| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Lectra/San pros and cons
I looked at a boat recently that had a Lectra/San head and I am
wondering about the pros and cons it. My rudimentary investigation has found that it requires quite a bit of power for each flush and would still require a holding tank for certain situations. I would prefer a boat with simple system allowing me to reduce the size/number/cost of batteries and am wondering if it is worth it. I'm sure the seller thinks it adds value to the boat but I don't think I want it (nor do I want to pay for it). What are the major advantages of it? Thanks in advance. |
Cam wrote:
I looked at a boat recently that had a Lectra/San head... The Lectra/San is not a head (toilet)...it's a separate device into which the toilet--any toilet--flushes where waste is treated and discharged overboard legally. ...and I am wondering about the pros and cons it. My rudimentary investigation has found that it requires quite a bit of power for each flush... It's consumption of 1.7 AH/flush looks a bit scary, but in fact, translates to only 17 AH/day for a cruising couple--less than that if you use the lee rail when possible--well within the resources of any boat that isn't underpowered. ...and would still require a holding tank for certain situations. But a much smaller tank than you need for full time use...one that you'd only use if/when you visit a "no discharge" harbor, which are VERY few and far between except in New England, the FL Keys and SoCal. Where are you? Where do you plan to cruise What are the major advantages of it? Can be used with any toilet...requires no chemicals, requires no maintenance except for an occasional cleaning (which doesn't even require taking it apart, just a solution of muriatic acid down the toilet according to directions)...none of the maintenance problems associated with holding tanks to prevent odor, deal with sludge, keeping the vent clear, etc. no need to deal with finding pumpout facilities or getting 3 miles offshore. Just flush and forget it. Highly reliable and durable...it's been on the market 30 years, some of the original units are still in service. All the info and specs are he http://www.raritaneng.com/products/w...lectrasan.html I'll be glad to answer any questions after you've read it all. -- Peggie ---------- Peggie Hall Specializing in marine sanitation since 1987 Author "Get Rid of Boat Odors - A Guide To Marine Sanitation Systems and Other Sources of Aggravation and Odor" http://www.seaworthy.com/store/custo...0&cat=6&page=1 |
Thanks Peggie,
Based on that information it looks like a handy unit to have. Anything specific I need to look for while inspecting it? Actually, how would I inspect it? Since the boat batteries are probably dead is there any manual inspection for it. It doesn't appear that the previous owner has cared for the boat to well including, probably, this unit. How is company support? I'm assuming that this specific unit is out of warranty. Thinking of that are there specific models that need to be looked for/avoided? How would I identify those? Thanks again. Peggie Hall wrote: Cam wrote: I looked at a boat recently that had a Lectra/San head... The Lectra/San is not a head (toilet)...it's a separate device into which the toilet--any toilet--flushes where waste is treated and discharged overboard legally. ...and I am wondering about the pros and cons it. My rudimentary investigation has found that it requires quite a bit of power for each flush... It's consumption of 1.7 AH/flush looks a bit scary, but in fact, translates to only 17 AH/day for a cruising couple--less than that if you use the lee rail when possible--well within the resources of any boat that isn't underpowered. ...and would still require a holding tank for certain situations. But a much smaller tank than you need for full time use...one that you'd only use if/when you visit a "no discharge" harbor, which are VERY few and far between except in New England, the FL Keys and SoCal. Where are you? Where do you plan to cruise What are the major advantages of it? Can be used with any toilet...requires no chemicals, requires no maintenance except for an occasional cleaning (which doesn't even require taking it apart, just a solution of muriatic acid down the toilet according to directions)...none of the maintenance problems associated with holding tanks to prevent odor, deal with sludge, keeping the vent clear, etc. no need to deal with finding pumpout facilities or getting 3 miles offshore. Just flush and forget it. Highly reliable and durable...it's been on the market 30 years, some of the original units are still in service. All the info and specs are he http://www.raritaneng.com/products/w...lectrasan.html I'll be glad to answer any questions after you've read it all. |
|
Gogarty wrote:
The Lecteasan is a good gadget, though the proliferation of no discharge zones into the open sea increasingly threatens it. When it is operating properly the sewage is treated to almost sterile levels and causes no harm whatever to the environment. That's not entirely true. The Lectra-San kills all the bacteria. It does not reduce or break down the material effluent, which contains nutrients and changes the local ecological balance. Is this "damage" to the environment? It is, if you liked what was growing there before. DSK |
"DSK" wrote in message .. . Gogarty wrote: The Lecteasan is a good gadget, though the proliferation of no discharge zones into the open sea increasingly threatens it. When it is operating properly the sewage is treated to almost sterile levels and causes no harm whatever to the environment. That's not entirely true. The Lectra-San kills all the bacteria. It does not reduce or break down the material effluent, which contains nutrients and changes the local ecological balance. Is this "damage" to the environment? It is, if you liked what was growing there before. Actually, eutrification is a much greater threat than bacterial contamination. That is why phosphates were removed from detergents many years ago. DSK |
Cam wrote: Thanks Peggie, Based on that information it looks like a handy unit to have. Anything specific I need to look for while inspecting it? Actually, how would I inspect it? Since the boat batteries are probably dead is there any manual inspection for it. It doesn't appear that the previous owner has cared for the boat to well including, probably, this unit. There's no way to test it without power. Any visual inspection wouldn't tell you anything...either the macerator and mixer motors run or they don't...either the electrode pack works or it doesn't. How old is it? The only way to tell is the type of controller. The original Lectra/San had a dial timer--now obsolete, no parts still available...that was replaced by the EC (electronic control) version...the current version is the MC model. If it doesn't still have the dial control, compare the control with the one in manual at the link I gave you to know whether its the EC or the MC. How is company support? It's excellent. Thinking of that are there specific models that need to be looked for/avoided? How would I identify those? As I said above, there are only 3 versions...the only real difference between any of 'em is the controller...the treatment unit has actually changed very little. If you were asking about buying a used one eBay, I'd tell you to avoid the dial timer...but since it's already on the boat, the system either works or it doesn't. If it doesn't, there could be several reasons, some of which--like fuses--are not expensive...others--electrode packs and controllers are...and it worries me a bit that you say the boat has been neglected. So I wouldn't consider it in deciding how much the boat is worth to you. As for comments by others... The Lectra-San kills all the bacteria. Not necessarily...it does reduce the count to 10/100 ml (the law requires only a reduction to 1000/100 ml) It does not reduce or break down the material effluent, which contains nutrients and changes the local ecological balance. Again, not quite true...The L/S does reduce BOD by 35%. The discharge has the equivilant nutrient "load" of 4 oak leaves. In fact, just ONE illegally dumped tank has more negative impact on the surrounding waters within at least a mile than 1,000 boats, all equipped with L/S in the same area for 24 hours. You'll find the results of a study he http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/...port-jun02.pdf Runoff from the shore and the rivers that feed coastal waters are the problem, not boats. -- Peggie ---------- Peggie Hall Specializing in marine sanitation since 1987 Author "Get Rid of Boat Odors - A Guide To Marine Sanitation Systems and Other Sources of Aggravation and Odor" http://www.seaworthy.com/store/custo...0&cat=6&page=1 |
I don't know if this part of the discussion has any impact or interest
for the original poster... The Lectra-San kills all the bacteria. Peggie Hall wrote: Not necessarily...it does reduce the count to 10/100 ml (the law requires only a reduction to 1000/100 ml) Picky picky... OK it doesn't kill *all* the bacteria, just so many of them that it's actually safer than many people's drinking water. It does not reduce or break down the material effluent, which contains nutrients and changes the local ecological balance. Again, not quite true...The L/S does reduce BOD by 35%. The discharge has the equivilant nutrient "load" of 4 oak leaves. Didn't know that... that's very good. Probably better than many municipal treatment outlets. ... In fact, just ONE illegally dumped tank has more negative impact on the surrounding waters within at least a mile than 1,000 boats, all equipped with L/S in the same area for 24 hours. Now there I'll agree. Most boaters... especially the ones advocating a bucket -n- chuck it strategy... would not believe the impact of a single untreated flush. You'll find the results of a study he http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/...port-jun02.pdf Runoff from the shore and the rivers that feed coastal waters are the problem, not boats. The overwhelming part of the problem, yes. Absolutely. But because the waters are already loaded with land source effluent, that magnifies the effect of point-source effluent dump. Most birds know better than to foul their own nests, why can't mankind be that smart? Regards Doug King |
|
|
Gogarty wrote:
In article , says... Most birds know better than to foul their own nests, why can't mankind be that smart? Where do sea birds poop? Just asking. :) And meanwhile are there any mankind living in the actual water? Stephen |
Most birds know better than to foul their own nests, why can't mankind
be that smart? Gogarty wrote: Where do sea birds poop? Just asking. :) 1- the birds were already there 2- the birds poop has different... and far less per "drop"... than humans 3- do you imagine there might be some Freudian issues of why some people insist on their right to doo-doo in the water where other people are sailing, swimming, etc etc. DSK |
"DSK" wrote
3- do you imagine there might be some Freudian issues of why some people insist on their right to doo-doo in the water where other people are sailing, swimming, etc etc. So, to avoid using my lectrosan I hold it til I get to shore and use the potty in town. Where does it go? After treatment, it goes in the water where other people are sailing, swimming, etc. - just like it would had I used the 'san. That's why the Cheasapeake is so, well, ****ty. The problem is too many people but, as Pogo said, nobody wants to be the first to leave. |
Vito wrote:
"DSK" wrote 3- do you imagine there might be some Freudian issues of why some people insist on their right to doo-doo in the water where other people are sailing, swimming, etc etc. So, to avoid using my lectrosan I hold it til I get to shore and use the potty in town. The whole point of using a Lectra/San is to be able to use it in an anchorage...the federal water quality standard for swimming requires a bacteria count of 200...the bacteria count in a L/S discharge is 10. Where does it go? After treatment, it goes in the water where other people are sailing, swimming, etc. - just like it would had I used the 'san. That's why the Cheasapeake is so, well, ****ty. Actually, it's not the reason...Boats have so little do with it that if everything else could be "fixed," the small amount of waste that boats contribute would actually become beneficial. The real reasons are many and complex, starting with overfishing and depleting--compounded by a virus that also kills off a lot of 'em--the oyster and crab and other shellfish population, which are nature's "sewage treatment plant"...then there's what all the rivers dump into the Bay...and the runoff directly from the shore. It didn't happen overnight...it won't be cleaned up overnight, nor are there any simple solutions. But a good start would be a moratorium on shellfishing for at least 5 years...the watermen would howl, but if the gov't can pay millions of farmers not to grow certain crops, it can pay a few hundred waterman not to shellfish till the population reaches a level again sufficient to process a good portion of the pollutants. FYI, the shellfish and other "garbage eaters" in just 2500 healthy acres of bottom is enough to completely cleanse the waste from a population of 100,000. (Surprised the hell out of me to learn that too!). -- Peggie ---------- Peggie Hall Specializing in marine sanitation since 1987 Author "Get Rid of Boat Odors - A Guide To Marine Sanitation Systems and Other Sources of Aggravation and Odor" http://www.seaworthy.com/store/custo...0&cat=6&page=1 |
...Boats have so little do with it that if
everything else could be "fixed," the small amount of waste that boats contribute would actually become beneficial. As long as the risk of cholera, typhoid, etc etc, could be avoided, sure. Dave wrote: Never deprive an enviro of his fantasy, Peggy. It's like attacking Mom and apple pie--likely to start a flame war. I don't think anybody, no matter what their personal environmental policy, would say that boaters are the majority of the problem. However, a lot of people, myself included, do not believe in the pathetic excuse that "a little more won't hurt." This argument certainly won't get you very far with the police, and it won't do much for Ma Nature either. DSK |
DSK wrote:
...Boats have so little do with it that if everything else could be "fixed," the small amount of waste that boats contribute would actually become beneficial. As long as the risk of cholera, typhoid, etc etc, could be avoided, sure. And just how many boat owners do you know who have cholera, typhoid etc? Have you ever even heard of a case that could be traced back to a recreational boat? Dave wrote: Never deprive an enviro of his fantasy, Peggy. It's like attacking Mom and apple pie--likely to start a flame war. I know...sigh I don't think anybody, no matter what their personal environmental policy, would say that boaters are the majority of the problem. However, a lot of people, myself included, do not believe in the pathetic excuse that "a little more won't hurt." I never said that, nor even meant to imply it...what I said was, "IF everything else could be fixed," the waste from boats wouldn't be an issue. And I don't appreciate your twisting my words to suit your own purpose. -- Peggie ---------- Peggie Hall Specializing in marine sanitation since 1987 Author "Get Rid of Boat Odors - A Guide To Marine Sanitation Systems and Other Sources of Aggravation and Odor" http://www.seaworthy.com/store/custo...0&cat=6&page=1 |
|
|
Thanks for your advice Peggie and for taking the time to give it. It is
exactly the information I need. Peggie Hall wrote: Cam wrote: Thanks Peggie, Based on that information it looks like a handy unit to have. Anything specific I need to look for while inspecting it? Actually, how would I inspect it? Since the boat batteries are probably dead is there any manual inspection for it. It doesn't appear that the previous owner has cared for the boat to well including, probably, this unit. There's no way to test it without power. Any visual inspection wouldn't tell you anything...either the macerator and mixer motors run or they don't...either the electrode pack works or it doesn't. How old is it? The only way to tell is the type of controller. The original Lectra/San had a dial timer--now obsolete, no parts still available...that was replaced by the EC (electronic control) version...the current version is the MC model. If it doesn't still have the dial control, compare the control with the one in manual at the link I gave you to know whether its the EC or the MC. How is company support? It's excellent. Thinking of that are there specific models that need to be looked for/avoided? How would I identify those? As I said above, there are only 3 versions...the only real difference between any of 'em is the controller...the treatment unit has actually changed very little. If you were asking about buying a used one eBay, I'd tell you to avoid the dial timer...but since it's already on the boat, the system either works or it doesn't. If it doesn't, there could be several reasons, some of which--like fuses--are not expensive...others--electrode packs and controllers are...and it worries me a bit that you say the boat has been neglected. So I wouldn't consider it in deciding how much the boat is worth to you. As for comments by others... The Lectra-San kills all the bacteria. Not necessarily...it does reduce the count to 10/100 ml (the law requires only a reduction to 1000/100 ml) It does not reduce or break down the material effluent, which contains nutrients and changes the local ecological balance. Again, not quite true...The L/S does reduce BOD by 35%. The discharge has the equivilant nutrient "load" of 4 oak leaves. In fact, just ONE illegally dumped tank has more negative impact on the surrounding waters within at least a mile than 1,000 boats, all equipped with L/S in the same area for 24 hours. You'll find the results of a study he http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/...port-jun02.pdf Runoff from the shore and the rivers that feed coastal waters are the problem, not boats. |
Peggie Hall wrote:
And just how many boat owners do you know who have cholera, typhoid etc? None if they avoid swimming in contaminated water. Have you ever even heard of a case that could be traced back to a recreational boat? Actually, yes. In an NC lake about 10 years ago. The culprit was a rented pontoon boat. I don't think anybody, no matter what their personal environmental policy, would say that boaters are the majority of the problem. However, a lot of people, myself included, do not believe in the pathetic excuse that "a little more won't hurt." I never said that, nor even meant to imply it... No, you didn't. But folks like Gogarty and Dave imply it very strongly. Not only that, their emotional reaction to the whole matter suggests some Freudian issues. .... And I don't appreciate your twisting my words to suit your own purpose. I didn't "twist your words" at all. Not in the slightest. DSK |
Gogarty wrote:
Most of the time I am a tree hugger, or close to it. But on this issue I am a libertarian. I mean, I watch six boats in a huge lagoon, wetlands stretchin beyond for miles, filled with fish and sea birds and shellfish -- guys over there on the beach with their rakes -- and an eight-foot tide twice a day, and those boats are going to cause a problem? Probably not. Absent the 8 foot tide... which occurs relatively few places and for damn sure not on the Chesapeake or LIS... and then what? At this place up to about five years ago you could get bushels of oysters by just picking them off the beach at low tide. They have disappeared at about the same time lobsters disappeared from Long Island Sound. ??? Now you're going into pure fantasy. Oyster (and other commercial fishing) on LIS took a steep downturn about 1900, and has never come back up. If you like analogies, here's one for you... The only water supply you have is a pond. It has a certain amount of things already living in it. It also has a group of people dumping their toilet into it. How large do you want that pond to be? How much of it's shoreline should be wetlands or marsh? You could hypothesize an 8 foot tide if you like, but that will just move the crap around within the pond. OK, you've got the ecological balance to your liking, and you're happy with your drinking water. Now have somebody come and dump their toilet right over your water intake. Does that change things? Regards Doug King And this over a time when park people made boaters ever more unwelcome. Many fewer boats these days than ten years ago. But clams are still plentiful. Something done 'em in. But somehow, I don't think it was sewage discharge from recreational boats. (It's those 22-footers with a girl sticking her bottom out over the stern you have to look out for anyway. Pretty picture.) |
|
"DSK" wrote
If you like analogies, here's one for you... The only water supply you have is a pond. It has a certain amount of things already living in it. It also has a group of people dumping their toilet into it. How large do you want that pond to be? How much of it's shoreline should be wetlands or marsh? You could hypothesize an 8 foot tide if you like, but that will just move the crap around within the pond. OK, you've got the ecological balance to your liking, and you're happy with your drinking water. Now have somebody come and dump their toilet right over your water intake. Does that change things? Unfortunately, that describes most the world. The Potomac starts above Cumberland, Md and every town along the way dumps its sewage into it. Ditto all the other rivers feeding the bay. By the time it reaches tidal Va the once-sandy bottom is mud - except it isn't mud it's fecal material. The Rappahannoc is better cuz Fredricksburg bought up the shore above town back in the 1800s to preserve their drinking water so it don't become a sewer til downstream. We pass expensive laws that cut pollution but then in a few years the population gets bigger and we're right back where we started. The "enviro" that gets me is the one that wants to save the environment for his four kids. I don't mind dumping near his intake - I gotta dump somewhere - but I do use a lectrosan. |
Someone one in this thread or another similar said that you might as well
empty you holdingtank at sea. If you pump out in a marina it gets dumped in the sea anyway. Is that really the case in the U.S.? Does not it not get treated first to remove both bacteria and nutrients? /Lars J |
Lars Johansson wrote:
Someone one in this thread or another similar said that you might as well empty you holdingtank at sea. Only well away from shore...in the US, that means only in open ocean at least 3 miles from the nearest point on the whole US coastline. If you pump out in a marina it gets dumped in the sea anyway. Is that really the case in the U.S.? Does not it not get treated first to remove both bacteria and nutrients? Yes...it goes to a sewage treatment plant. All sewage treatment plants everywhere empty into some body of water--lake, river, ocean. However, unfortunately in many cases heavy rains do result in overflow spills of untreated sewage into the waters. -- Peggie ---------- Peggie Hall Specializing in marine sanitation since 1987 Author "Get Rid of Boat Odors - A Guide To Marine Sanitation Systems and Other Sources of Aggravation and Odor" http://www.seaworthy.com/store/custo...0&cat=6&page=1 |
Peggie Hall wrote: Only well away from shore...in the US, that means only in open ocean at least 3 miles from the nearest point on the whole US coastline. Peggie: why not explain about the sections of US coastline w/nine mile limit? thanks, CKW BTW: http://www.cs-bb.com/forums/CSBB/index.cgi/read/11888 |
captkeywest wrote:
Peggie Hall wrote: Only well away from shore...in the US, that means only in open ocean at least 3 miles from the nearest point on the whole US coastline. Peggie: why not explain about the sections of US coastline w/nine mile limit? Only one place in the whole country: the Gulf coast side of FL south of Tampa Bay...and the legal distances there actually vary from 6 to 9 to 12 miles. Which makes a Lectra/San even more attractive in those waters 'cuz it can be used inside any limit (except in the Keys and Destin Harbor, which are the only two "no discharge" zones in FL on either side--in fact, the only ones in the whole Gulf). Have you started your pumpout boat service yet? -- Peggie ---------- Peggie Hall Specializing in marine sanitation since 1987 Author "Get Rid of Boat Odors - A Guide To Marine Sanitation Systems and Other Sources of Aggravation and Odor" http://www.seaworthy.com/store/custo...0&cat=6&page=1 |
Peggie Hall wrote: Have you started your pumpout boat service yet? LOL, -- thought I was being nice ! Didn't mean to prompt you into tossing out your integrity with that type of response, How does it feel to lower yourself to Jax's caliber of fabricated innuendo? |
captkeywest wrote: Peggie Hall wrote: Have you started your pumpout boat service yet? LOL, -- thought I was being nice ! Didn't mean to prompt you into tossing out your integrity with that type of response, How does it feel to lower yourself to Jax's caliber of fabricated innuendo? There was no innuendo intended... I really did think you planned to do that. There's certainly nothing wrong with running a mobile pumpout service...they can be very profitable in heavily populated ND waters. But your reaction makes it very obvious I was mistaken...sorry! -- Peggie ---------- Peggie Hall Specializing in marine sanitation since 1987 Author "Get Rid of Boat Odors - A Guide To Marine Sanitation Systems and Other Sources of Aggravation and Odor" http://www.seaworthy.com/store/custo...0&cat=6&page=1 |
"Peggie Hall" wrote in message ... captkeywest wrote: Peggie Hall wrote: Have you started your pumpout boat service yet? LOL, -- thought I was being nice ! Didn't mean to prompt you into tossing out your integrity with that type of response, How does it feel to lower yourself to Jax's caliber of fabricated innuendo? There was no innuendo intended... I really did think you planned to do that. There's certainly nothing wrong with running a mobile pumpout service...they can be very profitable in heavily populated ND waters. But your reaction makes it very obvious I was mistaken...sorry! -- Peggie Oh, Peggie, don't take it so hard. I'm sure it was all his mistake. You're never mistaken ;-) |
Peggie Hall wrote:
I really did think you planned to do that. I have NEVER had or REMOTELY EXPRESSED that intention. The truth is I have NO DESIRE WHATSOEVER to own ANY business in the Keys. The Cost of Living has crippled the local workforce. I shun the concept of being an employer in the Keys, been there done that. There's certainly nothing wrong with running a mobile pumpout service...they can be very profitable in heavily populated ND waters. Agree with nothing wrong with running mobile pumpout service. I don't think the Keys fit the definition of heavily populated to that extent: AFAIK (As Far As I Know) there are two pumpout boats in the Keys, one in Key West and one in Marathon, both are run by municipalities. Its been a more than a year probably closer to two or three since my last conversation with one of the city marina managers on pumpout issues. The complaint then, was yes; the Grant money helps pay for the _equipment_. (The City owns its own marina but a private individual would also be burdened with slip rent) . In the revenue vs expense arena the expense of staffing the pumpout vessel, Even ONE fulltime operator working 40 hrs exceeds the revenue. It was the marina managers assertion that Grants should be available to help STAFF the service! On Municiple Sewage Dumping, Letter to the Editor, from todays Key West Citizen: --------------------------------------------------- New law would protect clean water In a time when so many of our environmental protections are being weakened, your readers should know that some of their leaders in Washington are standing up for clean water in Florida. The Bush administration in Washington has a plan to allow publicly-owned sewage treatment plants to dump untreated sewage in our waters anytime it rains, which would be disastrous for tourism, fishing, and public health. Congressional Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen took a stand against this backward-thinking idea, and The Clean Water Network would like to thank her and ask others to do the same. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen joined 134 other members of Congress, including 17 other Florida Congressional Representatives, and Florida Senators Bill Nelson and Mel Martinez, in signing a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency opposing this policy. We applaud her leadership in protecting public health, our economy and our waters. Now congressional leader Rep. Clay Shaw from Ft. Lauderdale has introduced the "Save Our Waters from Sewage Act," to try to stop EPA from moving forward with its sewage dumping policy. Please take time to thank Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and encourage her to co-sponsor this important legislation. Linda L. Young Southeast Regional Director Clean Water Network Tallahassee ------------------------------------------------------------------- source of above: http://www.keysnews.com/letterstoeditor.bsp.htm and last, but not least ! my concerns on the Keys NDZ side with some of the other posters who expressed concern about nutrient loading issues. As boaters we should be the First Line of Defense in trying to Sustain clean waters. When we fail to control nutrient damage: One Coral Researchers view on the front page of this weeks Solaries Hill: http://www.keysnews.com/weeklys/solareshill.pdf -- Peggie ---------- Peggie Hall Specializing in marine sanitation since 1987 Author "Get Rid of Boat Odors - A Guide To Marine Sanitation Systems and Other Sources of Aggravation and Odor" http://www.seaworthy.com/store/custo...0&cat=6&page=1 |
"captkeywest" wrote in message oups.com... Peggie Hall wrote: I really did think you planned to do that. I have NEVER had or REMOTELY EXPRESSED that intention. The truth is I have NO DESIRE WHATSOEVER to own ANY business in the Keys. The Cost of Living has crippled the local workforce. I shun the concept of being an employer in the Keys, been there done that. There's certainly nothing wrong with running a mobile pumpout service...they can be very profitable in heavily populated ND waters. Agree with nothing wrong with running mobile pumpout service. I don't think the Keys fit the definition of heavily populated to that extent: AFAIK (As Far As I Know) there are two pumpout boats in the Keys, one in Key West and one in Marathon, both are run by municipalities. Its been a more than a year probably closer to two or three since my last conversation with one of the city marina managers on pumpout issues. The complaint then, was yes; the Grant money helps pay for the _equipment_. (The City owns its own marina but a private individual would also be burdened with slip rent) . In the revenue vs expense arena the expense of staffing the pumpout vessel, Even ONE fulltime operator working 40 hrs exceeds the revenue. It was the marina managers assertion that Grants should be available to help STAFF the service! snipped some Good to see somebody else pointing out how clueless Peggie Hall is. She's been too long sitting on her ass satisfied with mother-henning all the mindless drones here who worship her outdated understanding of clean water in places other than her pathetic little lake. A tip of the full-to-the-brim cedar bucket to ya! CN |
Capt. Neal® wrote:
Good to see somebody else pointing out DO NOT FEED THE TROLL |
This discussion has set me thinking about what is the final products of the LectraSan. If it does electrolysis of sodium chloride, there is bound to be production of sodium hypochlorite which creates environmental problems of it own (when used for bleacing paper, for example). When sodium hypchlorite reacts with organic matter, some toxic organochlorines are formed. Does anyone know if this potential problem has been investigated? -- C++: The power, elegance and simplicity of a hand grenade. |
|
Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen wrote:
This discussion has set me thinking about what is the final products of the LectraSan. If it does electrolysis of sodium chloride... It does not. The Lectra/San creates hypochlorous acid by charging the ions in salt water with electrical current. It's a very unstable solution...it's hypochlorous acid as long as current is being applied...but when the stimulus (electrical current) is removed it reverts to salt water, leaving no free chlorines in the discharge. Does anyone know if this potential problem has been investigated? Extensively...your concerns are unfounded. -- Peggie ---------- Peggie Hall Specializing in marine sanitation since 1987 Author "Get Rid of Boat Odors - A Guide To Marine Sanitation Systems and Other Sources of Aggravation and Odor" http://www.seaworthy.com/store/custo...0&cat=6&page=1 |
Strange. By their own words, they definitely do elctrolysis of sodium
chloride (snipped from raritan web site): The process starts with salt water in the treatment tank. NaCl -- Na+ + Cl- Sodium Chloride is a strong electrolyte so it exists in water as sodium and chloride ions. H2O -- H+ + OH- Through hydrolysis, water breaks into hydrogen ions and hydroxyl ions. The electrode pack is energized during the treatment cycle and electricity passes through the conductive salt water. Hypochlorous acid, a powerful bactericide and oxidizing agent, is produced on the surface of the plates. At the Anode: 2Cl- + OH- + H+ -- HCl + HOCl + 2e- Hydrochloric acid and hypochlorous acid are produced, liberating two electrons. At the Cathode: 2e- + 2 H+ + 2Na+ + 2OH- -- 2 NaOH + H2 The two electrons, hydrogen ions, sodium ions and hydroxyl ions combine to produce sodium hydroxide and some hydrogen. The Net Reaction is: 2Cl- + 3OH- + 3H+ + 2Na+ -- HCl + HOCl + 2NaOH + H2 With constant mixing from both motors, the products are mixed together for continued reactions. NaOCl + H2O -- NaOH + HOCl Hypochlorous acid (HOCl) is formed when sodium hypochlorite reacts with water. HOCl + XXXX -- HCl + XXXXOx Hypochlorous acid reacts with soil, dirt, and bacteria giving up its oxygen; leaving hydrochloric acid. HCl + NaOH -- H2O + NaCl The hydrochloric acid reacts with the sodium hydroxide to form salt and water. The usual explanation of reactions in a sodium chloride cell is this, and I wonder how they make the reactions above happen instead of the ones below. Sodium hypochlorite/chlorate manufacturing process: Electrochemical and chemical reactions occurring in cells [1] 2Cl- == Cl2 + 2e- (anodic reaction) [7] 2H2O + 2e- == 2OH- + H2 (cathodic reaction) [8] Cl2 + 2OH- == OCl- + Cl- + H2O (hypochlorite formation) [9] 3OCl- == ClO3- + 2Cl- (chlorate formation) [12] NaCl + H2O == NaOCl + H2 (overall hypochlorite reaction) [13] NaCl + 3H2O == NaClO3 + 3H2 (overall chlorate reaction) [14] 3Cl2 + 6NaOH == NaClO3 + 5NaCl + 3H2O (chemical chlorate formation) -- C++: The power, elegance and simplicity of a hand grenade. |
Here is another view on the system (from a competitor, it seems :-)
http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache...chlorine&hl=nl "PH" == Peggie Hall writes: PH Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen wrote: This discussion has set me thinking about what is the final products of the LectraSan. If it does electrolysis of sodium chloride... PH It does not. The Lectra/San creates hypochlorous acid by charging the PH ions in salt water with electrical current. It's a very unstable PH solution...it's hypochlorous acid as long as current is being PH applied...but when the stimulus (electrical current) is removed it PH reverts to salt water, leaving no free chlorines in the discharge. Does anyone know if this potential problem has been investigated? PH Extensively...your concerns are unfounded. PH -- PH Peggie PH ---------- PH Peggie Hall PH Specializing in marine sanitation since 1987 PH Author "Get Rid of Boat Odors - A Guide To Marine Sanitation Systems PH and Other Sources of Aggravation and Odor" PH http://www.seaworthy.com/store/custo...0&cat=6&page=1 -- C++: The power, elegance and simplicity of a hand grenade. |
Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen wrote:
Here is another view on the system (from a competitor, it seems :-) http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache...chlorine&hl=nl A former competitor whose Type I MSD--the SeaLand SanX, which requires the use of a formaldehyde based chemical, and barely treats to legal standards was finally discontinued a couple of years ago. It's not just the Lectra/San he lobbies against...it's the use of ANY treatment device. Because the SeaLand device is the most environmentally UNfriendly any Type I treatment device could be, he became a committed advocate of universal "no discharge" in an effort defeat pending new legislation that would have reduced the allowable bacteria count in the discharge from treatment devices from it's current level of 1,000/100 ml to 10/100 ml (which the SeaLand device could not come close to meeting, but the Lectra/San does) and allowed the discharge of treated waste from devices that met the new standard in all coastal waters including those designated "no discharge." McKiernan was determined to defeat it rather than risk losing sales of holding tanks to competitors' treatment devices. I suggest you also read this: http://www.raritaneng.com/pdf_files/...20Response.pdf -- Peggie ---------- Peggie Hall Specializing in marine sanitation since 1987 Author "Get Rid of Boat Odors - A Guide To Marine Sanitation Systems and Other Sources of Aggravation and Odor" http://www.seaworthy.com/store/custo...0&cat=6&page=1 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:28 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com