Re-Plumbing the Pool Equipment Pad

[Dirk]

I think for the sensors and stuff like that, I prefer the ones with the 1/2" or 3/4" branch connections, as the temp probes might actually get into the flowing water instead of the weird quasi-stagnant pocket that is created from the larger 2" socket. But I'm weird like that. I definitely understand that from a strength perspective, the 2" branch will be able to withstand more side loading, especially with the bushing installed.

Ah, you reminded me of my other rational. My injector needs to be where it is, just in front of the SWG. That SWG pretty much governs not only my runtime, but also my RPMs, which equates to electricity used. The only way to reduce the energy requirement, is to reduce the flow required to satisfy the SWG. I removed the check valve in front of it, which likely caused some turbulence downstream (inside the SWG), and so I was thinking that the 2x1/2x2 would cause some amount less flow disturbance than the 2x2x2 would, because of just what you described, the bigger cavity. The less turbulence inside the SWG, the better reading its flow detector will report, so the less RPM's required. They instruct in the manual to have a length of straight pipe in front of the SWG, for that very reason.

Plus, the injector is mostly protected by the 2" PVC "roll bar cage" that happens to be right above and around it.

That's my story and I'm stickin' to it!

 

[Turbo1Ton]

They instruct in the manual to have a length of straight pipe in front of the SWG, for that very reason.

This is one of the things I am taking care of when I add my IntellipH, is to add a straight section ahead of the SWCG. My current setup has an elbow directly in front of the unit, and as such, I have to run at 1700-1800 RPM to satisfy the flow switch. I am hopeful that an 18" straight section will allow me to get that down to 1100-1200 RPM.

--Jeff

 

[Dirk]

I can't seem to get below about 1400, but there are other factors in play, I'm sure. Some here can get below "the teens."

If a pad was properly plumbed, to allow for all the flow, and to allow for extra PVC around everything so you could cut out a bad part and glue in new, without having to replace five other things because they were all glued too close together, and to allow room to move around and see, pads would be 50-100% larger than you typically get. I'd love to replumb, but there's just not enough room where they crammed in my pad...

 

[dianedebuda]

I'd love to replumb, but there's just not enough room where they crammed in my pad...

Hey, if I can do it...

 

[Dirk]

Holy water park ride Batman! Ka-Pow!

Please tell me you color-coded your plumbing, so I can be happier still!

Love the sweeps! Yah, someone noticed!

 

[Dirk]

Oh, wait, gotta ding ya 5 points for the wrong BFP. Sorry. You're still way ahead, though.

 

[jonpcar]

I can't seem to get below about 1400, but there are other factors in play, I'm sure. Some here can get below "the teens."

Hey Dirk, here is something I have always wondered about and never asked. You would be a candidate to answer it based on your FlowVis and it seems that you might have done some analysis of your pump’s Energy Factor. It has to do with SWGs and their impact (or lack of) on head/energy factor. A SWG is something I am considering for the future.

As you mentioned, an increased RPM is necessary for some to run their SWGs. Have you ever compared the flow rates (gpm) and/or Energy Factor with and without the guts of your SWG in place? Especially interesting to me are the higher RPMs (2500-3000), which those of us with IFCSs need to run at for at least a portion of the time to do our “cleaning”. I would consider putting the SWG only on the low RPM path (wall returns, not Floor PopUps) if there was a significant impact to flow/pressure at high RPMs.

 

[Dirk]

No, never analyzed that, as from my perspective, it doesn't matter. If the SWG is impacting flow, so be it. Wouldn't affect my decision to install one, as the convenience factor alone far outweighs any energy impact. Ironically, my FlowVis probably impacts my flow more than my SWG, because it doubles as a check valve (and check valves restrict flow). And I think the spring of the flapper in the Vis (the flapper is also the flow indicator) is a bit stronger than the spring in a normal check valve, such that the Vis is both measuring and somewhat impacting flow. Whaddayagonnado?

It's not really the guts of the SWG that is the issue, it's the reading from its internal flow switch that is the bigger problem. Those switches are not particularly reliable. Some component of them also measures the salt, I think. Which is also unreliable. Folks lose salt readings altogether. The flow switch has to be replaced for that and I think for faulty flow-sensing, too. I think it likely that you could run the same setup through two different Pentair ICs and one would need a slightly higher flow rate, to satisfy the flow switch, than the other! That's conjecture on my part, just a suspicion.

With that wild ride you've got going on there, however an SWG might impact the flow will be negligible.

 

[dianedebuda]

Please tell me you color-coded your plumbing, so I can be happier still!

I have a thread color id here

Oh, wait, gotta ding ya 5 points for the wrong BFP.

Don't know what that is. And googling it is ... interesting.

 

[Dirk]

I have a thread color id here

Don't know what that is. And googling it is ... interesting.

It's a little convoluted. PBs (and DIYers?) like to use sprinkler valves for fill water because they're cheap and readily available. And if your fill outlet is well above the pool's waterline, a sprinkler valve is mostly OK (as long as there is no way to connect a hose to anything downstream of the sprinkler valve). But...

If your fill outlet is, or can get, under the waterline, then the use of a sprinkler valve is a little less ideal. Or...

If the sprinkler valve is feeding a second auto-filler valve down stream, then a sprinkler valve is definitely the wrong component.

I can go into more detail if you're interested, and if any of those scenarios apply to your setup. A BFP (back flow preventer) protects the water supply, both yours and the neighborhood's, from contamination from pool water entering the public water system. There are specific types to use and specific reasons for using them, which may or may not apply to what you are using them for. If it turns out you're in the clear, I can probably get you your 5 points back, but that can take 8 to 10 weeks...

 

[dianedebuda]

Ah, Back Flow Preventer. On a well, so no neighborhood worries. The pad is also "irrigation central", so most of those valves are really for the intended purpose. Have a "master" check valve before all of the irrigation lines/valves so dirty water shouldn't be able to escape. The irrigation valve for pool fill is above max water line. Actually bought an additional check valve to put on the output of the "filler" valve, but since irrigation valve claims to be anti-syphon, didn't put it in - mostly because the check valve says it has to installed horizonally which would be tough.

If you think I haven't done enough, can we talk about it over on my thread rather than continuing to hijack this one? I'd opened a thread several months ago about possible problems converting an old vac line to a water fill with an irrigation valve, but a mod moved it quickly to my thread, so you probably didn't see it then.