# Watermakers



## TheMadchef (Feb 16, 2010)

Hi all,
Does anyone have any advise about current watermakers that are both affordable & good quality?


----------



## Skipper Jer (Aug 26, 2008)

Affordable is relative. What kind of budget are you talking about? How much water do you need per day? How do you plan to power the unit, DC, off the engine, from the generator, hand powered? Do you have room to mount a self contained unit, or will you have to mount the components around the boat due to limited space?


----------



## TheMadchef (Feb 16, 2010)

Okay I'll narrow it down a bit. Less than 5k & I don't have a genny so DC or engine. and I have plenty of mounting space


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

We assembled our own unit. First I shopped around for a pump, the only really big ticket item in a watermaker. After I found a very lightly used $2500.00 pump online for a bit over $900.00, I could size up all the other parts to fit, staying clear of 'marine' parts, in favor of food grade. Remember this is a high pressure system, cheap brass fittings are not going to be recommended for this; stick to high quality SS.
All in all we saved about $2500 for a 35 gallon per hour unit.
Rich at Cruise RO Water and Technautics is a great source for information (and complete units if you prefer), even if you don't buy from him, but he is also a reliable vendor for any parts you might want.
My suggestion is to get a unit that far surpasses your proposed daily requirements. If you haven't been living aboard for some time, off the dock, you really have no idea how much water you use. IMO, if running a watermaker, it makes much more sense to make 40 gallons an hour 3 hours a week than making ten gallons an hour, 12 hours a week as far as your time invested and rinse water, filter replacement, and membranes, etc. And, having a surplus of water is a real gift, if you just want to take a shower to cool down or wash your stainless on deck.


----------



## aeventyr60 (Jun 29, 2011)

An old thread on DIY water makers here:

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/cruising-liveaboard-forum/84833-suggestions-watermaker-2.html


----------



## argalax (Dec 17, 2012)

As a sailboat cruiser, I really miss fresh water - I am constantly hunting for it. It is THE limiting factor in my cruising plans - it defines how long I stay in a remote anchorage, where I go next, etc.

The existing watermaker technology, for me, is expensive, high maintenance, requires lots of energy and space.

There is another technology - Desalination via Ion Concentration Polarization. And I am not selling anything here! It was developed at MIT in 2010. Comparing to the existing, the solution would cost much less, not require high pressure pump, membranes, or lots of energy.
Just search the Net for it. Here are some pointers:

http://newatlas.com/mit-solar-powered-portable-desalination-system/16757/
https://ilp.mit.edu/images/conferences/2010/RD/Kim.pdf
Water Desalination Via Ion Concentration Polarization | Science 2.0

Unfortunately, 7 years later, no commercial offering is available. I have contacted major watermaker suppliers and inquired about it. Most did not reply, others had no clue. I guess, they are happy with their existing business model.
Perhaps, with enough pressure form us consumers demanding it, they will start utilizing it.

Regards,
~~
Captain Alex


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

argalax said:


> There is another technology - Desalination via Ion Concentration Polarization. And I am not selling anything here! It was developed at MIT in 2010.
> Unfortunately, 10 years later, no commercial offering is available. I have contacted major watermaker suppliers and inquired about it. Most did not reply, others had no clue. I guess, they are happy with their existing business model.
> 
> Perhaps, with enough pressure form us consumers demanding it, they will start utilizing it.


If you are talking about sailing consumers, we're just not worth the expense to investors; we are a tiny market. Tesla Motors has zero interest in sharing their current battery tech with the boating market, mainly because we are so insignificant. We are last on a very long list, for innovations like these.
Other than GPS, watermakers are by far the single most important innovation for the convenience and safety of living and voyaging comfortably, rather than camping out on a boat, IMO. I say this after 40 years of sailing with a finite amount of water in my tanks, all over the world, including one TransAt with only 60 gallons of tank water for 2 adults and a child. Watermakers are *cheap* when you compare them to the us$1.00 a gallon some are paying for water down here, and can be operated from a variety of power sources. 
Now, I can take a shower anytime I wish, on my own boat, in my own shower (no more filthy showers ashore!) and even splurge and wash the stainless on deck after a sail. And I've always got clean, safe, chemical free water in my tanks. How much is that worth?


----------



## aeventyr60 (Jun 29, 2011)

^For the clever folks a DIY water maker is not out of the realm expense wise, this is actually pretty low tech, just pushing salt water under hi pressure through a very small membrane. The popular water maker companies have made this pretty simple to use for even the luddites. But they have also introduced a little too much black magic in the automation aspect and electronic control modules..making those folks dependent on techs, spare parts and an increased maintenance schedule.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Have a spectra Cape Horn extreme. No electronics. With the z-ion add on no big deal if you don’t use it for awhile. Only pickle it if the boat goes on the hard. Have 200g in two tanks so can wait until engine is on for another reason or solar/wind is just dumping electrons into the heat sinks. Therefore diesel use is minimal. Now have to go to a dock rarely which makes a huge difference in cruising style. As said the quality of life impact is huge. No more washing dishes in salt rinsing in fresh. No more flushing the heads with salt. Showers, showers and salt free clothes without visits to the laundry except for the bedding. 
Be careful of your plumbing. RO water has nothing in it so it will leach out some metal fittings. Ours are plastic but check yours. Also with nothing in it it has less taste. Add propel if you don’t care to drink it. I add lemon juice. 
Lastly don’t make water if there’s even a speck of oil in the water. It will ruin the membrane. We have a carbon filter in line to the salt water supply but even so avoid putting chlorine beach in your tanks. That will fry the membrane over time as well.
Don’t chinch on the back flushes and you get more life out of the filters.
Money well spent. Happy wife happy life.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

argalax said:


> Unfortunately, 7 years later, no commercial offering is available. I have contacted major watermaker suppliers and inquired about it. Most did not reply, others had no clue. I guess, they are happy with their existing business model.
> Perhaps, with enough pressure form us consumers demanding it, they will start utilizing it.
> 
> Regards,
> ...


The problem isn't enough people demanding the technology - the problem is the technology is not mature, and it is questionable whether it will ever mature out of a laboratory-scale into a large-scale product. There are currently several low-energy, non-pressurized technologies in labs with the same issue.

Maybe someday, but it isn't because companies don't want to change their business model - and no amount of asking for it will make it happen quicker.

Mark


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Have a spectra Cape Horn extreme. No electronics. With the z-ion add on no big deal if you don’t use it for awhile. Only pickle it if the boat goes on the hard. Have 200g in two tanks so can wait until engine is on for another reason or solar/wind is just dumping electrons into the heat sinks. Therefore diesel use is minimal. Now have to go to a dock rarely which makes a huge difference in cruising style. As said the quality of life impact is huge. No more washing dishes in salt rinsing in fresh. No more flushing the heads with salt. Showers, showers and salt free clothes without visits to the laundry except for the bedding. 
Be careful of your plumbing. RO water has nothing in it so it will leach out some metal fittings. Ours are plastic but check yours. Also with nothing in it it has less taste. Add propel if you don’t care to drink it. I add lemon juice. 
Lastly don’t make water if there’s even a speck of oil in the water. It will ruin the membrane. We have a carbon filter in line to the salt water supply but even so avoid putting chlorine beach in your tanks. That will fry the membrane over time as well.
Don’t chinch on the back flushes and you get more life out of the filters.
Money well spent. Happy wife happy life.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

outbound said:


> Be careful of your plumbing. RO water has nothing in it so it will leach out some metal fittings.


I don't have definitive facts, but I highly doubt this statement based on logic alone (and chemistry knowledge).

First, RO water isn't distilled, or even deionized water - it has the same total dissolved solid level as municipal tap water supplies, although the relative distributions and concentrations of those may be different (no chlorine, for example). Second, any metal fittings I can imagine being used on a boat would be brass or bronze, possibly copper, and those would mostly be barbs and fittings, not pipe. These metals are stable in water and commonly used for such. Third, many boats have aluminum or stainless tanks. If RO water was an issue, there would be leaking tanks left and right.

Mark


----------



## aeventyr60 (Jun 29, 2011)

^ Nope it has even less total dissolved solids then the water I take on in a marina here, even with a 10 micron, charcoal filter before it goes in my tanks. I've bought RO water and jugged it to the boat which had PPM's of 200+...So I know a lot of guys who are preaching how low they are getting their water through watermakers...a bit of bs here..and some misunderstanding of what's really going on in their water systems..adverse affects on your tanks, fittings and sundry plumbing fixtures? Whoa to the nervous nellies...please...get real!


----------



## BillMoran (Oct 1, 2016)

argalax said:


> As a sailboat cruiser, I really miss fresh water - I am constantly hunting for it. It is THE limiting factor in my cruising plans - it defines how long I stay in a remote anchorage, where I go next, etc.
> 
> The existing watermaker technology, for me, is expensive, high maintenance, requires lots of energy and space.
> 
> ...


The real problem you're seeing is the difference between mass media and reality.

Everyone involved in this has a vested interest in making the technology sound cooler than it really is. Research facilities frequently exaggerate the significance and utility of their discoveries. They do this to justify the $$$ they are spending on research, to boost their own egos, to make their resumes look better for their next job, and probably other reasons I'm forgetting.

Of course, the mass media is all too eager to report on "The Next Big Thing."

Cruisers aren't a terribly big market, but desalination and water purification in general have a much wider audience than us. I'd place my bets that the technology in those articles simply isn't as good as the articles make it seem and that's the real reason it hasn't been developed. I work in an industry that's constantly making promises it can't keep, so I see this disparity between marketing + public perception and what's actually possible all the time.

Batteries have been doing this for years: nicad rechargeables never really delivered on their promises. AGM and gel batteries were incremental improvements, but were hyped way more than what they actually delivered. Lithium Ion batteries finally delivered on a lot of what we'd been promised, which goes to show that _sometimes_ the hype is true. Now we're seeing all these promises about the next generation of super battery that is 2x (or more) better than Lithium Ion. I'm taking it all with cautious optimism. I expect a lot more exaggerated promises than actual, usable improvements.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

capta said:


> Watermakers are *cheap* when you compare them to the us$1.00 a gallon some are paying for water down here,


Depends, even at $1/gal it would be at least a 2 year payback for me and that's based on a cheap system. I spent $40 last year on water.


----------



## ianjoub (Aug 3, 2014)

Don0190 said:


> Depends, even at $1/gal it would be at least a 2 year payback for me and that's based on a cheap system. I spent $40 last year on water.


The independence/ self reliance factor is worth the price of admission for many when it comes to clean water though. I will have a water maker. With your cruising budget, I am surprised that you don't.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

Another point in favor of a watermaker is that we've finally gotten all the dirt & sand out of our tanks. I guess over the years there has been some dirt & sand in the water we've (and/or the PO) taken aboard. When they were empty we would vacuum them out, but it seems we've finally gotten it all.
I revel in the luxury of unlimited fresh water, but there is a huge safety factor in not having to take water from ashore, especially in the 3rd world where water quality standards may be less than acceptable.
Of course, we see many, many bareboaters *and* cruisers humping bottled water to their boats. Now there's an uneconomical way to quench one's thirst, with little guaranty of water quality, in the 3rd world!


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

ianjoub said:


> The independence/ self reliance factor is worth the price of admission for many when it comes to clean water though. I will have a water maker. With your cruising budget, I am surprised that you don't.


This is the reason I'm considering one. Although the cost could become a factor if/when we start travelling in places that charge for water.

So far our 200 gallon capacity has been more than adequate for our lifestyle and needs on board. When we go into marinas for diesel and/or food/booze resupplies we always top up the water tank. So far, we've never come close to running out of water, although we are careful not to waste water, and don't have an installed shower.


----------



## Tanski (May 28, 2015)

Don0190 said:


> Depends, even at $1/gal it would be at least a 2 year payback for me and that's based on a cheap system. I spent $40 last year on water.


LOL I spend 31$ a month for municiple water charges. Should be living on a boat.....


----------



## RichH (Jul 10, 2000)

TheMadChef ----

I notice that you're located in the Georgian Bay area of the great lakes. Are you planning to use a watermaker SOLELY in fresh water (lakes) OR are you contemplating SALT water travel? Such will make a big difference in cost and size of any RO equipment you choose (more on this later down in my reply)

If youre 'handy' with DIY, there are a few quite well pre-engineered recommendations on making a strictly MANUALLY operated watermakers on the internet .... typically engine driven and that are quite high capacity output systems. Such systems can be cobbled together for about $1000-1500 using 'quality' components using a stainless steel / ceramic piston 'pressure washer' pump and other 'pressure washer' controls. If you are planning only to draw in freshwater (or even low salinity brackish water) the cost would be even lower as the membranes used for 'brackish' water desalination are of less 'resistance', higher flow, need less membrane pressure - thus 'smaller'.

IMPORTANT - As you are probably already aware, the Great lakes and surrounding 'surface water' (including a great many 'surface water' sources in the USA) is contaminated with two VERY nasty organisms: cryptosporidium and giardia. RO membranes are not totally efficient in retaining ALL incident organisms and molecules at their 'rating'; they only deliver a 'statistical reduction' of molecules, including microoganisms/viruses, etc. So therefore due to the crypto and giardia present in your 'local' waters, I make the _strong_ recommendation that the product water from ANY onboard RO - be further and additionally filtered with a 'certified for removal of oocysts' (1,2µM @ 99.99% retention) filter before that product water goes into your tank. Crypto and Giardia are immune to chlorine (clorox) disinfection and you do not want 'any' in your water tank, even that you will use clorox in your tank to keep 'other organisms' in check.

Here's a very well engineered DIY system 'write up' that meets all the standards for generating quite high retentate RO product water using quite commonly available parts (there are other such quite good write ups on the internet) Eg. https://sublimesustenance.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/how-to-build-your-own-watermaker.pdf
For any engine driven RO system, I make the following (and strong) recommendation: DO not 'hang' or attach the high pressure pump directly to the engine as diesel engines have severe vibratory characteristics that will rapidly fatigue any mounting that YOU design - you'll only have a service life of 1-2 years before all the engine mounting breaks (my experience over about 15+ years). For any engine driven RO pump Id strongly recommend to mount that pump somewhere else in the engine space .... using a veebelt system with automatic belt tensioner between.

For exclusive RO use in fresh water, Id consult with a chosen 'LOCAL' RO membrane, etc. supplier and let that supplier make the recommendations of 'scale down' of flow rates and trans-membrane operating PRESSURES ... and based on that suppliers membrane source. Id recommend to use a 'spiral wrapped' RO membranes ... my preference would be the usage of a DOW-_Filmtec_ or GE-Osmonics membrane as they are of quite high quality and consistency. There's an awful lot of 'crap' being imported from asia.

Dow-Filmtec has an extensive website for operation, precise installation and (important) 'start up' procedures, AND have quite precise procedures for **sanitizing** and cleaning the membranes. DOW Filmtec membranes are the industry standard and 'benchmark' for quality.

Your (inexpensive) TDC meter (Total Dissolved Solids) will be your friend and no-go for mundane monitoring of water output quality. The UN WHO recommends TDS at less than ~170ppm for drinking water. If higher TDS, simply reduce the transmembrane pressure - I prefer ~70-100 ppm max.

Good luck ... do scrutinize that 'Leo Lichtfield' write up. 
As one who was for quite a few years deeply involved in the engineering of such technology (but for stuff other than water), Lichtfelds write-up is quite 'spot on' and quite accurate .... although written about 15 years ago, so many of the suppliers and costs listed will need to be revised and updated.

*GENERAL HEALTH CONCERNS*
For a brief summary, go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purified_water then scroll down to the LAST paragraph. 
Neurologists typically recommend minimum intake of magnesium to prevent neurological problems. When on long term RO water, we take magnesium tablets ... or I will almost instantly suffer from devastating and excruciating 'sciatica' and other 'neuro' problems etc. 
Cardiologists recommend a minimum intake of calcium ... so I 'up' my dairy, etc. intake.
Most of the needed trace minerals will probably be supplied from your food... Vitamin and mineral supplements are probably a good idea when constantly using RO water. 
Do have a detailed consult with your primary care physician beforehand, he/she 'may' order some physiological, etc. testing, etc. etc. especially if you have a medical history of vitamin/mineral deficiencies.

Lastly, I would strongly advise NEVER to use a watermaker near the outflow drainage from 'any' city or large town, NEVER in any anchorage where folks (and governments) simply 'overboard' their waste (common in the island nations outside of the 'developed' world ... and many USA coastal cities.), .... and when close to a large land mass NEVER after large rainstorms or floods.

Hope this helps in your decision making. ;-)


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

I don't have one (yet), but he Spectra model line meets the OPs criteria. Although, budget may force a smaller unit, or skip the automatic backflushing module, etc. 

When we leave for an extended period, it's a sure thing. For now, we hold 2 weeks of fresh water for the two of us and it's just not an expense and maintenance item I need right now. Over the course of a typical cruise for us, it would be highly unlikely to go more than 10 days without being near a marina for fuel/water. It's even enough time to pick a nice calm day too. One top up on our 2-3 weeks cruises is all we need to be comfortable. We practice smart conservation, but not austerity. Showers, every day, dishes, even one load of laundry per week.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

There are systems on eBay by smaller package suppliers that cost almost what you would spend piecing together a system yourself.


----------



## RichH (Jul 10, 2000)

Sure there are, but the low flow rate capacity may entirely consume your free time in making water. As an extreme/trivial example, think about using a manually (usually lever operated) 'survival' RO system that only delivers 1 gallon per hour of uninterrupted 'hand powered' pumping.

https://www.amazon.com/Katadyn-Emer...pID=51wsrvMG6kL&preST=_SX300_QL70_&dpSrc=srch

In the desert-like and dry islands in the Caribbean basin the most expensive RO is probably about 20¢ per gallon .... you can BUY an awful lot of RO water for the price of a 'survival' RO system.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

RichH said:


> Sure there are, but the low flow rate capacity may entirely consume your free time in making water.


YOU must not have ever looked as I'm talking 20-40gph systems


----------



## mbianka (Sep 19, 2014)

I personally don't need a watermaker at this point but, if I did. I probably get this $1500 Seawater Pro one especially since I already carry a Honda 2000 generator on board for my Electric Propulsion system to power it. 20 GPH for $1500. Replacement parts are off the shelf components too. Hard to beat that.
https://www.seawaterpro.com/


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

RichH said:


> IMPORTANT - As you are probably already aware, the Great lakes and surrounding 'surface water' (including a great many 'surface water' sources in the USA) is contaminated with two VERY nasty organisms: cryptosporidium and giardia. RO membranes are not totally efficient in retaining ALL incident organisms and molecules at their 'rating'; they only deliver a 'statistical reduction' of molecules, including microoganisms/viruses, etc. So therefore due to the crypto and giardia present in your 'local' waters, I make the _strong_ recommendation that the product water from ANY onboard RO - be further and additionally filtered with a 'certified for removal of oocysts' (1,2µM @ 99.99% retention) filter before that product water goes into your tank. Crypto and Giardia are immune to chlorine (clorox) disinfection and you do not want 'any' in your water tank, even that you will use clorox in your tank to keep 'other organisms' in check.


I don't understand this part. Those organisms have a size range of ~5-10 micron. An RO membrane has a pore size of ~0.0001 micron - 50,000-100,000 times smaller than the organisms, and way smaller than the 1.2 micron post filtering you recommend. Even given imperfect RO membrane production, with a small amount of fissures and a statistical range of pore sizes, there is essentially zero chance of a 5-10uM organism passing through the membrane, and post filtering is unnecessary. Even the 5uM prefilters will catch half of them.

Mark


----------



## RichH (Jul 10, 2000)

WOW! what an incredible cheap price !!!! Only .3 gpm / 20gph; but, sufficient.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

RichH said:


> The UN WHO recommends TDS at less than ~170ppm for drinking water.


Actually, the WHO recommendation is for drinking water to be less than 500ppm TDS, and it is the same for the US EPA.

Mark


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

mbianka said:


> I personally don't need a watermaker at this point but, if I did. I probably get this $1500 Seawater Pro one especially since I already carry a Honda 2000 generator on board for my Electric Propulsion system to power it. 20 GPH for $1500. Replacement parts are off the shelf components too. Hard to beat that.
> https://www.seawaterpro.com/


These types of systems come and go all the time. Yes, they are inexpensive, but they are also cheap. They use a standard $80 small pressure washer with brass internals. Not only do they scream like a banshee when running, they last maybe a year in salt water. The only reason you may have one in your garage that has been working for several years (we do) is that it only sees fresh water, and is only used a few times each year. And imagine the noise of that pressure washer running inside your boat for a couple of hours. If you place it outside, you are a menace to your neighbors.

But don't for a minute think these will last very long at all in regular use with salt water. False economy.

Mark


----------



## Skipper Jer (Aug 26, 2008)

My concern with using a pressure washer pump, and it may not be valid, is if there could be leakage of lubricating oils into the water stream. It might be possible to sound insulate the screaming banshee pump.


----------



## RichH (Jul 10, 2000)

Mark - 
Its impossible to manufacture such membranes without 'cracks', and consistent and uniform 'pore size' (in essentially an open celled 'micro or macro-molecular foam' made from polyamides or other polymers) ... and other 'interstices' in the membrane, etc. which 'can be' much larger that the 'rating pore size'. Such membranes are only 'statistical (titre) reduction devices', the same reason that they never can produce even close to 'zero' TDS levels. A typical 2.5 log reduction at 'rating' would not be even close to a 'sterility' removal = to 100% efficiency or a titre reduction of 1E17 organism/sq. cm. 
Plus, they aren't a validatable to '100%' retention at whatever 'rating' they have (due to cracks, etc). Most only provide a 'several log' reduction. For reference, FDA 'sterility' for a filter/membrane would occur at a physical challenge (of test organisms) of 10E13 organisms, etc./sq.cm of membrane surface ........ and with NO detectable organisms / particles down stream. 
Most of ratings that you see on 'filters' and 'membranes', unless certified for *100% removal or 'absolute' efficiency*, are only 'log reduction / removal' devices.

The EPA typical oocyst removal from potable water system requirements (last time I looked) were for a (~99.5% removal eff.) @ 1,2µM and then statistically certified to that removal level by repeatable testing with approved test organisms. Membranes filters, etc. that are use in 'sterile' or 100% removal efficiency are each individually tested (by correlation methods; hence, 'validated') by their manufacturers; AND AGAIN, by the end user. Ive never ever seen a validatable RO type membrane that is even close to 100% or 'absolute' retention at its 'rating'.
During cell division, these organisms can be much smaller than the ~3-5µM size range.

USA current standard potable water filtration subject to crypto or giardia is filtration to a maximum 1.2µM single pass filtration at 99.5%(wt./wt.) removal efficiency. Sure, RO membranes can reach this level even at their 'desalinization' removal rating; but, the removal is on a statistical reduction on a wt./wt. basis. 
The reason RO membranes are chosen in large volume (potable water, etc.) systems is that these membranes are tangential flow devices; thus, essentially self-cleaning; but, can easily back-flushed, chemically cleaned and sanitized (upstream and downstream) if necessary - cost of operation is optimized.

Most of 'ratings' that you see on 'filters' and 'membranes', unless certified or VALIDATED for *100% removal or 'absolute' efficiency*, are only 'log reduction' removal' devices. By definition of these 'ratings', one could have a rock the size of basketball pass through an RO membrane and still 'pass' the statistical wt./wt. reduction value.

;-)


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Do these even have oil? Our small one doesn't have any service ports at all, and I don't know what the internals are like since they are completely sealed in its plastic case. I would imagine that any oil or grease used in the pump would be completely isolated from the water/piston side and almost physically impossible to cross without failure of the pump itself - ceasing to operate.

Mark


----------



## RichH (Jul 10, 2000)

colemj said:


> Actually, the WHO recommendation is for drinking water to be less than 500ppm TDS, and it is the same for the US EPA.
> 
> Mark


Have you ever 'tasted' potable water with greater than ~300 TDS? 
500 TDS = 'mud'

My personal routine for many many years was to clean/de-salt the membrane > 175 ppm and change out at ~250 max. TDS

;-)


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Yes, all the time. The normal TDS of ours is 250ppm. Most peoples RO systems are also in this range. Those claiming <100ppm have uncalibrated meters - which almost all of the inexpensive ones are out of the box.

In the past, as we came to EOL of the membrane, we were up to 500ppm and it still tasted fine. Many people can't taste salt at 1,000ppm.

Mark


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

RichH said:


> Mark -
> Its impossible to manufacture such membranes without 'cracks', and consistent and uniform 'pore size' (in essentially an open celled 'micro or macro-molecular foam' made from polyamides or other polymers) ... and other 'interstices' in the membrane, etc. which 'can be' much larger that the 'rating pore size'. Such membranes are only 'statistical (titre) reduction devices', the same reason that they never can produce even close to 'zero' TDS levels. A typical 2.5 log reduction at 'rating' would not be even close to a 'sterility' removal = to 100% efficiency or a titre reduction of 1E17 organism/sq. cm.
> Plus, they aren't a validatable to '100%' retention at whatever 'rating' they have (due to cracks, etc). Most only provide a 'several log' reduction. For reference, FDA 'sterility' for a filter/membrane would occur at a physical challenge (of test organisms) of 10E13 organisms, etc./sq.cm of membrane surface ........ and with NO detectable organisms / particles down stream.
> Most of ratings that you see on 'filters' and 'membranes', unless certified for *100% removal or 'absolute' efficiency*, are only 'log reduction / removal' devices.
> ...


Those are a lot of words Rich, without addressing my point that an RO membrane pore size is 100,000 times smaller than the organism. You talk statistics, but don't give any. Statistically, this 5-order of magnitude reduction in size provides a 5-log reduction in organism contamination. For those wanting a visual on what a 5-log reduction looks like, see this graph: https://www.healthyfacilitiesinstitute.com/documents/hfi-log-reduction-chart.pdf

You can cloud the point with fancy words on how the membranes are made, that they are titre devices, they are tangential flow, etc. But those are just big words to avoid addressing the fact that there is a 5-order of magnitude difference, and a real statistical analysis will result in zero organisms passing through. Doesn't matter the flow regime or the membrane QC criteria. This problem is solved with brute force. And the difference between a 5uM cell division and a 10uM full organism is silly - there is no difference in this context.

It is odd that you return to your recommendation of post filtering at 1.2uM - which is only 2-5x smaller than the organism - not 100,000 times smaller. And ignore that those organisms have gone through a 5uM prefilter.

Then there is the reality that contaminated open water only averages 1 cyst/L. And that is known contaminated areas, not open water in general. It takes 10 cysts to infect a person. If one does do the statistical analysis of pumping 1 cyst/L through a 5uM prefilter, then a 0.0001uM RO filter, one will find that the number of cysts that get through is essentially zero.

At 30gal/hr production from an RO membrane in known contaminated water, only 100-150 cysts will even have the possibility of getting through. That means a maximum of 0.001 cysts/hr get through. To get to even one resulting cyst being statistically possible, one would need to run their watermaker 1000hrs continuously. 10,000hrs if they wanted a statistical chance of becoming ill. Once the system is shut off and started another day, the clock and the statistics reset.

The reason I push this point, is that there is way too much misinformation regarding RO systems, and way too many people trying to gain accurate knowledge about these systems for their boat.

Mark


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

Skipper Jer said:


> My concern with using a pressure washer pump, and it may not be valid, is if there could be leakage of lubricating oils into the water stream. It might be possible to sound insulate the screaming banshee pump.


It's the same old discussion when folks want a cheap dive compressor/hookah rig. Hey, it's your life and the lives of those you love (or your friends/guests) that you are putting at risk by trying to 'cheap out'.
Come on folks, if it was safe and practical, do you really think the RO manufacturers wouldn't use the cheap pumps and make a bigger profit on cheaper units? 
I've a friend who bought a 'cheapo' windgen off the internet. Sounded way too good to be true. Guess what, it was. The silly thing produced the rated power for a few weeks then slowly began deteriorating. Less than 2 months later he was shopping for another windgen.
Unfortunately, there are some places where you've got to spend the bucks to get the safety and quality.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

“No. Water is a very powerful, natural solvent. After passing through an R.O. system, it is void of almost all minerals and thus is "hungry" water. It is constantly looking for minerals, or anything else to dissolve. Care should be taken to avoid contact with common metals such as copper and aluminum.”
Prior statement stands. I said check what metals are exposed.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Reverse Osmosis Systems

Reverse Osmosis Systems use a process that reverses the flow of water in a natural process of osmosis so that water passes from a more concentrated solution to a more dilute solution through a semi-permeable membrane. Pre- and post-filters are often incorporated along with the reverse osmosis membrane itself.
A reverse osmosis filter has a pore size of approximately 0.0001 micron.
Reverse Osmosis Systems have a very high effectiveness in removing protozoa (for example, Cryptosporidium, Giardia);
Reverse Osmosis Systems have a very high effectiveness in removing bacteria (for example, Campylobacter, Salmonella, Shigella, E. coli);
Reverse Osmosis Systems have a very high effectiveness in removing viruses (for example, Enteric, Hepatitis A, Norovirus, Rotavirus);
Reverse Osmosis Systems will remove common chemical contaminants (metal ions, aqueous salts), including sodium, chloride, copper, chromium, and lead; may reduce arsenic, fluoride, radium, sulfate, calcium, magnesium, potassium, nitrate, and phosphorous.

Statement from cdc

Issue is minerals are removed even from foods cooked in it. However in a balanced diet and if eating adequate uncooked fruits/veggies it’s a nonissue. A beer or two every once in awhile helps as well. For kids a Florine supplement is recommended. We live on the stuff nearly exclusively for 8 of12months. So far so good. As stated I add lemon juice or propel to the drinking water.


----------



## RichH (Jul 10, 2000)

colemj said:


> Oh < snip > of a lot of unsubstantiated and unsupported BS!!!
> 
> Mark


I think your way off base here, probably in a characteristic tit-for-tat game of one-ups-manship.

1. Municipal water departments and their water system contractors:
A. regularly monitor thier RO systems for membrane efficacy, regularly perform upstream and downstream sample culturing to verify efficacy of retention of 'the bio-barrier' vs. target organisms.
B. Since the mid 1990s have a quite reliable historical basis for actual crypto and giardia 'count' (titre) per ml, etc. basis. That titre varies widely due to the season, concentration / utilization of farmland, etc. and number of animals grazed, etc. 
C. Routinely (usually through outside sources - equipment suppliers, et al) verifiy the patentcy and retention integrity of in-use membranes, filters, etc. 
D. Water suppliers (from Great Lakes and other surface water sources Maine to Texas) using RO devices will typically have a back-up emergency stand-by of banks of ≥1,2µM filters to contain any breach that is biologically approaching 'over-spec'. in the RO systems. Where used, RO systems are used as pre-filters to the minimum 1,2 oocyst certified filtration. Some systems simply use well monitored and continually tested RO system without post filtration steps. 
How do you yourself conform to such now common methodologies vs. when in high court giardia/crypto laden waters? Whats your recommendations?

1. What's YOUR recommended method of monitoring bio contamination when youre traveling in areas historically contaminated with Crypto or Giardia? Can your correlate an air diffusion test with pore size validity for membranes? What wetting fluid would you recommend using for 'forward flow' or bubble point correlated retention validation of such membranes? Methinks you probably do a google search and then 'idly rationalize' or simply BS your way through ... most probably just dont do anything - but talk.

2. What means do you have to sample and 'culture' to assure removal and retention of pathogenic (crypto, etc.) organisms. Know 'anyone' who can do this service for you or who you can call upon when taking on RO feed water in historically contaminated/infected river/lake water?

3. 0,001 'crypto' per hour? .... statistically translates to a serially additive retention of that 10 organisms for each person drinking that water .... every ~300-400 24 hour days ... on the statistical basis as you provided. Sorry, the municipals and thier local health departments, etc. since the tightening of federal potable water regs. in the mid 1990s, dont seem to see this as a common benchmark as with bio contamination they usually are at maximum potential possible ... such as during 'spring runoff' conditions with massive iron hydrates and colloidal silica, etc. overwhelming their pre-treatment.

My advice and recommendations 'stand' for when using a watermaker in those historical known highly contaminated places with cryptosporidium & giardia lamblia (Great Lakes and feeders, east coast fresh water rivers and large inland lakes, etc. etc.), especially after flooding and spring run off of farmland fertilized with animal manure: 
---> If your in known contaminated water with crypto and giardia, Use a 99.9% efficiency 1,2µM 'certified for removal of oocysts' filter between your RO outlet and your tankage. The reason is that RO membranes 'can' come from the factory with cracks, larger areas of pore size than what is 'advertised', and, a consumer has virtually NO way to verify that such manufacturing defects exist or not. Such membranes are NOT even close to an 'absolute' 100% size retention 'rating'. 
You should also be using that nominal rated 1,2µM oocyst (federal EPA recommended) filter for when charging your tank with dockside municipal supply water from unknown treatment/supply sources, as still many municipals in the East and SE coasts of the US are not completely 100% compliant to federal regs vs. crypto & giardia. 
These species are immune to chlorine sanitization.

Hows that for a tit-for-tat? in reply to your typical pizzing contests.

;-)


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

No problem with that . We have a whole boat filter on the exhaust side of the water tanks. Also have a carbon filter on the water maker. From what you’re saying there’s less risk using RO than shore side sources for water.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Again Rich, all you posted was a lot of words chosen to confuse and make people think you have a case here. And once again, you intentionally did not address any of my specific points. What you describe has no reality to a cruising boat area or system. Everything you mention is ground water supplies around farmlands etc, and not free open water. Not to mention it is all related to large scale containment systems, pretreatments, dealing with seasonal changes, and the such - not a boat watermaker in open water. Nobody is cruising on mountain streams running through farmlands, nor in containment ponds, nor dealing with spring floods or winter droughts. 

This isn't a pissing match, it is an attempt to bring real context and information to those already confused about watermaker internet chatroom misinformation (like RO water is devoid of all minerals and will dissolve metals).

There is a world of difference between what is required for commercial systems and the areas commercial systems operate in. There is also no correlation between what is required for a hospital certification of 100% pure water and that for what is acceptable for a personal boat system.

I will let it stand there. Anyone with watermaker questions will read your intentionally confusing load of word salad, read my simpler clarifications and perspective, and do what they want. I'm fine with this. BTW, you will need to go back and address Outbound's CDC statements supporting my arguments.

Also, for the record, if you are going to directly quote me, it is dishonest to insert words and phrases I never said.

Mark


----------



## RichH (Jul 10, 2000)

Outbound - It used to be quite common; but, since the massive overhaul and correction of the US water supply (from surface sources) since the mid 90s crypto and giardia problem, is hardly ever noticed anymore. 
As stated ALL the mandated massive upgrade, etc. in the water systems crypto/giardia lamblia area of concern is still not completed, etc. 
The 'federal spec' is for a minimum of 1,2µM 99.9% efficiency and 'cert'd' filtration. RO is _acceptable_ IF it 'nominally' meets the 1,2µM specification, ...... as for fresh and pretreated water they can use a 0,2µM/0,1µM/0,05µM - somewhere near 1000000 (molecular weight cut off) mwcu/daltons ..... (easier, more accurate at 'rating', more consistently made than smaller retentions AND more easily 'in situ' checked for bubble point and /or diffusional forward flow testing for validating the integrity of µM 'rating') for these membranes. The overall cost to operate RO is a BIG financial advantage.


----------



## RichH (Jul 10, 2000)

So Mark, the fundamental here is: What are your specific recommendations and knowledge based advice for when drawing RO feed water from historically known crypto/giardia infected sources? 
You seem to have again overlooked that meager request in your reply, again. Why is that? ;-)

My recommendation for traveling in known contaminated/infected areas remains quite simple - the still current federal mandated requirement for surface feed municipal water systems: 1,2µM (certified for oocyst removal) ~99.9% eff. retention 'rated' filter (between the tank and RO outlet on a boat), or certified equivalent that meets or exceeds the 1,2µM 99.9% requirement. I cant make it simpler than that!

As courteously as I can post this - I perceive your probable misconception driving this is the (quite common) assumption that a nominally/arbitrarily rated filter or membrane will remove 'everything' that is equal or larger in size than the rating ..... sorry, that just NOT nor has ever been the case! if this is close to the reason for your 'angst', etc., do a 'lookup' of whats known as a common filtration 'beta ratio'. You can start here: https://www.lenntech.com/library/fine/beta/beta-ratio.htm


----------



## TheMadchef (Feb 16, 2010)

Thanks for the reply & advice, Rich. I am no longer on Georgian Bay, but in Spain purchasing the new boat and about to embark on a circumnavigation. As our new FW tank will be a little more than 500L, we intend to do the bulk of our watermarking on passage, out of harbours/ dirty anchorages.


----------



## TheMadchef (Feb 16, 2010)

what is the size of your FW tankage?


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

MD- good on you. I’m envious. What are you getting for a boat? Which way are you going? 
From experience what’s weird about watermakers is the more you use them the less trouble they seem to give you.
We are using a pump saver strainer as first filter to get the seaweed out. Then a 5u in front of each pump. Then a carbon in front of the membrane. We are getting ppm numbers between 60 and 120. We have two pumps feeding the Clark pump so get output near spec. Been told if we went with more filtration output numbers would fall.
Surprisingly filter change intervals are longer in the tropics (higher salinity) then up north. Think it relates to sand bottom v. mud but not sure of the reason. Not logical. 
Some wash their filters and reuse them. We don’t as they are fairly generic and cheap if bought 6 at a time. 
Still carry gallons and flats of store bought water when on passage against possibility tanks get contaminated or WM fails. 
Best of luck


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

outbound said:


> .....Surprisingly filter change intervals are longer in the tropics (higher salinity) then up north. Think it relates to sand bottom v. mud but not sure of the reason. Not logical.....


I think it stands to reason that water in the northeast has substantially more plankton, algae and microscopic sealife to filter out than the tropics. Can tell by looking at it.


----------



## aeventyr60 (Jun 29, 2011)

^My tropical water is dirtier then yours! Great idea, take a look at the water, on the ebb it's real dirty.....here anyway. Can't be bothered to change filters that often so do take notice of the local water conditions. Can't say I've ever been in water so toxic that it would pass through a RO membrane and make me sick. Struggling with the tap water in Bend, Or just now. Some of you fellas want to see the end of the EPA?


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Sounds likely Minnie


----------



## TheMadchef (Feb 16, 2010)

Outbound, probably gonna catch flack round here for this but starting from Spain in an 08 bene 46 and heading to Carib this winter via canaries & Cape Verde. Good advice on the prefiltration, sounds like a good idea. Also good idea to carry adequate drinking water as backup


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Have too much fun.


----------



## mbianka (Sep 19, 2014)

colemj said:


> These types of systems come and go all the time. Yes, they are inexpensive, but they are also cheap. They use a standard $80 small pressure washer with brass internals. Not only do they scream like a banshee when running, they last maybe a year in salt water. The only reason you may have one in your garage that has been working for several years (we do) is that it only sees fresh water, and is only used a few times each year. And imagine the noise of that pressure washer running inside your boat for a couple of hours. If you place it outside, you are a menace to your neighbors.
> 
> But don't for a minute think these will last very long at all in regular use with salt water. False economy.
> 
> Mark


Yes certainly a good point to consider. Though he does address this concern about pump quality:
_" I use inexpensive pressure washer pumps with 4 year warranty available from Amazon for $89 + $17 for the warranty.
If you think that spending $1200 for a ceramic piston pump and stainless dual 110/220 volt motor makes more sense, then I have one available for you for an additional $1200. I'm not going to get into pump durability versus economics argument, I can tell you that I've used both pumps on my boat very successfully."
_ https://www.seawaterpro.com/

It seems you could buy about 12 of those cheaper pumps for $1200 instead of just one ceramic piston pump. The choice is yours when you buy the system apparently.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Personally think about after purchase stuff on boats in categories:
Entertainment/convenient things i.e. WiFi boosters, flat screen TV etc.
Quality of life i.e. nature of dinghy, alternative power sources etc.
Stuff that may save your life or kill you.
Depending on how you sail and where some stuff may be in one category or another. Example is ssb. If it’s the only source of weather it can be life saving. If you have a full blown satellite set up or a sat phone not so much.
Think watermakers are in that group. If you are voyaging totally off the grid or doing long passages it can be life saving but for me where my longest passage to date was 16 days not so much. Much nicer having the watermaker but we can go back to the heavy water restrictions we lived under before we got one and survive. Similarly windvanes and autopilots fall in this group depending on how much and where you single hand.
Hence, MD must decide. If there’s a chance he must absolutely need the thing to work would suggest he get a high quality commercially sourced system and blow the bucks. Even if he is carrying spares such as pumps depending on conditions he may not be able to keep it up and running or contamination may be catastrophic.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

mbianka said:


> Yes certainly a good point to consider. Though he does address this concern about pump quality:
> _" I use inexpensive pressure washer pumps with 4 year warranty available from Amazon for $89 + $17 for the warranty.
> If you think that spending $1200 for a ceramic piston pump and stainless dual 110/220 volt motor makes more sense, then I have one available for you for an additional $1200. I'm not going to get into pump durability versus economics argument, I can tell you that I've used both pumps on my boat very successfully."
> _ https://www.seawaterpro.com/
> ...


Sure, that has always been the main argument for these cheap PW pumps, and it is a good one for what it is. The problem is that they are an unknown time bomb and never give out when one is near a Walmart or have access to Amazon shipping and doesn't need water right away. Carrying spare pumps is heavy and takes up space. Warranties are meaningless once one is out cruising, because they are impractical to use. For instance, shipping the old one back and importing a new one from many countries will likely cost 5-10x the new price in shipping and customs alone. A free warranty unit then is meaningless.

Then there is the noise. I'm sure everyone here has used one of these small pressure washers. Imagine that inside the boat...

Mark


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

colemj said:


> Then there is the noise. I'm sure everyone here has used one of these small pressure washers. Imagine that inside the boat...
> 
> Mark


So just get the "better" pump and that makes a system $3k. I tried to price up a system and buying the parts get you pretty close to that plus the countless trips back and forth to the hardware store.

One of the amusing things to me are the smaller known WM builders who talk down about the real little guys that are just cruisers packaging the parts together, when that is what they were before they became "someone".


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Don0190 said:


> So just get the "better" pump and that makes a system $3k.


Sure, that is what I would do there. Water makers aren't rocket surgery by any means. They are simple to piece together and run, but one does need to understand what they are doing. Many people who DIY mismatch pumps and motors and membranes and end up with energy hogs that they are always fighting to get to work.

But to get it correct, the component costs aren't in the $500/month buyer's club - and that is where the cheap PW pumps, steel pipe vessels, and harbor freight motor systems are. I view these as false value.

When you price out the components, the companies like CruiseRO, Echotec, and similar are not overcharging at all. They are just making a reasonable profit for their efforts at handing you a complete kit. You save very little buying the pieces retail yourself.

It is possible to put together a quality system for much less money than those from the companies above, but that requires a ton of leg work and luck in finding great deals on pumps and motors on eBay, consignment stores, craigslist, etc. Then you need to spend hours in hardware stores finding all the little plumbing pieces needed. Then go back and get different ones when you find that you changed your mind about how to plumb it, or realized that you needed more than you got.

And you have no support or warranty.

We bought one of these systems for $5,000. I was going to build it myself, but when I priced everything out using google to find the best retail prices, it would have cost $4,000 without the common plumbing pieces - so call it $4,300 with everything. And we were in Guatemala at the time, so shipping would have eaten all of the savings. I figured if I had 6-9 months to hunt for deals, I could put one together for $2,500-$3,000.

If I did have that time and storage/workspace, I would have went that direction. But receiving a box containing absolutely everything I need to install a water maker, including extra fittings, spare parts for the next year, and chemicals, was the only way I would consider getting a watermaker while out cruising.

Mark


----------



## RegisteredUser (Aug 16, 2010)

I look at a portable hand operated 1 or so gal/hr unit as a life saving device, but not a 8 gal+ elec/engine powered unit.
You're going to have stored water for the expected 'basic' needs of a passage....plus some...whether you have a watermaker or not. 
You aren't planning passage counting on the watermaker to keep you alive.
The watermaker is a huge convenience allowing you to get away from a strict water diet.
Forget spraying off after a saltwater shower. Forget sparying off pots and dishes after a saltwater wash.
Never tell the wife she has to turn shower off while lathering up...

It's a nice thing to have.
I'm not sure if there is an end to...nice things to have.

I have the propane to heat seawater if tanks run dry and desperate...


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

How do you guys rig up the transfer plumbing? Can you post a diagram (or pictures of your system?)


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

GeorgeB said:


> How do you guys rig up the transfer plumbing? Can you post a diagram (or pictures of your system?)


I don't know what you refer to as transfer plumbing. Can you describe more?

Mark


----------



## RegisteredUser (Aug 16, 2010)

GeorgeB said:


> How do you guys rig up the transfer plumbing? Can you post a diagram (or pictures of your system?)


I think most watermaker mfgrs recommend not plumbing it directly to the carbonating system on a gimbaled bar.


----------



## john61ct (Jan 23, 2017)

You mean like a SodaStream???

If so talk about only "nice to have"


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

I have two tanks (bow and stern). How do you guys move water between the two as you are replenishing the supply from the watermaker? Mbianka, what is the amp consumption and water output for that seawater pro? I have a 400 Ah battery bank (360 usable Amps) with 200 Amp solar and a 90 Amp alternator. I've been struggling to find a watermaker that meets my speck. The Katadyn Power saver 40 is about the only one I found.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Ah, we only have one tank, so don't have that issue. For two tanks, I would just put a valve on the watermaker outlet and switch between tanks during operation as needed.

That system is an AC powered one, so it probably isn't suitable for your present setup - it requires 2,000W, which through an inverter is going to mean over 100A DC draw. However, I detect possible LFP batteries in your description. If so, we run our AC watermaker most of the time off the inverter/400Ah LFP batteries. But we have 700W of solar to put back in, and a generator if needed. 

If you need a DC watermaker, go with Spectra or one of the other energy recovery systems. They cost more, though. All other DC systems will have you fighting energy budget and running an engine or generator when using them anyway. We went through this for 5yrs before switching to an AC system.

The hidden gotcha with them is that the output specs are rated at 13.8V, and drop substantially below this. So if you aren't at charging voltages, you are only getting 70% of the output expected.

Unless your water needs are very miserly, the 40/80 gal/day systems just don't make sense. The 40 is pretty much survival only.

Mark


----------



## mbianka (Sep 19, 2014)

GeorgeB said:


> I have two tanks (bow and stern). How do you guys move water between the two as you are replenishing the supply from the watermaker? Mbianka, what is the amp consumption and water output for that seawater pro? I have a 400 Ah battery bank (360 usable Amps) with 200 Amp solar and a 90 Amp alternator. I've been struggling to find a watermaker that meets my speck. The Katadyn Power saver 40 is about the only one I found.


I think you mean 200 watts of solar. Since I'm not in the market for a watermaker I have not looked into it's power consumption too closely. BTW I also do not have an interest or connection with the product. According to the website you can use a Honda 2000 generator to make water and it can also have power to help charge the batteries at the same time. Though I expect this would depend on how depleted your battery bank is. Since the Honda 2000 can put out 1600 continuous watts. It's draw to make water is less than that. The website says you can use a 2000 watt inverter if you need to. Though I would think using the versatile Honda would be a better choice on board for water making.


----------



## RegisteredUser (Aug 16, 2010)

colemj said:


> ...
> The hidden gotcha with them is that the output specs are rated at 13.8V, and drop substantially below this. So if you aren't at charging voltages, you are only getting 70% of the output expected.....


Good post.


----------



## aeventyr60 (Jun 29, 2011)

GeorgeB said:


> How do you guys rig up the transfer plumbing? Can you post a diagram (or pictures of your system?)


George, See page 40 on this link for a diagram:
https://www.katadyn.com/downloads/katadyn/manuals/desalinators/manual_powersurvivor-40e_en.pdf

Since you asked some questions about lower output 12v water makers, I will relate my experience for you.

I cruised from the West coast to Thailand over the past 18 years. I just installed a small Pur 40 that was basically given to me. So pretty much a non dollar issue aside from about 30 bucks in connectors, clamps, hose and filters.

I also have 360 watts of solar, a wind generator and an 100 amp alternator. I'm pretty much charged up everyday by noon. I also operate a BD35 compressor for refrigeration and refrigerator needs...60 amps a day.

Factory spec is 1.5 Litres an hour. Pretty close to this most days. Slight output decrease with lower volatage as Mark describes, but not as severe nor for long period of times. Water quality and filter cleanliness has a far bigger impact. 
Since I was new at this game I recorded hourly out put, TDS and voltage, so have developed a pretty good understanding on how this unit operates.
I generally run only in daylight hours or if the engine is on. Noise is not that bad as I can still nap in the v berth just a few feet away from the unit, which is mounted on a bulkhead in the head.
I run fresh water through the unit for 5 minutes or so after each use.
This unit is a good fit for me. It uses power that would normally be just dumped by my controller. It came in handy this year while in Sumatra with 2 crew members. No jugging water! 
I had never considered a water maker crucial to my cruisng needs, and crusied extensively without one oon remote place for many years.
I believe you can pick up these units for a song on the used market. A new membrane is around 300 bucks, so not too expensive of a unit to maintain.
Outbound was correct in that the more these or any brand is used the less problems are likely to occur. My long term water maker cruising friends confirm this.
Another overlooked 12v brand that has a good reputation out here are the Little Wonder units.Little Wonder series watermakers
Parker hannifin bought these guys out a few years ago, so lots of experience in the filtration field.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

aeventyr60 said:


> Another overlooked 12v brand that has a good reputation out here are the Little Wonder units.Little Wonder series watermakers
> Parker hannifin bought these guys out a few years ago, so lots of experience in the filtration field.


We had a Little Wonder for 5yrs of cruising before getting rid of it. The problem with it, and all of them that don't use energy recovery pumps like Spectra does, is that you constantly fight the energy budget. The LW uses 17A to run while making 6.25gal/hr spec at 13.8V. At 12.4V, it makes 5gal/hr.

We have 700W of solar, and found that in order to charge our batteries and make water, we needed to run the generator, even with the solar. The solar could handle one or the other, but not both. We ended up constantly planning out when the watermaker would be run, and fitting it into battery charging, etc. Laundry required a 2 day advance notice so we could stockpile extra water with longer generator runs.

With an energy-recovery system, which produces almost 3 times the amount of water for the same amount of energy, we would have been much better balanced.

We solved the problem by switching to an AC system that makes 6 times as much water in the same amount of time - but that is not a good choice for boats without a generator, a good battery bank, and good alternative energy sources.

Mark


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

And one anecdote about Parker Hannefin as a company. 

Our Little Wonder was bought through Village Marine and they have a lifetime warranty on their high pressure pumps. We sent our unit back to VM for a checkup and rehab (it was on the boat when we bought it). They did some maintenance on the pump and sent it back to us. Within 30min of running it for the first time, one of the pistons threw a sling washer and trashed the pump. Taking it apart, it was obvious that no locktite was used on the assembly of this - as specifically specified in bold italics in the service manual.

Village Marine said no problem. Lifetime warranty covers everything for life. Besides, it was clearly our fault in the rebuild. Send it back and we will give you a new pump. 

I sent it back. In the couple of days it took to get there, Parker Hannefin bought Village Marine and immediately cancelled all lifetime warranties ever produced by Village Marine. Going back in time.

So when I didn't receive a new pump after a week, I called and was told that my pump no longer had a lifetime warranty, that Parker didn't wreck my pump - Village Marine did (one week earlier), and that if I wanted a pump, I would have to pay full retail for a new one.

Great company.

Mark


----------



## aeventyr60 (Jun 29, 2011)

Yep, sometimes ya get ****** out here...sorry your so dependent on a water maker to make the cruising life work for you. we've seen all kind of folks like you stuck in ports all over the world waiting for parts so they could continue cruising...so much for the freedom of the seas..as long as you've got heaps of money to keep them going then your sweet...


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

If that was referring to me, we have never been stuck in a port with a broken watermaker (or any other system, except for that direct lightning strike which took out everything, including batteries). The above story was from before we left cruising. Since leaving, everything works fine through 2 different watermakers.

You make a lot of assumptions and insinuations in your post.

Mark


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

colemj said:


> Unless your water needs are very miserly, the 40/80 gal/day systems just don't make sense. The 40 is pretty much survival only.
> 
> Mark


What?????? A 40gph system is only survival mode? :crying


----------



## john61ct (Jan 23, 2017)

Yes funny how quickly luxuries become essentials.

My family gets by comfortably on a gallon or two per day when that gives us more time away from civilization.


----------



## CVAT (Apr 29, 2012)

Don0190 said:


> What?????? A 40gph system is only survival mode? :crying


40 gallons per day, you miss read, or a 1.6 gallon per hour.


----------



## aeventyr60 (Jun 29, 2011)

colemj said:


> If that was referring to me, we have never been stuck in a port with a broken watermaker (or any other system, except for that direct lightning strike which took out everything, including batteries). The above story was from before we left cruising. Since leaving, everything works fine through 2 different watermakers.
> 
> You make a lot of assumptions and insinuations in your post.
> 
> Mark


More of a general assumption of what I've been seeing for years out here, and was brought home to us on our Summer in the Sea of Cortez in 2000. So many folks who said they'd be there, but stayed behind due to water maker issues. See it continue to this day with a litany of technological issues that most can't solve with skills yet developed.


----------



## BillMoran (Oct 1, 2016)

CVAT said:


> 40 gallons per day, you miss read, or a 1.6 gallon per hour.


That whole gpd rating is a bit nonsense. I mean, whose going to run the thing for 24 hours straight? The gph measurement is more reasonable for estimating your needs, and less confusing IMHO.

The way I figure it, if you need 5 gallons/day/person, that's 35 gallons per week (per person). If you generally want to run the watermaker about once a week, and probably only for about 4 hours, you'd need 8 gph to achieve that. Multiply that by however many people are on board. Then take into account whether your water use habits are miserly or "excessive." Additionally, figure in a safety factor, since you might not always be able to run it exactly once per week ...

That 5 gallons/day/person seems to be the typical recommendation, although I've seen lower amounts recommended in some documents. There are obviously LOTS of factors to consider, so I'm sure the value varies a LOT based on individual habits. I'd find it a quite interesting read if anyone has done some experiments along the lines of "I use 1 gpd if I'm miserly, 2 gpd if I'm somewhat conservative, and 5 gpd if I take a daily freshwater shower" I mean, how conservative do you actually have to be to only use 1 gpd? How wasteful to use 5 gpd?

Overall, given the expense of watermakers and all the other things that need improved on my boat -- I'm planning to set up a rainwater catch system instead. Way less expensive, and with 100 gallons of storage I expect to have enough buffer to safely survive a dry spell.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Speaking to things mentioned.
Bought th spectra Cape Horn because it seemed the most energy efficient. It has two pumps. Efficiency may be actually better with both running and you get redundancy as it runs just fine with one.
Have 2 D400s and panels. Haven’t been anal so can’t give documented details but on a sunny 10-15 knot day canrun both pumps and fill my tanks without turning the genset on or going below 80% on the 1020ah bank.
Have had it 2 years. It’s the sole source of domestic water even in the summer when we are commonly in a slip. Haven’t had a problem yet. Understand yet but think it’s simple and fairly bulletproof given no electronics.
Expense the way we use it is cheap filters and 2-3 times a year expensive carbon filters. Do make water also when propulsion engine or genset is on for another reason. Don’t think load is sufficient to significantly increase diesel use and it’s better for the genset to have its load on it as it usually goes on to charge batteries without other loads.
Is it a necessity for us - no.
But it has dramatically changed the way we cruise. Now only need to come in to a dock for fuel. Can bring out gas for the dinghy but not diesel for the other things.


----------



## aeventyr60 (Jun 29, 2011)

^Our historic water use is 1.1 gallon per day per person, *EXCLUDING *SHOWERS. The shower supply has always been separate and comes from rainwater and other sources stored in Jugs, sun showers and on occasion a 32 gallon bladder.

Yes, a good rain catchement system is essential. Not to difficult to rig up. The more permanent you can make it the better. Mine comes off the solar panels..

While crossing the Pacific we did salt water showers on deck with a fresh water rinse every day ( about a quart or so will do)..we survived too.

It will take some work to come up with an amount of water that works for you.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

CVAT said:


> 40 gallons per day, you miss read, or a 1.6 gallon per hour.


Yes I misread. But a low power unit making 40 gpd isn't survival mode still to me as we in normal anchor out mode use about 50 gal a week


----------



## john61ct (Jan 23, 2017)

I would think making water would be a more regular event than just once a week, why would you want to do it so infrequently?


----------



## RegisteredUser (Aug 16, 2010)

Buy a few 1 gal water jugs at the store.
Aside from showers, any water you use comes from those jugs...everything.
Mojitos, coffee, cooking pasta, brushing teeth, wipe the counter, etc.
Flag your faucets at home to remind you...off limits. 

It may surprise you..


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

BillMoran said:


> Overall, given the expense of watermakers and all the other things that need improved on my boat -- I'm planning to set up a rainwater catch system instead. Way less expensive, and with 100 gallons of storage I expect to have enough buffer to safely survive a dry spell.


Watermakers aren't a necessity, so they always require prioritizing like you are doing. Rain catchment is always a good thing, and relatively inexpensive. Our large hardtop will collect 200-300 gal/hr in a good rain shower. We have a 100gal tank like you.

During rainy seasons, the watermaker can stay unused. However, be aware that many places can go 4-6 months in a row without appreciable rain during the dry season.

We come in at ~8 gal/day/person averaged over a month. This accounts for washing down the boat after passages or when dirty, lots of showers after swimming, laundry, fresh water flush toilets, cooking, etc. I drink 1 gal/day of water. Not taking into account laundry and boat washes, it is ~5gal/day/person.

Mark


----------



## RegisteredUser (Aug 16, 2010)

john61ct said:


> I would think making water would be a more regular event than just once a week, why would you want to do it so infrequently?


It has to be run for X time before the quality is acceptable, whether you're making 1 gal or 200 gal...same wait time.
You control where the water is routed and when it is stopped, and the quality is monitored on some systems.
So...maybe it's like having something in the oven...

But, if it's not used often enough, there's a need to pickle membranes...


----------



## BillMoran (Oct 1, 2016)

RegisteredUser said:


> Buy a few 1 gal water jugs at the store.
> Aside from showers, any water you use comes from those jugs...everything.
> Mojitos, coffee, cooking pasta, brushing teeth, wipe the counter, etc.
> Flag your faucets at home to remind you...off limits.
> ...


That would be a tough thing to do. I mean, I could easily use it for drinking/cooking/etc. But I'd have to give up my dishwasher and hand-wash dishes just to do the experiment. The toilet isn't a big deal, since I won't be using freshwater to flush on board anyway. Laundry is another big one ... giving up my washing machine to hand-wash laundry would be tough. I know I'm going to have to do it on the boat, but I also won't dirty as many clothes because I'm not dressing in long underwear + etc for winter.

The showers are another big challenge. I'm not going to stop taking showers once I live aboard, but I will have to do them differently. I wonder how much water I use for a typical shower now? I'm sure it's not a water-efficient activity. I also will have to learn how comfortable I am without freshwater showers. I've talked to people who say they seldom take a freshwater shower ... as commented by others, one person's luxury is another person's necessity. I don't know where I fall on the freshwater shower topic just yet.

There are lots of things I can only guess at until I actually live aboard full time, and water usage is one of them.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Buy a Discovery 67, which has a rain catchment port on the side deck to fill directly into the inboard tank. Refill with every squall.


----------



## Skipper Jer (Aug 26, 2008)

As far as showers on board I use a plastic garden sprayer. The fine mist works well for wetting and rinsing. You would be surprised how far a half gallon of water goes when delivered as a mist. 

Looking at a Honda 2000 generator I'm thinking that may be the way to power a WM.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Met a guy in the st.john national park. He was studying fresh water snails. He said the entire Caribbean basin was in a decade long drought due to climate change. Rain in New England is dirty. In spite of advances in air pollution you may wait an hour before your cachement system and the rain is clean. Sometimes we rinse the boat after a rain shower to prevent the black crud that gets in the cockpit from getting below. Yes some of that crud is from ambient air but it still ends up on the boat. Even in the Caribbean a wash of the panels increases output. Don’t see how rain collection is a viable long term option in many areas. Wouldn’t drink that water or stick it in my tanks.
We have three showers. Sugar scoop and two heads. Coming off the dinghy commonly wash our feet and flip flops. Coming out of the water rinse off. That shower maybe run 5-6 times/day even when there’s just 2 on board. Have had much less calcium in the heads plumbing since flushing with RO water. Head rebuilds are now rare. Best is no smell. Only salt flush on passage when watermaking is not in the cards due to conditions.
Kitchen utensils, silverware and such are cleaner with less evident wear since stopping wash in salt rinse in fresh. Used to use only dawn in order to get good suds in salt. Now use whatever is available. 
Don’t have water ballast but do have Port/starboard tanks. Now have no reluctance to use up one tank on passage when we know we’ll be on one tack for days. Flat is fast.
Good hygiene to totally empty and dry out then rinse your tanks periodically. Now causes no stress to do one at a time knowing you can replenish.
A nice hot shower sure picks up the spirits of crew. Also prevents the rashes and passage pimples of long transits. Quickest way to warm up or cool down. Since only showering on the boat no athlete foot ever. 
Wife won’t camp out. Guests won’t water restrict the way you do. You make one pass.... get a watermaker.


----------



## BillMoran (Oct 1, 2016)

outbound said:


> Rain in New England is dirty. In spite of advances in air pollution you may wait an hour before your cachement system and the rain is clean. Sometimes we rinse the boat after a rain shower to prevent the black crud that gets in the cockpit from getting below. Yes some of that crud is from ambient air but it still ends up on the boat. Even in the Caribbean a wash of the panels increases output. Don't see how rain collection is a viable long term option in many areas. Wouldn't drink that water or stick it in my tanks.


You've got me super-curious now ...

I currently live in Pittsburgh, which is (historically speaking) the world capital of air pollution. I'm going to capture some rainwater and try to get an idea of how clean/dirty it is.

Regardless, though, running rainwater through a few filters wouldn't be too difficult. I'm curious about the setup they did on Uma: You Tube





You Tube








"]The Grenadines, a Sailor's Paradise â€" Sailing Uma [Step 92] - YouTube[/URL]


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Just run the rain water through a filter before the tank. Our catchment is permanently plumbed back to a point near our tank fill, with a hose fitting on the end. We keep a filter housing with a 1uM filter and the opposite hose fitting. When it rains, we just attach the filter and stick the output into the tank fill. 

You realize that most of the water one gets throughout the Caribbean and many other areas is all cistern collected rain water? Most of it unfiltered in any way. 

Sheesh, the fears around water in this thread makes me wonder if some of you shouldn't fill your tanks with rum instead.

Mark


----------



## mbianka (Sep 19, 2014)

colemj said:


> Just run the rain water through a filter before the tank. Our catchment is permanently plumbed back to a point near our tank fill, with a hose fitting on the end. We keep a filter housing with a 1uM filter and the opposite hose fitting. When it rains, we just attach the filter and stick the output into the tank fill.
> 
> You realize that most of the water one gets throughout the Caribbean and many other areas is all cistern collected rain water? Most of it unfiltered in any way.
> 
> ...


I use a small home made soft funnel to catch the water coming off the corner of my solar panels. These feed a black 5 gallon bucket in the stern that I use for rinses after a swims. Just the sun alone heats it up nicely:
THE BIANKA LOG BLOG: SOMETHING NEW ON THE BUCKET LIST
Once I get the inclination I'll finish the conversion of the old 30 gallon diesel fuel tank on board to a rinse down water tank and plumb the solar panels into that tank too. Plans are to also use this fresh water tank for the head intake at some point also.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

An inline coconut husk carbon filter does a remarkable job filtering safe, if not dirty water. I use one on all dock hoses having no idea what is in there (chlorine, etc).


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Gee unlike Bermuda haven’t noticed much in the way for drinking water. Do see cisterns but seem to be set up for irrigation. Doesn’t rain much and when the hurricanes come through folks have other things on their minds. Do see water production installations and tanked water brought in. Guess I’m not paying attention.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Guess not. In the VI's, houses are required by law to have cisterns. They are almost universal through the rest of the EC, Bahamas, and central America. Not for irrigation. Bahamas have much industrial RO, and this will eventually become more common elsewhere, but for now, collected rainwater is the way it is done - whether you see it, or just see it being transferred around in trucks. 

Mark


----------



## RegisteredUser (Aug 16, 2010)

In Mexico, you will see Rotoplast more than you see signs for Tecate...


----------



## john61ct (Jan 23, 2017)

At our 220 y.o. New England farmhouse, a rock cistern in the "mud room" entrance to the house is fed by a constantly running line / fountain directly run from a spring in the woods uphill.

Ice cold even dead of summer, beautifully tasting sweet fresh water, unlimited supply.

This sort of setup was just normal back in the day, but apparently these days pretty rare.

At the place I built in country Australia, three big poured concrete tanks above the house for water we pumped up from the dam bottom of the hill, and two for rainwater catchment.

Summertime dam water for clothes and flushing, rainwater for kitchen only.

Only town water we had was in NYC, and that was sweet as well.


----------



## mitiempo (Sep 19, 2008)

GeorgeB said:


> I have two tanks (bow and stern). How do you guys move water between the two as you are replenishing the supply from the watermaker? Mbianka, what is the amp consumption and water output for that seawater pro? I have a 400 Ah battery bank (360 usable Amps) with 200 watts solar and a 90 Amp alternator. I've been struggling to find a watermaker that meets my speck. The Katadyn Power saver 40 is about the only one I found.


The Spectra Ventura 150 is more than twice as efficient as the Katadyn 40. Same company by the way. Not only will you use half the power per gallon but you will not have to run it for hours and hours.


----------



## TheMadchef (Feb 16, 2010)

Thanks for all the replies gang, I’m leaning towards the spectra 200T, seems to be a good compromise between energy consumption, price & output.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

We didn’t go with the T. Although their promo gives a hard temperature cut off think production declines gradually. Started to follow water temperatures a bit. Like Washington County Maine and note even in summer once you get out of the New England bays ( Mass, Naragansett etc.) and stay out of the Gulf Stream North Atlantic water is cold. For you would think Scandinavian and North Sea cruising waters might be even colder. Figured I’d buy this once so tried to envision all possible cruising grounds.

Mark thanks for the education. Will look harder next time down. Still don’t see it as a viable option to cover needs. Bermuda yes- V.I.s no.


----------



## twoshoes (Aug 19, 2010)

john61ct said:


> At our 220 y.o. New England farmhouse....


How's that working out for you? My first house was a farmhouse in upstate New York built in 1848. It was nice living in a house with a real history; the local historic society had photos dating back to when it was built and lived in by the county Postmaster, but the maintenance that lie behind the updated drywall easily rivaled that of any boat. It was definitely a love-hate relationship.


----------



## mitiempo (Sep 19, 2008)

TheMadchef said:


> Thanks for all the replies gang, I'm leaning towards the spectra 200T, seems to be a good compromise between energy consumption, price & output.


Yes, if you are in tropical waters. If in colder areas the 150 is a better value.


----------



## john61ct (Jan 23, 2017)

twoshoes said:


> How's that working out for you?


Like winter camping in a barn, over $1800 a month if we tried to use the oil heat to keep the whole house at 65°.

But there's long family history there, and legal/financial arrangement mean it's worth our while to live there at least parts of the year.


----------



## RegisteredUser (Aug 16, 2010)

First thoughts are...
Log splitter and close/seal off upper floors/rooms


----------



## Skipper Jer (Aug 26, 2008)

john61ct said:


> Like winter camping in a barn, over $1800 a month if we tried to use the oil heat to keep the whole house at 65°.
> 
> But there's long family history there, and legal/financial arrangement mean it's worth our while to live there at least parts of the year.


Solar heating panels hung on the sun side of the building. You tube has vids.


----------



## john61ct (Jan 23, 2017)

I appreciate the posts but not needed, never said there was a problem, we're all set.


----------

