Advice on new softener.

[Hud]

Plan to replace my current softener with a Fleck 5810SXT and would appreciate comments on a couple items.
City water; 15 grains; no iron, 0.6Clorine; code requires 1" plumbing.
2 person household, 90 day average soft water consumption is 75 gallons per day.

1. Is 10% resin a good option.
2. I know I can get by on a minimal system but am interested in salt efficiency and a long lifespan. Should I look at 24,000, 32,000 , 40,000 or a ?? grain capacity.
3. What is most efficient level of softener capacity to set regenerations, 50%, 75%, 100% , or ??. More interested in salt efficiency than water consumption.

Anything else you can offer will be appreciated.
Thank you.
Gary

 

[Reach4]

1. Is 10% resin a good option.

Darn near manditory.

2. I know I can get by on a minimal system but am interested in salt efficiency and a long lifespan. Should I look at 24,000, 32,000 , 40,000 or a ?? grain capacity.

"48000" or "32000". Do not use those numbers for calculations. In effect, they are conventional code for 1.5 or 1 cuft of resin respectively.

3. What is most efficient level of softener capacity to set regenerations, 50%, 75%, 100% , or ??. More interested in salt efficiency than water consumption.

By that criterion, maybe 5 lb of salt/cuft of resin. If you want softer, up that to 6 later. I don't know what "50%, 75%, 100%" would refer to.

 

[Sponsor]

 

[Hud]

Darn near manditory.

"48000" or "32000". Do not use those numbers for calculations. In effect, they are conventional code for 1.5 or 1 cuft of resin respectively.

By that criterion, maybe 5 lb of salt/cuft of resin. If you want softer, up that to 6 later. I don't know what "50%, 75%, 100%" would refer to.

Not very helpful Reach 4.

 

[Bannerman]

Continuous chlorine exposure will reduce the lifespan of any softening resin, but 10% cross-link will better tolerate chlorine compared to resin with lesser crosslinking.

Alternately, a backwashing carbon filtration system may be utilized to remove chlorine and many other contaminants prior to the softener. With chlorine removed, there would be less reason to upgrade to 10% as standard 8% cross-link resin would be sufficient.

Salt Efficiency is a matter of programming, but salt Efficiency involves compromise as higher efficiency will result in lower quality soft water (greater hardness leakage), and also results in lower regenerated capacity per cycle, resulting in a greater amount of water utilized for regeneration on a monthly/yearly basis.

To obtain the best balance of efficiency, water quality and usable capacity, 8lbs salt per cubic foot of resin is the most common recommendation.

As an example, a softener equipped with 1.5 ft3 resin, 12 lbs salt will regenerate 36,000 grains capacity per cycle, with only 6ppm anticipated hardness leakage. Hardness Reduction Efficiency = 36000 gr / 12 lbs = 3,000 gr/lb.

To obtain higher salt efficiency, 6 lbs salt/ft3 is usually recommended. With the same 1.5 ft3 resin, 9 lbs salt will regenerate 31,500 grains usable capacity, with slightly higher hardness leakage of 10 ppm. Hardness Reduction Efficiency = 3,500 gr/lb.

Higher efficiencies are possible, but not commonly recommended due to lower water quality and higher water use due to more frequent regeneration requirements.

 

[Hud]

Continuous chlorine exposure will reduce the lifespan of any softening resin, but 10% cross-link will better tolerate chlorine compared to resin with lesser crosslinking.

Alternately, a backwashing carbon filtration system may be utilized to remove chlorine and many other contaminants prior to the softener. With chlorine removed, there would be less reason to upgrade to 10% as standard 8% cross-link resin would be sufficient.

Salt Efficiency is a matter of programming, but salt Efficiency involves compromise as higher efficiency will result in lower quality soft water (greater hardness leakage), and also results in lower regenerated capacity per cycle, resulting in a greater amount of water utilized for regeneration on a monthly/yearly basis.

To obtain the best balance of efficiency, water quality and usable capacity, 8lbs salt per cubic foot of resin is the most common recommendation.

As an example, a softener equipped with 1.5 ft3 resin, 12 lbs salt will regenerate 36,000 grains capacity per cycle, with only 6ppm anticipated hardness leakage. Hardness Reduction Efficiency = 36000 gr / 12 lbs = 3,000 gr/lb.

To obtain higher salt efficiency, 6 lbs salt/ft3 is usually recommended. With the same 1.5 ft3 resin, 9 lbs salt will regenerate 31,500 grains usable capacity, with slightly higher hardness leakage of 10 ppm. Hardness Reduction Efficiency = 3,500 gr/lb.

Higher efficiencies are possible, but not commonly recommended due to lower water quality and higher water use due to more frequent regeneration requirements.

Thank you, very informative.
If you don't mind I have one question on maximizing salt efficiency.
IF; I had city water with a hardness of 20 grains and I were to use 100 gallons/day a 32,000 grain capacity softener (1 cu/ft.) would ideally remove 2000 grains/day.
After 8 days the resin would be holding 16,000 grains, if I were to regenerate at that time (50% of resin capacity) I could get by with 4 lbs. of salt.
If I waited 16 days the softener would be holding 32,000 grains (100% of capacity) but it would take 15 lbs. of salt to regenerate, almost 4x more.
Therefore regenerating at 50% of resin capacity will significantly reduce salt consumption with only a slight increase in Hardness leakage, about 15 PPM or about 1 grain.
Is my reasoning correct or am I totally missing something.

 

[ditttohead]

A larger system is more efficient but only to a certain degree. Aim for 10+ days, anything longer is minimal salt savings. Up to 30 days is fine but not necessary. I would avoid the 5810 for a bit while the valve is being reworked currently. Stay away from most of the online companies, most sell at a low price but many of the components are total junk.

 

[mrserc]

I would avoid the 5810 for a bit while the valve is being reworked currently.

Would you be able to provide some details on that? The 5810 seems to have been generally recommended highly on this site (vs. the 5800) and I was looking at getting one shortly. Any timeline on the reworked valve? Thanks.

 

[mrserc]

… still wondering if I should hold off on the 5810.. any thoughts?