Check out some similar questions!

hkstroud · Sep 27, 2009, 08:07 AM

Originally Posted by Widdershins

Two pressurized bladder tanks will always be fighting for supremacy

Maybe that's what I'm missing. Can you explain or tell me why?

jlisenbe · Sep 27, 2009, 01:20 PM

I'm not following that either. Again, not to be argumentative. I think HK is suggesting that the tank with the higher pressure would not seem to be in a position to "bother" the other tank as the checkvalve should not allow that to happen. But I am also not in a position to argue it and the guy with the experience is saying it will happen, regardless of checkvalves.

Wid, when you say, "If this were a system I was designing, I would put a storage tank with a ballcock assembly and booster tank in one or the other of the dwellings", are you referring to a booster pump?

speedball1 · Sep 28, 2009, 06:04 AM

OK guys, Would this work? Disconnect the ultra violet unit and the house bladder tank.
Now install a large bladder tank and the ultra violet unit just upstream from the pump. Install two check valves upstream fron the UV and bladder tank, One for each service. We now have one pump, UV unit and a bladder/pressure tank supplying two separate and isolated systems. No conflict between two bladder tanks and Ron, I even included the UV unit you were so concerned about. Steve, (widdershins) does that work for you? Tom

jlisenbe · Sep 28, 2009, 10:01 AM

I'm not concerned about the UV unit. They are using it, so I am assuming they have some need for it, which would make them concerned about it.

I have never heard of Steve's concern about pressure "pulses" between two tanks, even though there are checkvalves in place. However, he seems to have some pretty valid experience to back that up. Other than that, SB's idea would seem to be pretty good. One main tank would be controlled by one switch and would simply feed the other two tanks. I'm not sure why you would need to disconnect anything. You are suggesting: pump to tank to UV unit to church/house, which is already what they have. So, I'm not clear on the need to move everything just to get it all a little closer to the pump.

Now, the homeowner no longer seems to be following this thread, so we seem to be having an academic discussion of this. I enjoy reading what you guys have to say about it.

speedball1 · Sep 28, 2009, 11:30 AM

One main tank would be controlled by one switch and would simply feed the other two tanks.

not quite what I suggested. What I said was, "install a large bladder tank and the ultra violet unit just upstream from the pump. Install two check valves upstream fron the UV and bladder tank, One for each service. We now have one pump, UV unit and a bladder/pressure tank supplying two separate and isolated systems. No conflict between two bladder tanks.

You are suggesting: pump to tank to UV unit to church/house, which is already what they have

And this time you're bang on! The only difference being that they would increase the size of the bladder tank to accommodate the draw on both buildings and a check valve on each service to isolate both systems. The way they have it now is one system serving both buildings. I want to make it into one pump, bladder/pressure tank and the UV unit serving both systems which then supply the house and church. I'm not a pump guy so I need opinions and criticisms . In my area it's a separate trade but every once in a while we're forced to check out a pump simply because we're on site. But common sense should prevail here. If Widdershins says the two tanks will "ping-pong" back and forth thus causing the check valves to flutter then I believe him. So let's get by with one large tank for both units. Comments?? Tom

hkstroud · Sep 28, 2009, 03:47 PM

Yes, we seem to have lost Waterboy. I'd still like to know if this occurs all the time or just when the pressure is at the low end of the scale. We don't even know what pressures the pump is operating at. Could be as low as 20-40. Also like to know pipe sizes where church is tied in. The pressure (and the flow) could be so low that all the water would simply rather go to church than go upstairs.

Widdershins · Sep 28, 2009, 07:11 PM

Originally Posted by hkstroud

Yes, we seem to have lost Waterboy. I'd still like to know if this occurs all the time or just when the pressure is at the low end of the scale. We don't even know what pressures the pump is operating at. Could be as low as 20-40. Also like to know pipe sizes where church is tied in. The pressure (and the flow) could be so low that all the water would simply rather go to church than go upstairs.

I can see losing volume at the uppermost terminal, even in a closed pressurized system, but losing pressure is an altogether matter.

It would be interesting to find out what the distance is between the two dwellings -- Not 'as the crow flies' distance, but actual linear feet.

Also, the more I think about this, the more I wonder if pressure isn't being bled off in a worn ballcock or dripping faucet in a lower WC in the Church.

hkstroud · Sep 28, 2009, 07:55 PM

Seventy five (75) from house to church, but we don't know anything about pipe sizes. Well is 160 from house. We don't know anything about pressure settings or pump volume. We really don't know enough about when it happens. Could be it only happens when running on pump only. Pump might be delivering only 1 or 2 gallons per minute.

speedball1 · Sep 29, 2009, 05:00 AM

Any comments on my solution? If I'm wrong somewhere I'd like to know where. AMHD is a learning precess for me in some areas, especially about the newer stuff,
So if I've made a error I'd be happy if someone pointed it out. Regards, Tom

jlisenbe · Sep 29, 2009, 07:02 AM

Your solution sounds good to me, although I think it might be one tank too many. I think I would tend to simply run the house off the large tank and feed a second tank, separated by a checkvalve as you have indicated. But then that would be the very solution that the homeowner's plumber rejected to begin with, so you might be 100% on target.

speedball1 · Sep 29, 2009, 07:12 AM

I think it might be one tank too many.

I suggested one large bladder/pressure tank fro both buildings.

they would increase the size of the bladder tank to accommodate the draw on both buildings and a check valve on each service to isolate both systems. The way they have it now is one system serving both buildings. I want to make it into one pump, bladder/pressure tank and the UV unit serving both systems which then supply the house and church.

This is not the set up the plumber rejected.
His objection was using two tanks on the same system. Regards , Tom

jlisenbe · Sep 29, 2009, 10:48 AM

"I suggested one large bladder/pressure tank for both buildings." True, but since there are two checkvalves after the large tank, I assumed you had an additional tank in the house as well as a third in the church. Otherwise, two checkvalves would not be needed. Perhaps I misunderstood.

My point is simply this: If indeed you are suggesting a large tank to feed into two smaller tanks, why not just feed into one smaller tank at the church and let the large tank feed the house?

What I said about the plumber originally not liking an idea, I was referring to my idea of two tanks, not your idea of three.

speedball1 · Sep 29, 2009, 12:53 PM

I don't know where you get the idea that I'm suggesting three or even two tanks. I've repeated said, "I suggested one large bladder/pressure tank fro both buildings.
they would increase the size of the bladder tank to accommodate the draw on both buildings and a check valve on each service to isolate both systems. The way they have it now is one system serving both buildings. I want to make it into one pump, bladder/pressure tank and the UV unit serving both systems which then supply the house and church."
Regards, Tom

jlisenbe · Sep 29, 2009, 02:38 PM

"Now install a large bladder tank and the ultra violet unit just upstream from the pump. Install two check valves upstream fron the UV and bladder tank, One for each service. We now have one pump, UV unit and a bladder/pressure tank supplying two separate and isolated systems."

That's the part (bold) I'm not getting. If there is only one pressure tank, what is the point of check valves? There would obviously be one between the tank and the well, but why would you need checkvalves between the tank and the house/church if there are no tanks in the house or the church? What kind of backflow would the checkvalves be preventing?

I actually think your proposal is the most simple and common-sense idea, but I'm puzzled at the need for multiple checkvalves. The person's original problem was this: "When a toilet in the church is flushed, the pressure in the second floor bathroom of the house drops to near zero." How will your checkvalves and isolated systems prevent that? When the toilet is flushed, the pressure on the second floor will, it seems to me, drop just as it did before. A hundred checkvalves will not prevent that.

speedball1 · Sep 29, 2009, 05:15 PM

Somehow I must be doing something wrong here because I'm not getting my point across. I don't know! I've laid it out for you so many times that the last few I've just coppied and pasted what I had posted earilier.
Let me give it one more shot.
Materials= One pump and control, one large bladder/pressure tank, a UV Unit if desired and two check valves.
Disconnect the house bladder tank and UV Unit. You'll have the pump pressuring the new tank up to the desired PSI which will be contained in the bladder/pressure tank by the check valves until a draw is made from the house or the church. You now have two systems, (the house and the church) being supplied by the pump and the pressure maintained by the tank. Someone in the church flushes the john and the ballcock begins to fill opening up the check valve supplying the fill water. Toilet tank's filled, ballcock shuts down and the check valve closes. Now someone in the house takes a long shower. The house check valve opens up to supply the water, but the large draw takes the pressure down to where the pump kicks in to bring the pressure bach up to the cut off point. Shower's over and the house check valve closes to bring us backto the starting point. We now have the pump shut off and pressure in the tank just waiting for a draw from either system. That's my solution. I'll now take your concerns one by one.
1)

What kind of backflow would the checkvalves be preventing?

The check valves are there to isolate the two systems. (I think this is where I lost you) They aren't there to prevent backflow from either the house or the church. They are there to contain the pressure in the large bladder/pressure tank until a draw is made by either system. One pump and pressure tank feeding two systems.
2)

My point is simply this: If indeed you are suggesting a large tank to feed into two smaller tanks, why not just feed into one smaller tank at the church and let the large tank feed the house?

Forget the two maller tanks already! I don't know where you got that idea I was using more then just one large tank.
3)

The person's original problem was this: "When a toilet in the church is flushed, the pressure in the second floor bathroom of the house drops to near zero." How will your checkvalves and isolated systems prevent that? When the toilet is flushed, the pressure on the second floor will, it seems to me, drop just as it did before. A hundred checkvalves will not prevent that.

The reason you had a pressure fluctuation was because the house and the church were all on one system. By isolating the systems wth check valves flushing a toilet in the church wouldn't affect the house system. Things a bit clearer now? Rrgards, Tom

jlisenbe · Sep 29, 2009, 05:45 PM

Yes. I think it's clear... we don't agree. Here's why.

A toilet is flushed in the church, so water begins flowing through check valve #1. A faucet is opened on the second floor of the house just seconds later. Check valve #2 opens to supply water to the second floor faucet, so the systems are now as UNisolated as it gets. So, with both check valves open, and the two systems connected just as though there were no checkvalves (since they are both open), the draw of the toilet reduces pressure to the point that the second floor faucet now gets greatly reduced volume. Won't the man will have the same problem he described in his first post. As far as I am aware, the only purpose of a check valve is to prevent backflow. Putting checkvalves between the tank and the house, then between the tank and the church, will not contain pressure in the tank at all. IF you don't believe that, then try flushing the toilet in the church. What happens? The valve opens and water flows. Turn on the second floor faucet. What happens? Water flows through the check valve. The only valve to contain pressure in the tank is the one between the tank and pump. How? It will not allow water to flow back to the pump under any circumstances. From what you have posted so far, I don't think you will have improved the situation.

Now, you asked for comments, so I have stated mine. I could be wrong, always open to that chance. But you need to explain how the two checkvalves will improve the second floor pressure when BOTH the church and the second floor are using water at the same time.

BTW, you stated, "They are there to contain the pressure in the large bladder/pressure tank". Contain the pressure against what? It just seems to me that if no demand is made for water, the checkvalves serve no purpose since water would not flow anyway. Then, if water is drawn, the valve opens and behaves as though it's not even there. Either way, you could remove the checkvalve and never notice it. And when both the house and the church need water, both valves will be open, and therefore be no more functional than a pipe. They only come into play when water try's to flow backwards. They "check" the backflow. Now, I'm open to seeing where I'm wrong, but again, you need to explain how your two valves improve matters when BOTH the church and the house are using water at the same time.

jlisenbe · Sep 29, 2009, 06:04 PM

One thought. Would it profit the man to put a PRV valve on both systems? That way you could limit the pressure to the church. Even when both the house and the church needed water, the church water use would not deplete pressure so much. I say that because it seems to me that what you are describing sounds more like something to limit pressure to the church. The checkvalve, so far as I know, will not do that. It simply opens in response to demand, and then closes with no demand or to stop backflow. I'm not real familiar with the PRVs, but limiting pressure to the church might leave sufficient system pressure to give a better flow to the second floor. Maybe??

speedball1 · Sep 29, 2009, 06:12 PM

you need to explain how the two checkvalves will improve the second floor pressure when BOTH the church and the second floor are using water at the same time.

Good question! Have you ever seen two or three houses bring fed off one pump? Increasing the size of the pressure tank acts as a storage tank for both units. Did you think that flushing a toilet in the church and taking a bath in the house would draw down a 80 or 100 gallon pressure tank so it would run out of water especially when the pump kicks in to replace the pressure loss?

Putting checkvalves between the tank and the house, then between the tank and the church, will not contain pressure in the tank at all.

Are you thinking I meant anything else then teeing off the pressure tank into two check valves?
Check valves don't contain pressure, huh? Whadda you call that thing located just downstream from the pump that stops the pressure from bleeding back into the well if not a check valve? Works both ways you know. That's what check valves do.
OK! Now let's have your solution. It's been fun but I'm kicking back. See you in the morning. Have a good one. Tom

jlisenbe · Sep 29, 2009, 06:28 PM

Come on, SB. We both know that the size of the tank is not this man's problem. Read his post. He stated, "When a toilet in the church is flushed, the pressure in the second floor bathroom of the house drops to near zero". Are you suggesting that the toilet being flushed is running the tank out of water? He could have a million gallon tank and the problem would still be there.

"Whadda ya call that thing located just downstream from the pump that stops the pressure from bleeding back into the well if not a check valve? Works both ways ya know." I call that thing a checkvalve, and as I stated earlier, it does its job by being a one way gate, just like all checkvalves. It prevents water from flowing back to the well. That is all your two checkvalves will ever do in this system... prevent backflow.

SB, I always hold my breath when I disagree with you. I'll be the first person to admit that you have forgotten more about plumbing than I'll ever know. However, in this case I am 100% convinced you are wrong. So, I'll ask you again. When both the house and the church are using water, how do your two checkvalves improve the man's situation? I asked that question above, and your reply concerned the size of the tank, not the function of the two checkvalves.

As to my solution, I'd at least consider the PRV to the church. If the church is even slightly downhill from the house, then the second floor can present a 8 or 12# pound pressure differential relative to the church. If the tank averages 40#, and considering the pressure loss on the system when the toilet is flushed, then I can well imagine the second floor being a problem. Which is why, of course, everyone first jumped on the idea of a second tank for the church.

I'm beginning to believe you're yanking my chain! Have a good night. See you tomorrow.

speedball1 · Sep 30, 2009, 04:06 AM

Damm but I hate to eat crow for breakfast! I'm setting in my recliner at midnight following the two buildiong layout in my head and suddenly it hit me. Geeze! Jlisenbe's right! They don't make a check valve that will contain pressure and then open up when a draw's being made. Looked good in my head, (maybe bI oughtta it examined) when I laid it out. But I was a foreman and if I think I'm right I don't back down from anybody. But when you're wrong you're wrong! And I was wrong!
Yeah! I was jerking your chain a bit in one of my posts but you stuck to your guns and I admire that. My way would have worked so neat if only they made a check valve that contained pressure and then opened to allow a draw.
So I owe you a apology for busting yo chops over this. One more time. You were right and I was wrong and I really hate to start the day out like this. Like I confessed in a earlier post, "I'm no pump guy and my arguments just proved it!
Sorry jlisenbe! Next time I'll engage brain before I engage keyboard. Tom