No, only the main filter will utilize a 520. The basin will use a 320 mainly due to not having enough room on the pad but also that is what the PB recommended. I believe it was mentioned early in the string but it is in my signature.I thought that both filters were going to be 520?
I wondered myself. It must've been sent by mistake because I certainly didn't specify it in the proposal.Why the Rainbow 320 tab feeder?
Ok, the 4718 is correct or you can use the Pentair equivalent.Question on this. Were you referring to the valve PN? If yes, I was upsizing the Jandy valve (2.5"-3") to utilize the larger port.
View attachment 426820
521903 is in the proposal. I'll get that remedied. They are also to swap an IC60 for the IC40.521094 is not SWG.
521093 is SWG
Going Pentair for 2/3 port valves and Jandy for CV's.or you can use the Pentair equivalent.
It's the same amount of space either way.The basin will use a 320 mainly due to not having enough room on the pad
I believe I remember you mentioning this. It seems like a lifetime ago. Furthermore if your calcs were done based on a 520, I failed to catch that and it also went over my head.It's the same amount of space either way.
The 520 is taller but the footprint is the same.
I recommend the 520 due to the flow requirements.
With the bypass, you should get full flow.If I run the negative edge on the bypass, it doesn't matter what size filter, I'll get maximum flow, right?
The 320 is good to 120, which is fine for filtering at up to 120 gpm.I guess my question is, do I really need a maximum flow rate when filtering the basin and will the 320 be sufficient?
In that case, isn't at least partial flow still running through the filter, therefore the bypass is operating at less than 100% capacity/flow (whatever's not running through the filter)?There's no reason to block flow to the filter when the bypass is open.