Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 03-18-2016, 11:21 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
mixman's Avatar
 
City: Baltimore
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Deuce
Vessel Model: Motorcat MC30
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeadMistress View Post
Raritan's "hold 'n' treat" system makes it possible to empty (note that I said "empty," not "dump") a tank legally inside the 3 mile limit wherever the discharge of treated waste is legal.
Which, to me, brings up the question of why is there any such thing as a "No Discharge Zone". The Clean Water Act from 1972 covered all this stuff. I put a Type I in my 30' power cat years ago because the alternative was pumping out. Then, a truck came to the marina and transported the waste to the local treatment plant that is well known for dumping RAW waste into the same body of water my boat is in. Go figure!

Why have cities been built on or very near water forever? Not for fresh water. Not for shipping. For getting rid of poop!

The dirty little secrets.... :-)
__________________
Advertisement

__________________
--Kurt
2002 Motorcat MC30 "Deuce"
18 knot cruise at 7gph real-time rate.
Gulfstar 36 MKII - 1976 - Work in progress
mixman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2016, 11:29 PM   #22
Guru
 
HopCar's Avatar


 
City: Miami Florida
Vessel Name: Possum
Vessel Model: Ellis 28
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 3,489
Why are there no discharge zones? Ignorant politicians.
__________________

__________________
Parks Masterson
www.hopkins-carter.com
HopCar is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2016, 11:40 PM   #23
Guru
 
Hawgwash's Avatar
 
City: Sidney
Country: Canada
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by mixman;
...dumping RAW waste into the same body of water my boat is in. Go figure!Why have cities been built on or very near water forever? Not for fresh water. Not for shipping. For getting rid of poop!The dirty little secrets.... :-)
Staying at The Little Inn At The Bay in Newport CA once and there was a duck swimming in the pool. Guy got all huffy about it "messing" in the pool. When I said the duck was just getting even for us crapping in his pool forever, he got even huffier. Maybe he was one of Hopcars ignorant politicians.
Hawgwash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2016, 11:56 PM   #24
Guru
 
HeadMistress's Avatar


 
City: AR
Country: USA
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,186
...why is there any such thing as a "No Discharge Zone". The Clean Water Act from 1972 covered all this stuff.

It was actually the 1978 version of the CWA that gave us marine sanitation laws, but I'm just nitpicking... To answer your question...

Because a) politicians need to be perceived as "doing something" so they pander to their base...and b) because Americans have a history of deciding that if there's a law on the books that isn't being enforced, the answer is a new law (that won't be enforced any better).

I've always considered it the ultimate irony that the very DAY RI's statewide NDZ law went into effect, a massive sewage treatment plant spill in Providence closed all the shellfish beds and beaches at that end of Narragansett Bay for at least two weeks.
__________________
© 2017 Peggie Hall
Specializing in marine sanitation since '87.
Author "The NEW Get Rid of Boat Odors"
HeadMistress is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2016, 12:13 AM   #25
Guru
 
dhays's Avatar
 
City: Gig Harbor
Country: United States
Vessel Name: Kinship
Vessel Model: North Pacific 43
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 5,076
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawgwash View Post
Your book, Peggy, has all manner of odors covered? Not just heads, right?

Maybe even mod after party odors?

I'll order one and challenge others to do the same if only because you are so generous with your help and knowledge, here.
It is well worth the very modest cost. You will not be sorry!
__________________
Regards,

Dave
SPOT page
dhays is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2016, 12:20 AM   #26
Guru
 
dhays's Avatar
 
City: Gig Harbor
Country: United States
Vessel Name: Kinship
Vessel Model: North Pacific 43
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 5,076
Careful this thread doesn't decend into the abyss of ecological/political sewage treatment discussions.

But it can be fun.
__________________
Regards,

Dave
SPOT page
dhays is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2016, 12:22 AM   #27
Guru
 
dhays's Avatar
 
City: Gig Harbor
Country: United States
Vessel Name: Kinship
Vessel Model: North Pacific 43
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 5,076
So if I was to add a Purasan to an existing system, I would need to buy a Purasan and a hold n treat control system. What else? Do I need to get a transfer pump to go from the holding tank to the Purasan? Do you need another thruhull for the Purasan output?
__________________
Regards,

Dave
SPOT page
dhays is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2016, 12:35 AM   #28
TF Site Team
 
ksanders's Avatar
 
City: SEWARD ALASKA
Country: USA
Vessel Name: LISAS WAY
Vessel Model: BAYLINER 4788
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by dhays View Post
So if I was to add a Purasan to an existing system, I would need to buy a Purasan and a hold n treat control system. What else? Do I need to get a transfer pump to go from the holding tank to the Purasan? Do you need another thruhull for the Purasan output?
Yes, you need a macerator pump to move the waste to the purasan


No you do not need another through hull if you already have one for your macerator.

Tank-macerator-purasan-overboard.
__________________
Kevin Sanders
Bayliner 4788
Seward, Alaska
www.mvlisasway.com
ksanders is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2016, 01:38 AM   #29
Guru
 
dhays's Avatar
 
City: Gig Harbor
Country: United States
Vessel Name: Kinship
Vessel Model: North Pacific 43
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 5,076
Thanks Kevin!
__________________
Regards,

Dave
SPOT page
dhays is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2016, 08:39 AM   #30
Guru
 
psneeld's Avatar
 
City: Avalon, NJ
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Freedom
Vessel Model: Albin 40
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 15,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by mixman View Post
Which, to me, brings up the question of why is there any such thing as a "No Discharge Zone". The Clean Water Act from 1972 covered all this stuff. I put a Type I in my 30' power cat years ago because the alternative was pumping out. Then, a truck came to the marina and transported the waste to the local treatment plant that is well known for dumping RAW waste into the same body of water my boat is in. Go figure!

Why have cities been built on or very near water forever? Not for fresh water. Not for shipping. For getting rid of poop!

The dirty little secrets.... :-)
Think about all the bacteria that make it from shower water right out the thru hull from the shower drain. Yep .....and based on some boaters, reaching and cleaning certain parts of their body well before they reach the shower is doubtful.

Or, certain clothing washed in an onboard washer......

Or hands washed in a sink after changing diapers....

I could go on.....but seeing how rediculous this all is unless every boater is a germophobe....

Keeping bacteria out of the water should be everyone's best effort ....but will ultimately lt be less than perfect without major changes to even gray water laws.
psneeld is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2016, 10:03 AM   #31
Art
Guru
 
Art's Avatar
 
City: SF Bay Area
Country: USA
Vessel Model: Tollycraft 34' Tri Cabin
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 7,979
Quote:
Originally Posted by psneeld View Post
Think about all the bacteria that make it from shower water right out the thru hull from the shower drain. Yep .....and based on some boaters, reaching and cleaning certain parts of their body well before they reach the shower is doubtful.

Or, certain clothing washed in an onboard washer......

Or hands washed in a sink after changing diapers....

I could go on.....but seeing how rediculous this all is unless every boater is a germophobe....

Keeping bacteria out of the water should be everyone's best effort ....but will ultimately lt be less than perfect without major changes to even gray water laws.
New Boat Ad:

"Amenity" 34' Trawler

- Twins
- Features a Tow Behind 1,750 gal gray water tank
- Planing hull - 18 knot cruise / 25 knots @ WOT
- With full gray water tank - 6 knot cruise / hull speed @ WOT

Art is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2016, 10:55 AM   #32
Art
Guru
 
Art's Avatar
 
City: SF Bay Area
Country: USA
Vessel Model: Tollycraft 34' Tri Cabin
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 7,979
Our Tolly’s two matching toilets: Raritan Crown Head – Model XCM / Series 0690 / 12 V / Centrifugal Discharge Series

4/15/13: From The Great HeadMistress – on a Trawler Forum post – In answer to my questions about toilet type listed above that is on our 1977 34’ tri cabin Tolly, “The Office”

Your toilet is the Raritan "Crown" Head that's been around for 40 years...Raritan still makes it...the CD version is the current version. Raritan Engineering | Crown Head II™ Electric Toilet
("sleek appearance" is achieved by a plastic shroud wrapped around the base.)

It's prob'ly the only toilet for a work boat--tug, fishing trawler, ferry -- 'cuz it's a real workhorse, but it's also a dinosaur that draws 36 amps (compared to 10-15 for more modern toilets) and uses 1-3 gallons of flush water with each flush AND makes enough noise to wake the dead, making it a bit problematic on recreational boats. If you can live with all that, it's a great toilet. If you can't, you might want to swap out the "lower unit" (everything south of the bowl) for a SeaEra "conversion." Raritan Sea Era Raritan Sea Era Conversion

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Soooo Far… In five years before the above… and… three years since… we’ve had no probs with either head functioning well. Noise bothers us not – cauz – we try to never need to flush at night. And if we should – for that reason! – then we would use the forward head with doors closed between there and rear master stateroom. Big enough House Batt Bank so the large amp draw is no issue.

Regarding the multi gallons per flush mentioned above. Years ago I put readily accessible ball valves in the flush water lines to each toilet. This enables to instantly lower the flow to a trickle or for full-on water flow or for water flow volume anywhere in between. Don’t know exactly – but my guess in only one to a max of four quarts for a #2. Pint or two for #1. I get these guesses by watching the bowls when flushing and by # of flushes before our 30 gal holding tank needs to be evacuated.

Important: If you follow my mode of water saving operation – never let the incoming water get completely shut off while using the flush mechanism. Pump impellers always need at least some water passing while they turn… or else the impeller life-span could become drastically reduced. Water-flow is a basic lubricant to impeller edges as they skim over pump walls.

Happy Tottie-Flush Daze – Art

PS: Peggies new and improved book is a gasssssss! Err, I mean it’s a truly “full-flushed” representation for what human-systems have surely yet to evolve beyond! I strongly recommend purchase, and, have already reviewed it cover to cover. The last section gives a plethora of contacts for all sorts of marine sanitation needs.

Thanks, Peggie!!
Art is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2016, 02:49 PM   #33
Guru
 
HeadMistress's Avatar


 
City: AR
Country: USA
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,186
Our Tolly’s two matching toilets: Raritan Crown Head – Model XCM / Series 0690 / 12 V / Centrifugal Discharge Series

Art, We're talking about two similar but different toilets. XCM is a Crown Head II model, not a Crown.

There have been only three versions of the Crown Head. The original, introduced in 1968, was named the "Standard," which every marine retailer mistakenly assumed was not the model name, but meant the same thing as normal or regular, and so only stocked rebuild kits for it, even long after it had been replaced by the "DD" ("Deep Draft") followed by the "CD" (Centrifugal Discharge) models. The CD, introduced in the late '80s, is still in production.

The Crown II was introduced sometime in the mid-'90s as a response to increased demand for toilets that use onboard pressurized fresh water (it's available in both fresh and raw water versions)...it's really a "first cousin" to the Crown...a good toilet, but not the robust "work horse" the Crown is.
__________________
© 2017 Peggie Hall
Specializing in marine sanitation since '87.
Author "The NEW Get Rid of Boat Odors"
HeadMistress is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2016, 02:58 PM   #34
Guru
 
HeadMistress's Avatar


 
City: AR
Country: USA
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,186
Quote:
Originally Posted by dhays View Post
So if I was to add a Purasan to an existing system, I would need to buy a Purasan and a hold n treat control system. What else? Do I need to get a transfer pump to go from the holding tank to the Purasan? Do you need another thruhull for the Purasan output?
You'd need to add the "hold 'n' treat" controls only if you want to be able to use the PuraSan to empty the tank. In that case, you'd also need a transfer pump, but if you have a macerator pump to dump the tank, you already have one. The PuraSan can use the same thru-hull provided it's installed within the prescribed distance for it, which for most toilets would be no more than 6' from the toilet, no more than 6' from the thru-hull. Those distances can be a bit longer if your toilet is one of the luxury all-china "thrones" that have more powerful pumps capable of moving bowl contents further.
__________________
© 2017 Peggie Hall
Specializing in marine sanitation since '87.
Author "The NEW Get Rid of Boat Odors"
HeadMistress is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2016, 05:22 PM   #35
Art
Guru
 
Art's Avatar
 
City: SF Bay Area
Country: USA
Vessel Model: Tollycraft 34' Tri Cabin
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 7,979
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeadMistress View Post
Our Tolly’s two matching toilets: Raritan Crown Head – Model XCM / Series 0690 / 12 V / Centrifugal Discharge Series

Art, We're talking about two similar but different toilets. XCM is a Crown Head II model, not a Crown.

There have been only three versions of the Crown Head. The original, introduced in 1968, was named the "Standard," which every marine retailer mistakenly assumed was not the model name, but meant the same thing as normal or regular, and so only stocked rebuild kits for it, even long after it had been replaced by the "DD" ("Deep Draft") followed by the "CD" (Centrifugal Discharge) models. The CD, introduced in the late '80s, is still in production.

The Crown II was introduced sometime in the mid-'90s as a response to increased demand for toilets that use onboard pressurized fresh water (it's available in both fresh and raw water versions)...it's really a "first cousin" to the Crown...a good toilet, but not the robust "work horse" the Crown is.
Damn - Peggie. You really are great! I learn more bout "heads" every timed I hear/read items from you!

How do you keep all this important shat together in your head?? LOL

Anyway - Robust is a good word (comforting too, when discussing marine heads). Work Horse is name o' da game for nautical totties and the word Crown tain't nutten ta sneeze at!

We love our goo ol' lectric flushers. No muss no fuss... just a little noise once in a while.
Art is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2016, 07:18 PM   #36
Guru
 
dhays's Avatar
 
City: Gig Harbor
Country: United States
Vessel Name: Kinship
Vessel Model: North Pacific 43
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 5,076
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeadMistress View Post
You'd need to add the "hold 'n' treat" controls only if you want to be able to use the PuraSan to empty the tank. In that case, you'd also need a transfer pump, but if you have a macerator pump to dump the tank, you already have one. The PuraSan can use the same thru-hull provided it's installed within the prescribed distance for it, which for most toilets would be no more than 6' from the toilet, no more than 6' from the thru-hull. Those distances can be a bit longer if your toilet is one of the luxury all-china "thrones" that have more powerful pumps capable of moving bowl contents further.
Thanks Peggy. Great info as usual.
__________________
Regards,

Dave
SPOT page
dhays is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2016, 10:24 AM   #37
Guru
 
ranger42c's Avatar
 
City: Maryland
Country: USA
Vessel Model: 42' Sportfish
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeadMistress View Post
I'm partial to the PuraSan over the ElectroScan for several reasons: it works equally well in salt or fresh water....it costs less...and is easier to maintain. However, if you're always in salt water or go up a fresh water river so seldom that adding salt to each flush while in it wouldn't be a hardship, the ElectroScan can be a better choice because it doesn't need any added chemicals.

Peggie, can I double-check this with you?

Just talked to one of the prospective dealers/installers about a Purasan HNT system (using our existing holding tank), still at the "just getting ballpark numbers" stage, not yet committed to the project for this year. (Wallet issues.)

Anyway, he said in his opinion the ElectroScan is less complicated, and a less complicated installation...

Since we're usually on the Chesapeake, and our toilet is an electric pressurized freshwater flush system anyway...

I'd have thought I'd have to be adding stuff from time to time, no matter what. Chlorine tablets in one, salt in the other, the actual additive doesn't seem to me to make all that much difference in the amount of work I'd have to do occasionally?

Is one or the other system really less complicated, more robust, better, cheaper, etc. for our intended application?

IOW, do you still lean toward the Purasan? Presumably the EX, latest and greatest? I see you specifically mention easier to maintain, and I'm all over that idea! But does that refer to real no-kidding maintenance, or simply the part about keeping it stocked with whichever additive the system needs?

Or...?

-Chris
__________________
South River, Chesapeake Bay
ranger42c is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2016, 10:55 AM   #38
TF Site Team
 
ksanders's Avatar
 
City: SEWARD ALASKA
Country: USA
Vessel Name: LISAS WAY
Vessel Model: BAYLINER 4788
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,952
I'm not in Peggy's realm of knowledge but I'll help explain the components that make up the two different systems.

The electroscan consists of two or three pieces, depending on your installation

1. The treatment unit itself, which is approx 18" X 12" X 18"
2. The controller unit which is approx 6X6X3" and should bolt to a bulkhead.
3. A salt feed unit which in my case is approx 10" in diameter and 18" tall

It works by running a electrical current through saltwater to create a disinfectant chemical. The salt feed unit pumps a salt water mixture into the treatment unit as needed to produce the proper current flow.

The salt feed unit is a known problem area to Raritan. Hopefully they re-designed it, but as shipped from the factory (as of 1 year ago) it does not work reliably. I re-designed the unit and have been thrilled with the results after the factory could not make mine work properly.

The purasan EX unit consists of the following:

1. The treatment unit it itself, same exact size as the electroscan above
2. A controller unit, same approx size as the electroscan
3. A disenfectant holder (don't remember the exact size but small something like 6X6X6" bolts to a bulkhead
4. A air pump for the disenfectant unit

The purasan works just like the electroscan except that it injects a disenfectant solution into the treatment tank (instead of creating disenfectant from salt water) The way this injection process works is that it uses potable water to wet the disenfectant into a solution which is forced into the treatment tank under pressure. The pressure comes from a air pump that pressurizes the disenfectant holding vessel, forcing the disenfectant solution in the proper quantities into the treatment tank.

As to which one is better, that's a big ??? With the electroscan you need to buy salt. I go through a couple 40 pound bags of solar salt a season and spent 60 nights aboard last year. I can buy solar salt anywhere. Lowes sells it for $6.99 a bag. I also spent allot of hours re-engineering their salt feed system so it works reliably.

I do not have any operational time with the new purasan EX, but with the improvements they made over the old unit, it looks pretty Skookum.
__________________
Kevin Sanders
Bayliner 4788
Seward, Alaska
www.mvlisasway.com
ksanders is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2016, 11:17 AM   #39
Guru
 
Hawgwash's Avatar
 
City: Sidney
Country: Canada
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by ksanders;
With the electroscan you need to buy salt. I go through a couple 40 pound bags of solar salt a season and spent 60 nights aboard last year.
Kevin; good description and I don't want to take away from mixman's OP but to someone like me, still trying to figure this whole waste issue, 80 lbs. of salt in 60 nights sounds like a lot. How often do you ad and how many pump outs (not dumps O/B) in those 60 nights?

Man the old days were simple...compass, chart, sounder and a manual head, straight out the side.
Hawgwash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2016, 11:32 AM   #40
Guru
 
HeadMistress's Avatar


 
City: AR
Country: USA
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,186
Anyway, he said in his opinion the ElectroScan is less complicated, and a less complicated installation...

It might be in coastal waters that have a reliable sufficiently high saline content for the ES to work, but not in upper Chesapeake because it's brackish at best, close to fresh after heavy rains. So you'd either have to manually add salt to every flush or install a salt tank, which for your toilet would have to be one that loads with rock salt (Btw, solar salt works best).

Since we're usually on the Chesapeake, and our toilet is an electric pressurized freshwater flush system anyway...

IMO that makes the case for the PuraSan, which was designed for use in fresh water and toilets that use pressurized fresh water, but works equally well in salt water. No electrode pack that needs regular cleaning to remove sea water mineral buildup, just a chlorine cartridge that needs refilling when it runs out. Raritan had some problems with the original chlorine delivery equipment, but they've been solved by the EX version.

I'd have thought I'd have to be adding stuff from time to time, no matter what. Chlorine tablets in one, salt in the other, the actual additive doesn't seem to me to make all that much difference in the amount of work I'd have to do occasionally?

You don't ADD chlorine tablets (I've always thought it was a mistake to call them "tablets" because too many people think the cartridge dispenses "pills" with each flush)..flush water flows through the cartridge and washes enough off them to treat the flush. That cartridge hangs on a bulkhead in the head or in hanging locker behind it...the replacement "tablets" are small. Salt tanks are in the bilge and require hauling a 10 lb bag of rock aboard and climbing into the bilge reload the salt. You decide which is easier.

Is one or the other system really less complicated, more robust, better, cheaper, etc. for our intended application? IOW, do you still lean toward the Purasan?

In your waters, with your toilet, yes.
__________________

__________________
© 2017 Peggie Hall
Specializing in marine sanitation since '87.
Author "The NEW Get Rid of Boat Odors"
HeadMistress is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2006 - 2012