User Tag List

Informational! Informational!:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 9 to 16 of 17

Thread: R/O

  1. #9
    Nepenthes Specialist nepenthes gracilis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Alexandria Bay, NY Z-5a
    Posts
    6,341
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Tony what exactl si the difference between a TFC and a CTA membrane? I never was really clear on that.

  2. #10
    Tony Paroubek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Far Away NY
    Posts
    4,640
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    TFC Thin Film Composite. An inorganic membrane that has a high rejection rate for most ions. Susceptible to Chlorine damage however.

    CTA Cellulose Triacetate. An organic membrane that has a lower rejection rate but is not susceptible to Chlorine damage. Source water should infact contain Chlorine to prevent fungus/bacteria from destroying the membrane since it is made of cellulose.
    Is that a Nepenthes in your pocket or you just happy to see me?

  3. #11
    Nepenthes Specialist nepenthes gracilis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Alexandria Bay, NY Z-5a
    Posts
    6,341
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Maybe i should get a CTA to save on carbon block cartriges ;p

    Thanks for the info.

  4. #12
    Tony Paroubek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Far Away NY
    Posts
    4,640
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    hmm well .. the CTA membrane allows the chlorine to pass through so there other considerations as well. If I recall correctly the CTA membranes average around the high 80's-90% rejection rate.

    T
    Is that a Nepenthes in your pocket or you just happy to see me?

  5. #13
    Nepenthes Specialist nepenthes gracilis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Alexandria Bay, NY Z-5a
    Posts
    6,341
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    ooh...chlrorine passes through.......

    Forget it then.

  6. #14
    Lauderdale's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Fort Lauderdale
    Posts
    1,077
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Tony,
    You seem to have a pretty good working knowledge of these R/O filters...Would you mind going to

    http://www.spectrapure.com/St_line_p1.htm

    and give me me your opion of that particular filter.
    That is the one that Sarracenia0 is thinking of buying and so far it seems to be the least expensive I have found on the net.
    It looks to me as if it is only a two stage and I will be using it on my city water system.

  7. #15
    Tony Paroubek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Far Away NY
    Posts
    4,640
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hi Lauderdale,

    Personally I would upgrade a little. Primarily because the ultracompact unit does not take a standard filter. They rate the carbon filtering on that unit at 1500 gallons. It will need to be replaced much more often at the cost of $12 vs a high capacity carbon block which cost $8-18 depending on how much capacity it has. For example the 6000gal block cost $8. So basically it would cost you $48 in the ultracompact carbon filter vs $8 for the 6000gal one for every 6000gal run through the unit.

    Also consider the ultracompact unit at $104 for 25gal/day unit
    vs the compact unit which is essentially the same except it has a standard filter housing which allows you to put in the better filter for $125 for the 25gal/day. For the $21 you get a much better carbon filter and the choice to replace it later with any of the other carbon block filters if you want ie the 20,000 gal one is only $18 so even cheaper yet than the 6000 gal one for $8 when you calculate cost per gallon. This is the unit I am talking about 2stage standard filter

    NOW the big questions is will this work well on your city water since it is only 2stage. IDEALLY I would like to see 3 stage ie a sediment filter then the carbon block then the ro. Without the sediment filter your carbon block is acting as both. This may or may not be a problem. The carbon filter is quite capable but if your water has alot of sediment then the carbon block will get plugged up prematurely and will need to be replaced before the useful life of the carbon is exhausted. With a seperate sediment and carbon block you can replace only the filter that needs it.
    A comparable 3stage 25gal/day unit with a 9000gal carbon block would cost $146 vs the $125 3stage

    If money is really tight then you can try the 2stage and see what happens. You can always buy another filter housing and sediment filter later to add on if the carbon block clogs prematurely.

    (keep in mind the carbon filters are rated for total water run through them, RO+waste)
    Tony



    Is that a Nepenthes in your pocket or you just happy to see me?

  8. #16
    Lauderdale's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Fort Lauderdale
    Posts
    1,077
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thanks to your advice Tony I am going to upgrade a bit and this is the one I am thinking of purchashing;

    http://www.thstore.com/thstore....pID=227

    I wonder if you would mind taking a look at it and giving me your opinion. There is a list of the bad things it eliminates as you scroll down the page.

    This particular site lists about ten different manufacturers and gives information on all of them...the free shipping doesn't hurt either.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •