Andy CWS
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Apr, 2007 02:38 pm
Justalurker,

I was wondering how 3333 grains/pound of salt can be considered efficient, well not according to California:

B. Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Sections 116775-116795 and amendments thereto, no residential water softening or conditioning appliance shall be installed except in either of the following circumstances:

1. The regeneration of the appliance is performed at a nonresidential facility separate from the location of the residence where such appliance is used; or

2. The regeneration of the appliance discharges to the waste disposal system of the residence where such appliance is used and the following conditions are satisfied:

a. The appliance activates regeneration by demand control;

b. An appliance installed on or after January 1, 2000, shall be certified by a third party rating organization using industry standards to have a salt efficiency rating of no less than three thousand three hundred fifty grains of hardness removed per pound of salt used in generation. An appliance installed on or after January 1, 2002 shall be certified by a third party rating organization using industry standards to have a salt efficiency rating of <<<no>>> used in generation;

Oddly enough nearly all the twin tank systems that I deal with have over 4000 gr/lb. What Mr. Slusser says is very puzzling and I am having a hard time understanding his point and yet he documents how they are so inefficient that they are not permitted to be installed in California for the last 4 years. Maybe he just hasn't updated his information yet or, ...no it couldn't be...that he is actually saying something that is wrong!

But of course the 3rd-party testing and validating organizations are typically NSF and WQA, which Mr. Slusser has, in the past, disregarded and actually scoffed at the certification processes and those who find value in accreditations.

Andy Christensen, CWS
0 Replies
 
justalurker
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Apr, 2007 02:54 pm
Andy CWS wrote:
But of course the 3rd-party testing and validating organizations are typically NSF and WQA, which Mr. Slusser has, in the past, disregarded and actually scoffed at the certification processes and those who find value in accreditations.

Andy Christensen, CWS


Now Andy, don't be bringing science and 3rd party testing and product certification into a discussion regarding water treatment equipment. That's no place to be discussing chemistry and physics when a layman has already stated in this thread that a multimillion dollar multi-national resin company doesn't know how its own resin works.

Don't bring science into this discussion and I won't continue to advocate that potential water treatment customers should look into all their options, seek out all the pertinent information they can find, and get all the free quotes they have time to get BEFORE spending their money with anyone.

Now why don't you take that science and product certification and 3rd party testing and that twin tank softener that uses "milleniums old FREE water power" and just go away and make soft water 24/7 for about 20 years :wink:
0 Replies
 
Gary Slusser
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Apr, 2007 10:30 pm
You guys just keep assuming I don't know what I'm doing and that I'm wrong each time you say so. I'll keep doing my thing helping consumers whether they buy from me or not.

As to WQA "Certification", IMO it's a haven for the worst crooks the industry has and the bigger the crook, the more they profess (read market) their "Certification" and "professionalism". Also, I feel sorry for those people that fall victim to the company or salesmen marketing their certification. I say that because certification does not say anything about the character of the "certified" salesperson or company.
0 Replies
 
justalurker
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 May, 2007 12:15 am
Gary Slusser wrote:
certification does not say anything about the character of the "certified" salesperson or company.


That is true and self-promotion says just as little about the character of a "non-certified" salesperson or company.
0 Replies
 
Andy CWS
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Dec, 2009 09:43 am
@Gary Slusser,
Gary Slusser wrote:

Anyway, he says a twin tank is "most efficient" and better because it uses softened water to regenerate instead of hard water which he seems to think is a bad thing for the resin... like dirty clothes are bad for a clothes washer! it isn't. Hardness doesn't bother any cation resin in any way.

Plus, if the twin tank and regular softener both have the same size resin tank, and the same volume of the same type of resin, they both have exactly the same "efficiency". Note that Andy, a twin tank Kinetico salesman, says "can be very efficient"; which is not the same as "MOST efficient". I'd go with the Kinetico salesman before justa neighborhood softener user.


Please give me an idea about this salt usage. You seem to know about how to calculate salt use for a period of a year, right?
4 people (x 60 = 240/day)
19 grains per gallon
0.5 ppm iron
normal water use

If this were consistent for a year, how much salt would your Clack use in one year?
Gary Slusser
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Dec, 2009 12:03 pm
@Andy CWS,
Yes, let's talk about salt use.

Actual salt efficiency from the consumers' point of view is the total lbs used over a given period of time; day/week/month/year.

Show us your Kinetico figures including what model Kinetico you use and I'll be very glad to answer the question.
Andy CWS
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Dec, 2009 12:24 pm
@Gary Slusser,
No, tooo late for that, brother. You are the one who accused me of misrepresenting this info to my customers.

Nah, you can't get out of it that way. Besides, YOU SAID you have Kinetico's numbers and have already put in--what was it?--enormous amount of time and came up with a calculation that suits you just fine. What can I add? You have already stated what the Kinetico can do. So that is a done deal and, thus, becomes a moot point, Gary.

Tries these numbers for a comparison:
Please give me an idea about this salt usage. You seem to know about how to calculate salt use for a period of a year, right?
4 people (x 60 = 240/day)
19 grains per gallon
0.5 ppm iron
normal water use

If this were consistent for a year, how much salt would your Clack use in one year?

Listen, it's the Holidays and I am enjoying time with my friends and family surrounded by good cheer and celebrations. I can understand if this is getting frustrating for you as you just keep cut-n-pasting and avoid answering a very basic question concerning the equipment you deal with everyday (READ: should be ale to calculate off the top of your head).

But, you see, I am not as smart as you nor do I understand your extremely high efficiency settings. That's why I look forward to your simple, clear calculation.

Just pretend I am your customer and you want me to know how much salt my family would use in a year given the following data:

4 people (x 60 = 240/day)
19 grains per gallon
0.5 ppm iron
normal water use

---I just thought of something...maybe there's is another reason you can't do this. Uhm? Naah, can't be true!




Gary Slusser
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Dec, 2009 12:47 pm
@Andy CWS,
Andy CWS wrote:
Nah, you can't get out of it that way. Besides, YOU SAID you have Kinetico's numbers

Actually you know I posted the Kinetico manual model stuff.
jps51248
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Dec, 2009 01:10 pm
@Gary Slusser,
Well,I finally received some service from my soft water man. Put a small gear on timer. No change. Came back, put in another gear,same location, on timer I think. It is the gear that drives the weekly clock around, now it works great. I think first gear was either used or wrong size. Very small gear and close fitted. Anyway, I have soft water. Happy and it has been working for a few weeks. Still would like to have the metered valve, not sure it would ever pay for itself. Charging once per week, dealer says about 6 lbs. per charge. Just great to have soft water again. Thanks to all!!! jps
Gary Slusser
 
  0  
Reply Wed 23 Dec, 2009 01:52 pm
@jps51248,
Thanks for the feedback and I'm glad you saved all the money a new valve or softener would have cost.
0 Replies
 
Andy CWS
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Dec, 2009 04:42 pm
@Gary Slusser,
Gary Slusser wrote:

Actually you know I posted the Kinetico manual model stuff.


So? What has that got to do with anything except you admitting that you already made the claim. You can't just throw numbers arpund without having a baseline. Utterly ridiculous.

Now listen very carefull, Gary. I am asking YOU--the Gary Slusser-- to substantiate your claim on Clack's salt efficiency to the sceranio I set earlier.

WHY is this so dfficult for you? Your hesitation and refusal speaks for itself.
Gary Slusser
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Dec, 2009 10:27 am
@Andy CWS,
Andy never answers the question of how many regenerations per week but you are correct that there will be many of them using the lbs of salt and gallons of water he stated. Please let me know if you get any Kinetico salesman to tell you how many regenerations their softener will be doing per week. Until then you can not compare their softener to other softeners.
Andy CWS
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Dec, 2009 11:51 am
@Gary Slusser,
Andy never answers the question of how many regenerations per week...
Absolute nonsense! Untrue! As I have stated over and over and over again, without a baseline, no one can ever state how many times any softener will regenerate in a given period. Ridiculous. But you find it more convenient to compare apples to apple sauce.

...but you are correct that there will be many of them using the lbs of salt and gallons of water he stated.
What a brilliant deduction! Does this come from your long experience in the trade? "pounds of salt and gallons of water...? Whew! A fine culmination of facts and wisdon. Who is "HE"? To whom are you referring? No good to explain things with dangling modifiers.

Please let me know if you get any Kinetico salesman to tell you how many regenerations their softener will be doing per week. Until then you can not compare their softener to other softeners.
Who are you talking to, Gary? I am asking you to stand by your words and I see you are finding it very difficult to do that.
And AGaiN, boy this is getting old--you cannot figure those numbers until you know what conditions exist. You're losing it, man!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/08/2021 at 01:42:20