Forget Reverse Osmosis RO Get pure filtered water with a deionizer DI no waste filter

roccyracoon420

Active Member
I have done a lot of research due to the highly wasteful, and slow, nature of Reverse Osmosis (RO) filters. The good news is that I think I have found the solution to all our problems.

http://stores.ebay.com/Rons-Water-Filters

Above is an eBay link that shows one example form a particular seller. I bought a 3 stage filter the third stage bing a Deionizer (DI.) The system comes with a ball valve that regulates flow, otherwise the ppm may not be dropped enough. I was able to drop my 300 ppm tap water into 5 ppm pure. My calcium is 180 ppm out of the faucet, so this system is going to save my ass. So this thing makes very pure water, has ZERO waste water, and makes five gallons in less than ten minutes. A cheap RO filter takes thirty minutes a gallon as I understand (50 gallons per day.) My system came with a hose screw on adapter. I am inquiring as to whether there is a proper faucet adapter that I didn't receive. I will post that info as it comes to me.

Because most tap water has little sediment but many ions I am going to change out the first 1 micron filter to a 10 micron. This way it is little more than a placeholder. All I really want is a 1 micron pre-filter, and the DI filter. Why replace two pre-filters that are BOTH one micron?

Okay here's the potential downside. The harder your water is, the faster the DI resin is used up. Naturally. But Ive heard these going as far as 150 gallons per filter. I am going to err on the side of caution and assume mine will produce 50 gallons before I have to change it out. The great news is that you can buy refillable filters and DI resin on ebay. Pack your own for like ten bucks a filter. 7.5 pounds will fill five DI filters and is 50 bucks. If it only lasts 50 gallons, that is still just 20 cents a gallon, with no waste water.

From what I have read RO is cheaper, but much slower and something like 66 percent wasteful. I will continue to post my successes and failures with it.

Any debate or questions are welcome. Thanks for reading and validating the many hours I spent online researching.
 

roccyracoon420

Active Member
Just read my email from these guys. He said they missed the note and that a "snap faucet adapter" is on its way. However that works. I'll post again when I know how many gallons this thing can actually clean efficiently, and when my adapter gets here.
 

PetFlora

Well-Known Member
The downside of DI as a solo filter is that in the process of removing everything it soon clogs and can only be regenerated at a DI station

RO is the most efficient and can be more-so with the addition of a booster pump, which makes for higher rejection and less water loss

THEN post filter with DI
 
Top