| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 1152.1 | how many poops per pop? | VLNVAX::FRENIERE | | Mon Mar 20 1989 14:04 | 8 |
| I am anticipating the responses to this as well. Whatever
I use for a holding tank, it will be some 8 or 9 ft. from
the head. Wondering what problems this will cause. Also wonder
how many "uses" a 15 gallon or 28 gallon (think that is the
Nautia-bag) sizes. Or, more crudely, how many poops before pumpout?
Don
|
| 1152.2 | Flush often | PBA::SCHLEGEL | | Tue Mar 21 1989 08:35 | 9 |
| Of course it depends where you guys are sailing, but if you have
reasonable access to open ocean, why consider pump-outs at all?
We sail "outside" often enough that we pump overboard when we are
sufficiently offshore. I STRONGLY suggest that you utilize a "Y"
valve so you can go directly outboard in emergencies. Malfunctioning
holding tanks are no "bed of roses"!! Further, I suggest smaller
holding tanks, flushed more often. The sludge can harden up. Good
luck.
|
| 1152.3 | | VLNVAX::FRENIERE | | Tue Mar 21 1989 10:31 | 7 |
| I do have access to ocean pumping. Want to use the tank for perhaps
a two or three day stay in places like Brenton Cove or Dutch Harbor.
Would like to use smallest tank to handle that kind of load. That is
why the question of how many poops per pop. Like how many gallons
per flush of solid waste.
Don
|
| 1152.4 | cannot hold it anymore | MPGS::KTISTAKIS | Mike K. | Tue Mar 21 1989 11:20 | 10 |
| I do have access to the ocean too since I am moored in Jamestown,but
I don't want to run out to the ocean just to empty my tank.
Also my inquiry about holding tanks deals more with the selection of
which system is better,keeping in mind compromises.Since I have to
put a system in or face the $500 penalty,now is the time for an
intelligente decision even if it costs a few more pennies up front.
There must be a lot of feed back from the sail or power noters because
assuming that at least 90% have a system on their boat they must have
first hand experience and advice.
|
| 1152.5 | shore standards | R2ME2::FANEUF | | Tue Mar 21 1989 12:48 | 9 |
| For information -
latest shorebound codes in Massachusetts require toilets to use a
maximum of 1.6 gallons/flush. That may provide a rough measure, as
seagoing toilets probably use no more.
Ross Faneuf
|
| 1152.6 | alternative toilet - a watersaver? | CDR::SPENCER | John Spencer | Tue Mar 21 1989 13:11 | 12 |
| We used to have a 20-gal (I think) rubber holding tank--not recommended!--
which would go for a long weekend with four aboard, providing people were
conscientious in their flushing practices. But, without getting too
specific, people and habits vary quite a bit.
I recently have used one of the new vacuum-suction type toilets, and among
other supposed advantages, it seemed to use less water each flush than the
traditional Wilcox-Crittendon that was aboard Puffin. (However, the
technique is something that requires a bit of learning.)
J.
|
| 1152.7 | | VLNVAX::FRENIERE | | Tue Mar 21 1989 17:00 | 5 |
| John,
Why would you not recommend the rubber holding tank?
Don
|
| 1152.8 | Rubber holding tank tale | CDR::SPENCER | John Spencer | Wed Mar 22 1989 08:22 | 29 |
| RE: -.1,
Well, mostly it smelled, though this probably has little to do with the
material itself (though my associations with it are now spoiled.) The
smell, though, may have come in part from weeping at some fitting/s or
other when overpumped. And/or whenever a cause for odor did make it
outside the bladder, the surface texture was rough enough to be virtually
impossible to clean 100.0%. I didn't dare take any truly strong
deodorizers disinfectants (the kind they use in nursing homes and with
"bladder appliances") for fear of harming the rubber. With metal I would
have really scrubbed that sucker down.
One good feature, however, was that as solids collected and resisted the
pumpout suction from time to time, one could massage the bag to loosen
everything up and direct it towards the suction fitting. With a metal
tank, as undelightful as the prospect sounds, I'd have a *very* well
gasketed, accessible cleanout bung on the tank top, and would anticipate
using it at least once each season as part of decommissioning.
J.
BTW, things were much improved by mounting a clothespin in the holding tank
locker into which we placed a wooden matchstick the end of which had been
dipped in one of these super deodorizers. No piney smell, mind you
(they're made for people who have to carry bladder bags), but welcome
olfactory relief for anyone in or around that locker. Later we also did
this in the head, down near the base of the bowl (where *every* head is
apparently designed to leak at least a bit); again, noticeable relief.
|