Is Kinetico worth the money?
The Collier's
company who sells the Kinetico brand of "demand" softeners. The system
sounds really slick, and I like the idea of not being dependent on
electricity for my soft water. He tested our water and it came out at 5
grains with a TDS of 330 (supposedly 500 is the EPA maximum).
My question is this - Are these twin tank Kinetico systems worth the $2700
they want for it? I am not really hot on Sears, but for nearly 1/3 the price
I could get one of their systems installed. I haven't talked personally to
other manufacturers, but from what I have heard their systems are still
$1-2K.
A couple of things he said made me wonder. He mentioned that I probably
wouldn't use more than 150-200 lbs of salt per year based on our average
usage of 5K gallons per month. Does this sound right? He also said that
since we are on "City" water (although it is a well-based MUD), that Iron
didn't matter, so he did not test for it. Should I look into the iron thing?
How does that affect the corrosive ability of water (hard or soft)?
I am wondering if I should try to find a good twin tank system from someone
else. Question is - would it be cheaper. Other vendors in the area include
Culligan, Ecowater, Rainsoft (heard lots of bad things about them) - anyway
just wondering what the experienced/experts thought.
Kevin
danh...@infonet.isl.net
shopping for a softener. They have a reputation for lasting a long time
and being reasonably trouble-free.
Any softener that adjusts either recharge frequency or the amount of salt
used during recharge based on demand will significantly reduce salt use
over a vanilla timer-based recharge scheme. I would expect that you would
reduce salt use by 50% in most cases, even more in some. And the Kinetico
scheme is probably one of the best demand-based units. But all of the
better units are demand-based in one way or another these days.
In <3698c...@news.ghgcorp.com>, "The Collier's" <col...@ghgcorp.com>
writes:
Dan Hicks
Hey!! My advice is free -- take it for what it's worth!
http://www.millcomm.com/~danhicks
-----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeeds.com/ The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
-----------== Over 66,000 Groups, Plus a Dedicated Binaries Server ==----------
danh...@infonet.isl.net
>In article <3698c...@news.ghgcorp.com>, "The Collier's"
><col...@ghgcorp.com> wrote:
>
>> Well folks - today my wife and I spent 2 hours with a rep from a local
>> company who sells the Kinetico brand of "demand" softeners. The system
>> sounds really slick, and I like the idea of not being dependent on
>> electricity for my soft water. He tested our water and it came out at 5
>> grains with a TDS of 330 (supposedly 500 is the EPA maximum).
>> My question is this - Are these twin tank Kinetico systems worth the $2700
>> they want for it?
>
>that they require no electricity. Well, to be non-electric, they have to
>power the regen hydralically and that can develop as many problems as a
>motor driven system. Also, they claim the "twin-tank never be without
>soft-water" concept, well, you can get that with other brands so it is not
>unique. Personally, I wonder how much water people are using that they
>need a twin tank system. The cost (the cost in a softener is in the tank &
>resin) is not justified in my opinon.
The point of the twin tank scheme is that you don't have to take the unit
off-line to regenerate. A single tank unit must regen at night, meaning
that it can't be totally demand triggered (though it can adjust it's salt
use based on the amount of water that's been used since the last
recharge).
The other thing is that, in theory, the twin tank approach should let you
use much smaller tanks, since the unit can regen 2-3 times a day if
necessary. Flow rate and not total grain capacity becomes the issue.
H. Myler
> Well folks - today my wife and I spent 2 hours with a rep from a local
> company who sells the Kinetico brand of "demand" softeners. The system
> sounds really slick, and I like the idea of not being dependent on
> electricity for my soft water. He tested our water and it came out at 5
> grains with a TDS of 330 (supposedly 500 is the EPA maximum).
> My question is this - Are these twin tank Kinetico systems worth the $2700
> they want for it?
I personally feel that this is obscene. The main thing with Kinetico is
that they require no electricity. Well, to be non-electric, they have to
power the regen hydralically and that can develop as many problems as a
motor driven system. Also, they claim the "twin-tank never be without
soft-water" concept, well, you can get that with other brands so it is not
unique. Personally, I wonder how much water people are using that they
need a twin tank system. The cost (the cost in a softener is in the tank &
resin) is not justified in my opinon.
The key is in sizing your system correctly (and err on the overkill side)
as far as capacity, i.e., grains per gallon, and having a robust
controller. By this I mean a controller that accurately determines how
much water you have used and regens before you run out.
Gary Slusser
H. Myler <casa...@bellsouth.net> wrote ...
Actually its the water use that dictates the twin tank need, I.E. a 24 hour
business such as a motel or car wash where to have raw water while a standard
unit is regenerating would be a problem. For residential 'softening' it is the
amount of ion exchange needs dictating a very large single tank unit and it's
space requirements along with one or more other parameters that would show a
need for a twin tank unit, I.E. shift work or rotating shifts of one or more
household members. All twin tank models use demand regeneration.
Obscene is agreed. And there are others that push the $5000 heights (before
finance charges), but then they have an RO thrown in.
Gary
Gary Slusser
danh...@infonet.isl.net wrote ...
> Well, I intend to take a hard look at the Kinetico the next time I'm
> shopping for a softener. They have a reputation for lasting a long time
> and being reasonably trouble-free.
>
> Any softener that adjusts either recharge frequency or the amount of salt
> used during recharge based on demand will significantly reduce salt use
> over a vanilla timer-based recharge scheme.
The "adjusts either recharge frequency" would be a sensor model and there are
a few of them from different manufacturers but I don't know that Kinetico has
a sensor based model. The ".....amount of salt" part would be 'variable
reserve with proportional brining'. There is only one valve manufacturer of a
softener that does that (two different models) and it's not Kinetico. Demand
does reduce salt usage over timer models but the other two types I mention
goes even farther and those two and are sold only through independent dealers
(one model is trough exclusive dealers).
Gary
> I would expect that you would
> reduce salt use by 50% in most cases, even more in some. And the Kinetico
> scheme is probably one of the best demand-based units. But all of the
> better units are demand-based in one way or another these days.
>
> In <3698c...@news.ghgcorp.com>, "The Collier's" <col...@ghgcorp.com>
> writes:
> >Well folks - today my wife and I spent 2 hours with a rep from a local
> >company who sells the Kinetico brand of "demand" softeners. The system
> >sounds really slick, and I like the idea of not being dependent on
> >electricity for my soft water. He tested our water and it came out at 5
> >grains with a TDS of 330 (supposedly 500 is the EPA maximum).
> >My question is this - Are these twin tank Kinetico systems worth the $2700
> >they want for it? I am not really hot on Sears, but for nearly 1/3 the
price
> >I could get one of their systems installed. I haven't talked personally to
> >other manufacturers, but from what I have heard their systems are still
> >$1-2K.
> >A couple of things he said made me wonder. He mentioned that I probably
> >wouldn't use more than 150-200 lbs of salt per year based on our average
> >usage of 5K gallons per month. Does this sound right? He also said that
> >since we are on "City" water (although it is a well-based MUD), that Iron
> >didn't matter, so he did not test for it. Should I look into the iron
thing?
> >How does that affect the corrosive ability of water (hard or soft)?
> >I am wondering if I should try to find a good twin tank system from someone
> >else. Question is - would it be cheaper. Other vendors in the area include
> >Culligan, Ecowater, Rainsoft (heard lots of bad things about them) - anyway
> >just wondering what the experienced/experts thought.
> >
> >Kevin
> Dan Hicks
Gary Slusser
danh...@infonet.isl.net wrote ...
> casa...@bellsouth.net (H. Myler) writes:
> > "The Collier's" col...@ghgcorp.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Well folks - today my wife and I spent 2 hours with a rep from a local
> >> company who sells the Kinetico brand of "demand" softeners. The system
> >> sounds really slick, and I like the idea of not being dependent on
> >> electricity for my soft water. He tested our water and it came out at 5
> >> grains with a TDS of 330 (supposedly 500 is the EPA maximum).
> >> My question is this - Are these twin tank Kinetico systems worth the
$2700
> >> they want for it?
> >
> >I personally feel that this is obscene. The main thing with Kinetico is
> >that they require no electricity. Well, to be non-electric, they have to
> >power the regen hydralically and that can develop as many problems as a
> >motor driven system. Also, they claim the "twin-tank never be without
> >soft-water" concept, well, you can get that with other brands so it is not
> >unique. Personally, I wonder how much water people are using that they
> >need a twin tank system. The cost (the cost in a softener is in the tank &
> >resin) is not justified in my opinon.
>
> The point of the twin tank scheme is that you don't have to take the unit
> off-line to regenerate. A single tank unit must regen at night, meaning
> that it can't be totally demand triggered (though it can adjust it's salt
> use based on the amount of water that's been used since the last
> recharge).
There are many softeners that allow regeneration at a different time than 2:00
am (any of the 24 hours in a day), and they are demand based. And adjusting
the salt is called variable proportional brining which is only offered by one
manufacturer to my knowledge and it's not Kinetico.
> The other thing is that, in theory, the twin tank approach should let you
> use much smaller tanks, since the unit can regen 2-3 times a day if
> necessary. Flow rate and not total grain capacity becomes the issue.
In many instances more frequent regeneration of smaller tanks is overall less
efficient in both water used and salt required.
Gary
danh...@infonet.isl.net
<qwas...@ptd.net> writes:
>danh...@infonet.isl.net wrote ...
>> The point of the twin tank scheme is that you don't have to take the unit
>> off-line to regenerate. A single tank unit must regen at night, meaning
>> that it can't be totally demand triggered (though it can adjust it's salt
>> use based on the amount of water that's been used since the last
>> recharge).
>
>There are many softeners that allow regeneration at a different time than 2:00
>am (any of the 24 hours in a day), and they are demand based. And adjusting
>the salt is called variable proportional brining which is only offered by one
>manufacturer to my knowledge and it's not Kinetico.
will put out hard water during the regen. Hence the 2AM regeneration.
Without a twin tank setup a softener must attempt to guess at 2AM whether
it will "run out" the next day or not. If water usage is low it will
regen too soon, and if water usage is too high it will regen too late.
>> The other thing is that, in theory, the twin tank approach should let you
>> use much smaller tanks, since the unit can regen 2-3 times a day if
>> necessary. Flow rate and not total grain capacity becomes the issue.
>
>In many instances more frequent regeneration of smaller tanks is overall less
>efficient in both water used and salt required.
I said "in theory". The #1 job of a softener is to deliver soft water,
and the twin tank scheme is superior from the standpoint of never being
offline. After that we are concerned about reliability, cost of
operation, and environmental impacts.
Dan Hicks
Hey!! My advice is free -- take it for what it's worth!
http://www.millcomm.com/~danhicks
Bill Rudolph
done nothing but add salt to this unit during this period. It uses about
1/3 of the salt that the unit it replaced used and the water is much
softer.
I will either take this unit with me if we move and the buyer doesn't
want to pay the price or get a new unit.
The price is right up there, but the quality is also.
The Collier's wrote:
>
> Well folks - today my wife and I spent 2 hours with a rep from a local
> company who sells the Kinetico brand of "demand" softeners. The system
> sounds really slick, and I like the idea of not being dependent on
> electricity for my soft water. He tested our water and it came out at 5
> grains with a TDS of 330 (supposedly 500 is the EPA maximum).
> My question is this - Are these twin tank Kinetico systems worth the $2700
> they want for it? I am not really hot on Sears, but for nearly 1/3 the price
> I could get one of their systems installed. I haven't talked personally to
> other manufacturers, but from what I have heard their systems are still
> $1-2K.
> A couple of things he said made me wonder. He mentioned that I probably
> wouldn't use more than 150-200 lbs of salt per year based on our average
> usage of 5K gallons per month. Does this sound right? He also said that
> since we are on "City" water (although it is a well-based MUD), that Iron
> didn't matter, so he did not test for it. Should I look into the iron thing?
> How does that affect the corrosive ability of water (hard or soft)?
> I am wondering if I should try to find a good twin tank system from someone
> else. Question is - would it be cheaper. Other vendors in the area include
> Culligan, Ecowater, Rainsoft (heard lots of bad things about them) - anyway
> just wondering what the experienced/experts thought.
>
> Kevin
--
Bill R. :)
W.J. Rudolph & Associates
http://cloudnet.com/~wrudolph
ICQ# 6011129
Gary Slusser
danh...@infonet.isl.net wrote...
> "Gary Slusser" writes:
> >danh...@infonet.isl.net wrote ...
> >> The point of the twin tank scheme is that you don't have to take the unit
> >> off-line to regenerate. A single tank unit must regen at night, meaning
> >> that it can't be totally demand triggered (though it can adjust it's salt
> >> use based on the amount of water that's been used since the last
> >> recharge).
> >
> >There are many softeners that allow regeneration at a different time than
2:00
> >am (any of the 24 hours in a day), and they are demand based. And adjusting
> >the salt is called variable proportional brining which is only offered by
one
> >manufacturer to my knowledge and it's not Kinetico.
>
> But if I regen a standard single-tank softener in the middle of the day it
> will put out hard water during the regen. Hence the 2AM regeneration.
> Without a twin tank setup a softener must attempt to guess at 2AM whether
> it will "run out" the next day or not. If water usage is low it will
> regen too soon, and if water usage is too high it will regen too late.
It's true you get untreated water during regeneration but if there's no one
home or they are sleeping it doesn't matter what time of day/night the unit is
regenerated. The 'guess' you mention isn't a guess really, they either do or
don't regenerate when they're supposed to at what ever time regen is to occur,
except the variable reserve type that only regens enough resin for the next
day's use based on the average water used during the last 7 days. Any single
tank softener that is sized and set up correctly will not have any problem
providing the proper reserve, especially mechanically metered units. Sensor
based regenerated units may not provide enough treated water but I really
can't say, I have no experience with them, to me they have inherent problems
because of the sensor buried in the resin bed but I may be wrong. No demand
regenerated softener can/will regen too soon or too late unless it's a timer
controlled unit (some computer based units?) on a number of days between
regenerations schedule. Unless there is a much larger amount of water used
only during the reserve capacity run than 'normal'. And the later that run
starts after 2 am the larger the usage has to be to run out of conditioned
water before the next 2 am.
> >> The other thing is that, in theory, the twin tank approach should let you
> >> use much smaller tanks, since the unit can regen 2-3 times a day if
> >> necessary. Flow rate and not total grain capacity becomes the issue.
> >
> >In many instances more frequent regeneration of smaller tanks is overall
less
> >efficient in both water used and salt required.
>
> I said "in theory". The #1 job of a softener is to deliver soft water,
> and the twin tank scheme is superior from the standpoint of never being
> offline. After that we are concerned about reliability, cost of
> operation, and environmental impacts.
Some times it's actually better with a smaller unit but for every advantage
there is usually an off setting disadvantage. The average household with
average to problem water usually has no need for a twin tank and I sell them
so I'm not against them. Kinetico simply wants to much for theirs IMO.
Gary
Terry Crissman
problems...our salt use has been very low. It's not unusual for us to get
power "blinks" so I'm glad the kinetico is "powerless".. I think you've got
room to negotiate a lower price.
Terry
Bill Rudolph wrote in message <369ABB1C...@cloudnet.com>...
danh...@infonet.isl.net
>In article <369a...@news.newsfeeds.com>,
> danh...@ieee.org wrote:
>
>> But if I regen a standard single-tank softener in the middle of the day it
>> will put out hard water during the regen. Hence the 2AM regeneration.
>> Without a twin tank setup a softener must attempt to guess at 2AM whether
>> it will "run out" the next day or not. If water usage is low it will
>> regen too soon, and if water usage is too high it will regen too late.
>>
>tanks solve timer issues for Kinetico's design engineers.
>
>One thing that seems to be overlooked here is this. If your intent is to
>design a unit with no electricity, then you cannot have an electric timer.
>With no timer, then the Kinetico doen't know when to generate. So, it must
>rely on the number of gallons of water that pass through it to "know" when a
>regen is needed. Obviously, the timing of this event is unpredictable.
>Therefore, a water flow counter is then used to trigger a valve to switch to
>the other tank.
The point is that with a conventional unit you must regen at night (or
during the day if the house is unoccupied then). Therefore, you need a
timer that checks each night to see if the unit needs recharging. But
suppose the unit has right at one typical day's capacity left? If you
recharge it you will be "wasting" a day's capacity, but if you don't you
risk running out of soft water. And what if the day isn't "typical"? So
the timer-based unit always has to "play it safe" and recharge more often
than necessary.
The fact that the Kinetico uses no electricity is a good sales gimmic to
the ignorant masses, but not really a worthwhile feature in itself (unless
you live somewhere where electricity simply isn't available).
Dan Hicks
Hey!! My advice is free -- take it for what it's worth!
http://www.millcomm.com/~danhicks
bit_b...@my-dejanews.com
> But if I regen a standard single-tank softener in the middle of the day it
> will put out hard water during the regen. Hence the 2AM regeneration.
> Without a twin tank setup a softener must attempt to guess at 2AM whether
> it will "run out" the next day or not. If water usage is low it will
> regen too soon, and if water usage is too high it will regen too late.
>
Maybe, I'm missing the point, but as a layman, here is the way I see it. Twin
tanks solve timer issues for Kinetico's design engineers.
One thing that seems to be overlooked here is this. If your intent is to
design a unit with no electricity, then you cannot have an electric timer.
With no timer, then the Kinetico doen't know when to generate. So, it must
rely on the number of gallons of water that pass through it to "know" when a
regen is needed. Obviously, the timing of this event is unpredictable.
Therefore, a water flow counter is then used to trigger a valve to switch to
the other tank. [There are timers based on fluid flows. However, these would
require a continuous and constant rate of flow before a unit could adequately
be calibrated. This little problem would cause more grief than the water
propelled valve trigger would solve... IMHO.]
By the way if you are on well water and water pressure is powering your
Kinetico, then your ELECTRIC pump is supplying the pressure! If your well is
deep, then it takes a considerable amount of electricity to bring your water
to the surface at a pressure that will be satisfactory to a home owner (just
check out the current the submersible pumps use for deep well applications).
So, where is the savings for rural customers? And if it is your municipal
water pressure powering the unit then some way shape or form tax dollars are
paying for the municiple water pump's electricity. And don't most
municipalities soften their water to some degree? So, where is the savings
for city folks? Now, I don't have a problem with Kinetico's price being so
high if they justify it for valid reasons, like superior quality, reliability
and durability. But, I listened to the Kinetico rep who sold a unit to my
sister and her husband and all he seemed to focus on was the power efficiency
of a water driven unit. I hear the traditional softeners use small amounts of
electricity, so where is the justifiable savings. It just sounds too gimmicky
to me.
Bit Bucket
P.S. As you astutely noticed, my sister's purchase of the Kinetico surely lets
me know her opinion of my opinions. ;-)
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
H. Myler
<tcri...@simplynet.net> wrote:
> I've had a kinetico for one year and it's operated without any
> problems...our salt use has been very low. It's not unusual for us to get
> power "blinks" so I'm glad the kinetico is "powerless".. I think you've got
> room to negotiate a lower price.
>
> Terry
C'mon Terry, what did you pay for your system?
Gary Slusser
bit_b...@my-dejanews.com wrote ..
>
> > danh...@ieee.org wrote:
>
> > But if I regen a standard single-tank softener in the middle of the day it
> > will put out hard water during the regen. Hence the 2AM regeneration.
> > Without a twin tank setup a softener must attempt to guess at 2AM whether
> > it will "run out" the next day or not. If water usage is low it will
> > regen too soon, and if water usage is too high it will regen too late.
> >
> Maybe, I'm missing the point, but as a layman, here is the way I see it.
Twin
> tanks solve timer issues for Kinetico's design engineers.
I think they just came up with a way to make a valve that costs them less, and
give them a marketable difference from their competition.. The word timer is
interchanged with the means used to arrive at the time of regeneration. There
are electronic and mechanical timers and they use either number of days or
gallons to determine when the regen happens. Demand regen is based on gallons
used and is determined by mechanical turbine wheels in the water flow to
register to the valve whether it be by electronic pickup or mechanical drive.
All but Kinetico use a motor to drive the gears to move different parts of the
control valve during the regeneration. Kinetico uses a mechanical turbine for
the gallons metering and water flow to drive the flapper valves instead of a
motor. No big difference really. The motors used have a 3 watt maximum rating
so they are quite inexpensive but very reliable. Water power to power
factories went out many years ago because it was inefficient and now its been
brought back in a softener. Progress?
> One thing that seems to be overlooked here is this. If your intent is to
> design a unit with no electricity, then you cannot have an electric timer.
> With no timer, then the Kinetico doen't know when to generate. So, it must
> rely on the number of gallons of water that pass through it to "know" when a
> regen is needed.
Demand regen is better than number of days when the water use is variable.
> Obviously, the timing of this event is unpredictable.
> Therefore, a water flow counter is then used to trigger a valve to switch to
> the other tank. [There are timers based on fluid flows. However, these would
> require a continuous and constant rate of flow before a unit could
adequately
> be calibrated. This little problem would cause more grief than the water
> propelled valve trigger would solve... IMHO.]
A turbine mechanically driving a gear doesn't need constant rate of flow when
the accuracy can be off a bit, this isn't a Mars probe. Most turbine meters
are accurate to about .2 gpm flow. I think you are missing the point of how
they arrive at the number of gallons, they measure them with this turbine as
all other demand valves do.
> By the way if you are on well water and water pressure is powering your
> Kinetico, then your ELECTRIC pump is supplying the pressure!
Well.... actually the pressure tank precharge air pressure does; pumps move
water and to do that they have to be able to overcome the backpresure- so we
say they provide the pressure but... when they're off it's the pressure tank
compressed air.
> If your well is
> deep, then it takes a considerable amount of electricity to bring your water
> to the surface at a pressure that will be satisfactory to a home owner (just
> check out the current the submersible pumps use for deep well applications).
> So, where is the savings for rural customers? And if it is your municipal
> water pressure powering the unit then some way shape or form tax dollars are
> paying for the municiple water pump's electricity. And don't most
> municipalities soften their water to some degree? So, where is the savings
> for city folks? Now, I don't have a problem with Kinetico's price being so
> high if they justify it for valid reasons, like superior quality,
reliability
> and durability. But, I listened to the Kinetico rep who sold a unit to my
> sister and her husband and all he seemed to focus on was the power
efficiency
> of a water driven unit. I hear the traditional softeners use small amounts
of
> electricity, so where is the justifiable savings. It just sounds too
gimmicky
> to me.
Your well or city water you use the water anyway and it has to be pressurized
by something somewhere. NO, most city water is not softened and those guys
will tell you that you don't need to soften your water until the hardness is
over about 150 ppm (just about 9 gpg). Kinetico can't justify their high price
unless their manufacturing and distribution costs are that much higher than
everyone else, and to me that's not justifying it's at best inefficiency. Now
if they were doing something better it might be worth a few extra dollars but
at three times the cost of their competitors? Non electric water softener
control valves are gimmicky with the availability of a receptacle in just
about every location you'd want one. And if there isn't one handy I suggest a
12 v DC motor and extension cord type wire from the transformer at any nearby
receptacle to the softener if the guy doesn't want to run wire and add a
receptacle where the unit is installed.
Gary
Gary Slusser
danh...@infonet.isl.net wrote...
> bit_b...@my-dejanews.com writes:
> > danh...@ieee.org wrote:
> >
> >> But if I regen a standard single-tank softener in the middle of the day
it
> >> will put out hard water during the regen. Hence the 2AM regeneration.
> >> Without a twin tank setup a softener must attempt to guess at 2AM whether
> >> it will "run out" the next day or not. If water usage is low it will
> >> regen too soon, and if water usage is too high it will regen too late.
> >>
> >Maybe, I'm missing the point, but as a layman, here is the way I see it.
Twin
> >tanks solve timer issues for Kinetico's design engineers.
> >
> >One thing that seems to be overlooked here is this. If your intent is to
> >design a unit with no electricity, then you cannot have an electric timer.
> >With no timer, then the Kinetico doen't know when to generate. So, it must
> >rely on the number of gallons of water that pass through it to "know" when
a
> >regen is needed. Obviously, the timing of this event is unpredictable.
> >Therefore, a water flow counter is then used to trigger a valve to switch
to
> >the other tank.
>
> The point is that with a conventional unit you must regen at night (or
> during the day if the house is unoccupied then). Therefore, you need a
> timer that checks each night to see if the unit needs recharging. But
> suppose the unit has right at one typical day's capacity left? If you
> recharge it you will be "wasting" a day's capacity, but if you don't you
> risk running out of soft water. And what if the day isn't "typical"? So
> the timer-based unit always has to "play it safe" and recharge more often
> than necessary.
This is also true of demand single tank units, there is always a bit of waste
because of regenerating before total exhaustion of the resin bed because of
the preprogrammed 24 hour reserve (so you don't run out of softened water) and
in case the water use isn't "typical". All twin tank immediate regenerated
softeners will prevent the need for reserve capacity and should be a bit more
efficient than single tank units. Where this really would show up as a
distinct advantage is in high cost water markets with high sewer charges.
There will also be a smallish salt savings. If we take an average life of 20
years that smallish savings could be substantial, but not $1500 worth IMO.
That's $2700 for theirs and about $1200 for mine and mine can be used on heavy
iron (up to 5 pp). There's won't work on iron above about 2-3 ppm and that's
stretching it. And that depends on the dissolved oxygen content of the water
in their case because the more oxygen the more rust in the water in the
control valve and without a motor their gears don't move very well and then
they quit.
> The fact that the Kinetico uses no electricity is a good sales gimmic to
> the ignorant masses, but not really a worthwhile feature in itself (unless
> you live somewhere where electricity simply isn't available).
I agree.
Gary
The Collier's
Gary Slusser wrote in message
<01be3f05$1387b600$8c9d...@qwasluss.ptdprolog.net>...
>
>Your well or city water you use the water anyway and it has to be
pressurized
>by something somewhere. NO, most city water is not softened and those guys
>will tell you that you don't need to soften your water until the hardness
is
>over about 150 ppm (just about 9 gpg). Kinetico can't justify their high
price
>unless their manufacturing and distribution costs are that much higher than
>everyone else, and to me that's not justifying it's at best inefficiency.
Now
>if they were doing something better it might be worth a few extra dollars
but
>at three times the cost of their competitors? Non electric water softener
>control valves are gimmicky with the availability of a receptacle in just
>about every location you'd want one. And if there isn't one handy I suggest
a
>12 v DC motor and extension cord type wire from the transformer at any
nearby
>receptacle to the softener if the guy doesn't want to run wire and add a
>receptacle where the unit is installed.
>
>Gary
>
So, like I said - my water is 5 gpg. I actually am beginning to think that
it is softer than the city water (in Houston) that we used to be on. At
what x gpg does one REALLY need a softener? Is it just personal preference?
I think I have talked myself out of any softener, not just Kinetico.
Kevin
Gary Slusser
The Collier's wrote ...
>
> So, like I said - my water is 5 gpg. I actually am beginning to think that
> it is softer than the city water (in Houston) that we used to be on. At
> what x gpg does one REALLY need a softener? Is it just personal preference?
>
> I think I have talked myself out of any softener, not just Kinetico.
>
> Kevin
Usually we say 3 gpg or more costs more to live with than a softener and salt.
Gary
The Collier's
Gary Slusser wrote in message
So, you think that in my situation I could really save some money by going
with a softener? I am less concerned now than I was originally about the
"wear and tear" that the hard water may have on my pipes. I am just having
trouble swallowing $2700 and even the cheapest quote on the non-kinetico is
around $1700 installed.
I could put that money towards an extended warranty on my Voyager ;-).
Kevin
Gary Slusser
The Collier's wrote ...
>
> Gary Slusser wrote in message
>
> >
> >
This is true. I don't know how many of you there are there but a very small
and inexpensive softener (a 1/2 cubic foot 16,000 grain for around $700
installed) should meet your needs (up to 4 people) and leave enough for the
warranty too. In addition to the pipes hardness effects the fixtures, clothing
and all water using appliances which equates to an immediate increase in the
cost of living. The cost for the pipes usually won't show up for many years.
Gary
The Collier's
Gary Slusser wrote in message
We are a family of three (Me, my wife and our 2 yr old daughter). We have
been averaging about 5K gallons per month. When considering the grain rating
of a softener do you divide that number (16000 in your above example) by the
x gpg of your water to get gallons per recharge? Just curious how that
works.
You are right about the fixtures, but in my last house I was there for 5
years and only had to replace one fixture while we were there. I cannot say
it was due to water hardness, although I am pretty sure that the water at
that house was a bit harder than what we have now. If I was sure to stay in
this house now for 10+ years then i would start to see how the cost savings
and investment in a water softener could begin to really pay back.
Kevin
Gary Slusser
The Collier's wrote.
>
> Gary Slusser wrote in message
> >
> >
> >The Collier's wrote ...
> >>
> >> Gary Slusser wrote in message
> >This is true. I don't know how many of you there are there but a very small
> >and inexpensive softener (a 1/2 cubic foot 16,000 grain for around $700
> >installed) should meet your needs (up to 4 people) and leave enough for the
> >warranty too. In addition to the pipes hardness effects the fixtures,
> clothing
> >and all water using appliances which equates to an immediate increase in
> the
> >cost of living. The cost for the pipes usually won't show up for many
> years.
> >
> >Gary
>
> We are a family of three (Me, my wife and our 2 yr old daughter). We have
> been averaging about 5K gallons per month. When considering the grain rating
> of a softener do you divide that number (16000 in your above example) by the
> x gpg of your water to get gallons per recharge? Just curious how that
> works.
>
> You are right about the fixtures, but in my last house I was there for 5
> years and only had to replace one fixture while we were there. I cannot say
> it was due to water hardness, although I am pretty sure that the water at
> that house was a bit harder than what we have now. If I was sure to stay in
> this house now for 10+ years then i would start to see how the cost savings
> and investment in a water softener could begin to really pay back.
Well yes and no, you do after establishing a 24 hour reserve based on what and
how much of it is in the water plus the number of gallons used per day. You
would do better with a larger unit than the 16K I mentioned after I've done
the math now. The best would be a 1' size (32K) which would regenerate about
once a week at 15 pounds of salt.
> Kevin