Fleck 5600 SXT Settings - Detailed Questions

[WorldPeace]

That is a bit [....]

I'm sorry if it appears this way. There might be a difference in our backgrounds. In academia, you commonly ask for a citation to verify data. Everyone, even experts, are fallible, so it's reasonable to check to see if info is a primary source. I'm just trying to verify Bannerman's claim here. I'm wondering if this is something that's known industry wide or if it's something he read from a specific source.

Also, read my responses. I've been actually trying my best to be sensitive as not to offend him (or you), especially when you guys are kind enough to respond to my initial question. However, it should be ok to question an expert's assertion as long as it's done respectfully. Don't you think?

I'm not a professional in this field, so, as you can see, I'm vulnerable to making a lot of factual errors. However, I do have a chemistry degree from Stanford and I like to figure out how things work. I've been trying to break down Bannerman's claim that salt efficiency increases when the C setting is lowered, and I can't figure out why this would be the case. On the one hand, I see a company called Acquatell make the same claim but, like Bannerman, they don't offer an explanation. On the other hand, most sources make the opposite claim. This is why I asked Bannerman for his source because I'd like to read a detailed explanation. I hope this is fine.

 

[Reach4]

Let me offer the way I envision it.

If you want to purify ethanol, it becomes harder to get from 95% pure to 96% pure than to 95% from 94% pure.

If you want to diffuse thru a membrane you might get a graph such as this:

from https://legacy.nimbios.org//~gross/bioed/webmodules/diffusion.htm

So some processes get less speedy as you approach a limit.

As I picture it, the Ca/Mg ion replacement gets harder as you get closer to the limit.

In my mental model, the more efficient salt settings do not cause the resin to get regenerated to full capacity during each regen, but to instead get regenerated to an intermediate capacity during each regen. So I expect the residual hardness the day after regen to be higher if using a leaner brine setting. But this leaner brining does clearly let your get more hardness removal with each pound of salt.

You might find some interesting material in http://media.wattswater.com/F-WQ-EngineeringGuide.pdf But that information is not derived from first principles. Still, it is a nice more comprehensive write-up. A lot of practical softening procedure is based on having been adjusted for being easier to implement. That Watts manual is 40 pages, and I expect it has been considerably condensed itself.

It does not much matter if the model is correct if it has useful predictive power. “all models are wrong, but some are useful“
I have no heuristic model for why "Brine concentration should be between 8-15% NaCl (or 30-57% salometer) upon introduction to the softener for a downflow brining system."

Achieving Brine Efficiency

www.watertreatmentguide.com

I am willing to appreciate that those who designed the injectors caused the mix to be in the efficient range.

Back to this:

The only way to increase salt efficiency, you would have to also decrease the legnth of brine draw by more than the proportional increase in regeneration frequency. For example, if you change the capacity setting so regenerations occur from every 3 to 2 weeks (1/3 decrease), you'll need to decrease the time of brine draw from 15 to substantially less than 10 minutes. Say 6 minutes. Does this make sense or am I wrong?

The programmed BD cycle is typically 60 minutes. But the first part of the cycle is is when the brine is drawn. All of the brine, down to about the middle of the air check valve (the pickup), is sucked out every time. The less brine there is, the shorter than interval is. The remainder of the BD cycle is the slow rinse, where the brine bolus slowly makes its way thru the resin, and that is chased with a laminar flow rinse to remove residual salts. Typically the brine is expected to be extracted in about 15 minutes. While the BD time is sometimes adjusted, usually it is only lengthened from 60 minutes, and not shortened. Just common... no particular reason other than simplicity.

You chose to not answer the questions on #4, and I chose to lean away. I will say that a #2 injector seems large to me.

 

[Sponsor]

 

[WorldPeace]

Let me offer the way I envision it.

If you want to purify ethanol, it becomes harder to get from 95% pure to 96% pure than to 95% from 94% pure.

As I picture it, the Ca/Mg ion replacement gets harder as you get closer to the limit.

I completely agree!

That's exactly why setting C to a lower capacity would decrease salt efficiency. If you set the C setting from 64 to 40, the water softener regenerates more often. The capacity wouldn't be fully depleted.

As a result, the capacity goes down from 100% to say 33%. (At 64, it would drop from 100% to 0%.) Yes, you would need less total salt to get from 33% to 100% (as opposed to from 0% to 100%) but you would need more salt per lb. Salt efficiency is worse.

In my mental model, the more efficient salt settings do not cause the resin to get regenerated to full capacity during each regen, but to instead get regenerated to an intermediate capacity during each regen.

This is a good point. This would work. Instead of going from 100% to 0% (when C = 64 and BR = 12), you set C = 40 and BR =6. Then the capacity would go back and forther from 67% to 0%. You end up regenerating more often but the brine fill is proportionally much less. However, if you do this, you wouldn't be saving that much salt. The breakeven point would be C = 40 and BR = 7.5. (I got 7.5 by multiplying 12 by multiply 40 capacity and dividing 64 capacity.) The amount of salt between 6 and 7.5 isn't much.

Also, it would take weeks and months to reach this equilibrium because you get your resin at 100%. At first, the capacity would drop to 37.5% but then only go up to say 95%. Then drop down to 34% and then back up to 90%. Eventually, you would reach and equilibrium that goes back and forth from 0% to 67.5%.

You might find some interesting material in http://media.wattswater.com/F-WQ-EngineeringGuide.pdf But that information is not derived from first principles. Still, it is a nice more comprehensive write-up. A lot of practical softening procedure is based on having been adjusted for being easier to implement. That Watts manual is 40 pages, and I expect it has been considerably condensed itself.

Thanks! I'll take a look.

You chose to not answer the questions on #4, and I chose to lean away. I will say that a #2 injector seems large to me.

I'm sorry. I have a #2 injector.

Btw, I had a look talk with Reid, the owner of Acquatell about this. I'll get back to you on what I find.

 

[Reach4]

That's exactly why setting C to a lower capacity would decrease salt efficiency. If you set the C setting from 64 to 40, the water softener regenerates more often. The capacity wouldn't be fully depleted.

As a result, the capacity goes down from 100% to say 33%. (At 64, it would drop from 100% to 0%.) Yes, you would need less total salt to get from 33% to 100% (as opposed to from 0% to 100%) but you would need more salt per lb. Salt efficiency is worse.

IMO, you are reversing it. I think using less salt uses less salt. A consequence of that is that you need to turn down C, but not down proportionally.

Consider these settings pairs for BF and C:

Revised based on number from https://terrylove.com/forums/index.php?threads/help-for-programming-fleck-5810.82673/#post-595983​	​	​	​
The less salt per cubic ft, the more salt efficient, but more hardness breakthrough.​	​	​	​
BLFC​	0.5​	​	​
cubic ft resin​	2​	​	​
​	​	​	​
Alternative capacity (C) and brine fill (BF) pairs. Round C down.​	​	​	​
lb/cuft​	C=​	BF=​	grains/pound of salt​
2.3​	22.2​	3​	6564​
3.0​	27.7​	4​	6147​
3.8​	32.2​	5​	5723​
4.5​	36.0​	6​	5332​
5.3​	39.2​	7​	4982​
6.0​	42.0​	8​	4670​
6.8​	44.5​	9​	4393​
7.5​	46.6​	10​	4147​
8.3​	48.6​	11​	3925​
9.0​	50.3​	12​	3726​
9.8​	51.9​	13​	3546​
10.5​	53.3​	14​	3383​
11.3​	54.6​	15​	3234​
12.0​	55.7​	16​	3097​
12.8​	56.8​	17​	2971​
13.5​	57.8​	18​	2856​
14.3​	58.8​	19​	2749​
15.0​	59.6​	20​	2649​
15.8​	60.4​	21​	2557​
16.5​	61.1​	22​	2471​
17.3​	61.8​	23​	2390​

The last column is salt efficiency... tho that comes with a little more hardness leakage. The reduction in C is not the cause of the efficiency increase. The lower BF is the cause of the efficiency increase. 6 to 8 lb salt /sqft resin is the sweet area. Above 8 is more extravagant.

You continue to chose to not answer the questions on #4, and I chose to lean away. I know your injector, but not the other 3. Maybe you think that H should correspond to your actual hardness, rather than compensating.

 

[Bannerman]

Also, it would take weeks and months to reach this equilibrium because you get your resin at 100%. At first, the capacity would drop to 37.5% but then only go up to say 95%. Then drop down to 34% and then back up to 90%. Eventually, you would reach and an equilibrium that goes back and forth from 0% to 67.5%.

That was essentially stated in post #12.

In addition to the questions from #4, you also continue to refuse to answer the questions asked in post #14.

Bannerman's claim that salt efficiency increases when the C setting is lowered,

That's not factual as all of my comments also specified lowering the salt setting to a specific amount relative to each Capacity setting, specific for each total resin volume.

So, have you actually programmed your softener as recommended and now have it operational to test if it is performing as stated, or was this just a 'theoretical project' that in essence was a waste of our time?

 

[WorldPeace]

You continue to chose to not answer the questions on #4, and I chose to lean away. I know your injector, but not the other 3. Maybe you think that H should correspond to your actual hardness, rather than compensating.

Oops, I'm so sorry! I had no idea what you meant by #4. I had thought you meant question #4, which I kept answering. I never noticed that our responses are actually numbered at the top right.

I'll cut and paste my info. Should answer any questions.

My Water Softener
64k-56SXT-10
Brand: AFWFilters
Capacity: 64k
Resin: 2.0 ft3 10% crosslinked
Resin Tank Size: 12’’ x 52’’
Brine Tank Size: 18"x40" round brine tank with float and air check valve
Brine Fill Rate (BLFC): .5 GPM
DLFC: 3.5 GPM
Injector #2
Service flow 10 GPM
Peak flow 15 GPM
Flow required for backwash 4 GPM
Water Hardness: 27 GPG
4-Person Family
Municipal water, iron range = ND – <0.2 ppm (recommended upper limit=0.3)
Diamond Crystal - Bright & Soft (pellets)

Settings:
DF Gal
VT Df 1b
CT Fd
NT 1
C 42
H 31
RS RC
RC 240
SF 5
DO 28
RT 3:00
BW 5
BD 60
RR 6
BF 8
FM P0.7


In your chart above for alternative base pairs, you recommend C=42 and B=8. What is usually recommended by water softener installers? Would it be C=64 and B=12?

How do you guys calculate the correct capacity and the brine fill for a given water softener size? Is it based on a chart or a formula?

 

[WorldPeace]

or was this just a 'theoretical project' that in essence was a waste of our time?

Is there a reason why you're being cantankerous?

 

[Reach4]

System info (not programmed)​	​	​	​	​
salt lb/cuft​	=​	6​	;​	A choice ( efficiency vs capacity)​
BLFC​	=​	0.5​	;​	Brine Refill rate GPM​
cubic ft resin​	=​	2​	;​	ft3 resin = (nominal grains)/32,000​
Compensated hardness​	=​	31​	;​	including any compensation​
People​	=​	4​	;​	gallons affects reserve calc​
Estimated gal/day​	=​	240​	;​	60 gal per person typical calc​
Estimated days/regen​	=​	5.38​	;​	Computed days including reserve​
​	​	​	​	​
Fleck 5600SXT Settings:​	​	​	​	​
DF​	=​	Gal​	;​	Units​
VT​	=​	dF1b​	;​	Downflw/, Single Backwash, black cam​
CT​	=​	Fd​	;​	Meter Delayed regen trigger​
NT​	=​	1​	;​	Number of tanks​
C​	=​	42​	;​	capacity in 1000 grains​
H​	=​	31​	;​	Hardness-- compensate if needed​
RS​	=​	rc​	;​	rc says use gallons vs percent​
RC​	=​	240​	;​	Reserve capacity gallons​
DO​	=​	30​	;​	Day Override (28 if no iron)​
RT​	=​	2:00​	;​	Regen time (default 2 AM)​
BW​	=​	5​	;​	Backwash (minutes)​
Bd​	=​	60​	;​	Brine draw minutes​
RR​	=​	5​	;​	Rapid Rinse minutes​
BF​	=​	8​	;​	Brine fill minutes​
FM​	=​	P0.7​	;​	https://terrylove.com/forums/index.php?attachments/img_fleck5600sxt_flow-png.31592/

Confirm you have a Paddlewheel by checking the link just above.
With your #2 Injector - Blue and using 6 lbs of salt per cuft of resin, expect the brine to be drawn out in about 9.3 minutes. With a #0 Injector - Red that would be about 16 minutes, which would be better.

If you have a Turbine and select Paddlewheel, you will regenerate way too often.

 

[WorldPeace]

Confirm you have a Paddlewheel by checking the link just above.

With your #2 Injector - Blue and using 6 lbs of salt per cuft of resin, expect the brine to be drawn out in about 9.3 minutes. With a #0 Injector - Red that would be about 16 minutes, which would be better.

If you have a Turbine and select Paddlewheel, you will regenerate way too often.

Hey, Reach!

1. It looks like I have a paddlewheel.

Thanks for recommending the #0 injector. I'll recommend that to the 2 (now 3) friends who are asking me about which water softener setup to get. I read Dittohead's comment that the increased efficiency isn't large but it's better than nothing, right?

2. Btw, I think you're right about your explanation about why a lower C setting results in lower salt usage as long as the brine fill is substantially lowered. When we purchase the resin, the capacity is at 100%. So when the regeneration occurs earlier, the capacity may drop down to say 33%. But with a lower brine fill (aka lower salt usage), capacity doesn't go back up to 100%. Then over the next few weeks or months, it reaches an equilibrium where it goes back and forth between a capacity of 0% and 67%.

And this is why it's proper to use the resin capacity chart linked by Bannerman. He's right about that although I don't think the chart refers to when the resin is at full capacity. It's when the capacity is at 0% and how much salt is needed to reach a certain amount of capacity.

However, if we're going to set the capacity to lower than recommended, why not just do this to a bigger water softener? So instead of getting a 2.0 cubic ft of resin, get 2.5 cubic ft of resin. The capacity setting on a Fleck with a 2.5 system can now be set to 64k. Wouldn't this be a far better alternative?

Further, instead of creating an equilibrium cycle from 0 to 40% capacity, you set it so it goes from 30% to 70%. This way you get increased salt efficiency without the water hardness leakage.

The amount of cost difference between a 2.0 and a 2.5 is only about $170. The amount of salt saved as well as less hardness leakage would more than make up for it.

It might even be better to get a 3.0 cubic feet but I noticed that systems just up about $800 in price. You'd need to save about $100-200 in salt to justify this, which isn't going to happen.

3. Btw, Reid from Acquatell stated that the benefits of Purolite resin doesn't justify its price. And that resin is pretty much commoditized. As long as you get it from a reputable dealer, the resin is going to be fine. Wondering what you thought about this.

Finally, thanks for all the help. Really nice of you.

 

[Reach4]

I think you've got it.

For somebody who might take more than 30 days with city water, or for whom the space matters, then smaller has its advantage. Another advantage of bigger is that you will leave around 1/2 day of capacity unused in the resin, since there is a 24 hour granularity as to when you regen. Also, if we presume that for city water, we might have to change the resin after 7 to 10 years due to chlorine/chloromine degradation, then smaller means less resin to change. I am not saying that 7 to 10 years will be universal. Houses will get chlorine levels at between about 0.5 and 4 ppm.

Some put a granulated activated carbon/charcoal tank before the softener to remove chlorine and some other stuff, so the resin would last longer. However the GAC media has limited life too.

For somebody with iron in their well water, you would prefer a bit less time between regens.