2060 on City Water

Reply

  #1  
Old 02-14-09, 12:01 PM
M
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 25
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
2060 on City Water

I installed a 2.5yr old 2060 on city water. It tested 21 grains. I was told by a salesman that the Chlorine would destroy my resin. Is this a true concern? Of course, he wanted to sell me a 4040. He said the 2060 was a well water system. Additionally, are there seals in the head that I should change that can handle the chlorine better? I don't want my seales to swell, etc. Thank you.
 
  #2  
Old 02-14-09, 05:05 PM
A
Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Northwest Ohio
Posts: 1,479
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
A simple solution is the install a dechlorination filter before the softener. A cartridge, backwashing filter or an upflow tank with carbon. Don't worry about the seals.

Carbon and KDF medai are the most common dechloriation media.

You may need to adjust metering disk and salt setting.

Andy Christensen, CWS-II
 
  #3  
Old 02-14-09, 10:15 PM
M
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 25
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
How about this one, Andy.

Backwashing Carbon Filters - US Water Systems

I'm thinking the smaller one???

I'm a family of 6, if that matters.
 
  #4  
Old 02-15-09, 02:50 AM
A
Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Northwest Ohio
Posts: 1,479
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
That would work but an upflow tank is more cost effective. Remember, everytime you backwash it, you further exhaust the carbon and actually flush some of it away. Also, the valve is the most expensive part of the unit. Eliminate that, and your total costs go down.

Use a backwashing filter if the media is expected to 'gather' sediment or precipitated materials. That doesn't usually happen with city water supplies. You can put in a small sediment prefilter for that.

Andy
 
  #5  
Old 02-15-09, 07:28 AM
M
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 25
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
Andy,

I'm not having any luck finding anything non-industrial in the upflow category. Cheapest being $800. You have a source?

Thx.
 
  #6  
Old 02-15-09, 10:19 AM
A
Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Northwest Ohio
Posts: 1,479
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
What source did you find that $800-model? It is simple a regular softener tank with a basic in/out connector. Fill it 3/4 with GAC carbon or similar media.

You local dealer can get you the parts if they are inclined for DIYers.

Here's an example but you really don't need the stainless cover. Google: upflow carbon filter.

Andy
 
  #7  
Old 02-15-09, 12:32 PM
M
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 25
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
I was just searching for Upflow Filter. All I got were these cannisters with a number of cartridges inside. Most were "industrial" grade. Did not look like anything I would need.

With your advice, I did find these:

CARBON FILTERS

or

Carbon Tanks by Fleck

Is these the things you are referring to? Which is better? What size do I need?

Oh, how long do these last before I need to chage out the carbon, etc. I'm assuming it will eventually "fill up". And I would have no clue in knowing when it actually was full.

Thank you.
 
  #8  
Old 02-15-09, 12:46 PM
biermech's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 2,007
Received 2 Votes on 2 Posts
With a 1 cf auto backwashing carbon filter, wil should get about 5 years before the media needs to be changed. The carbon is used up. It stripps away and gets smaller over time.

Andy,
Why would you reccomend an upflow vs downflow? With the backwashing valve, any sediment would be removed during backwash. I've always gone downflow on carbon.
 
  #9  
Old 02-15-09, 01:52 PM
A
Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Northwest Ohio
Posts: 1,479
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by biermech View Post

Andy,
Why would you reccomend an upflow vs downflow? With the backwashing valve, any sediment would be removed during backwash. I've always gone downflow on carbon.
Good question. Economics, mostly.

1. An 8" tank with 0.7 cu and a valve would be more expensive that a 10" 1.5 cu upflow tank.

2. You have more than twice the carbon and the contact time is very good as it has a long bed to travel through.

3. Backwashing filter uses water to clean itself, that increases city water usage bill (and sewer, in most cases) and shortens life of carbon as chlorine is being removed while backwashing.

4. Slightly easier to rebed.

5. Uses no electricity. Minor, I know, but with the upflow, there will never be an electrical issue such as timer adjustments, corrosion, power failures, etc. Zero valve maintenance, ever.

6. It's very quiet. Like havig a fish for a pet!!! instead of a chihuahua...;-{

7. Perhaps less flow restriction.

8. Cheaper to buy, operate and maintain.

Andy
 
  #10  
Old 02-15-09, 06:26 PM
biermech's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 2,007
Received 2 Votes on 2 Posts
What you are saying is use an upflow with an in and out valve. Not with a backwashing valve correct? That makes sence. The way I read it was you were saying use a backwashing valve with upflow service.
 
  #11  
Old 02-16-09, 05:11 AM
M
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 25
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
Ok, I think I've got it... Now... Which one to buy???

Carbon Tanks by Fleck

Fleck 5600 a good deal. But, which one? 1.0, or 1.5 Cu ft?

Also, what about the "Premium" Carbon Tank... Is it worth the extra? Or, it is a backwash instead of upflow??

Or, there are these:

CARBON FILTERS

Again, which size?? Is bigger ALWAYS better?

I'm a family of 6. On city water, Peoria IL (Basically river water) with 21grains.
 
  #12  
Old 02-16-09, 07:37 AM
biermech's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 2,007
Received 2 Votes on 2 Posts
I would get the 5600 backwashing valve on a 1.5 cf tank. The more carbon means better contact time and longer life. As far as the type of carbon, I can not comment on that. I don't see a difference.
 
  #13  
Old 02-16-09, 02:55 PM
M
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 25
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by biermech View Post
I would get the 5600 backwashing valve on a 1.5 cf tank. The more carbon means better contact time and longer life. As far as the type of carbon, I can not comment on that. I don't see a difference.

Okay, I have one recomendation for backwashing, one for upflow. Not sure how to process this... Andy says you use a lot of extra water for the backwashing. How about media replacement? Does carbon die out quicker with either one??? Or, is it basically immaterial which type to buy... just depending on if you want to pay for more water usage...

Thanks
 
  #14  
Old 02-16-09, 04:25 PM
A
Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Northwest Ohio
Posts: 1,479
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
Both are fine. CArbon has a limited life baseD on the volume of waster used and the amount of chlorine (AMONG OTHER FACTORS) in this application.

If a 1 cuft bed needs to backwash using, say 50 gallons of water and it does that twice a week, that would be 5200 gallons down the drain and have to be factored into carbon service-life. Now that amount is not much compared to a typical family of four's total water use, but nonetheless, it is still being used.

I use carbon backwashing for systems where is alos acts as a 'filter' when precipitating elements (elemental sulfur, etc.) are accummulated and must be flushed out. Here an upflow would be useless. But changing chloine to harmless chlorides through a process of adsorption, there's not a lot to flush down the drain.

But, again, either way will serve you well.

There are different types of carbon for different purposes and it can get very technical depending on how effecient you want it to be.

HERE IS A LINK THAT CAN GIVE SOME INSIGHT.
Water Technology Online :: Brought to you by Grand View Media

Andy Christensen, CWS-II
 
 

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
 
Ask a Question
Question Title:
Description:
Your question will be posted in: