Parallel Return Lines for Multiple SWG's (Yes, Intex in an IG) - Thoughts?

[happyheathen]

In addition to having the ability to bypass the SWG entirely (SLAMing can't be good for the poor things, and stuff happens), it occurred to me that splitting my 2" return into 2 - 1 1/2" lines would allow the Intex to have it's desired 1 1/2" connection without unduly restricting return flow.

It then occurred to me: why not put an Intex on both lines - in normal operations, it should reduce required pump run time, and could have each unit set to produce 1/2 of the desired total. Should one die, instant backup.

I'm looking for thoughts - especially any problems you see with this idea.

Is my assumption that production would be additive correct?

Would it save on pump running?

Here's what I'm thinking of:

                           ======== bypass ========
     2"                  =                                               =
============               1 1/2"                         =
 from filter            =    ---------------[SWG1]------     =
                            =  -                                       -     =
                             =-                                         ======  to pool
                                 -      1 1/2"                        -
                                   --------------[SWG2]------

OK, I give up on getting it looking pretty:

2" from filter splits into 2 -2"; 1 is the SWG bypass, the other is split into 2 - 1 1/2" lines for the SWG's. the 1 1/2's merge into 2", which then merges with the 2" bypass all of which then goes to the returns.

Ideas?

 

[Charlie_R]

Are you planning on having a balancing valve for the input of the two SWG units? Might be a good idea, otherwise you may have one with good flow and the other with low flow. I assume also that you would have a valve on the bypass.

 

[happyheathen]

I was thinking simple ball valves ahead of each SWG - don't know how accurate a balance I could get without flow meters on each, but would prefer to avoid that expense.

And yes, a diverter to direct the filter output into either the SWG lines or the bypass.

There have got to be, amid all the whiz-bang technology, a hand-held inductive flow meter - a box you hold next to or encircling the pipe - preferably one which could be rented for initial balance and then anytime a significant change is made. Anyone know of such a thing?

 

[Charlie_R]

Cheap ball valves, even the full flow ones really don't restrict much until you get close to 2/3 closed, in my experience. I may be wrong.

A pair of 3 way pool valves would work well in this case. One for bypass/SWG, and one for balancing the SWG's.

I'm not sure there is a way to sense the flow rate of water through the pipes without an invasive flow meter. Perhaps some sort of turbulence detector? Near each obstruction, there will be the inevitable turbulence in the flow, maybe there is something out there to "see" this, and quantify it. Worth looking into. If you can figure this out, it might be worth a trip to space via the Hack-A-Day prize?

 

[Richard320]

I don't see the point of a bypass. If you need less FC, just turn one or the other SWG down. A hundred percent of my flow goes through my heater, even though the heater seldom gets used. I don't see the advantage of a bunch of extra plumbing.

 

[happyheathen]

I don't see the point of a bypass. If you need less FC, just turn one or the other SWG down. A hundred percent of my flow goes through my heater, even though the heater seldom gets used. I don't see the advantage of a bunch of extra plumbing.

In addition to the facility to get the SWG(s) out of harm's way should something *Bad* happen, it would allow me to run the cleaner without running the SWG(s) - I don't feel comfty leaving a cleaner in the pool and being the receiver of the SWG every time it runs.
If the SWG is hard-plumbed, a pressure cleaner is among the first to get hit with the (concentrated) chlorine.

Would simple pressure gauges suffice as flow meters when placed immediately before the SWG?