C and BF should be set since I have BLFC = 0.25 and trying to go between 6-8lbs.
 

w3ss

New Member
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Points
1
Location
Ontario, Canada
Searched through the forum and I decided to get the grains per lb closer to 3000. I am going to update the settings to:

DFGAL
VT5810
RFdF2b
CTFd
C23.3
H8
RSrc
RC240
DO28
RT2:30
B15
BD60
B24
RR6
BF10
FMt1.2
REOFF
VROFF
 

Bannerman

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,752
Reaction score
749
Points
113
Location
Ontario, Canada
Water softener settings are not an exact science as the numbers are often rounded (ie: quantity of water needed to dissolve 3lbs salt) and include some reasonable estimates such as an appropriate reserve setting. Recommend using the chart's Capacity and Salt amounts as those are industry standards. Reducing the capacity and salt amount to save 0.5 lb salt per regeneration will likely result in a difference of maybe 1/2 bag per year at most. Any salt saved could be offset by the cost of additional water utilized if there are additional regenerations required due to the lower Capacity setting resulting from the lower salt dose.

How did you determine water hardness? Hardness should rightly be measured at your location (Hach 5B Total Hardness kit recommended). Hardness can vary in a large distribution system and Municipal suppliers will often state an average hardness amount, but average hardness should not be utilized for programming. I normally recommended setting 2-3 gpg higher than the test result, but since it's likely 100% of your supply is from Lake Ontario, hardness probably won't vary much. When a hardness test reads any decimal amount above a whole number, the hardness amount should be rounded up to the next higher whole number.
 

w3ss

New Member
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Points
1
Location
Ontario, Canada
I'm going to order a Hach 5B Total Hardness Kit to validate. @Bannerman - do you have a recommended place to pickup or order in the GTA? I see you are in Ontario too.

The hardness I found (7.3 so I set to 8) was on the municipality website from 2022. As you mentioned, the water is sourced from lake Ontario. After I test with Hach 5B do you still recommend I set the gpg 2-3 higher than measured?

Since I have BLFC = 0.25, do you recommend I bump BF = 11 (8.25lbs salt) and C = 24?
 
Last edited:

Reach4

Well-Known Member
Messages
38,649
Reaction score
4,373
Points
113
Location
IL
Should I change C = 21 (currently set at 20)

How did you come up with the grains/pound of salt? I was taking (Cx1000)/ (lb/cuft). ie: second row = 11100/2.3 = 7482.6 grains/lb of salt.
I need to review that column. Clearly I have an error. Thanks.
 

w3ss

New Member
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Points
1
Location
Ontario, Canada
Came up with another question.

I was able to locate a label and BLFC = .25GPM. Injector = 1. I depressurized and visually checked and there was a white coloured injector on the top left.

Knowing this new info does it impact my settings? Perhaps the BD?
 
Last edited:

Reach4

Well-Known Member
Messages
38,649
Reaction score
4,373
Points
113
Location
IL
I would have preferred #00 Injector - Violet or #0 Injector - Red rather than #1 Injector - White.

Expect all of your brine to be drawn in about 6.6 minutes, rather than the common 15 minute target.

Usually you don't reduce BD below 60, but based on numbers only , you could reduce BD to 27 minutes, or even a tad less. My preference would be #00 with your 1 cuft of resin. I cannot say how much more effective that change to #00 would be.
 

w3ss

New Member
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Points
1
Location
Ontario, Canada
I would have preferred #00 Injector - Violet or #0 Injector - Red rather than #1 Injector - White.

Expect all of your brine to be drawn in about 6.6 minutes, rather than the common 15 minute target.

Usually you don't reduce BD below 60, but based on numbers only , you could reduce BD to 27 minutes, or even a tad less. My preference would be #00 with your 1 cuft of resin. I cannot say how much more effective that change to #00 would be.
I didn't pull out the white injector as I assume it's the colour visable when installed?

Would you recommend I change the injector to a #00? Looking online that part is not expensive.

What are the impacts of brine being drawn faster than target?
 

Reach4

Well-Known Member
Messages
38,649
Reaction score
4,373
Points
113
Location
IL
I would think #00 would be worthwhile. Even with that #00, BD=60 will be appropriate.
 

Reach4

Well-Known Member
Messages
38,649
Reaction score
4,373
Points
113
Location
IL
I might even go with a #000 Injector – Brown.
 

Reach4

Well-Known Member
Messages
38,649
Reaction score
4,373
Points
113
Location
IL
What this will do for you is to move the brine thru the resin more slowly, giving it the time to interact (ion-exchange) better.
 
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