Filling the water tank at home

[swimmer_spe]

We used to live where we had city water. We have since moved and now draw our water for our home from a lake. It is perfectly safe and clean, however, some sediment might get through and there can be discolouration. While that doesn't bother me at home, I worry about what I put in my RV tank.

Would you suggest filling it at home or at the campground?

[swimmer_spe]

Mike134 wrote:

I am the OP. I am also a stationary engineer. Pure water is partly my domain, but there are water specialists that make sure our water is perfect. The tests for boiler water is different than the tests for drinking water.

Someone say Boiler Deaerator?

How do I make my signature say

I'm no expert but I play one on the internet?

... won't get the pH up. And, still doesn't deal with the sediment.

[swimmer_spe]

agesilaus wrote:
"stationary engineer", heh I was trained as a machinist mate in the USN which is the equivalent and went to Reactor Operator and Engineering Lab Tech before going back to school post Navy. I also worked in a utility with 2200 psi boilers. And boiler water has all sorts of boiler treatment chemicals in it, phosphates, probably some organics like morpholine or cyclohexylamine and so on depending on the unit pressure. Now feedwater is pure until you load it up with chemicals.
Yes you need to be concerned with what but what I would put into a boiler or reactor is not what I would drink...heh. Admiral Rickover picked up a beacker of water of some kind and drank it down, on TV, claiming it was reactor water. LOL what a liar, the barium or Lithium Hydroxide might have produced some gastrointestinal fireworks plus the stuff is mildly radioactive.

In non glow-in-the-dark boilers, I would not put the water in my tap into them. I would also not drink boiler water.

My concern still is whether the sediment build up should be a concern. I usually only drain the tank to winterize.

[agesilaus]

"stationary engineer", heh I was trained as a machinist mate in the USN which is the equivalent and went to Reactor Operator and Engineering Lab Tech before going back to school post Navy. I also worked in a utility with 2200 psi boilers. And boiler water has all sorts of boiler treatment chemicals in it, phosphates, probably some organics like morpholine or cyclohexylamine and so on depending on the unit pressure. Now feedwater is pure until you load it up with chemicals.
Yes you need to be concerned with what but what I would put into a boiler or reactor is not what I would drink...heh.

Admiral Rickover picked up a beaker of water of some kind and drank it down, on TV, claiming it was reactor water. LOL what a liar, the barium or Lithium Hydroxide might have produced some gastrointestinal fireworks plus the stuff is mildly radioactive.

[Mike134]

I am the OP. I am also a stationary engineer. Pure water is partly my domain, but there are water specialists that make sure our water is perfect. The tests for boiler water is different than the tests for drinking water.

Someone say Boiler Deaerator?

How do I make my signature say

I'm no expert but I play one on the internet?

[swimmer_spe]

agesilaus wrote:

swimmer_spe wrote:

agesilaus wrote:
Do tell, there is no lab test in Standard Methods for the Examination of Water called "Test for Toxins". Who told you that, the Culigan man?

There are tests for things known to be toxic, but no respectable water person would use toxin.

Water person?! I guess I'm one and if someone wants a test for 'toxins' I would say which one there are thousands or hundreds of thousands probably. You could do a GC/MS (gas chromatography/Mass Spectrography) scan which pick up -organic molecules- in the sample but you are talking serious money per test, over $1000 each for a walk in customer. And you'd have to add a lot of other general chemical and biological analysis to cover the more likely possibilities. But there is no test for toxins the term is nebulous and like a fog bank blowing in the wind. No you go in and buy an analysis for specific compounds 2,4 dichlorobenzene for example.
That's why I asked if it was the Culigan man, those water softener salesmen have a certain reputation amoung environmental chemists and it aligns with RV salesmen. They will do their worst to use the anal extraction method to make up lies to scare people into buying their junk.

But yes we are far off subject. If the OP wants to fill his gut with lake water, that's fine with me. It's his gut after all.

I am the OP. I am also a stationary engineer. Pure water is partly my domain, but there are water specialists that make sure our water is perfect. The tests for boiler water is different than the tests for drinking water.

[agesilaus]

swimmer_spe wrote:

agesilaus wrote:
Do tell, there is no lab test in Standard Methods for the Examination of Water called "Test for Toxins". Who told you that, the Culigan man?

There are tests for things known to be toxic, but no respectable water person would use toxin.

Water person?! I guess I'm one and if someone wants a test for 'toxins' I would say which one there are thousands or hundreds of thousands probably. You could do a GC/MS (gas chromatography/Mass Spectrography) scan which pick up -organic molecules- in the sample but you are talking serious money per test, over $1000 each for a walk in customer. And you'd have to add a lot of other general chemical and biological analysis to cover the more likely possibilities. But there is no test for toxins the term is nebulous and like a fog bank blowing in the wind. No you go in and buy an analysis for specific compounds 2,4 dichlorobenzene for example.
That's why I asked if it was the Culigan man, those water softener salesmen have a certain reputation amoung environmental chemists and it aligns with RV salesmen. They will do their worst to use the anal extraction method to make up lies to scare people into buying their junk.

But yes we are far off subject. If the OP wants to fill his gut with lake water, that's fine with me. It's his gut after all.

[C_Schomer]

Do you remember why W.C. Fields said he didn't drink water?

[swimmer_spe]

agesilaus wrote:
Do tell, there is no lab test in Standard Methods for the Examination of Water called "Test for Toxins". Who told you that, the Culigan man?

There are tests for things known to be toxic, but no respectable water person would use toxin.

[agesilaus]

Do tell, there is no lab test in Standard Methods for the Examination of Water called "Test for Toxins". Who told you that, the Culigan man?

[agesilaus]

test your city water while you are at it. Mine has up to 500 toxins in it.

[doxiemom11]

I don't know, but at a campground where we hosted, the lake water had to be tested weekly for us to let swimmers in the water at the beaches.

[mr_andyj]

Grit dog wrote:

mr_andyj wrote:
test your city water while you are at it. Mine has up to 500 toxins in it.

That explains alot...

The debate is still ongoing what is wrong with you

[Mike134]

valhalla360 wrote:

Mike134 wrote:
I remember my first trip to the boundary waters canoe area in Minnesota.
Us city kids were stunned when the outfitter told us to drink the lake water no filter needed.

I must say we had no issues.

Works great...until it doesn't.

Agreed Your safe outside till your hit by lightning, driving, walking.....you get the idea, I'll take my chances.

[dedmiston]

mr_andyj wrote:
test your city water while you are at it. Mine has up to 500 toxins in it.

Almost as bad as the chemtrails.