Bad water
larry schmitt
also produce a rotten egg smell under some circumstances
Jim Hunter wrote:
> I am having problems with sulfur water in my home. We had the water tested
> and it only tested at ½ part per million. Never the less the rotten egg
> smell is sometimes hard to live with. The unit to remove the sulfur is
> almost $2000.00. Is there any cheaper alternative to buying this unit? Is
> there anything else I can do? Help
Gary Slusser
Jim Hunter <jhun...@earthlink.net> wrote ..
> I am having problems with sulfur water in my home. We had the water tested
> and it only tested at ½ part per million. Never the less the rotten egg
> smell is sometimes hard to live with. The unit to remove the sulfur is
> almost $2000.00. Is there any cheaper alternative to buying this unit? Is
> there anything else I can do? Help
That amount is not much but enough to cause the problem; it doesn't take much.
Sulfur has to be oxidized and the particles then filtered out of the water.
There are many different ways to treat the problem and I suggest you call a
few more dealers and shop. Of course you don't say what equipment and how much
of it along with what else the analysis shows being in your water etc.. Or
what brand name if any. So, you may be limited to what equipment is used and
thereby the cost you were given.
Gary
Mark S. Stiegel
problem. The local water softener dealer told me that the way he handles
this in our area is to install two water-softening units and a single brine
tank. With this system, the water used to create the brine mixture is made
from softened water from the tank that was previously regenerated instead of
using the hard water as is done with a softening system using only one resin
tank. So far, the only time I can detect even the faintest of smell is
right when one tank is finishing and the other is beginning...I think I can
eliminate even this if I re-set the controls to reduce the number of gallons
used before a regeneration is required...just haven't had time to learn to
do this with this fancy new electronic unit.
Frankly, I would like to hear Gary Slusser's comments regarding this
method...everything he says (many of which I've experienced) hits the nail
right on the head...he gives great advice, and we should be "pleased to no
end" that he freely contributes to this newsgroup. Thanx Gary.
Mark
larry schmitt wrote in message <36D97571...@michianatoday.com>...
>If its in the hot water try removing the anode in the water heater. This
will
>also produce a rotten egg smell under some circumstances
>
>Jim Hunter wrote:
>
Jim Hunter
Gary Slusser
Mark S. Stiegel <msti...@ix.netcom.com> wrote ...
> Sulfur smell....the house I just purchased (within last year) had this
> problem. The local water softener dealer told me that the way he handles
> this in our area is to install two water-softening units and a single brine
> tank.
Softeners on average don't do anything to sulfur or any other odor. To do so
the unit would have to have some type of oxidizing mineral as a mixed bed or
compartmentalized in the resin tank(s). Resin has no effect on odors or their
cause(s).
> With this system, the water used to create the brine mixture is made
> from softened water from the tank that was previously regenerated instead of
> using the hard water as is done with a softening system using only one resin
> tank. So far, the only time I can detect even the faintest of smell is
> right when one tank is finishing and the other is beginning...I think I can
> eliminate even this if I re-set the controls to reduce the number of gallons
> used before a regeneration is required...just haven't had time to learn to
> do this with this fancy new electronic unit.
You are describing what is known as an immediate regenerated twin tank
softener. Unless he has added more than just resin to the tanks it shouldn't
work on the odor..... anyway drop the number of gallons by 50 and see what
happens, if not enough do another 50 and so on until it stops. What brand of
softener is it? Or control valve brand?
>
> Frankly, I would like to hear Gary Slusser's comments regarding this
> method...everything he says (many of which I've experienced) hits the nail
> right on the head...he gives great advice, and we should be "pleased to no
> end" that he freely contributes to this newsgroup. Thanx Gary.
>
> Mark
Well! thank you for the kind words. Is this a Culligan unit? I ask because I
know of no electronic twin tank units. And, the thing shouldn't work as you
describe it which seems to say the treated water for brine makeup is
preventing the sulfur. Which is a bit more than BS IMO! You sure the first
tank isn't a backwashed sulfur filter? One tank isn't on top of the other is
it?
Gary
Gary Slusser
David A Thomas <dtho...@NO.worldnet.att.net> wrote in article ...
> Shouldn't work on sulfur odors... but it does in this case. (Sorry, but
> I just had too <G>). I wonder, when the odor breaks through if he has
> problems with "black" water too?
It's not sulfur (Hydrogen Sulfide) Dave it's an odor that brings sulfur to
mind (I call it "sulfurous"); it's caused by bacteria in the water colonizing
the brine and resin tanks and the way some dealers get rid of it is to kill
the bacteria in the brine tank and resin bed with a shot of bleach
periodically. Personally I build a softener with an amount of mineral that
removes Hydrogen Sulfide and only requires backwashing and the regeneration
doesn't cause any problems. I've used them about 6-7 years now and they work
and the additional cost is roughly $200 as opposed to a separate 'sulfur'
filter at $800 up.
Sulfur doesn't cause "black water" it causes black stains the same as
manganese. And for manganese to cause black water... it takes special
conditions which is not the norm in my or most areas. 'Sulfur' is a gas, the
oxide after oxidation is seen as black particles and a coating inside the
pipes but doesn't discolor the water. Manganese works the same but can
discolor the water.
Gary
> David
>
David Thomas
"Gary Slusser" <qwas...@ptd.net> wrote:
>
> David A Thomas <dtho...@NO.worldnet.att.net> wrote in article ...
> > Shouldn't work on sulfur odors... but it does in this case. (Sorry, but
> > I just had too <G>). I wonder, when the odor breaks through if he has
> > problems with "black" water too?
>
> It's not sulfur (Hydrogen Sulfide) Dave it's an odor that brings sulfur to
> mind (I call it "sulfurous"); it's caused by bacteria in the water colonizing
> the brine and resin tanks and the way some dealers get rid of it is to kill
> the bacteria in the brine tank and resin bed with a shot of bleach
> periodically. Personally I build a softener with an amount of mineral that
> removes Hydrogen Sulfide and only requires backwashing and the regeneration
> doesn't cause any problems. I've used them about 6-7 years now and they work
> and the additional cost is roughly $200 as opposed to a separate 'sulfur'
> filter at $800 up.
So first you say softeners don't work removing H2S and now you're saying *you*
make one that does work. Hmmm.
> Sulfur doesn't cause "black water" it causes black stains the same as
> manganese. And for manganese to cause black water... it takes special
> conditions which is not the norm in my or most areas. 'Sulfur' is a gas, the
> oxide after oxidation is seen as black particles and a coating inside the
> pipes but doesn't discolor the water. Manganese works the same but can
> discolor the water.
The only comment I'll add here is, I hope you don't teach any chemistry
courses.
David
Email me at dth...@NO.cityutil.com
(Remove "NO." spam protection)
Opinions expressed are my own.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Gary Slusser
David Thomas <dthom...@my-dejanews.com> wrote ...
> "Gary Slusser" <qwas...@ptd.net> wrote:
> >
> > David A Thomas <dtho...@NO.worldnet.att.net> wrote in article ...
>
> > > Shouldn't work on sulfur odors... but it does in this case. (Sorry, but
> > > I just had too <G>). I wonder, when the odor breaks through if he has
> > > problems with "black" water too?
> >
> > It's not sulfur (Hydrogen Sulfide) Dave it's an odor that brings sulfur to
> > mind (I call it "sulfurous"); it's caused by bacteria in the water
colonizing
> > the brine and resin tanks and the way some dealers get rid of it is to
kill
> > the bacteria in the brine tank and resin bed with a shot of bleach
> > periodically. Personally I build a softener with an amount of mineral that
> > removes Hydrogen Sulfide and only requires backwashing and the
regeneration
> > doesn't cause any problems. I've used them about 6-7 years now and they
work
> > and the additional cost is roughly $200 as opposed to a separate 'sulfur'
> > filter at $800 up.
>
> So first you say softeners don't work removing H2S and now you're saying
*you*
> make one that does work. Hmmm.
What I didn't say is that what I do is for a very small amount of 'sulfur',
just a bit more (I call it a trace amount) than what a disposable cartridge
filter could handle but no where near the size of a regular 'sulfur' filter.
Sorry, I didn't mean to mislead; or make your heart go all oiter-pat either.
> > Sulfur doesn't cause "black water" it causes black stains the same as
> > manganese. And for manganese to cause black water... it takes special
> > conditions which is not the norm in my or most areas. 'Sulfur' is a gas,
the
> > oxide after oxidation is seen as black particles and a coating inside the
> > pipes but doesn't discolor the water. Manganese works the same but can
> > discolor the water.
>
> The only comment I'll add here is, I hope you don't teach any chemistry
> courses.
I'm not trying to impress anyone and maybe my words and terminology are crude
or lacking but I have to tell you the lay person seems to be able to
understand just fine. Actually, I try to use the words they do. If this/that
isn't the basis for your comment... I'd appreciate it if you could explain
yourself. Impress me Dave, please?
I gotta tell ya Dave... for some reason maturity comes to mind here. Have ya
ever considered growing up?
Gary
> David
David Thomas
me out. That won't happen again! When I got back to post it was gone. I don't
know where, so if this is a repeat of the first, I appologize.
In article <01be6514$8b48ade0$299d...@qwasluss.ptdprolog.net>,
Ooohhh! [knowing grin] Say, have you heard of a new resin(?) called KDF? Its
suppose to take out substantial amounts of both reduced iron and H2S (around
5 to 15 ppm I think). Oh ya, I also meant to ask you, what is the mineral you
use to remove H2S?
> > > Sulfur doesn't cause "black water" it causes black stains the same as
> > > manganese. And for manganese to cause black water... it takes special
> > > conditions which is not the norm in my or most areas. 'Sulfur' is a gas,
> > > the
> > > oxide after oxidation is seen as black particles and a coating inside the
> > > pipes but doesn't discolor the water. Manganese works the same but can
> > > discolor the water.
> >
> > The only comment I'll add here is, I hope you don't teach any chemistry
> > courses.
>
> I'm not trying to impress anyone and maybe my words and terminology are crude
> or lacking but I have to tell you the lay person seems to be able to
> understand just fine. Actually, I try to use the words they do. If this/that
> isn't the basis for your comment... I'd appreciate it if you could explain
> yourself. Impress me Dave, please?
First off, The only "special" conditions manganese needs to make "black" water
is to be present in a reduced form before being exposed to air, just like
reduced iron makes "red" water. Secondly, the only form of Mn I know that
actually discolors water (true color, not apparent color) is permanganate
(MnO4) which you're not going to find in any well unless you put it there.
You *are* trying to impress someone, but its not me Gary. Its the lay person
and actually you don't do a bad job on the general stuff. It's when you try to
get specific on the chemistry and begin techno-babbling that you lose
credibility (no insult entended).
> I gotta tell ya Dave... for some reason maturity comes to mind here. Have ya
> ever considered growing up?
Moi? You really need to lighten up and stop taking very word personally (don't
those words sound familiar?). Throwing insults at me just 'cause you messed up
doesn't help anyone and makes you look peevish.
Gary Slusser
David Thomas <dthom...@my-dejanews.com> wrote...
KDF is a media not a resin, it is being used for chlorine, and odor including
'sulfur' but not in whole house (POE) automatic type filters because it's to
expensive and heavy. It is also considered a bacteriostatic material. I use
Pyrolox. I also use it in backwashed or regenerated automatic POE filters. I'm
moving away from it in favor of air pumps though because the operating costs
are less and pumps have a bit more service free operation potential.
> > > > Sulfur doesn't cause "black water" it causes black stains the same as
> > > > manganese. And for manganese to cause black water... it takes special
> > > > conditions which is not the norm in my or most areas. 'Sulfur' is a
gas,
> > > > the
> > > > oxide after oxidation is seen as black particles and a coating inside
the
> > > > pipes but doesn't discolor the water. Manganese works the same but can
> > > > discolor the water.
> > >
> > > The only comment I'll add here is, I hope you don't teach any chemistry
> > > courses.
> >
> > I'm not trying to impress anyone and maybe my words and terminology are
crude
> > or lacking but I have to tell you the lay person seems to be able to
> > understand just fine. Actually, I try to use the words they do. If
this/that
> > isn't the basis for your comment... I'd appreciate it if you could explain
> > yourself. Impress me Dave, please?
>
> First off, The only "special" conditions manganese needs to make "black"
water
> is to be present in a reduced form before being exposed to air, just like
> reduced iron makes "red" water. Secondly, the only form of Mn I know that
> actually discolors water (true color, not apparent color) is permanganate
> (MnO4) which you're not going to find in any well unless you put it there.
We don't call it "reduced form", we call it the oxidized form, red water iron
as opposed to clear water iron which is Ferrous as opposed to Ferric.
Manganese when oxidized will show black residue or particles in some rare
cases. Usually the dissolved oxygen content in the water is sufficient to
cause some oxidation with iron and 'sulfur' and with 'sulfur' there can be
times when the water has a gray look to it in the bathtubs. Usually the
complaint is black specks. I've treated up to 3 ppm manganese and have never
seen black water as a complaint before treatment, just harder to remove iron
stains usually. Or black stains where wet dishes etc. have been sat on light
colored counters etc. and that is very rare. True versus apparent color
huh?..... hehe you don't talk to many homeowners do you, they'll tell ya if
they see color and couldn't care less what type you call it.
> You *are* trying to impress someone, but its not me Gary. Its the lay person
> and actually you don't do a bad job on the general stuff. It's when you try
to
> get specific on the chemistry and begin techno-babbling that you lose
> credibility (no insult entended).
I've spoken to thousands of people with water quality problems, I hear damned
near 100% say they appreciate my information, knowledge (as compared to
others) and the way I give it; they aren't lab tech types Dave. Plus I've
never said (or implied0 I'm well versed in the technical end of chemistry, so
far I haven't had to be either. I know equipment and what works and what
doesn't. That's about all the people contacting me want, along with a decent
price to solve their problem with their water. I would be interested in your
ideas as to what I *shoud* be doing different.
> > I gotta tell ya Dave... for some reason maturity comes to mind here. Have
ya
> > ever considered growing up?
>
> Moi? You really need to lighten up and stop taking very word personally
(don't
> those words sound familiar?). Throwing insults at me just 'cause you messed
up
> doesn't help anyone and makes you look peevish.
I'd like you to point out where you think I messed up. I'll start first by
pointing out your thinking KDF is a resin and maybe you thought that supported
his statement that 'sulfur' is removed by ion exchange. Your turn.
Gary
> David
David Thomas
OK, time to get the scissors out and snip this down a bit.
> > Ooohhh! [knowing grin] Say, have you heard of a new resin(?) called KDF? Its
> > suppose to take out substantial amounts of both reduced iron and H2S (around
> > 5 to 15 ppm I think). Oh ya, I also meant to ask you, what is the mineral
> > you
> > use to remove H2S?
>
> KDF is a media not a resin, it is being used for chlorine, and odor including
> 'sulfur' but not in whole house (POE) automatic type filters because it's to
> expensive and heavy. It is also considered a bacteriostatic material. I use
> Pyrolox. I also use it in backwashed or regenerated automatic POE filters. I'm
> moving away from it in favor of air pumps though because the operating costs
> are less and pumps have a bit more service free operation potential.
Exactly how is KDF different from Pyrolox? Or is Pyrolox just a different
trade name for the same thing? From what I've been able find, Pyrolox has
exactly the same properities you've just outlined for KDF. Expensive, heavy,
(I don't think you mean "bacteriostatic" since that would stop the growth of
bacertia, do you? What I read said its catalytic properties are impaired by
bacteria growth.) etc. (I'd like to find out more on it's catalytic
properties and what some of those "intermediate" forms that it creats are. In
order to oxidize H2S, iron, etc. it must be reduced ie. gain an electron, yet
to be catalytic, it must then lose that electron to something else thereby
being oxidized itself and reducing something else. What a conundrum. <G>
[singing] "Where did all the 'lectrons go....")
> > First off, The only "special" conditions manganese needs to make "black"
> > water
> > is to be present in a reduced form before being exposed to air, just like
> > reduced iron makes "red" water. Secondly, the only form of Mn I know that
> > actually discolors water (true color, not apparent color) is permanganate
> > (MnO4) which you're not going to find in any well unless you put it there.
>
> We don't call it "reduced form", we call it the oxidized form, red water iron
> as opposed to clear water iron which is Ferrous as opposed to Ferric.
> Manganese when oxidized will show black residue or particles in some rare
> cases. Usually the dissolved oxygen content in the water is sufficient to
> cause some oxidation with iron and 'sulfur' and with 'sulfur' there can be
> times when the water has a gray look to it in the bathtubs. Usually the
> complaint is black specks. I've treated up to 3 ppm manganese and have never
> seen black water as a complaint before treatment, just harder to remove iron
> stains usually. Or black stains where wet dishes etc. have been sat on light
> colored counters etc. and that is very rare. True versus apparent color
> huh?..... hehe you don't talk to many homeowners do you, they'll tell ya if
> they see color and couldn't care less what type you call it.
It has to be a reduced form before the air can oxidize it. That's *why* it
causes problems! As I recall you were the one making a big stink that "black"
water was not treatable by ion exchange because ion exchange doesn't work on
*color*. "Black" water is called "black" water (just as "red" water is called
"red" water) because of *apparent* color, not ture color. If you filter the
water the "color" disappears (rather the particles giving the water its
*apparent* color are trapped on the filter). I have talked to many homeowners
too, but to treat their "color" problems you must find out if it's apparent
color or true color. What solves one problem won't work on the other. (Unless
you sell them both treatment methods, huh. <SEG> [southeren drawl] "That's a
joke, son.")
> > You *are* trying to impress someone, but its not me Gary. Its the lay person
> > and actually you don't do a bad job on the general stuff. It's when you try
> > to
> > get specific on the chemistry and begin techno-babbling that you lose
> > credibility (no insult entended).
>
> I've spoken to thousands of people with water quality problems, I hear damned
> near 100% say they appreciate my information, knowledge (as compared to
> others) and the way I give it; they aren't lab tech types Dave. Plus I've
> never said (or implied0 I'm well versed in the technical end of chemistry, so
> far I haven't had to be either. I know equipment and what works and what
> doesn't. That's about all the people contacting me want, along with a decent
> price to solve their problem with their water. I would be interested in your
> ideas as to what I *shoud* be doing different.
I've never doubted your expertise with installing and servicing water
treatment devices, Gary, and your explainations may be just what the customer
wants to hear, right or wrong. I only object to the *technical* errors when
you discuss *technicalities* with me. If you don't like it when I correct
your errors I guess I could stop mentioning them, but then you'd never know
when you were passing along false information to your customers and that
perpetuation of false information that you so rightfully deplore (when
directed at your own industry, anyway) would continue at your own hands.
> > Moi? You really need to lighten up and stop taking very word personally
> > (don't
> > those words sound familiar?). Throwing insults at me just 'cause you messed
> > up
> > doesn't help anyone and makes you look peevish.
>
> I'd like you to point out where you think I messed up. I'll start first by
> pointing out your thinking KDF is a resin and maybe you thought that supported
> his statement that 'sulfur' is removed by ion exchange. Your turn.
Read it again, Bozo. "resin(?)" means I don't know what the stuff is, I just
heard about it second hand and was asking a supposed expert for an
explaination. Better luck next time. (You still come off looking peevish.)
Gary Slusser
David Thomas <dthom...@my-dejanews.com> wrote...
It's been more tha nawhile since I had them send me the tech pages on KDF
but... it's zinc, brass? and .....copper? and the process is called re-dox? or
re something I think. Pyrolox is a granule of something coated with manganese
dioxide. It can be used just backwashed or regenerated with chlorine water.
Or, potassium permanganate. Pyrolox is no where near as heavy as KDF, but you
don't need as much of it as greensand and Pyrolox. I meant static, it's been
approved by EPA if I remember right; it inhibits bacteria growth. With
some/many of the various media the dissolved oxygen in the water is used to
help in oxidizing whatever and then the particles are mechanically filtered
out. 'lectrons have to do with big guvernmint no?
We have resin that is used for color removal in certain cases but not in
softeners used to remove hardness or in a 'sulfur' filter and in some cases we
don't use a 'sulfur' filter; we use an oxidant such as ozone, chlorine, oxygen
hydrogen peroxide etc. teh nfilter the particles out. No one I know of would
treat for colored water by removing the color if caused by manganese or
'sulfur', we'd remove the Mn or 'sufur'; hence no colored water anymore. Just
as if by magic!! Or, more commonly referred to as treating the cause as
opposed to the symptom! We don't trap anything on the filter, it's in the
filter unless we use pleated paper cartridges or a bag filter.
So, I told ya to tell me my error(s) what are you talking about? I think you
picked up something that you think is an error but actually isn't. What is it?
something about oxide, oxidant and oxidation?
> > > Moi? You really need to lighten up and stop taking very word personally
> > > (don't
> > > those words sound familiar?). Throwing insults at me just 'cause you
messed
> > > up
> > > doesn't help anyone and makes you look peevish.
> >
> > I'd like you to point out where you think I messed up. I'll start first by
> > pointing out your thinking KDF is a resin and maybe you thought that
supported
> > his statement that 'sulfur' is removed by ion exchange. Your turn.
>
> Read it again, Bozo. "resin(?)" means I don't know what the stuff is, I just
> heard about it second hand and was asking a supposed expert for an
> explaination. Better luck next time. (You still come off looking peevish.)
I'll say it again, point out to me my error. Resin is resin, crosslinked
di-vinylbernz whatever, some softeners (a very few) still use zeolite which is
not resin (still ion exchange softening though), and KDF is a media, Pyrolox
greensand, Georgia Marble, Corosex etc. is/are a media/mineral in our
terminology, maybe not yours but we aren't talking about your industry here.
Maybe you not knowing is causing a problem? you act as if you KNOW a lot about
this stuff.
This has been going on for months now, I don't see anyone but you with the
name calling, have ya noticed? Peevish! hehehe you wish. Well... maybe so, you
owe me more shots than I've taken though. I've shown GREAT restraint don'chya
think!
Gary
C. Brunner
wrote:
>David Thomas <dthom...@my-dejanews.com> wrote...
>> Exactly how is KDF different from Pyrolox?...
[snip]
>It's been more tha nawhile since I had them send me the tech pages on KDF
>but... it's zinc, brass? and .....copper? and the process is called re-dox? or
>re something I think... [snip]
We've all been enduring this exchange and maybe learning something
about water treatment (strictly through osmosis, most likely). But,
well, I just gotta say how impressed I was with this last statement.
As a homeowner and consumer, I'm more than idly interested in this
thread because of our interest in ridding our well water of iron,
manganese, and hydrogen sulfide. I think this last quote reveals a
lot about the water treatment industry.
C. Brunner
(Address contains a spamblock: "NOT")
Gary Slusser
C. Brunner <bru...@NOTvetmed.auburn.edu> wrote ...
> On Fri, 05 Mar 1999 01:57:43 GMT, "Gary Slusser" <qwas...@ptd.net>
> wrote:
>
> >David Thomas <dthom...@my-dejanews.com> wrote...
> >> Exactly how is KDF different from Pyrolox?...
> [snip]
>
> >It's been more tha nawhile since I had them send me the tech pages on KDF
> >but... it's zinc, brass? and .....copper? and the process is called re-dox?
or
> >re something I think... [snip]
>
> We've all been enduring this exchange and maybe learning something
> about water treatment (strictly through osmosis, most likely). But,
> well, I just gotta say how impressed I was with this last statement.
> As a homeowner and consumer, I'm more than idly interested in this
> thread because of our interest in ridding our well water of iron,
> manganese, and hydrogen sulfide. I think this last quote reveals a
> lot about the water treatment industry.
>
> C. Brunner
> (Address contains a spamblock: "NOT")
I'll just say that I don't use KDF nor have I in the past. Also that I know of
no one in my 6-7 county area of PA that does either. When it first came on the
market some years ago I did my homework by getting that technical information
I mentioned from both the company and at least one distributor. I then and
since, decided it wasn't something I would use, I don't use some other
methodologies either (for equally good reasons) - am I somehow (in your
opinion) more derelict for that too? I think you're putting emphasis in the
wrong area frankly. It's amazing to me that because I can't remember specifics
that I read years ago and that you seem to find important, you think that
impacts on my credibility and my industry as a whole! That's a bit small
minded in my opinion.
I could get up and root around until I found the KDF packet and then sit here
reading it and then type all the info about the various forms of KDF so people
like you and Dave are better informed and see my industry in a better
light.... Frankly, I wonder why I'd want to but then.... for some I've done
much more than that.
I see that in another post of yours you made an assumption based on what the
city water in your area is like and compare your well water to it... here you
give additional information. I'll tell you that you are not identifying your
water quality problem correctly. You will eventually know for sure if I'm
right or wrong. Good luck.
Gary
David A Thomas
Redox stands for red(uction)-ox(idation) and is simply the process of
moving electrons around. (Reducing something adds an electron to the
form. Oxidizing removes an electron.) My questions still stands - Where
do the electrons go? Does it reduce sulfates to sulfites? Nitrates to
nitrites (my uninformed guesses and something of a health concern
although I'm sure the levels involved are well below EPA established
limits) or something else? Are you saying that you have to regenerate
this stuff (any of the forms mentioned) with an oxidant like chlorine or
permanganate in order for it to remain effective? (Kind of contrary to
the word "catalytic" if so.) The tech pages would be nice, but so would
a web page. I'll do a search on KDF when I get back to the office
tomorrow but if its like what I found on Pyrolox, it'll just be
promotional stuff. (Which BTW still said the that Pyrolox was inhibited
*by* bacteria growth, not that *it* inhibits bacteria growth, and it
said it would need a chlorine injector on the well if bacteria were a
reoccurring problem. I'll give you the web link Monday when I get back
to the office.) DO is great if your well has any. But if you have H2S,
reduced forms of manganese or iron, we know for sure that *that* well
has no DO. That's the problem.
> > It has to be a reduced form before the air can oxidize it. That's *why* it
> > causes problems! As I recall you were the one making a big stink that
> > "black"
> > water was not treatable by ion exchange because ion exchange doesn't work on
> > *color*. "Black" water is called "black" water (just as "red" water is
> > called
> > "red" water) because of *apparent* color, not ture color. If you filter the
> > water the "color" disappears (rather the particles giving the water its
> > *apparent* color are trapped on the filter). I have talked to many
> > homeowners
> > too, but to treat their "color" problems you must find out if it's apparent
> > color or true color. What solves one problem won't work on the other.
> > (Unless
> > you sell them both treatment methods, huh. <SEG> [southeren drawl] "That's a
> > joke, son.")
>
> We have resin that is used for color removal in certain cases but not in
> softeners used to remove hardness or in a 'sulfur' filter and in some cases we
> don't use a 'sulfur' filter; we use an oxidant such as ozone, chlorine, oxygen
> hydrogen peroxide etc. teh nfilter the particles out. No one I know of would
> treat for colored water by removing the color if caused by manganese or
> 'sulfur', we'd remove the Mn or 'sufur'; hence no colored water anymore. Just
> as if by magic!! Or, more commonly referred to as treating the cause as
> opposed to the symptom! We don't trap anything on the filter, it's in the
> filter unless we use pleated paper cartridges or a bag filter.
So you *do* know the difference between apparent color and true color
after all!
> > I've never doubted your expertise with installing and servicing water
> > treatment devices, Gary, and your explainations may be just what the
> > customer
> > wants to hear, right or wrong. I only object to the *technical* errors when
> > you discuss *technicalities* with me. If you don't like it when I correct
> > your errors I guess I could stop mentioning them, but then you'd never know
> > when you were passing along false information to your customers and that
> > perpetuation of false information that you so rightfully deplore (when
> > directed at your own industry, anyway) would continue at your own hands.
>
> So, I told ya to tell me my error(s) what are you talking about? I think you
> picked up something that you think is an error but actually isn't. What is it?
> something about oxide, oxidant and oxidation?
I have been. That's why this thread has continued ad nauseum. You just
can't seem to admit to any errors even when they are pointed out to you.
You come back with responses like "all my customers know is that the
water's got *color*" or "my customers like the way I explain things to
them" which is all every sweet, but still leaves the errors in place.
> > Read it again, Bozo. "resin(?)" means I don't know what the stuff is, I just
> > heard about it second hand and was asking a supposed expert for an
> > explaination. Better luck next time. (You still come off looking peevish.)
>
> I'll say it again, point out to me my error. Resin is resin, crosslinked
> di-vinylbernz whatever, some softeners (a very few) still use zeolite which is
> not resin (still ion exchange softening though), and KDF is a media, Pyrolox
> greensand, Georgia Marble, Corosex etc. is/are a media/mineral in our
> terminology, maybe not yours but we aren't talking about your industry here.
> Maybe you not knowing is causing a problem? you act as if you KNOW a lot about
> this stuff.
I have been pointing out your technical errors - Crossed linked
devinylbenzene with sulfonation (for cation exchange); True color vs.
apparent color; Mn needing no "special conditions", Pyrolox not being
baterialstatic, etc. for example (the list just seems to keep growing,
not that I was keeping track <G>, you asked "what error?"). BTW, DVB(S)
is just an artificial media us eggheads developed to improve on the
natural earth products like zeolite, etc. so you guys can make a profit
selling it to the homeowner. "is/are a media/mineral"? Is "media" a
singular form for the plural form "mineral"? Your industry sure does use
a different terminology <G>. Since all of your treatments devices have
been developed by us technical guys, perhaps you guys should consider
updating your terminology to match ours. <SEG>
> This has been going on for months now, I don't see anyone but you with the
> name calling, have ya noticed? Peevish! hehehe you wish. Well... maybe so, you
> owe me more shots than I've taken though. I've shown GREAT restraint don'chya
> think!
No, Gary, I haven't noticed and I don't think so. I called you on a few
technical errors and you got peevish (I'm not calling you a pee-pee head
or anything like that, just peevish). That's how I read it.
David
Gary Slusser
David A Thomas <dtho...@NO.worldnet.att.net> wrote ...
First, if you are correct about H2S in a well not allowing any DO explain how
the black residue gets into the water lines. Isn't H2S a gas in the water? Or
do you think the BOD is so high there can be no DO in that well... hence your
statement ".... *that* well has no DO."? I guess you might believe that the
Hydrogen Sulfide only occurs in the water in the well? If so ya need to do
more reading.
You had questioned the bacteriostatic statement I made concerning KDF; in the
above paragraph I said "I meant static" but left off 'in regards to KDF' but
the preceding sentence talks of KDF Dave.. Now it seems you are taking that
and applying it to Pyrolox which is not true and I never said it was but can
see how what I said was somewhat confusing (specially to anyone wanting to be
confused!!). Pyrolox is an oxidizing mineral, yes, it can be backwashed only
or regenerated. KDF is only backwashed. My reason for not using KDF is the
addition of the metals to the water, the weight and concern of improper
backwash and it's price; which is very high at wholesale ($300 +/ft3, compared
to Pyrolox at roughly $100) and even higher at retail. I can't tell you where
the electrons go... I really don't care because I have no need to know. And if
I want to know I know where I can find the information so I'm not going to
fill my head with unnecessary facts about it or other things. As for the
bacteria and Pyrolox?, do you mean Pyrolox or KDF? Pyrolox to my knowledge has
no limitations due to bacteria of any kind. It is not bacteriostatic but if
I'm right KDF is and is being used in certain equipment (WaterBoss may be one,
along with others) as such while we speak. That's 'static' not 'cide' BTW, so
I can see why they KDF, not Pyrolox as you (miss?)typed above here, has to
have a bactericide applied for any type of bacteria remediation.
I may have swerved into something but no I don't know the difference. I'm as
dumb as the average consumer; if the damned glass is clear and when water is
added it looks colored I think the water has a color! I couldn't care less if
it's apparent or true color, it's color. So with the rest of the analysis I
would treat what I find that can cause that color, if after treatment there is
still a color then more testing; i.e. for tannins as an example. Normally in
my area we don't have tannin problems so we don't 'normally' test for them.
But, I do have to know they are possible even if they color water the same as
some iron can. And then, if I need help or additional information, I can tap
the vast knowledge base of technical support I have available. There is no
question that could be asked that I couldn't find the cause of the problem and
the equipment for treating it. And that base consists of labs to manufacturers
to other dealers, the EPA and even NASA along with the manufacturers for NASA
etc..
> > > I've never doubted your expertise with installing and servicing water
> > > treatment devices, Gary, and your explainations may be just what the
> > > customer
> > > wants to hear, right or wrong. I only object to the *technical* errors
when
> > > you discuss *technicalities* with me. If you don't like it when I
correct
> > > your errors I guess I could stop mentioning them, but then you'd never
know
> > > when you were passing along false information to your customers and that
> > > perpetuation of false information that you so rightfully deplore (when
> > > directed at your own industry, anyway) would continue at your own hands.
> >
> > So, I told ya to tell me my error(s) what are you talking about? I think
you
> > picked up something that you think is an error but actually isn't. What is
it?
> > something about oxide, oxidant and oxidation?
>
> I have been. That's why this thread has continued ad nauseum. You just
> can't seem to admit to any errors even when they are pointed out to you.
> You come back with responses like "all my customers know is that the
> water's got *color*" or "my customers like the way I explain things to
> them" which is all every sweet, but still leaves the errors in place.
It may leave what you and others consider errors, the average guy wanting
information isn't interested in the whys of 'it', just what has to be done to
'fix' the problem, what it consists of and the price plus operational costs,
if any. I'm not trying to impress you or other anal types, I'm just being me
and if that's not impressive to you and the others.... tough. I will ask you
and everyone else... when you see an error I make answering someone's question
point it out to everyone, including me, because I don't think incorrect info
in regards to a problem helps anyone.
> > > Read it again, Bozo. "resin(?)" means I don't know what the stuff is, I
just
> > > heard about it second hand and was asking a supposed expert for an
> > > explaination. Better luck next time. (You still come off looking
peevish.)
> >
> > I'll say it again, point out to me my error. Resin is resin, crosslinked
> > di-vinylbernz whatever, some softeners (a very few) still use zeolite
which is
> > not resin (still ion exchange softening though), and KDF is a media,
Pyrolox
> > greensand, Georgia Marble, Corosex etc. is/are a media/mineral in our
> > terminology, maybe not yours but we aren't talking about your industry
here.
> > Maybe you not knowing is causing a problem? you act as if you KNOW a lot
about
> > this stuff.
>
> I have been pointing out your technical errors - Crossed linked
> devinylbenzene with sulfonation (for cation exchange);
And who does that impress that you know the whole descriptive term? Consumers
call 'it' BEADS and I correct that to resin.
> True color vs.
> apparent color;
Again they don't care if it's true or other color if their water isn't CLEAR.
And what I know they mean is that it is not void of color!
>Mn needing no "special conditions",
I don't know what you are referring to here but, I'll say what I think you're
referring to; Manganese needs certain conditions present in the water to be
able to color it black.
> Pyrolox not being
> baterialstatic, etc. for example
You miss-read again Dave and in this post miss-typed, go check it out.
Originally you referred to Pyrolox and I said KDF and added that it is
currently used as a 'bacteriostatic' device. You asked if I meant to say
static and I said yes... just after saying something about Pyrolox. It's in
the top paragraph.
> (the list just seems to keep growing,
> not that I was keeping track <G>, you asked "what error?").
I don't see it that way based on what you're saying here.
> BTW, DVB(S)
> is just an artificial media us eggheads developed to improve on the
> natural earth products like zeolite, etc. so you guys can make a profit
> selling it to the homeowner.
BS, the company that came up with resin wasn't doing the research for
residential softening; it was to reduce manufacturing problems and to cut cost
in dealing with them. Plus, to enable other manufacturing processes that
hadn't been possible before with the existing equipment and media. As with
most inventions it may have been an accidental result of something else; such
as Post It Notes and a glue that wasn't what was desired and another idea of
using it for something totally different than intended -removal and reusable
sticky note paper for those little but many needs.
> "is/are a media/mineral"?
Yes we use media and mineral and some mix 'n match.
> Is "media" a
> singular form for the plural form "mineral"?
Usually yes. Example, mixed bed (more than one mineral combined in one tank)
turbidity filters... we would use media. Mixed bed AN filters would have
media, two different pH adjusting minerals. Single mineral AN filters,
mineral. Greensand and Pyrolox 'sulfur' filters use a (those) mineral(s).
Softeners can be referred to as using resin or if mixed bed (as an example,
NitraOut and hardness removal resin.. again resin (both are sodium form
resins), or media. Those with carbon, NitraOut or other Nitrate specific
resins, KDF, Pyrolox etc. ... media and, conditioners as opposed to a
softener. Even if you and others don't really care to approve of it or not.
> Your industry sure does use
> a different terminology <G>. Since all of your treatments devices have
> been developed by us technical guys, perhaps you guys should consider
> updating your terminology to match ours. <SEG>
More BS Dave. Many if not all the equipment manufacturers were individual guys
working in their garage or shops and coming up with an idea of how to do
something better than it was being done or how to do something to begin with.
You should go read as to how KDF was invented. He used his pen to stir a
flask/glass of something and then his cup of coffee... the rest is history.
> > This has been going on for months now, I don't see anyone but you with the
> > name calling, have ya noticed? Peevish! hehehe you wish. Well... maybe so,
you
> > owe me more shots than I've taken though. I've shown GREAT restraint
don'chya
> > think!
>
> No, Gary, I haven't noticed and I don't think so. I called you on a few
> technical errors and you got peevish (I'm not calling you a pee-pee head
> or anything like that, just peevish). That's how I read it.
I could go find the post where you told me how well I reacted to you, remember
the one where you actually apologized to me! Now.... it's different?
Technical huh, why do you insist we talk "technical" when those reading this
couldn't (on average) care less with the technical? It has more to do with
putting someone down (me!) than disseminating usable information to lay people
IMO. Otherwise what's the purpose? Putting down an industry like when you
first started posting here?
Frankly Dave, I really don't care what you call me, that's not why I respond
the way I do and I know you have selective reading skills anyway, as this post
proves again. You obviously don't proof read your posts before sending them;
try it once and see if I'm wrong. As an example - proof read this one and see
who's error(s) are where.
Gary
> David
>
David Thomas
"Gary Slusser" <qwas...@ptd.net> wrote:
(I don't mean to be picky Gary, but can you do something about your news
reader truncating a long line? It sure makes it hard to figure who is saying
what.)
> David A Thomas <dtho...@NO.worldnet.att.net> wrote ...
> > Redox stands for red(uction)-ox(idation) and is simply the process of
H2S is a dissolved gas in the water, yes, just as DO (dissolved oxygen) is.
In the well, hydrogen sulfide can react with any iron or steel surface to
form black, insoluable, iron sulfide. Next, H2S isn't a component of BOD
(Biological Oxygen Demand), rather its a component of COD (Chemical Oxygen
Demand). In most cases H2S (when found in well water, depends on local
geology of course) is the result of anaerobic sulfur bacteria. These bacteria
use sulfur bearing minerals as an energy source by reducing sulfur into the
H2S form. They can only do this in the absence of oxygen. If O2 were present
they would most assuredly drop the anaerobic metabolism for an aerobic
metabolism (or die). The finial kicker is that H2S is all most instantly
oxidized by O2 so if you do have DO in the water, there could be no H2S left
(which is why air pumps work for H2S removal). H2S can occur many different
ways, but for our discussion about wells and water treatment, sulfur reducing
bacteria is the most likely source of H2S.
> You had questioned the bacteriostatic statement I made concerning KDF; in the
> above paragraph I said "I meant static" but left off 'in regards to KDF' but
> the preceding sentence talks of KDF Dave.. Now it seems you are taking that
> and applying it to Pyrolox which is not true and I never said it was but can
> see how what I said was somewhat confusing (specially to anyone wanting to be
> confused!!).
No need to get peevish, Gary. I'll freely admit to being honestly confused by
your statement.
> Pyrolox is an oxidizing mineral, yes, it can be backwashed only
> or regenerated. KDF is only backwashed. My reason for not using KDF is the
> addition of the metals to the water, the weight and concern of improper
> backwash and it's price; which is very high at wholesale ($300 +/ft3, compared
> to Pyrolox at roughly $100) and even higher at retail. I can't tell you where
> the electrons go... I really don't care because I have no need to know. And if
> I want to know I know where I can find the information so I'm not going to
> fill my head with unnecessary facts about it or other things.
Kinda of like the ostrich with its head buried in the sand? If you don't
know, it can't hurt you? (Didn't someone once mention "cavalier attitudes"?)
Well I'd like to know, so if you would please pass along where the
information can be found, I'll look it up myself.
> As for the
> bacteria and Pyrolox?, do you mean Pyrolox or KDF? Pyrolox to my knowledge has
> no limitations due to bacteria of any kind. It is not bacteriostatic but if
> I'm right KDF is and is being used in certain equipment (WaterBoss may be one,
> along with others) as such while we speak. That's 'static' not 'cide' BTW, so
> I can see why they KDF, not Pyrolox as you (miss?)typed above here, has to
> have a bactericide applied for any type of bacteria remediation.
I typed it correctly. The promotional web page for Pyrolox I looked at was
http://www.goodwaterco.com/pyrolox.htm
BTW, neither chlorine nor permanganate are bactericides. Chlorine is a
disinfectant, which is why we in the supply industry are so concerned with
residuals and POU devices that remove chlorine. (Permanganate doesn't even
qualify as a disinfectant.)
You seem to have confused yourself now (or are you trying to be deliberately
confusing?). First you say that KDF is bacteriostatic, not Pyrolox, and now
you're saying the KDF needs a bactericide but Pyrolox has no limitations due
to bacteria of any kind. (Now what was that old saying about glass houses and
stones?)
> > So you *do* know the difference between apparent color and true color
> > after all!
>
> I may have swerved into something but no I don't know the difference. I'm as
> dumb as the average consumer; if the damned glass is clear and when water is
> added it looks colored I think the water has a color! I couldn't care less if
> it's apparent or true color, it's color. So with the rest of the analysis I
> would treat what I find that can cause that color, if after treatment there is
> still a color then more testing; i.e. for tannins as an example. Normally in
> my area we don't have tannin problems so we don't 'normally' test for them.
> But, I do have to know they are possible even if they color water the same as
> some iron can. And then, if I need help or additional information, I can tap
> the vast knowledge base of technical support I have available. There is no
> question that could be asked that I couldn't find the cause of the problem and
> the equipment for treating it. And that base consists of labs to manufacturers
> to other dealers, the EPA and even NASA along with the manufacturers for NASA
> etc..
And no problem you can't treat (eventually) if you can get that customer to
buy just one more treatment device.
> > I have been. That's why this thread has continued ad nauseum. You just
> > can't seem to admit to any errors even when they are pointed out to you.
> > You come back with responses like "all my customers know is that the
> > water's got *color*" or "my customers like the way I explain things to
> > them" which is all every sweet, but still leaves the errors in place.
>
> It may leave what you and others consider errors, the average guy wanting
> information isn't interested in the whys of 'it', just what has to be done to
> 'fix' the problem, what it consists of and the price plus operational costs,
> if any. I'm not trying to impress you or other anal types, I'm just being me
> and if that's not impressive to you and the others.... tough. I will ask you
> and everyone else... when you see an error I make answering someone's question
> point it out to everyone, including me, because I don't think incorrect info
> in regards to a problem helps anyone.
Just be sure he ducks and covers after correcting you, right? [smiling
sweetly] Actually I halfway agree with you. Most people who ask "why does it
do this?" get a glassy eyed look about halfway through even a simple
explaination. Not their fault or mine. Took me four years of college and 20
years of field experience to understand what goes on, how could they be
expected to understand it all in five minutes with no background for it? The
difference is I don't try and mouth my way out of it. (Anal indeed!) Ya just
gotta be you, hum. Reminds me of that movie "Money Pit". Say, wasn't that
fella a water treatment guy too? <G>
> > > > Read it again, Bozo. "resin(?)" means I don't know what the stuff is, I
> > > > just
> > > > heard about it second hand and was asking a supposed expert for an
> > > > explaination. Better luck next time. (You still come off looking
> > > >peevish.)
> > >
> > > I'll say it again, point out to me my error. Resin is resin, crosslinked
> > > di-vinylbernz whatever, some softeners (a very few) still use zeolite
> > > which is
> > > not resin (still ion exchange softening though), and KDF is a media,
> > > Pyrolox
> > > greensand, Georgia Marble, Corosex etc. is/are a media/mineral in our
> > > terminology, maybe not yours but we aren't talking about your industry
> > > here.
> > > Maybe you not knowing is causing a problem? you act as if you KNOW a lot
> > > about
> > > this stuff.
> >
> > I have been pointing out your technical errors - Crossed linked
> > devinylbenzene with sulfonation (for cation exchange);
>
> And who does that impress that you know the whole descriptive term? Consumers
> call 'it' BEADS and I correct that to resin.
Actually I think the common term is "resin beads".
> > True color vs.
> > apparent color;
>
> Again they don't care if it's true or other color if their water isn't CLEAR.
> And what I know they mean is that it is not void of color!
They don't, but you should.
> >Mn needing no "special conditions",
>
> I don't know what you are referring to here but, I'll say what I think you're
> referring to; Manganese needs certain conditions present in the water to be
> able to color it black.
Just as iron needs certain conditions present in the water to be able to
"color" it red. Nothing "special" about either one.
> > Pyrolox not being
> > baterialstatic, etc. for example
>
> You miss-read again Dave and in this post miss-typed, go check it out.
> Originally you referred to Pyrolox and I said KDF and added that it is
> currently used as a 'bacteriostatic' device. You asked if I meant to say
> static and I said yes... just after saying something about Pyrolox. It's in
> the top paragraph.
Talk to me again on this subject when you get your lines straighten out. If
KDF is bacteriostatic, why do you say it needs a bactericide? (I've already
given the web page that shows Pyrolox has got bacteria limiations.)
> > (the list just seems to keep growing,
> > not that I was keeping track <G>, you asked "what error?").
>
> I don't see it that way based on what you're saying here.
DUH! That's kinda my point.
> > BTW, DVB(S)
> > is just an artificial media us eggheads developed to improve on the
> > natural earth products like zeolite, etc. so you guys can make a profit
> > selling it to the homeowner.
>
> BS, the company that came up with resin wasn't doing the research for
> residential softening; it was to reduce manufacturing problems and to cut cost
> in dealing with them. Plus, to enable other manufacturing processes that
> hadn't been possible before with the existing equipment and media. As with
> most inventions it may have been an accidental result of something else; such
> as Post It Notes and a glue that wasn't what was desired and another idea of
> using it for something totally different than intended -removal and reusable
> sticky note paper for those little but many needs.
Yak yak. Who did the research? A line man or a R&D tech weenie?
> > "is/are a media/mineral"?
>
> Yes we use media and mineral and some mix 'n match.
>
> > Is "media" a
> > singular form for the plural form "mineral"?
>
> Usually yes. Example, mixed bed (more than one mineral combined in one tank)
> turbidity filters... we would use media. Mixed bed AN filters would have
> media, two different pH adjusting minerals. Single mineral AN filters,
> mineral. Greensand and Pyrolox 'sulfur' filters use a (those) mineral(s).
> Softeners can be referred to as using resin or if mixed bed (as an example,
> NitraOut and hardness removal resin.. again resin (both are sodium form
> resins), or media. Those with carbon, NitraOut or other Nitrate specific
> resins, KDF, Pyrolox etc. ... media and, conditioners as opposed to a
> softener. Even if you and others don't really care to approve of it or not.
Us "anal types" generaly don't mix the terms. Minerals are inorganic in
nature. Resins are organic in nature so don't qualify as minerals. Media is
anything used in a filtering/treatment device.
> > Your industry sure does use
> > a different terminology <G>. Since all of your treatments devices have
> > been developed by us technical guys, perhaps you guys should consider
> > updating your terminology to match ours. <SEG>
>
> More BS Dave. Many if not all the equipment manufacturers were individual guys
> working in their garage or shops and coming up with an idea of how to do
> something better than it was being done or how to do something to begin with.
> You should go read as to how KDF was invented. He used his pen to stir a
> flask/glass of something and then his cup of coffee... the rest is history.
Messy. People kill themselves doing stuff like that.
> > No, Gary, I haven't noticed and I don't think so. I called you on a few
> > technical errors and you got peevish (I'm not calling you a pee-pee head
> > or anything like that, just peevish). That's how I read it.
>
> I could go find the post where you told me how well I reacted to you, remember
> the one where you actually apologized to me! Now.... it's different?
Yup. Then you were nice, now you're being peevish. I apologized for lambasting
you personally for the unethical transgressions of others in your industry.
> Technical huh, why do you insist we talk "technical" when those reading this
> couldn't (on average) care less with the technical? It has more to do with
> putting someone down (me!) than disseminating usable information to lay people
> IMO. Otherwise what's the purpose? Putting down an industry like when you
> first started posting here?
If that's what you think, you (and I mean *you* personally) can go to hell.
> Frankly Dave, I really don't care what you call me, that's not why I respond
> the way I do and I know you have selective reading skills anyway, as this post
> proves again. You obviously don't proof read your posts before sending them;
> try it once and see if I'm wrong. As an example - proof read this one and see
> who's error(s) are where.
I'll allow you one more chance to correct your errors before dropping this
thread. (Glass houses, Gary. KDF or Pyrolox? Which is bateriostatic, now?)
Gary Slusser
David Thomas <dthom...@my-dejanews.com> wrote ..
> "Gary Slusser" <qwas...@ptd.net> wrote:
>
> (I don't mean to be picky Gary, but can you do something about your news
> reader truncating a long line? It sure makes it hard to figure who is saying
> what.)
It looks just fine here.
Maybe an absence of oxygen in the slime layer? Does most ground water contain
an amount of DO? Do all wells with 'sulfur' contain no DO? Is that what you
are saying, none if there is 'sulfur'?
As far as I know; KDF is registered as a bacteriostatic device by the EPA.
Pyrolox is not.
> > As for the
> > bacteria and Pyrolox?, do you mean Pyrolox or KDF? Pyrolox to my knowledge
has
> > no limitations due to bacteria of any kind. It is not bacteriostatic but
if
> > I'm right KDF is and is being used in certain equipment (WaterBoss may be
one,
> > along with others) as such while we speak. That's 'static' not 'cide' BTW,
so
> > I can see why they KDF, not Pyrolox as you (miss?)typed above here, has to
> > have a bactericide applied for any type of bacteria remediation.
>
> I typed it correctly. The promotional web page for Pyrolox I looked at was
> http://www.goodwaterco.com/pyrolox.htm
I don't see any mention about bacteriostatic or 'cide', can you point out or
copy the line for me? It looks to me as if it's a guy like me with a web site
Dave. Maybe a distributor of equipment? I didn't take the time to look further
than that one page. I did see an error or two though.
> BTW, neither chlorine nor permanganate are bactericides. Chlorine is a
> disinfectant, which is why we in the supply industry are so concerned with
> residuals and POU devices that remove chlorine. (Permanganate doesn't even
> qualify as a disinfectant.)
I don't know Dave, if it kills bacteria it is commonly referred to as a
bactericide where I'm from.
> You seem to have confused yourself now (or are you trying to be deliberately
> confusing?). First you say that KDF is bacteriostatic, not Pyrolox, and now
> you're saying the KDF needs a bactericide but Pyrolox has no limitations due
> to bacteria of any kind. (Now what was that old saying about glass houses
and
> stones?)
KDF doesn't kill bacteria in my opinion, it deters bacteria growth, the same
as silver impregnated carbon. Or coins in a wishing well.
Why this comment Dave? No one piece of equipment does everything, not unlike
my toaster oven doesn't do the Thanksgiving turkey, or mashed potatoes;
thereby I find I need more kitchen equipment like a stove and oven. Why do you
expect water treatment to be an end all one piece does everything?
I don't see you being in a correcting mode Dave, more like a combatant, maybe
that's the problem, ya think? Maybe you've gone on way too far past your
glazed eye point.
Not out here where they are used, or in my industry.
> > > True color vs.
> > > apparent color;
> >
> > Again they don't care if it's true or other color if their water isn't
CLEAR.
> > And what I know they mean is that it is not void of color!
>
> They don't, but you should.
Should? I see my job as removing color if the water has a color. Usually, no
one piece of equipment is going to do that with even short term serviceability
if there is more than none causes of the color.
> > >Mn needing no "special conditions",
> >
> > I don't know what you are referring to here but, I'll say what I think
you're
> > referring to; Manganese needs certain conditions present in the water to
be
> > able to color it black.
>
> Just as iron needs certain conditions present in the water to be able to
> "color" it red. Nothing "special" about either one.
Ah but when things don't usually occur there is a special condition when they
do occur. I've seen very few cases of red water iron and it's not as common as
some would have us believe.
> > > Pyrolox not being
> > > baterialstatic, etc. for example
> >
> > You miss-read again Dave and in this post miss-typed, go check it out.
> > Originally you referred to Pyrolox and I said KDF and added that it is
> > currently used as a 'bacteriostatic' device. You asked if I meant to say
> > static and I said yes... just after saying something about Pyrolox. It's
in
> > the top paragraph.
>
> Talk to me again on this subject when you get your lines straighten out. If
> KDF is bacteriostatic, why do you say it needs a bactericide? (I've already
> given the web page that shows Pyrolox has got bacteria limiations.)
Because it can't be used as one? Seems quite straight forward to me, why do
you have such a problem with that? I said I knew of no restrictions with
bacteria and the use of Pyrolox, after reading that site I still don't, mostly
because I regenerate Pyrolox in 99.9% of my use of it. I said I regenerate it
with chlorine water solution; so, should I have a bacteria problem with it,
huh Dave? You didn't see that mentioned on that site! but he does say it
doesn't NEED to be regenerated. Go ask him if it can be... so there is no
bacteria problem or limitation in using Pyrolox Dave and if doesn't know how
to do it..... My statement stands.
> > > (the list just seems to keep growing,
> > > not that I was keeping track <G>, you asked "what error?").
> >
> > I don't see it that way based on what you're saying here.
>
> DUH! That's kinda my point.
DUH is right. Do you have any reason to learn more about how water treatment
is done out here or are you just bustin' balls?
> > > BTW, DVB(S)
> > > is just an artificial media us eggheads developed to improve on the
> > > natural earth products like zeolite, etc. so you guys can make a profit
> > > selling it to the homeowner.
> >
> > BS, the company that came up with resin wasn't doing the research for
> > residential softening; it was to reduce manufacturing problems and to cut
cost
> > in dealing with them. Plus, to enable other manufacturing processes that
> > hadn't been possible before with the existing equipment and media. As with
> > most inventions it may have been an accidental result of something else;
such
> > as Post It Notes and a glue that wasn't what was desired and another idea
of
> > using it for something totally different than intended -removal and
reusable
> > sticky note paper for those little but many needs.
>
> Yak yak. Who did the research? A line man or a R&D tech weenie?
I had hoped you would know.
> > > "is/are a media/mineral"?
> >
> > Yes we use media and mineral and some mix 'n match.
> >
> > > Is "media" a
> > > singular form for the plural form "mineral"?
> >
> > Usually yes. Example, mixed bed (more than one mineral combined in one
tank)
> > turbidity filters... we would use media. Mixed bed AN filters would have
> > media, two different pH adjusting minerals. Single mineral AN filters,
> > mineral. Greensand and Pyrolox 'sulfur' filters use a (those) mineral(s).
> > Softeners can be referred to as using resin or if mixed bed (as an
example,
> > NitraOut and hardness removal resin.. again resin (both are sodium form
> > resins), or media. Those with carbon, NitraOut or other Nitrate specific
> > resins, KDF, Pyrolox etc. ... media and, conditioners as opposed to a
> > softener. Even if you and others don't really care to approve of it or
not.
>
> Us "anal types" generaly don't mix the terms. Minerals are inorganic in
> nature. Resins are organic in nature so don't qualify as minerals. Media is
> anything used in a filtering/treatment device.
Yes and hot plates come in different sizes with different features and some
call some griddles.
> > > Your industry sure does use
> > > a different terminology <G>. Since all of your treatments devices have
> > > been developed by us technical guys, perhaps you guys should consider
> > > updating your terminology to match ours. <SEG>
> >
> > More BS Dave. Many if not all the equipment manufacturers were individual
guys
> > working in their garage or shops and coming up with an idea of how to do
> > something better than it was being done or how to do something to begin
with.
> > You should go read as to how KDF was invented. He used his pen to stir a
> > flask/glass of something and then his cup of coffee... the rest is
history.
>
> Messy. People kill themselves doing stuff like that.
They're usually risk takers too, you wouldn't know much about that ... would
ya? The rewards can exceed the wildest dreams too.
> > > No, Gary, I haven't noticed and I don't think so. I called you on a few
> > > technical errors and you got peevish (I'm not calling you a pee-pee head
> > > or anything like that, just peevish). That's how I read it.
> >
> > I could go find the post where you told me how well I reacted to you,
remember
> > the one where you actually apologized to me! Now.... it's different?
>
> Yup. Then you were nice, now you're being peevish. I apologized for
lambasting
> you personally for the unethical transgressions of others in your industry.
Then why this tirade about technical stuff basd on something I can't find (but
you say you read) on that site you referenced?
> > Technical huh, why do you insist we talk "technical" when those reading
this
> > couldn't (on average) care less with the technical? It has more to do with
> > putting someone down (me!) than disseminating usable information to lay
people
> > IMO. Otherwise what's the purpose? Putting down an industry like when you
> > first started posting here?
>
> If that's what you think, you (and I mean *you* personally) can go to hell.
I do have a real hard time understanding your intent here, and others do too
if I may so.
> > Frankly Dave, I really don't care what you call me, that's not why I
respond
> > the way I do and I know you have selective reading skills anyway, as this
post
> > proves again. You obviously don't proof read your posts before sending
them;
> > try it once and see if I'm wrong. As an example - proof read this one and
see
> > who's error(s) are where.
>
> I'll allow you one more chance to correct your errors before dropping this
> thread. (Glass houses, Gary. KDF or Pyrolox? Which is bateriostatic, now?)
I hope I've been able to.... time and a bit of clearing up on your part will
tell if I have or not. I don't usually gamble, on sure things it's different
though, I'll bet I've failed again.
Now remember; KDF is bacteriostatic and Pyrolox isn't. We'll see how ya do
with that.
Gary
David Thomas
"Gary Slusser" <qwas...@ptd.net> wrote:
>
>
> David Thomas <dthom...@my-dejanews.com> wrote ..
> > "Gary Slusser" <qwas...@ptd.net> wrote:
> >
> > (I don't mean to be picky Gary, but can you do something about your news
> > reader truncating a long line? It sure makes it hard to figure who is saying
> > what.)
>
> It looks just fine here.
'Cause I've been cleaning up after you (another "anal" character flaw, I
know). I'll leave this one alone so you can see what it looks like.
(This ones from your reader.)
> > > First, if you are correct about H2S in a well not allowing any DO explain
> how
> > > the black residue gets into the water lines. Isn't H2S a gas in the water?
> Or
> > > do you think the BOD is so high there can be no DO in that well... hence
> your
> > > statement ".... *that* well has no DO."? I guess you might believe that
> the
> > > Hydrogen Sulfide only occurs in the water in the well? If so ya need to do
> > > more reading.
> >
(This ones from my reader)
> > H2S is a dissolved gas in the water, yes, just as DO (dissolved oxygen) is.
> > In the well, hydrogen sulfide can react with any iron or steel surface to
> > form black, insoluable, iron sulfide. Next, H2S isn't a component of BOD
> > (Biological Oxygen Demand), rather its a component of COD (Chemical Oxygen
> > Demand). In most cases H2S (when found in well water, depends on local
> > geology of course) is the result of anaerobic sulfur bacteria. These
> bacteria
(your reader ^)
> > use sulfur bearing minerals as an energy source by reducing sulfur into the
> > H2S form. They can only do this in the absence of oxygen. If O2 were present
> > they would most assuredly drop the anaerobic metabolism for an aerobic
> > metabolism (or die). The finial kicker is that H2S is all most instantly
> > oxidized by O2 so if you do have DO in the water, there could be no H2S left
> > (which is why air pumps work for H2S removal). H2S can occur many different
> > ways, but for our discussion about wells and water treatment, sulfur
> reducing
(your reader ^ )
> > bacteria is the most likely source of H2S.
>
> Maybe an absence of oxygen in the slime layer? Does most ground water contain
> an amount of DO? Do all wells with 'sulfur' contain no DO? Is that what you
> are saying, none if there is 'sulfur'?
An absence of O2 due to SL is possible resulting in the formation of H2S, but
as soon as H2S diffuses past the SL into the O2 bearing water it is (almost)
instantly oxidized. Some ground water does contain DO, some doesn't. It
depends on the geology. I know you hate being technical, but do you mean
'sulfur' as in H2S, or 'sulfur' as in sulfates, or 'sulfur' as in some other
form? Slime layers are caused by bacteria growth. If you mean 'sulfur' as H2S
then, yes, there can be no DO in the well if you have measurable levels of
H2S still in the water. If you mean 'sulfur' as some other form, then there
may are may not be DO in the well.
(Your reader V)
Doesn't answer my question Gary. Where can I find a technical discussion on
*how* KDF acts as a catalyst in redox reactions of water treatment i.e. where
do the electrons go? What is reduced?
> > > As for the
> > > bacteria and Pyrolox?, do you mean Pyrolox or KDF? Pyrolox to my knowledge
> has
> > > no limitations due to bacteria of any kind. It is not bacteriostatic but
> if
> > > I'm right KDF is and is being used in certain equipment (WaterBoss may be
> one,
> > > along with others) as such while we speak. That's 'static' not 'cide' BTW,
> so
> > > I can see why they KDF, not Pyrolox as you (miss?)typed above here, has to
> > > have a bactericide applied for any type of bacteria remediation.
> >
> > I typed it correctly. The promotional web page for Pyrolox I looked at was
> > http://www.goodwaterco.com/pyrolox.htm
>
> I don't see any mention about bacteriostatic or 'cide', can you point out or
> copy the line for me? It looks to me as if it's a guy like me with a web site
> Dave. Maybe a distributor of equipment? I didn't take the time to look further
> than that one page. I did see an error or two though.
(From the web page I referenced.)
==========================================
Iron Bacteria and/or Manganese Bacteria
PYROLOX will not work well with this problem. The iron and/or manganese
bacteria keeps the media from its oxidation capabilities. The ideal solution
would be to super chlorinate the piping system for 24 hours. Once super-
chlorination, install an on-going residual chlorinator system of your choice
to control the bacteria. Once you have controlled the bacteria, the PYROLOX
has no problem removing the hydrogen sulfide, iron, or manganese.
==============================================
> > BTW, neither chlorine nor permanganate are bactericides. Chlorine is a
> > disinfectant, which is why we in the supply industry are so concerned with
> > residuals and POU devices that remove chlorine. (Permanganate doesn't even
> > qualify as a disinfectant.)
>
> I don't know Dave, if it kills bacteria it is commonly referred to as a
> bactericide where I'm from.
Look the terms up in a dictionary. Disinfectants have problems killing
bacteria spores. Remove the disinfectant and the spores hatch.
I had something more like this in mind (pardon the parable). The customer has
a turkey he needs to cook. First you sell him a pop-up toaster. When that
fails to cook the turkey, you sell him a toater oven. When that fails to cook
the turkey, you sell him a small microwave. When that fails to cook the
turkey, you sell him a large microwave. Well, that cooks the turkey OK, but
it doesn't give it that nice brown color on the outside, so you sell him a
large gourmet stainless stell convection oven with all the trimings. Now your
customer has his turkey cooked <g>, but is he happy? On a more realistic
note, I'm sure the customer appriecates your tenacity in trying to solve his
water woes as I would, but do you charge him for each device that fails to
solve the problem and just add on more? Or do you remove the ones that fail
at no charge?
Perhaps I just gotta be me as well. Combatants (like dancers or lovers) must
have partners. I would prefer to keep things at a more freindly elbow dig in
the ribs kind of discussion with no malice intended to those occasion digs.
"Red" water can be a problem elswhere. Trust me.
> > > > Pyrolox not being
> > > > baterialstatic, etc. for example
> > >
> > > You miss-read again Dave and in this post miss-typed, go check it out.
> > > Originally you referred to Pyrolox and I said KDF and added that it is
> > > currently used as a 'bacteriostatic' device. You asked if I meant to say
> > > static and I said yes... just after saying something about Pyrolox. It's
> in
> > > the top paragraph.
> >
> > Talk to me again on this subject when you get your lines straighten out. If
> > KDF is bacteriostatic, why do you say it needs a bactericide? (I've already
> > given the web page that shows Pyrolox has got bacteria limiations.)
>
> Because it can't be used as one? Seems quite straight forward to me, why do
> you have such a problem with that? I said I knew of no restrictions with
> bacteria and the use of Pyrolox, after reading that site I still don't, mostly
> because I regenerate Pyrolox in 99.9% of my use of it. I said I regenerate it
> with chlorine water solution; so, should I have a bacteria problem with it,
> huh Dave? You didn't see that mentioned on that site! but he does say it
> doesn't NEED to be regenerated. Go ask him if it can be... so there is no
> bacteria problem or limitation in using Pyrolox Dave and if doesn't know how
> to do it..... My statement stands.
Slow down there, big guy. I think you dropped out about a third of the words
you intended to put in that last sentence. Read the whole web page not just
the first screen, then we'll talk. No reason for me to have posted that
particular page either. Just the first one I hit in my web search. I found
one about KDF at http://www.kdfft.com which only sells one form of KDF (out
of three or four forms, in some sort of matrix block) thats listed as
controling bacteria, for evaporator coolers I think.
> > > > (the list just seems to keep growing,
> > > > not that I was keeping track <G>, you asked "what error?").
> > >
> > > I don't see it that way based on what you're saying here.
> >
> > DUH! That's kinda my point.
>
> DUH is right. Do you have any reason to learn more about how water treatment
> is done out here or are you just bustin' balls?
I'm always trying to learn all I can about water treatment, where ever it is
done. (Might come in handy here.) And being "anal", busting balls (my own,
usually) is just a way of life.
> > > > BTW, DVB(S)
> > > > is just an artificial media us eggheads developed to improve on the
> > > > natural earth products like zeolite, etc. so you guys can make a profit
> > > > selling it to the homeowner.
> > >
> > > BS, the company that came up with resin wasn't doing the research for
> > > residential softening; it was to reduce manufacturing problems and to cut
> cost
> > > in dealing with them. Plus, to enable other manufacturing processes that
> > > hadn't been possible before with the existing equipment and media. As with
> > > most inventions it may have been an accidental result of something else;
> such
> > > as Post It Notes and a glue that wasn't what was desired and another idea
> of
> > > using it for something totally different than intended -removal and
> reusable
> > > sticky note paper for those little but many needs.
> >
> > Yak yak. Who did the research? A line man or a R&D tech weenie?
>
> I had hoped you would know.
(?)
> > > > "is/are a media/mineral"?
> > >
> > > Yes we use media and mineral and some mix 'n match.
> > >
> > > > Is "media" a
> > > > singular form for the plural form "mineral"?
> > >
> > > Usually yes. Example, mixed bed (more than one mineral combined in one
> tank)
> > > turbidity filters... we would use media. Mixed bed AN filters would have
> > > media, two different pH adjusting minerals. Single mineral AN filters,
> > > mineral. Greensand and Pyrolox 'sulfur' filters use a (those) mineral(s).
> > > Softeners can be referred to as using resin or if mixed bed (as an
> example,
> > > NitraOut and hardness removal resin.. again resin (both are sodium form
> > > resins), or media. Those with carbon, NitraOut or other Nitrate specific
> > > resins, KDF, Pyrolox etc. ... media and, conditioners as opposed to a
> > > softener. Even if you and others don't really care to approve of it or
> not.
> >
> > Us "anal types" generaly don't mix the terms. Minerals are inorganic in
> > nature. Resins are organic in nature so don't qualify as minerals. Media is
> > anything used in a filtering/treatment device.
>
> Yes and hot plates come in different sizes with different features and some
> call some griddles.
Hot plates generally have an enamal finish, while griddles are black cast
iron. <G>
> > > > Your industry sure does use
> > > > a different terminology <G>. Since all of your treatments devices have
> > > > been developed by us technical guys, perhaps you guys should consider
> > > > updating your terminology to match ours. <SEG>
> > >
> > > More BS Dave. Many if not all the equipment manufacturers were individual
> guys
> > > working in their garage or shops and coming up with an idea of how to do
> > > something better than it was being done or how to do something to begin
> with.
> > > You should go read as to how KDF was invented. He used his pen to stir a
> > > flask/glass of something and then his cup of coffee... the rest is
> history.
> >
> > Messy. People kill themselves doing stuff like that.
>
> They're usually risk takers too, you wouldn't know much about that ... would
> ya? The rewards can exceed the wildest dreams too.
So can going over Niagara in a barrel, but you won't find me doing it. I'll
keep my dull little finacially secure (as much as anyones anyway) life. (Not
to brag but, 40 acers, $250K house, new $30K 4-Runner, supporting two kids
and my wife on one income. I'll live.)
> > > > No, Gary, I haven't noticed and I don't think so. I called you on a few
> > > > technical errors and you got peevish (I'm not calling you a pee-pee head
> > > > or anything like that, just peevish). That's how I read it.
> > >
> > > I could go find the post where you told me how well I reacted to you,
> remember
> > > the one where you actually apologized to me! Now.... it's different?
> >
> > Yup. Then you were nice, now you're being peevish. I apologized for
> lambasting
> > you personally for the unethical transgressions of others in your industry.
>
> Then why this tirade about technical stuff basd on something I can't find (but
> you say you read) on that site you referenced?
You couldn't find it 'cause you didn't read it. I wouldn't call my half of
this discussion a tirade. Tenacious, maybe.
> > > Technical huh, why do you insist we talk "technical" when those reading
> this
> > > couldn't (on average) care less with the technical? It has more to do with
> > > putting someone down (me!) than disseminating usable information to lay
> people
> > > IMO. Otherwise what's the purpose? Putting down an industry like when you
> > > first started posting here?
> >
> > If that's what you think, you (and I mean *you* personally) can go to hell.
>
> I do have a real hard time understanding your intent here, and others do too
> if I may so.
The only input we have on what others think, you pretty much let have with
both barrels. (Yes, I read his comments.) Personally I don't think anyone
else is reading this and it doesn't matter to me, 'cause I'm talking to
*you*, not for the benefit of some mysterious lurker. You've ask repeatedly
for correction if you make an error, but you seem to have trouble with
criticism (constructive only, of course). If you'd rather do this less
publicly through e-mail, I'm game (just ask Lyle).
> > > Frankly Dave, I really don't care what you call me, that's not why I
> respond
> > > the way I do and I know you have selective reading skills anyway, as this
> post
> > > proves again. You obviously don't proof read your posts before sending
> them;
> > > try it once and see if I'm wrong. As an example - proof read this one and
> see
> > > who's error(s) are where.
> >
> > I'll allow you one more chance to correct your errors before dropping this
> > thread. (Glass houses, Gary. KDF or Pyrolox? Which is bateriostatic, now?)
>
> I hope I've been able to.... time and a bit of clearing up on your part will
> tell if I have or not. I don't usually gamble, on sure things it's different
> though, I'll bet I've failed again.
Maybe not. I'll stick a little longer as long as the general overview of this
thread doesn't degrade into a flame war. A friendly jab in the ribs once in a
while is OK, right?
> Now remember; KDF is bacteriostatic and Pyrolox isn't. We'll see how ya do
> with that.
[muttering to self] KDF - bacteriostatic. Pyrolox *you* regenerate with
chlorine, right. <G>
And you see what I mean about your reader? Try increasing your line width
before truncation to 80 characters. I also use a fixed font like courier
rather than one of those fancy things. Heck, I don't know. Maybe it's this
DejaNews reader doing it (no options to change that I can find), but it only
does it on your posts(?).
David A Thomas
(Netscape Communicator 4.5). No other comments included in this test. As
you can see, Gary, long lines in your responses are truncated (even in
the original post before I hit the reply button). No big deal, one way
or the other. I'd just thought I'd mention it in case you hadn't noticed
the problem. I have my "warp outgoing lines" set at 72 characters (with
a fixed font like courier) so there are about four levels of responses
(> > > > ) before one of my lines gets truncated when posted by this
reader (I still don't have a clue what that DejaNews reader is set for).
Gary Slusser
David Thomas <dthom...@my-dejanews.com> wrote...
> "Gary Slusser" <qwas...@ptd.net> wrote:
> > David Thomas <dthom...@my-dejanews.com> wrote ..
> > > "Gary Slusser" <qwas...@ptd.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > (I don't mean to be picky Gary, but can you do something about your news
> > > reader truncating a long line? It sure makes it hard to figure who is
saying
> > > what.)
> >
> > It looks just fine here.
>
> 'Cause I've been cleaning up after you (another "anal" character flaw, I
> know). I'll leave this one alone so you can see what it looks like.
I have it set for 76 characters.
As in rotten egg odor. If "it is (almost) instantly oxidized." explain the
odor in the customers water and absence of black particles and why the water
isn't black.
I didn't say I hate being technical, I don't see the need for it. I use
'sulfur' when I refer to a rotten egg odor as described by the people telling
me of their odor problem. Some times 'it's' not 'sulfur'. Finally you admit
that geology has something to do with different water quality problems.
Sometimes treatment used successfully in one area doesn't work (well or as
well) as in other areas.
> > As far as I know; KDF is registered as a bacteriostatic device by the EPA.
> > Pyrolox is not.
>
> Doesn't answer my question Gary. Where can I find a technical discussion on
> *how* KDF acts as a catalyst in redox reactions of water treatment i.e.
where
> do the electrons go? What is reduced?
A technical discussion? I have no idea. For information on/of the product;
call the company? Look them up on the web? Call a water treatment dealer that
will give you technical data?
Dave I used to fly planes, I wasn't expected to know how to fix them and all
other kinds of things concerning their manufacture or reasons for this and
that to be able to fly them. Why do you believe I should be technical to be
able to propose, sell and service water treatment equipment? The way I see it
is that I'm taking information and equipment that has been developed by the
more technical guys and applying it to certain problems in someone's water.
Usually as proposed to me by/from the experience of others in my area. It
usually works correctly the first time and ends up satisfying the customer by
correcting their problem with an affordable price. You sound as if I should be
doing more to satisfy you (and others?) than customers, all I've been asking
is why?
> > >
> > > I typed it correctly. The promotional web page for Pyrolox I looked at
was
> > > http://www.goodwaterco.com/pyrolox.htm
> >
> > I don't see any mention about bacteriostatic or 'cide', can you point out
or
> > copy the line for me? It looks to me as if it's a guy like me with a web
site
> > Dave. Maybe a distributor of equipment? I didn't take the time to look
further
> > than that one page. I did see an error or two though.
>
> (From the web page I referenced.)
> ==========================================
> Iron Bacteria and/or Manganese Bacteria
>
> PYROLOX will not work well with this problem. The iron and/or manganese
> bacteria keeps the media from its oxidation capabilities. The ideal
solution
> would be to super chlorinate the piping system for 24 hours. Once super-
> chlorination, install an on-going residual chlorinator system of your choice
> to control the bacteria. Once you have controlled the bacteria, the PYROLOX
> has no problem removing the hydrogen sulfide, iron, or manganese.
> ==============================================
I still don't see anything supporting your question (understanding) of Pyrolox
or KDF being bacteriostatic or a bactericide. I do see where he states a
coating on the granules of Pyrolox (as with all other minerals/media), such as
'dirt' caused by turbidity, will result in no oxidation occurring. He is
proposing what he considers the "ideal" solution to a bacteria coating the
granules and causing a problem by stating his preference to kill the bacteria
with the use of a solution feeder feeding chlorine. Actually Dave, he's saying
there is a need for more equipment! which you seem to think shouldn't be
needed and in this case I agree because if he had known there were Iron and/or
Manganese reducing bacteria present to start with, he wouldn't/shouldn't be
proposing a Pyrolox based filter. He has to use a chlorine feeder which would
kill the bacteria and fully oxidize the iron and manganese to start with or,
use a different approach to solve the complaint problem of odor. Such as air
or ozone which still require a turbidity filter as does the chorine feeder.
The difference being no smell of chlorine as with the chlorine feeder. And
charcoal/carbon is not as service free as a turbidity filter with a mixed bed,
so the customer's operating costs would be reduced.
> > > And no problem you can't treat (eventually) if you can get that customer
to
> > > buy just one more treatment device.
> >
> > Why this comment Dave? No one piece of equipment does everything, not
unlike
> > my toaster oven doesn't do the Thanksgiving turkey, or mashed potatoes;
> > thereby I find I need more kitchen equipment like a stove and oven. Why do
you
> > expect water treatment to be an end all one piece does everything?
>
> I had something more like this in mind (pardon the parable). The customer
has
> a turkey he needs to cook. First you sell him a pop-up toaster. When that
> fails to cook the turkey, you sell him a toater oven. When that fails to
cook
> the turkey, you sell him a small microwave. When that fails to cook the
> turkey, you sell him a large microwave. Well, that cooks the turkey OK, but
> it doesn't give it that nice brown color on the outside, so you sell him a
> large gourmet stainless stell convection oven with all the trimings. Now
your
> customer has his turkey cooked <g>, but is he happy? On a more realistic
> note, I'm sure the customer appriecates your tenacity in trying to solve his
> water woes as I would, but do you charge him for each device that fails to
> solve the problem and just add on more? Or do you remove the ones that fail
> at no charge?
Yes, I know this is your mind set. It's wrong and no amount of debate is going
to change it. You think 'us guys' are out here "First you sell him a.... and
then a.... and then a.....". A question to you; how do you suppose a dealer
doing business that way would be able to stay in business?
> > > Just as iron needs certain conditions present in the water to be able to
> > > "color" it red. Nothing "special" about either one.
> >
> > Ah but when things don't usually occur there is a special condition when
they
> > do occur. I've seen very few cases of red water iron and it's not as
common as
> > some would have us believe.
>
> "Red" water can be a problem elswhere. Trust me.
I know that and there will be some special condition that allows it to form in
that area and not everywhere.
I/w don't treat iron/manganese or sulfate reducing bacteria with Pyrolox (nor
does anyone else) and I/we know if it's there before I/we propose equipment in
most instances if it is able to be identified.
In the last sentence I dropped the word *he* where I said ".... Pyrolox Dave
and if".
> > Yes and hot plates come in different sizes with different features and
some
> > call some griddles.
>
> Hot plates generally have an enamal finish, while griddles are black cast
> iron. <G>
Not by everyone where I'm from.
> > Messy. People kill themselves doing stuff like that.
> >
> > They're usually risk takers too, you wouldn't know much about that ...
would
> > ya? The rewards can exceed the wildest dreams too.
>
> So can going over Niagara in a barrel, but you won't find me doing it. I'll
> keep my dull little finacially secure (as much as anyones anyway) life. (Not
> to brag but, 40 acers, $250K house, new $30K 4-Runner, supporting two kids
> and my wife on one income. I'll live.)
I'm supposed to be impressed? And this all comes from working as a lab guy for
a not or non profit utility Dave? BTW, *they're* comin' after that SUV.
> > > > IMO. Otherwise what's the purpose? Putting down an industry like when
you
> > > > first started posting here?
> > >
> > > If that's what you think, you (and I mean *you* personally) can go to
hell.
> >
> > I do have a real hard time understanding your intent here, and others do
too
> > if I may so.
>
> The only input we have on what others think, you pretty much let have with
> both barrels. (Yes, I read his comments.) Personally I don't think anyone
> else is reading this and it doesn't matter to me, 'cause I'm talking to
> *you*, not for the benefit of some mysterious lurker. You've ask repeatedly
> for correction if you make an error, but you seem to have trouble with
> criticism (constructive only, of course). If you'd rather do this less
> publicly through e-mail, I'm game (just ask Lyle).
I think you mean Cindy, we go back about two years and it was something that I
said that she took offense to I guess. It probably was something about
academia. Also, I don't believe it's just the three of us. Yes, Lyle's much
smarter than I am so you'll have to go it this way or none.
> > > I'll allow you one more chance to correct your errors before dropping
this
> > > thread. (Glass houses, Gary. KDF or Pyrolox? Which is bateriostatic,
now?)
> >
> > I hope I've been able to.... time and a bit of clearing up on your part
will
> > tell if I have or not. I don't usually gamble, on sure things it's
different
> > though, I'll bet I've failed again.
>
> Maybe not. I'll stick a little longer as long as the general overview of
this
> thread doesn't degrade into a flame war. A friendly jab in the ribs once in
a
> while is OK, right?
>
> > Now remember; KDF is bacteriostatic and Pyrolox isn't. We'll see how ya do
> > with that.
>
> [muttering to self] KDF - bacteriostatic. Pyrolox *you* regenerate with
> chlorine, right. <G>
What problem do you have with that? KDF is bacteriostatic as described and
approved by the EPA, Pyrolox is not. I regenerate Pyrolox (mostly but not
always) because in my area it works much longer without any need to replace
the mineral bed than when it is only backwashed. Psst! Dave. I think that's a
benefit to the consumer and a loss of service work plus the sale of new
mineral to me; but, it also sells more filters because mine work. And keep
working.. and working... and....
> And you see what I mean about your reader? Try increasing your line width
> before truncation to 80 characters. I also use a fixed font like courier
> rather than one of those fancy things. Heck, I don't know. Maybe it's this
> DejaNews reader doing it (no options to change that I can find), but it only
> does it on your posts(?).
I think it would have to go down in number to allow for the number of ">"
added to each line. Anyway, editing the older stuff works too.
Gary
> David
Gary Slusser
David A Thomas <dtho...@NO.worldnet.att.net> wrote...
> Thought I'd check out that formatting problem using a different
reader
> (Netscape Communicator 4.5). No other comments included in this test.
As
> you can see, Gary, long lines in your responses are truncated (even
in
> the original post before I hit the reply button). No big deal, one
way
> or the other. I'd just thought I'd mention it in case you hadn't
noticed
> the problem. I have my "warp outgoing lines" set at 72 characters
(with
> a fixed font like courier) so there are about four levels of
responses
> (> > > > ) before one of my lines gets truncated when posted by this
> reader (I still don't have a clue what that DejaNews reader is set
for).
Okay it was set for 79 and I changed it to 72, sorry. I am so glad to
be able to solve at least one of your complaints. hehe <GR>
Gary
David Thomas
"Gary Slusser" <qwas...@ptd.net> wrote:
> David Thomas <dthom...@my-dejanews.com> wrote...
> > "Gary Slusser" <qwas...@ptd.net> wrote:
> > > It looks just fine here.
> >
> > 'Cause I've been cleaning up after you (another "anal" character flaw, I
> > know). I'll leave this one alone so you can see what it looks like.
>
> I have it set for 76 characters.
Might try bumping it up to 79 just for kicks. (or down to 70 ??? What do I
know?)
> > > Maybe an absence of oxygen in the slime layer? Does most ground water
> > > contain
> > > an amount of DO? Do all wells with 'sulfur' contain no DO? Is that what
> > > you
> > > are saying, none if there is 'sulfur'?
> >
> > An absence of O2 due to SL is possible resulting in the formation of H2S,
> > but
> > as soon as H2S diffuses past the SL into the O2 bearing water it is (almost)
> > instantly oxidized. Some ground water does contain DO, some doesn't. It
> > depends on the geology. I know you hate being technical, but do you mean
> > 'sulfur' as in H2S, or 'sulfur' as in sulfates, or 'sulfur' as in some other
> > form? Slime layers are caused by bacteria growth. If you mean 'sulfur' as
> > H2S
> > then, yes, there can be no DO in the well if you have measurable levels of
> > H2S still in the water. If you mean 'sulfur' as some other form, then there
> > may are may not be DO in the well.
>
> As in rotten egg odor. If "it is (almost) instantly oxidized." explain the
> odor in the customers water and absence of black particles and why the water
> isn't black.
Because "almost" isn't "instantly". The customer may be able to smell H2S from
a glass of water taken from his tap because (as you mentioned) H2S is a gas
that volitilizes from the water immediately after leaving the DO free
pressurized pipes. Absence of black particles may mean an absence of reactable
iron so no FeS is formed.
> I didn't say I hate being technical, I don't see the need for it. I use
> 'sulfur' when I refer to a rotten egg odor as described by the people telling
> me of their odor problem. Some times 'it's' not 'sulfur'.
Whatever.
> Finally you admit
> that geology has something to do with different water quality problems.
> Sometimes treatment used successfully in one area doesn't work (well or as
> well) as in other areas.
That is a very silly thing to say. *Of course* geology has everything to do
with water quality!! I've never said anything different! What could have
possibly made you think I had ever denied this obvious fact of water
treatment?
> > > As far as I know; KDF is registered as a bacteriostatic device by the EPA.
> > > Pyrolox is not.
> >
> > Doesn't answer my question Gary. Where can I find a technical discussion on
> > *how* KDF acts as a catalyst in redox reactions of water treatment i.e.
> > where
> > do the electrons go? What is reduced?
>
> A technical discussion? I have no idea. For information on/of the product;
> call the company? Look them up on the web? Call a water treatment dealer that
> will give you technical data?
Yes, yes, and yes (but you still won't provide me an answer).
> Dave I used to fly planes, I wasn't expected to know how to fix them and all
> other kinds of things concerning their manufacture or reasons for this and
> that to be able to fly them. Why do you believe I should be technical to be
> able to propose, sell and service water treatment equipment? The way I see it
> is that I'm taking information and equipment that has been developed by the
> more technical guys and applying it to certain problems in someone's water.
> Usually as proposed to me by/from the experience of others in my area. It
> usually works correctly the first time and ends up satisfying the customer by
> correcting their problem with an affordable price. You sound as if I should be
> doing more to satisfy you (and others?) than customers, all I've been asking
> is why?
I can't think of a single reason other than that is what I would be doing if
our roles were reversed, ie. learning all I could about *how* it works.
To set the issue of KDF and Pyrolox aside for a moment ([muttering to self]
KDF - bacteriostatic, Pyrolox - not), it seems to me that we have hit more
than a few water treatment device web sites that (you say) have... well, lets
just say don't serve the customer as well as we would like. I'm asking you,
where can the consumer go to find reputable information on all the various
treatment technologies available?
By selling a lot of stuff to a lot of gulliable people? (I think I see where
you're going with this question but I won't steal your thunder. Let me have it
with both barrels. <G>)
> > > Ah but when things don't usually occur there is a special condition when
> > > they
> > > do occur. I've seen very few cases of red water iron and it's not as
> > > common as
> > > some would have us believe.
> >
> > "Red" water can be a problem elswhere. Trust me.
>
> I know that and there will be some special condition that allows it to form in
> that area and not everywhere.
Sorry. I still don't agree that there is anything "special" about the
conditions.
> > > Because it can't be used as one? Seems quite straight forward to me, why
> > > do
> > > you have such a problem with that? I said I knew of no restrictions with
> > > bacteria and the use of Pyrolox, after reading that site I still don't,
> > > mostly
> > > because I regenerate Pyrolox in 99.9% of my use of it. I said I regenerate
> > > it
> > > with chlorine water solution; so, should I have a bacteria problem with
> > > it,
> > > huh Dave? You didn't see that mentioned on that site! but he does say it
> > > doesn't NEED to be regenerated. Go ask him if it can be... so there is no
> > > bacteria problem or limitation in using Pyrolox Dave and if doesn't know
> > > how
> > > to do it..... My statement stands.
> >
> > Slow down there, big guy. I think you dropped out about a third of the words
> > you intended to put in that last sentence. Read the whole web page not just
> > the first screen, then we'll talk. No reason for me to have posted that
> > particular page either. Just the first one I hit in my web search. I found
> > one about KDF at http://www.kdfft.com which only sells one form of KDF (out
> > of three or four forms, in some sort of matrix block) thats listed as
> > controling bacteria, for evaporator coolers I think.
>
> I/w don't treat iron/manganese or sulfate reducing bacteria with Pyrolox (nor
> does anyone else) and I/we know if it's there before I/we propose equipment in
> most instances if it is able to be identified.
So you either don't know that well has a bacteria problem when you (and I know
you said you were getting away from using it) add Pyrolox in a softener and/or
you add a chlorine solution backwash anyway. Is this right?
> In the last sentence I dropped the word *he* where I said ".... Pyrolox Dave
> and if".
OK, that makes sense. (See my previous note on treatment device web pages.)
> > > Yes and hot plates come in different sizes with different features and
> > > some
> > > call some griddles.
> >
> > Hot plates generally have an enamal finish, while griddles are black cast
> > iron. <G>
>
> Not by everyone where I'm from.
Some people may call a pig's ear a silk purse, but....
> > > > Messy. People kill themselves doing stuff like that.
> > >
> > > They're usually risk takers too, you wouldn't know much about that ...
> > > would
> > > ya? The rewards can exceed the wildest dreams too.
> >
> > So can going over Niagara in a barrel, but you won't find me doing it. I'll
> > keep my dull little finacially secure (as much as anyones anyway) life. (Not
> > to brag but, 40 acers, $250K house, new $30K 4-Runner, supporting two kids
> > and my wife on one income. I'll live.)
>
> I'm supposed to be impressed? And this all comes from working as a lab guy for
> a not or non profit utility Dave? BTW, *they're* comin' after that SUV.
Not trying to impress you, just leting you know I'm comfortable with my
job/life. (I'm elligable for retirement in five or ten years, then I may turn
this hobby wood shop of mine into a home buisness.) Senior Analyst, yup. That
salary range is pretty much standard for my position across the country. (They
can try and take my SUV, but they'll have to pry it out of my cold dead
fingers.)
> > > I do have a real hard time understanding your intent here, and others do
> > > too
> > > if I may so.
> >
> > The only input we have on what others think, you pretty much let have with
> > both barrels. (Yes, I read his comments.) Personally I don't think anyone
> > else is reading this and it doesn't matter to me, 'cause I'm talking to
> > *you*, not for the benefit of some mysterious lurker. You've ask repeatedly
> > for correction if you make an error, but you seem to have trouble with
> > criticism (constructive only, of course). If you'd rather do this less
> > publicly through e-mail, I'm game (just ask Lyle).
>
> I think you mean Cindy, we go back about two years and it was something that I
> said that she took offense to I guess. It probably was something about
> academia. Also, I don't believe it's just the three of us. Yes, Lyle's much
> smarter than I am so you'll have to go it this way or none.
(Sorry, Cindy [sheepish grin]) You are kinda rough on the academia people when
you want to be. (Of course that doesn't stop you from using them when their
results swing your way, either.) As I said, I'm game either way.
> > > I hope I've been able to.... time and a bit of clearing up on your part
> > > will
> > > tell if I have or not. I don't usually gamble, on sure things it's
> > > different
> > > though, I'll bet I've failed again.
> >
> > Maybe not. I'll stick a little longer as long as the general overview of
> > this
> > thread doesn't degrade into a flame war. A friendly jab in the ribs once in
> > a
> > while is OK, right?
> >
> > > Now remember; KDF is bacteriostatic and Pyrolox isn't. We'll see how ya do
> > > with that.
> >
> > [muttering to self] KDF - bacteriostatic. Pyrolox *you* regenerate with
> > chlorine, right. <G>
>
> What problem do you have with that? KDF is bacteriostatic as described and
> approved by the EPA, Pyrolox is not. I regenerate Pyrolox (mostly but not
> always) because in my area it works much longer without any need to replace
> the mineral bed than when it is only backwashed. Psst! Dave. I think that's a
> benefit to the consumer and a loss of service work plus the sale of new
> mineral to me; but, it also sells more filters because mine work. And keep
> working.. and working... and....
Hey, that's no problem at all. I started this out asking questions because I
don't --- correction, didn't --- know a thing about either one. Sorry if I got
confused during the thread but I think I've got it straight now (all except
where the electrons go during the KDF catalytic reaction, that is).
> > And you see what I mean about your reader? Try increasing your line width
> > before truncation to 80 characters. I also use a fixed font like courier
> > rather than one of those fancy things. Heck, I don't know. Maybe it's this
> > DejaNews reader doing it (no options to change that I can find), but it only
> > does it on your posts(?).
>
> I think it would have to go down in number to allow for the number of ">"
> added to each line. Anyway, editing the older stuff works too.
True enough (as you can see, I couldn't stand it. I hate being "anal", but
[sing] "I just gotta be me").
David Thomas
"Gary Slusser" <qwas...@ptd.net> wrote:
> Okay it was set for 79 and I changed it to 72, sorry. I am so glad to
> be able to solve at least one of your complaints. hehe <GR>
Please, good sir, not complaint. Gentle inquiry at most. [snicker]
Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you,
thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, .... (Well you get the
picture.)
R.O.
head. They get wired to the submersible pump wire and feed just the right
amount of chlorine pellets to oxidize the sulfur. They cost around $550.
They also handle iron and manganese.
Bob
Jim Hunter wrote in message <7bajd1$7mj$1...@fir.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
Gary Slusser
So if it's all but all oxidized although not instantly why is there
still odor in the water? I say it hasn't been oxidized very much at
all, that's my job.
> > Finally you admit
> > that geology has something to do with different water quality
problems.
> > Sometimes treatment used successfully in one area doesn't work
(well or as
> > well) as in other areas.
>
> That is a very silly thing to say. *Of course* geology has everything
to do
> with water quality!! I've never said anything different! What could
have
> possibly made you think I had ever denied this obvious fact of water
> treatment?
Remember the special conditions.
> > > > As far as I know; KDF is registered as a bacteriostatic device
by the EPA.
> > > > Pyrolox is not.
> > >
> > > Doesn't answer my question Gary. Where can I find a technical
discussion on
> > > *how* KDF acts as a catalyst in redox reactions of water
treatment i.e.
> > > where
> > > do the electrons go? What is reduced?
> >
> > A technical discussion? I have no idea. For information on/of the
product;
> > call the company? Look them up on the web? Call a water treatment
dealer that
> > will give you technical data?
>
> Yes, yes, and yes (but you still won't provide me an answer).
I don't have the answer to give you.
I know how the equipment works, not on your level way down there in the
chemistry of it but, I don't have to to be able to solve the consumers
problem. That's what I've been trying to tell you but you keep after
the technical end and now you say it's because you would if you were on
the other end of it. Let me ask you - do you think I know equipment and
it's application advantages and disadvantages or not? Also, how about
the various brands of equipment?
A good independent dealer is the best place to learn what is available
along with good and bad points of all or very close to all of what is
on the market. Kinda like asking what company makes the best pickup,
who but the mechanics can give actual information? The closest web
sites I have seen have been done by dealers and the best overall I
would guess is Lyle's although I haven't checked any out in some time.
In real terms this industry is just getting going (it came from
softener sales only), have you noticed the big names getting into it
lately? Those guys aren't *leaders* meaning inventing something, they
are followers after someone else has blazed the trials. And they are
betting their brand name draws sales. Now softeners are, or will be by
next week, a commodity, and I think there will be some big names giving
up sooner than later. One is GE IMO because they don't do anything
other than a softener and RO line and they use their appliance dealers
mostly. Did those dealers even want to sell softeners let alone learn
how to apply them and service them?
Then you must not know much about the consumer.
> > > > Ah but when things don't usually occur there is a special
condition when
> > > > they
> > > > do occur. I've seen very few cases of red water iron and it's
not as
> > > > common as
> > > > some would have us believe.
> > >
> > > "Red" water can be a problem elswhere. Trust me.
> >
> > I know that and there will be some special condition that allows it
to form in
> > that area and not everywhere.
>
> Sorry. I still don't agree that there is anything "special" about the
> conditions.
My dictionary says special; Surpassing what is common or usual;
exceptional. Distinct among others of a kind; singular. Peculiar to a
specific... thing. Red water iron is not common among the four types
of iron found in water. To me that says there are special conditions
that are required for it to be considered common in a certain area or
well. Soluble iron or clear water iron is very common all over the
world.
> > > Slow down there, big guy. I think you dropped out about a third
of the words
> > > you intended to put in that last sentence. Read the whole web
page not just
> > > the first screen, then we'll talk. No reason for me to have
posted that
> > > particular page either. Just the first one I hit in my web
search. I found
> > > one about KDF at http://www.kdfft.com which only sells one form
of KDF (out
> > > of three or four forms, in some sort of matrix block) thats
listed as
> > > controling bacteria, for evaporator coolers I think.
> >
> > I/w don't treat iron/manganese or sulfate reducing bacteria with
Pyrolox (nor
> > does anyone else) and I/we know if it's there before I/we propose
equipment in
> > most instances if it is able to be identified.
>
> So you either don't know that well has a bacteria problem when you
(and I know
> you said you were getting away from using it) add Pyrolox in a
softener and/or
> you add a chlorine solution backwash anyway. Is this right?
Pyrolox is primarily used because of an odor, that odor has to be
'sulfur' or it will still be in the water after the filter so I check
for the reducing bacteria as part of determining if the odor is
actually 'sulfur' and not from reducing bacteria. I use my nose because
it's the best tester there is for 'sulfur'. I always have regenerated
with chlorine water, it was developed by my prime distributor many
years ago and I tried it and liked the way it worked.
As long as they stay impartial and give up their damned agendas and
tell truthful info I support them, otherwise not.
Gary
> David
David A Thomas
Gary Slusser wrote:
>
> David Thomas <dthom...@my-dejanews.com> wrote...
> > Because "almost" isn't "instantly". The customer may be able to smell
> > H2S from
> > a glass of water taken from his tap because (as you mentioned) H2S is
> > a gas
> > that volitilizes from the water immediately after leaving the DO free
> > pressurized pipes. Absence of black particles may mean an absence of
> > reactable
> > iron so no FeS is formed.
>
> So if it's all but all oxidized although not instantly why is there
> still odor in the water? I say it hasn't been oxidized very much at
> all, that's my job.
I really hate giving the same answer again to the same question. I
suggest you reread my previous response to your odor question.
> > That is a very silly thing to say. *Of course* geology has everything
> > to do
> > with water quality!! I've never said anything different! What could
> > have
> > possibly made you think I had ever denied this obvious fact of water
> > treatment?
>
> Remember the special conditions.
What special conditions?
> > Yes, yes, and yes (but you still won't provide me an answer).
>
> I don't have the answer to give you.
Never said you did, but your silence speaks volumes.
> > I can't think of a single reason other than that is what I would be
> > doing if
> > our roles were reversed, ie. learning all I could about *how* it
> > works.
>
> I know how the equipment works, not on your level way down there in the
> chemistry of it but, I don't have to to be able to solve the consumers
> problem. That's what I've been trying to tell you but you keep after
> the technical end and now you say it's because you would if you were on
> the other end of it. Let me ask you - do you think I know equipment and
> it's application advantages and disadvantages or not? Also, how about
> the various brands of equipment?
You know how to install and service the equipment, yes. You know the
various brands, yes. Never said you didn't. I fact, I have advised
people who have questions involving specific brands names to contact
you. You also have a good working knowledge of the *promoted* advantages
and disadvantages to various treatment systems. All I have is an
education in chemistry that allows me to ask the question - "If KDF uses
a catalytical proccess to oxidize the reduced forms of iron, manganese
and sulfur, it must then reduce some oxidized form of something to a
less oxidized forms, that being the definition of 'catalytic'. What
forms are reduced?" Perhaps the only point that we can draw from this
discussion is that my need to know how things work would probably make
me less effective as a sales person. (Since I would bore the customer
with my technical explainations.<G>"
How about an independent testing company like Consumer Reports (in the
case of vehicles). Frankly, I have issues going to a car dealer and
letting them choose what car with what options I need to buy from them.
> > By selling a lot of stuff to a lot of gulliable people? (I think I
> > see where
> > you're going with this question but I won't steal your thunder. Let
> > me have it
> > with both barrels. <G>)
>
> Then you must not know much about the consumer.
Man, I was expecting a shotgun blast and all you could scrap up is this
little BB? (Ya try and do a guy a favor...)
> > Sorry. I still don't agree that there is anything "special" about the
> > conditions.
>
> My dictionary says special; Surpassing what is common or usual;
> exceptional. Distinct among others of a kind; singular. Peculiar to a
> specific... thing. Red water iron is not common among the four types
> of iron found in water. To me that says there are special conditions
> that are required for it to be considered common in a certain area or
> well. Soluble iron or clear water iron is very common all over the
> world.
You want to list exactly what four types of iron found in water are, and
how "red" water iron is different (special)?
> > So you either don't know that well has a bacteria problem when you
> > (and I know
> > you said you were getting away from using it) add Pyrolox in a
> > softener and/or
> > you add a chlorine solution backwash anyway. Is this right?
>
> Pyrolox is primarily used because of an odor, that odor has to be
> 'sulfur' or it will still be in the water after the filter so I check
> for the reducing bacteria as part of determining if the odor is
> actually 'sulfur' and not from reducing bacteria. I use my nose because
> it's the best tester there is for 'sulfur'. I always have regenerated
> with chlorine water, it was developed by my prime distributor many
> years ago and I tried it and liked the way it worked.
So, what I said is right?
> > (Sorry, Cindy [sheepish grin]) You are kinda rough on the academia
> > people when
> > you want to be. (Of course that doesn't stop you from using them when
> > their
> > results swing your way, either.) As I said, I'm game either way.
>
> As long as they stay impartial and give up their damned agendas and
> tell truthful info I support them, otherwise not.
So, what I said is right? When they swing your way, their results are
"impartial" with no "damned agendas" and "truthful", but when they
differ... "otherwise not". <jab> (If you have a different method of
determining the validity of acadeia results, I'm all ears. <G>)
David
David
Gary Slusser
David A Thomas <dtho...@NO.worldnet.att.net> wrote...
> Gary Slusser wrote:
> >
> > David Thomas <dthom...@my-dejanews.com> wrote...
>
> > I know how the equipment works, not on your level way down there in
Thank you. Basically I'm a very technical type too but... it bores all
consumers except the very technical types to death! and it doesn't
really please them either if it's at the time they are making a
purchasing decision. In the homework stage it's ok with them though.
> How about an independent testing company like Consumer Reports (in
the
> case of vehicles). Frankly, I have issues going to a car dealer and
> letting them choose what car with what options I need to buy from
them.
There are way too many 'brands' and treatment equipment without a brand
name and various configurations for anyone to keep up. This may be much
different in the next ten years or so but now... even Consumer Reports
gave up trying. The third party certification is very expensive and any
time any component is changed (regardless of importance) another
certification must be attained. We're talking thousands of dollars for
the slightest change, after paying for the original certification. Cars
aren't certified perse, by anyone to my knowledge, but if one comes
with Firestone tires and another with Goodyear the company doesn't have
to go through another test do they? How about a different alternator on
one or another, is another test required? Battery? Floor mats? My
analogy was concerning the serviceability and trouble free operation.
And who pays the increased cost if not the public? And they all want to
pay as little as possible!
> > > Sorry. I still don't agree that there is anything "special" about
the
> > > conditions.
> >
> > My dictionary says special; Surpassing what is common or usual;
> > exceptional. Distinct among others of a kind; singular. Peculiar to
a
> > specific... thing. Red water iron is not common among the four
types
> > of iron found in water. To me that says there are special
conditions
> > that are required for it to be considered common in a certain area
or
> > well. Soluble iron or clear water iron is very common all over the
> > world.
>
> You want to list exactly what four types of iron found in water are,
and
> how "red" water iron is different (special)?
When I say that I'm referring to my industry. Red is Ferric and to 'us
guys' usually it means the water is colored orangish - reddish brown
when drawn. Not a few seconds or minutes afterwards but actual 'red' in
the pipes. It takes an oxidizer to cause this, usually dissolved
oxygen. And to me, it would be 'special' to find enough DO to oxidize
the iron in the pipes to add the color. In my area it is rare to find
'red' water iron although there are a few cases. The most common
everywhere is Ferrous, which oxidizes after exiting the pipes as the
water evaporates on surfaces etc. causing rust stains. Heme iron, a
bloody taste, is quite rare and iron reducing bacteria are the other
two that we deal with and each has it's own type of equipment
requirements or treatment.
> > > (Sorry, Cindy [sheepish grin]) You are kinda rough on the
academia
> > > people when
> > > you want to be. (Of course that doesn't stop you from using them
when
> > > their
> > > results swing your way, either.) As I said, I'm game either way.
> >
> > As long as they stay impartial and give up their damned agendas and
> > tell truthful info I support them, otherwise not.
>
> So, what I said is right? When they swing your way, their results are
> "impartial" with no "damned agendas" and "truthful", but when they
> differ... "otherwise not". <jab> (If you have a different method of
> determining the validity of acadeia results, I'm all ears. <G>)
Outdated and incorrect information isn't a 'differ' issue, it's just
wrong. An agenda driven type site on the web or the local Extension
Office pamphlet handouts isn't my idea of impartial information anyone
should use to make a decision either. So no, I'm not saying when they
agree etc..... and their mostly copied and then re-distributed error
filled stuff makes them look bad and they lose credibility to me. And
THAT is more important to me because I'm out here against incorrect
info, kinda like proving something claimed in a rumor isn't true. It's
very difficult and harms those that have a bent that if it looks
official it has to be true. I agree it 'should be' but... much of it
hasn't been although they are cleaning up their act.
> David
Gary
bit_b...@my-dejanews.com
David Thomas <dthom...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>Slow down there, big guy. I think you dropped out about a third of the words
>you intended to put in that last sentence. Read the whole web page not just
>the first screen, then we'll talk. No reason for me to have posted that
>particular page either. Just the first one I hit in my web search. I found
>one about KDF at http://www.kdfft.com which only sells one form of KDF (out
>of three or four forms, in some sort of matrix block) thats listed as
>controling bacteria, for evaporator coolers I think.
For what it's worth and FYI... WWW.KDFFT.COM is the home page for KDF Fluid
Technologies, I believe this is the company that owns the patent for the
product. KDF (Kenetic Degragation Fluxion) is used in some versions of the
Hague WaterMax (www.haguewater.com) to control some levels of iron and H2S as
well as soften water. I think Hague will also use other more capable
treatments should the situations require it. But, from a personal
perspective, KDF seems to do what it is supposed to do. I like the fact my
iron, H2S and hardness treatment are under one cover that doesn't require any
special chemicals to regenerate the unit. Salt brine regenerates the resin
and a 5 to 10 minute backflush cleans the particulate matter from the KDF
media (See KDF's site for the chemistry behind this).
Gary & Dave - Enjoyed the thread... sure glad you two are friends(?). Phew!
;-)
Later,
BB
Gary Slusser
bit_b...@my-dejanews.com wrote ...
> In article <7c6sht$i9j$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> David Thomas <dthom...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> >Slow down there, big guy. I think you dropped out about a third of the
words
> >you intended to put in that last sentence. Read the whole web page not just
> >the first screen, then we'll talk. No reason for me to have posted that
> >particular page either. Just the first one I hit in my web search. I found
> >one about KDF at http://www.kdfft.com which only sells one form of KDF (out
> >of three or four forms, in some sort of matrix block) thats listed as
> >controling bacteria, for evaporator coolers I think.
>
> For what it's worth and FYI... WWW.KDFFT.COM is the home page for KDF Fluid
> Technologies, I believe this is the company that owns the patent for the
> product. KDF (Kenetic Degragation Fluxion) is used in some versions of the
> Hague WaterMax (www.haguewater.com) to control some levels of iron and H2S
as
> well as soften water. I think Hague will also use other more capable
> treatments should the situations require it. But, from a personal
> perspective, KDF seems to do what it is supposed to do. I like the fact my
> iron, H2S and hardness treatment are under one cover that doesn't require
any
> special chemicals to regenerate the unit. Salt brine regenerates the resin
> and a 5 to 10 minute backflush cleans the particulate matter from the KDF
> media (See KDF's site for the chemistry behind this).
Yes that's them! You'd think they might have said they were the manufacturer
no? I wonder why Dave didn't come up with that! Selective reading? HAHAHA
hehehe I couldn't resist, sorry. hehehe
> Gary & Dave - Enjoyed the thread... sure glad you two are friends(?). Phew!
> ;-)
He's okay as long as we don't let him alone in his lab too long!
Gary
> Later,
> BB
David Thomas
"Gary Slusser" <qwas...@ptd.net> wrote:
>
>
> bit_b...@my-dejanews.com wrote ...
> > In article <7c6sht$i9j$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> > David Thomas <dthom...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> words
> > >you intended to put in that last sentence. Read the whole web page not just
> > >the first screen, then we'll talk. No reason for me to have posted that
> > >particular page either. Just the first one I hit in my web search. I found
> > >one about KDF at http://www.kdfft.com which only sells one form of KDF (out
> > >of three or four forms, in some sort of matrix block) thats listed as
> > >controling bacteria, for evaporator coolers I think.
> >
> > Technologies, I believe this is the company that owns the patent for the
> > product. KDF (Kenetic Degragation Fluxion) is used in some versions of the
> > Hague WaterMax (www.haguewater.com) to control some levels of iron and H2S
> > as
> > well as soften water. I think Hague will also use other more capable
> > treatments should the situations require it. But, from a personal
> > perspective, KDF seems to do what it is supposed to do. I like the fact my
> > iron, H2S and hardness treatment are under one cover that doesn't require
> > any
> > special chemicals to regenerate the unit. Salt brine regenerates the resin
> > and a 5 to 10 minute backflush cleans the particulate matter from the KDF
> > media (See KDF's site for the chemistry behind this).
>
> Yes that's them! You'd think they might have said they were the manufacturer
> no? I wonder why Dave didn't come up with that! Selective reading? HAHAHA
> hehehe I couldn't resist, sorry. hehehe
Humf! {;-S} I knew it. I thought I'd let you read it for yourself. (Ha!)
> > Gary & Dave - Enjoyed the thread... sure glad you two are friends(?). Phew!
> > ;-)
>
> He's okay as long as we don't let him alone in his lab too long!
Gary's OK as long as you don't mention "guvermint" to him.