Upper Basket For Water Neutralizer. Yes or No

[Dan B]

Have you backlighted your tank and watched a backwash?

Yes. Last night

 

[Reach4]

Brings in another question I was holding off. I have a water softener tank following the neutralizer. Softener was installed before the neutralizer. I didn't want to thread another 60ft of PVC for the neutralizer. Was planning on Teeing the two drains together. Read somewhere this could lead to backflow into the brine tank during neutralizer backwash. My plan was to install a swing check valve in the softener drain branch. Thoughts?

Normally no check valve needed. Just set the timers to insure they don't overlap.

Usually you don't use swing check valves for pressurized water.

A 13 inch tank is about 0.922 square feet.

 

[Sponsor]

 

[Bannerman]

Yes. Last night

I think the question was asked of SShaw

a 13x54 2.5 cu-ft acid neutralizer installed by an experienced local dealer. Their specs say the backwash requirement for my system is 7 gpm.

Unless your water is very cold, the charts located at the links provided earlier, indicate the BW rate for a 13"AN tank is 9 - 10.1 gpm

 

[SShaw]

That is the discussion, and I think it is a worthwhile one.. http://www.waterchemistry.com/products/resin_media/calcite_2386.pdf calls for 35% bed expansion. Maybe that is much more than necessary. But 10% seems low. I am not a pro. Dan's has maybe 3%. (estimated about 1/36).

Have you backlighted your tank and watched a backwash?

Unfortunately, I have a black tank, so I don't think I can backlight my system.

My system is spec'd for 7 gpm. WaterRight's 13x54 AN system is spec'd for 7.5 gpm backwash. The OP's AN has a 7 gpm DLFC installed, so his must be spec'd at 7 gpm too. He measured he's getting the 7 gpm flow rate, so his unit is operating as designed.

Nothing here seems to indicate there's a problem, unless you assert that the design of the OPs system (and mine and WaterRights's) is flawed.

 

[Dan B]

Update on todays experiment. Removed the 7 GPM button and ran a backwash. Measured 8.57 GPM! Calcite rose little less than 2 inches. Backwash was cloudy. Took about 30minutes of backwash to clear that up. I'm thinking the initial rinse was not effective at the lower GPM. Thinking of leaving the button out. Opinions?

BTW...
Little embarrassed by this one...Does anyone know where I can pick up the o ring for the DLFC for a 5800? Pinched it....Seepage. Amateur..

 

[Reach4]

Nice. Did you note the pressure gauge during this?

I think leaving this out would be fine. Two inch expansion still seems less than ideal, but it is a big improvement. This tells me that a 10 or even 12 gpm backwash would not be too much.

Little embarrassed by this one...Does anyone know where I can pick up the o ring for the DLFC for a 5800? Pinched it....Seepage. Amateur..

I don't know. Take the old one to a big hardware store to see if they have a match until you find out.

 

[LLigetfa]

The well pump cut in at 40 and held the pressure there throughtout the backwash...

Since the pressure did not climb during the backwash that suggests your pump can only provide 7.1 GPM at 40 PSI.

 

[Bannerman]

Measured 8.57 GPM!

Was that measured near the beginning of the BW cycle while the pressure tank was supplementing the pump flow rate, or near the end of the cycle?

 

[Dan B]

Nice. Did you note the pressure gauge during this?

I think leaving this out would be fine. Two inch expansion still seems less than ideal, but it is a big improvement. This tells me that a 10 or even 12 gpm backwash would not be too much.

Pressure gauge held at 40. Only way to get more flow would be to replace the DLFC with the 1" option. Not out of the realm of possibilities.

 

[Bannerman]

On the right of the web pages linked below, are 2 charts which will be useful to determine the appropriate backwash rate needed for various media and tank diameters.

The lower chart specifies the backwash flow rate needed for Calcium Carbonate is between 8 and 12 gpm per ft2.

For a 12" diameter tank, the upper chart shows 8 gpm ft2 will equate to 6.2 gpm and 12 gpm ft2 will be 9.4 gpm.

For a 13" tank, the BW rate should be between 7.2 gpm to 11 gpm.

These flow rates are based on 60 degrees F water temperature, but there is also a compensation factor specified for each 10-degree variance in temperature.

https://view.publitas.com/impact-water-products/2018-catalog-final/page/154

 

[Reach4]

Pressure gauge held at 40. Only way to get more flow would be to replace the DLFC with the 1" option. Not out of the realm of possibilities.

I very much doubt that the 1 inch option would make a bigger flow vs the 3/4 with no button. I would leave the button out.

 

[Reach4]

The lower chart specifies the backwash flow rate needed for Calcium Carbonate is between 8 and 12 gpm per ft2.

I am having trouble reconciling that, because it is such a low bed expansion. There seem to be contradictions.

Update on today's experiment. Removed the 7 GPM button and ran a backwash. Measured 8.57 GPM! Calcite rose little less than 2 inches. Backwash was cloudy. Took about 30minutes of backwash to clear that up. I'm thinking the initial rinse was not effective at the lower GPM. Thinking of leaving the button out. Opinions?

Removing the top basket would remove some restriction, but maybe going to a 1 inch drain line might have more effect.

Do you know what the pressure was while you were getting the almost 2 inch bed expansion?

 

[LLigetfa]

Pressure gauge held at 40...

This is confusing. Pumps run on a curve so if before it held at 40 when delivering 7.1 GPM, how can it deliver more GPM and still hold at 40?

 

[Reach4]

This is confusing. Pumps run on a curve so if before it held at 40 when delivering 7.1 GPM, how can it deliver more GPM and still hold at 40?

I expect the gauge did not read 4o when the 8.57 GPM and ~2 inch bed expansion occurred. Maybe 30. Maybe less. I think that is ok. GPM is GPM.

 

[Bannerman]

There seem to be contradictions.

What contradictions?

Do you mean the amount of expansion observed through the tank walls when backlit compared to that expected for the 35% bed expansion specified?

As 35% expansion at 60F does not seem to be realistic across the entire BW range specified, maybe 35% is optimal and achievable at 12 gpm/ ft2 whereas lower expansion occurring at 8+gpm/ ft2 will not be optimal but only OK. Hopefully, Ditttohead will clarify as it is his chart.

It is possible that the pressure gauge is not accurate, particularly toward the low end so there may be significantly less actual pressure than indicated while BW is occurring after no water remains within the pressure tank.

The 8.57 gpm stated for the BW flow rate seems very specific for an estimate or even a measurement of the amount of water that flowed into a bucket from the drain line in 60 seconds. I can understand stating 8.5 or maybe even 8.6, but 8.57 gallons?

 

[Reach4]

What contradictions?

Do you mean the amount of lift observed through the tank walls when backlit compared to that expected for the 35% bed expansion specified?

That among others.

• Backwash rate: 8-12 gpm/sq. ft.
• Backwash Bed Expansion: 35% of bed depth

Those coupled with the Background Bed Expansion graph are contradictory.

All in all, I would like to see a 12 gpm BLFC if the pump could support that. That would put the flow between what those two contradictory bullet points say.

The 8.57 gpm stated for the BW flow rate seems very specific for an estimate or even a measurement of the amount of water that flowed into a bucket from the drain line in 60 seconds. I can understand stating 8.5 or maybe even 8.6, but 8.57 gallons?

Do you seriously want to complain about retaining too many digits from a calculation? So rounding 8.5714285714285714285714285714286 to 8.57 bothers you -- you want 8.6 or 9 instead. I often retain 1 or 2 more digits than are actually significant on purpose, violating those "rules". I know the rules, and intentionally violate or stretch them. What if somebody wants to convert the number to liters per second?

 

[Bannerman]

Do you seriously want to complain about retaining too many significant digits from a calculation?

LOL! Read my comment.

I anticipate if a calculation was used to determine GPM, it will be because an alternate amount of time than 60 seconds was used to collect the sample to be measured.

 

[Reach4]

LOL! Read my comment.

Do you think I quoted your post out of context?

I anticipate if a calculation was used to determine GPM, it will be because an alternate amount of time than 60 seconds was used to collect the sample to be measured.

I think it was 35 seconds to fill a 5 gallon bucket.

 

[Dan B]

Did another run through. Heres the raw data... Interesting.
System- Well pump, well tank, 40/60 switch, 1" copper pipe , whole house filter, 5810 SXT, removed upper basket, 3/4" DLFC with no washer, 3/4" drain line running up 5 ft,across about 50, down 9.
Opened water until well pump cut in, closed water and waited till cut out.
Began 10 minute backwash.
Initially 5 gallon bucket fill time - 30seconds - 10GPM WOW
At 5 minute point- fill time 35 seconds - 8.57
At 2 minutes left - fill time 36 seconds - 8.33
Pressure dropped to 30 and hovered throughout.
Calcite level up 2.25 inches.


Brings up another point......The prevailing wisdom is that a minimum of 8.5 GPM is needed for a 12 inch tank. I find it interesting that I was sold a 12" with a 5810 valve incorporating a 3/4" DLFC. Parts diagram shows largest washer possible for the 3/4" DLFC is 7 GPM. Needed is the 1" DLFC which has larger orifice and can handle washers up to 30 GPM. See the problem?

 

[Reach4]

Brings up another point......The prevailing wisdom is that a minimum of 8.5 GPM is needed for a 12 inch tank. I find it interesting that I was sold a 12" with a 5810 valve incorporating a 3/4" DLFC. Parts diagram shows largest washer possible for the 3/4" DLFC is 7 GPM. Needed is the 1" DLFC which has larger orifice and can handle washers up to 30 GPM. See the problem?

I see your point about the use of the 7 gpm DLFC. I also note that whoever said this was appropriate should have checked that your pump could meet the backwash needs with the appropriate DLFC.

But from the standpoint of not having your calcite harden up on you, I think you have a good solution now that does not involve changing the pump. I also see that a 10 DLFC would be needed if you were to upgrade your pump, and if that is years down the road, you will have no positive response from your dealer. Asking for the 10 gpm DLFC free now should be successful. Actually installing the 10 gpm button now might decrease your flow a tad.

Yes, you would have some basis for asking for a 10 inch tank instead of a 12. Ouch.

If you do change to a bigger pump in the future, you will probably want a bigger pressure tank too, unless you use a CSV.