That's a nice summary!
RO systems are complicated if one is actually looking for a specific output. And, as I said above, you really need to know your feed stock chemistry to build the correct system.
dj
R.O. water filter install question
- Thread starter BAD ORCA
- Start date
RO systems are complicated if one is actually looking for a specific output. And, as I said above, you really need to know your feed stock chemistry to build the correct system.
dj
Well perhaps your lawyer side (I'm not holding that against you - I've just spent way too many hours in court rooms seeing how lawyers like to direct discussion to a conclusion by ignoring specific facts that don't support their case) forgot to read my post above this one where you say I didn't answer where I did in fact answer that question.
you are welcome to go back and lookGlad to hear you do chemistries - so what is the delta change from feed stock to RO output running a 1% waste? What constituents are you removing and at what levels of removal? What are you using for pre and post filters, if any?
I'd really welcome seeing the complete chemistries of your feed stock and output water.
dj
I did look. Need I remind you what you said?Well perhaps your lawyer side (I'm not holding that against you - I've just spent way too many hours in court rooms seeing how lawyers like to direct discussion to a conclusion by ignoring specific facts that don't support their case) forgot to read my post above this one where you say I didn't answer where I did in fact answer that question.
As to the data, you are welcome to come down and look at the reems of data and records I have accumulated which is far too voluminous to replicate here.
A simple summary of incoming chemistry and outgoing chemistry would be beneficial. What specific species are you best able to remove with your method, what does not get removed, what percentages are you dropping in what specific species that makes your water "better" - s simple summary would be great.
It would also be beneficial to the conversation. Water chemistry in Florida is not going to be the same in LA.
As Richard Feynman once said, "if you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it."
But I'd be delighted to take a look at your data. Send me a PM of how to do so ...
dj
I don't think any water quality test data are necessary to answer the question about recovery rates. I've spent time reading in general, and looking at manufacturer specs specifically, and I cannot find a single household RO unit that does better than 60% recovery rate. Most are lower.
So either I'm stupidly missing something that should be generally noticeable, or the 99% recovery system on Illusion is not a typical household RO unit. Perhaps an ion-exchange one instead? I do know from direct experience that ion exchange systems have very high recovery rates.
Mark
So either I'm stupidly missing something that should be generally noticeable, or the 99% recovery system on Illusion is not a typical household RO unit. Perhaps an ion-exchange one instead? I do know from direct experience that ion exchange systems have very high recovery rates.
Mark
I never drilled down into the references but this EPA website throws a little light onto the discussion.
EPA - Point-of-Use Reverse Osmosis Systems
From that link: "Some inefficient units will generate up to 10 gallons of reject water for every gallon of treated water produced. In contrast, point-of-use RO systems that earn the WaterSense label must demonstrate that they send just 2.3 gallons of water or less down the drain for every gallon of treated water they produce."
Returning 0.01 gallon to waste for every gallon produced does meet the definition of "WaterSense" <2.3 gallons, but seems a stretch that they thought this was even possible.
Mark
That’s insulting!
where did I say I couldn’t explain?
what I did say is that the data consists of many documents and that you PM me if you really want to know the minutia.
Nothing thus far.
If you do ask, please apologize first as I‘m not really inclined to take the time scanning documents and writing a summary for you.
Well no insult was intended. Apologies if that's how it came across.
It would be great if you could dispel all of the documents everyone has posted to the contrary to what you are claiming. I don't see a reason why you wouldn't want to post a simple summary to the group when everyone here has been scratching their heads with how it could be possible to have only a 1% waste when all documents, and direct experiences as not supporting that statement. But you should be ready for some probing questions. Some of us have a fair bit of experience with water treatment.
dj
I’m relating my experience. It’s not a “simple summary” but rather a series of documents tabulating years of data which can only be interpreted in light of many variables like input water source, quality, level of contamination, pressure and flow rates, yield fractions, membrane pressures, etc… you couldn't conceivably interpret absent a thorough understanding of the variables and conditions.
And to paraphrase your own post, you didn’t read what I actually wrote about the variables in quantifying waste percentage.
It's been my experience that when a very complex issue arises that would be impossible to summarize in simple terms, that what is called "envelope" analysis can often be very useful.
This is where one takes the worst case and best case showing the "envelope" within which the particular subject resides. Certainly this by its nature misses a lot of the subtleties but can provide a method that makes it easier to understand.
So how about you take a worst case feed water source, show what's needed to produce your desired output and then do that for a best case scenario? That way the range over which you are stating you get about a 1% waste water discharge can be shown. How does this sound?
dj
its not complexity which constrains summarizing efficacy. If the only thing which confounds you is the water/wastewater ratio, it’s simple. In fact, I think I already did that summary when I said that with sea water, the waste fraction can be significant but with ’clean’ water, it’s trivial. Is there something unclear about that “envelope analysis”?
This is getting tedious. Believe it; don’t believe it. it matters little.
If I looked through piles of paper, it would show precisely what I related my experience to be.
Yes, I am unclear how that is possible. As posted above, I cannot find an example of a unit, nor any general information on household RO, that shows 99% recovery. Additionally, I do have experience with seawater RO, and understand the general theory and operation of RO itself. Nothing I understand about it would allow 99% recovery even with distilled water feed water. The physics of RO simply doesn't allow it in a flow-type system (at least not in a practical manner). I keep thinking there is something I'm missing, or you have a magical unit.
What brand/model unit do you have?
Mark
I don’t remember brand. The boat is in St Lucia for hurricane season and I am in Florida so can’t check.
I will add my results when I get it up and running. All this back and forth is not helping. I will probably just put the waste hose in an empty bucket, turn it on until the 4 gal tank (2.5-3 gals actual) is full and see what ends up in the waste bucket. Seems like we are all making this overcomplicated. Its just a little drinking water with a goal of making it better than it was coming out of the tap. Eventually i may pony up for a lab test once the filter has been used for a while. When I do i will absolutely post the results here, but it may be many months. I want the filter to be near end of life when I test. Just out of curiosity, I will probably also track wastewater because now I want to know how viable it is to run the unit away from the dock and if the amount changes over time.