Anyone here have an Electroscan installed on their Hunter 410? If so where did you install it and has there been any issues with the location?
Electroscan on a Hunter 410
- Thread starter Don Lucas
- Start date
I'm thinking remove the aft holding tank and install it there. Still leaves the forward head for when a holding tank is required.
Installing it on the most used toilet and leaving a tank on the other one is an excellent choice. However, whether to go with an ElectroScan or PuraSan Raritan PuraSan Promo Sheet depends on whether your toilet uses sea water or onboard pressurized fresh water. If the latter, the PuraSan is a better choice because it doesn't need salt.
So did anyone end up installing an Electro Scan or Purasan on a Hunter 410? If so, where? I'm looking at installing an Electro Scan in the starboard storage space under the aft cabin berth....Also, does anyone see a major concern with drilling a hole through the pan separating the battery compartment at the foot of the steps and the compartment with the thru-hulls in front of the galley sink? That would greatly simplify running of cables from the battery to the unit.
In your waters (upper Chesapeake, which can be very brackish), I'd go with the PuraSan instead because it works equally well in salt, brackish and fresh waters.... Raritan PuraSan Promo Sheet and here's the owners manual for it Raritan PuraSan EX owners manual which includes complete installation instructions. If you plan to do some coastal cruising beyond the Bay, you might consider adding the "Hold 'n' Treat" controls package Raritan HoldnTreat controls that lets you empty your holding tank (which you are gonna keep, right? 'Cuz you will need it occasionally, even in the Bay) through the PuraSan.
--Peggie
--Peggie
Thanks for your wise input, and I did look at the PuraSan but decided against it for reasons of additional cost and complexity. While we are currently in the mid-Chesapeake Bay, we spent last fall and winter cruising down the coast and through the Bahamas and hope to do it again soon. In the meantime, I don't have a problem with adding a bit of salt to the water for each flush if needed (as many other Electro Scan users do). Also, my planned installation keeps the holding tanks for both heads aboard Magnolia, so we should be good in zero discharge areas such as the FL Keys, etc.
The PuraSan is actually less complex than the ElectroScan because there's no electrode pack that requires regular cleaning to remove sea water mineral buildup on them (as often as every 6 months in warm waters), only a cartridge that has to be replaced once or twice a year. "A little salt" to each flush is actually 4 tablespoons--1/4 cup--and needs to be salt that dissolves quickly (table salt doesn't...solar salt is best) and it's necessary to make sure you keep an adequate supply aboard. Voltage is also a lot more critical to the ES than it is to PS....too little or too much salt, low voltage and failure to clean the electrode pack as needed are the 3 most common causes of problems with the ElectroScan. All of which makes the couple hundred $$ difference in the purchase price for PS worth it IMO.
That's my $.02 worth anyway...your mileage may vary.
--Peggie
That's my $.02 worth anyway...your mileage may vary.
--Peggie
Assuming that measures the same height as the port side where the holding tank is, the ES is too tall for the space. The only place I'm been able to identify to install it is in stern locker
It needs to be within 6' of both the toilet and the thru-hull. That's because that's as far manual toilets and most electric toilets can move bowl contents in the amount of time that anyone is likely to spend pumping or leave their finger on a flush button, AND because 1.5 gal is the max size flush it can take without discharging untreated waste.
I've known a number of people who put it under the vanity in the head or in a hanging locker adjacent to the head (assuming there is one).
--Peggie
I've known a number of people who put it under the vanity in the head or in a hanging locker adjacent to the head (assuming there is one).
--Peggie
Don,
You're correct, the ElectroScan is slightly taller than the starboard storage space under the aft cabin bed. I drilled three holes with a hole saw in the access panel to accommodate the height of the macerator/mixer motors and the cleanout port. These all extend slightly above the access panel, but the soft bottom of the mattress fits over them with no problem (I had thought of building a frame to elevate the mattress by about an inch, but don't think it's necessary).
So far I'm very pleased with the installation (other than losing that storage space, of course!). I ran new SaniFlex hose from the Y valve port that allowed flushing waste directly overboard to the input port on the ES, then used the original discharge hose for connecting to the ES's discharge port. With this setup I still have full use of the aft holding tank if needed.
I'm sure Peggy's advice regarding the Purasan being a better unit was spot-on, but I had already ordered the ES from Defender and was not aware that it did not also use an electrode to sanitize waste (less maintenance). Also not sure of the overall height of the Purasan. Being on the somewhat brackish waters of the mid-Chesapeake, I've found that two tablespoons of salt added to the bowl after each flush works fine to keep the amp readings around 15 or higher. I was looking for kosher salt at Walmart, but they were out of that so I ended up with 4-lb. boxes of canning and pickling salt at about $1.50 per box.
You're correct, the ElectroScan is slightly taller than the starboard storage space under the aft cabin bed. I drilled three holes with a hole saw in the access panel to accommodate the height of the macerator/mixer motors and the cleanout port. These all extend slightly above the access panel, but the soft bottom of the mattress fits over them with no problem (I had thought of building a frame to elevate the mattress by about an inch, but don't think it's necessary).
So far I'm very pleased with the installation (other than losing that storage space, of course!). I ran new SaniFlex hose from the Y valve port that allowed flushing waste directly overboard to the input port on the ES, then used the original discharge hose for connecting to the ES's discharge port. With this setup I still have full use of the aft holding tank if needed.
I'm sure Peggy's advice regarding the Purasan being a better unit was spot-on, but I had already ordered the ES from Defender and was not aware that it did not also use an electrode to sanitize waste (less maintenance). Also not sure of the overall height of the Purasan. Being on the somewhat brackish waters of the mid-Chesapeake, I've found that two tablespoons of salt added to the bowl after each flush works fine to keep the amp readings around 15 or higher. I was looking for kosher salt at Walmart, but they were out of that so I ended up with 4-lb. boxes of canning and pickling salt at about $1.50 per box.
What is the minimum salinty for the Electroscan? I asked a tech at the factory and he said "seawater." Another said anything that does not trigger the low amp warning (but did not hint waht that was). The EPA did a test, but oddly did not mention the minimum salt concentration to meet the certification requirements. Obviously, they make a lot of sense on the Chesapeake because off-shore if so far (the Bay is inside the declamation line, for those who do not know) that many sailors never make it there. NDZs are another topic, but as a practical matter only apply to dockside us and only in a few places.
Raritan has always recommended 4 tblsp (2 ground coffee measure spoons) of salt in fresh or brackish water. That much would be needed in fresh water, but how much of that is actually needed in brackish water depends on the salinity level of the water at any given time. The Bay is fed by 9 rivers, so after heavy rains upstream, they can reduce the salinity quite a bit. Too much salt can be as damaging to the electrodes as too little. 4 tblsp is enough to match ocean salinity but not enough to cause damage even if it's a bit more than is needed.
--Peggie
--Peggie
Is that in a 2-gallon feed tank? If so, that is only about 1/2 seawater. Or is it per gallon?
It's not so much the main body of the Bay that is the concern (except for the far upper reaches), but rather the backwaters where marinas are found, which can be even more fresh. In other words, a boat in mid-Bay would find enough salt while out sailing, but perhaps not enough up a creek at his home marina, which in fact may be where the head sees more use.
I can see that Purisan could make more sense for such users.
It's not so much the main body of the Bay that is the concern (except for the far upper reaches), but rather the backwaters where marinas are found, which can be even more fresh. In other words, a boat in mid-Bay would find enough salt while out sailing, but perhaps not enough up a creek at his home marina, which in fact may be where the head sees more use.
I can see that Purisan could make more sense for such users.
The original "salt feed tanks" were 2 gallon "brine" tanks that LectraSan owners made up at home and kept onboard in 1 gal milk jugs. The "brine" solution duplicated average ocean salinity, which is 3-3.5%. To do that you'd need 4 tablespoons of salt (1/4 cup) in 1 gallon of fresh water. Which is the reason Raritan has always recommended that amount when manually adding salt to each flush.
--Peggie
--Peggie
Those are the instructions for the current somewhat complex "salt feed tanks" that use rock salt. The instructions I posted are for the old fashioned "brine" tanks that used granulated salt. You can't even find any mention of it in any of Raritan's current literature any more.
As for the "average salinity of sea water," 3-3.5% was the amount in 3 different web articles...and we all know that, if it's on the internet, it must be true.
And as for the EPA, they didn't miss anything 'cuz they don't care what the salinity of a discharge from an ES is, or even whether it uses salt (the ES is the only one that does)...only whether the bacteria count meets the legal standard for discharge from it. Since the legal standard only requires that it be <1,000/100 mltr and the ES and PS reduce it to less than 10, salinity only matters to Raritan and ES owners 'cuz it impacts the life the electrode pack. And it's the USCG, not the EPA, who certifies every Type I and II MSD meets the legal standard. Every new device is submitted in prototype and they test a randomly selected device from inventory every 5 years to maintain certification.
Sea water buildup on the electrode pack will prevent it from treating no matter how high or low the salinity is 'cuz the electrodes can't "sense" it through a crust of minerals. Warm waters have a much higher mineral content than cooler waters, requiring more frequent cleaning than in cooler waters.
--Peggie
As for the "average salinity of sea water," 3-3.5% was the amount in 3 different web articles...and we all know that, if it's on the internet, it must be true.
And as for the EPA, they didn't miss anything 'cuz they don't care what the salinity of a discharge from an ES is, or even whether it uses salt (the ES is the only one that does)...only whether the bacteria count meets the legal standard for discharge from it. Since the legal standard only requires that it be <1,000/100 mltr and the ES and PS reduce it to less than 10, salinity only matters to Raritan and ES owners 'cuz it impacts the life the electrode pack. And it's the USCG, not the EPA, who certifies every Type I and II MSD meets the legal standard. Every new device is submitted in prototype and they test a randomly selected device from inventory every 5 years to maintain certification.
Sea water buildup on the electrode pack will prevent it from treating no matter how high or low the salinity is 'cuz the electrodes can't "sense" it through a crust of minerals. Warm waters have a much higher mineral content than cooler waters, requiring more frequent cleaning than in cooler waters.
--Peggie
Yes, I understand salinity. I've built a commercial scale RO desal plant (200,000 GPD). The value you quoted was only 57% of the salinity of seawater. I'm assuming that means the unit can meet standards on 57% salinity and probably a bit less. However, there is no Raritan information or literature giving this value. What is the minimum salinity for proper operation of the Electroscan? This is a simple and important question.Those are the instructions for the current somewhat complex "salt feed tanks" that use rock salt. The instructions I posted are for the old fashioned "brine" tanks that used granulated salt. You can't even find any mention of it in any of Raritan's current literature any more.
As for the "average salinity of sea water," 3-3.5% was the amount in 3 different web articles...and we all know that, if it's on the internet, it must be true.
And as for the EPA, they didn't miss anything 'cuz they don't care what the salinity of a discharge from an ES is, or even whether it uses salt (the ES is the only one that does)...only whether the bacteria count meets the legal standard for discharge from it. Since the legal standard only requires that it be <1,000/100 mltr and the ES and PS reduce it to less than 10, salinity only matters to Raritan and ES owners 'cuz it impacts the life the electrode pack. And it's the USCG, not the EPA, who certifies every Type I and II MSD meets the legal standard. Every new device is submitted in prototype and they test a randomly selected device from inventory every 5 years to maintain certification.
Sea water buildup on the electrode pack will prevent it from treating no matter how high or low the salinity is 'cuz the electrodes can't "sense" it through a crust of minerals. Warm waters have a much higher mineral content than cooler waters, requiring more frequent cleaning than in cooler waters.
--Peggie
You did not understand my point about the EPA test. The EPA should have been interested in the treatment efficiency with varying salinity levels. No, of course the salinity of the discharge is not interesting. But having enough Cl and enough conductivity is. Yes, the Raritan unit will detect low conductivity, whether the result of low salinity, wear, or fouling. That was sloppy science on their part, period. I see it all the time.
That's a question Raritan. You might want to give 'em a call 800-352-5630...and ask for engineering. I doubt tech support will know.
--Peggie