Another water softener sizing thread (1.5 or 2.0)

Users who are viewing this thread

Nite

New Member
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Points
1
Location
Florida
Hey everyone,

I've been reading thoroughly on water softeners and I wanted to ask for a sanity check and some additional advice before committing to the purchase.

I've heard some conflicting opinions on size, some saying 2.0 cu. ft. is the ideal size, others saying 1.5 cu. ft. (some companies I called asking about 2.0 cu. ft. called me crazy and to "stop reading things on the internet").

I can get a 1.5 cu. ft. system for $1000, or a 2.0 cu. ft. system for $1300. Are these prices reasonable? To me they seem high.

I recently purchased an older home in Florida that has been renovated with all new bathrooms and appliances. The water here is pretty hard, and I want to protect all the brand new fixtures.

Here's the breakdown of my situation:

- 2 people living in the home
- 3 full bathrooms
- Hardness was informally measured at 19 g.p.g.
- Free chlorine was informally measured at 2.4 p.p.m.
- I measured GPM at 15-16 (2.5 gallons filled in approximately 9 seconds)

- Local water company official report lists the following for my area:
- Hardness: 358 ppm, g.p.g. 21
- Arsenic 0.924 ppb
- Lead 4.13 ppb
- Chlorine 1.07 (range 0.13 - 2.9)
- Sulfate 255 ppm
- TDS 686 ppm (154-686)
- House plumbing is 3/4"

I am planning to have someone locally install a Clack WS-1 valve (CS model?) at a size of 1.5 or 2.0 cu. ft.

Things I am keeping an eye out for:

- gravel underbed
- top basket
- Noryl yoke bypass included with 3-ball bypass for seamless repair
- Circular/cylindrical tank
- Float protection
- 10% crosslink for chlorine

It's just my wife and I in the house for now, but we plan to potentially have kids in the next few years. Two at most. Want to make sure I get a system that will be salt-efficient for now and in the future without getting something undersized for my family's growth, and I have seen some postings urging strongly for 2.0+. Have heard conflicting reports on the necessary size, some saying oversized systems have their own problems. Companies locally are telling me 2.0 is for commercial use only.

I really appreciate the help in advance and thank you for your time.
 

Attachments

  • water_quality.jpg
    water_quality.jpg
    102.4 KB · Views: 366
Last edited:

Reach4

Well-Known Member
Messages
38,749
Reaction score
4,400
Points
113
Location
IL
http://www.qualitywaterassociates.com/sizing.php suggests 1.5 cuft, but since you have no iron, 2 cuft would be very good too. Just expect to regen less often that way. Set the softener up to use 6 lb/cuft of salt. Dealers might tend to go higher to allow a bigger capacity number, but at the expense of extra salt use.

Due to the chlorine, your choice of 10% crosslinked resin is good.

An activated carbon backwashing filter might be good for removing chlorine and maybe some of those other things. I did not compare your arsenic, lead etc to desirable levels. Your chlorine is high per those numbers.However it may be lower by the time it gets to your house.
.
 
Last edited:

Nite

New Member
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Points
1
Location
Florida
Thanks for your quick response! I also think 2.0 cu. ft. would probably be best. My city water report doesn't list iron whatsoever - should I test for that?

What are your thoughts on the pricing? Is $1300 high for the 2.0 size softener system?

I have spoke to the same company regarding a carbon filter, and they said they could do a Clack backwashing unit with 1 cu. ft. carbon media for $700. I haven't looked into carbon filtration enough to know if that's a good size or price for my needs.

I also updated my post with the full water report and my GPM (15-16).
 

Reach4

Well-Known Member
Messages
38,749
Reaction score
4,400
Points
113
Location
IL
Chlorine removes iron, so the iron would be gone by the time it flows to your house.

Installed pricing? Sounds reasonable to me offhand. I am not a pro, and I have not been shopping much.
 

ditttohead

Water systems designer, R&D
Messages
6,088
Reaction score
455
Points
83
Location
Ontario California
Price for both looks great but I would get a larger carbon unit, it should not add significantly to the cost. Service flows for carbon are about 3 GPM per Cu. Ft. Service flow is where the carbon is most effective at removing the listed contaminants. You can exceed the service flow but water quality and the effectiveness of the GAC unit will suffer.

Carbon for chlorine removal is surprisingly effective even if you exceed the service flows. We still see >90% reduction in chlorine when we exceed the "service flow", so take my advice for a larger carbon system with the knowledge that if you go with the 1 cu. ft., you will probably still be very pleased with the water quality.
 

Nite

New Member
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Points
1
Location
Florida
Thanks dittohead and Reach4!

Dittohead - what would you recommend for an adequate size of carbon? 2 CU. FT.?

I also bought a Hach 5B test kit to test the water and it reported slightly higher than when I had another test done, at 24 grains. (Went purple at 23 then blue at 24).

Do you guys still think 2.0 CU. FT. is adequate at 24 grains?

Thanks again for your help!
 

ditttohead

Water systems designer, R&D
Messages
6,088
Reaction score
455
Points
83
Location
Ontario California
2.0 is fine, companies that tell you the 2.0 is for commercial use only should not be used. That is an idiotic statement by these "dealers". More likely, they are sales companies that don't really offer anything else since they don't know anything about water treatment other than how to make a buck.

The simple math of it.

6 pounds of salt per CF regeneration = 20,000 grains per ft3.

24 grains x 4 people x 60 gallons of water per person per day = 5760 grains per day removal needed. A system should be designed to regenerate every 7 days or more for maximum efficiency. Anything beyond 14 days adds almost no gains in efficiency.

5760 grains x 7 days = 40,320 grains, close enough in my book.

I prefer a matching GAC tank. GAC has a service flow of 3 gpm per ft3. Its peak flow is muh higher of course. The vast majority of the wate ruse in your house will be below 6 gpm.
 
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