T&T: Fw: Holding Tank Woes (Lectrasan use)

[Larry N. Brown]

Here are a few considerations for the Lectrasan/Purasan discussion. The 
legal, the moral and the potty police test. First, the effluent from my 
Purasan unit dumps a more highly treated effluent into the river that flows 
behind my house in Louisiana than the municipal sewage plant upstream. By an 
order of magnitude. Don't mention storm run off. So no one can argue that a 
holding tank is a better alternative because it goes to a municipal 
treatment plant with the attendant problems.

The water cops are enforcing a law that is designed for holding tanks, not 
LS or PS units. The units hold around 2 1/2 gallons of treated sewage and 
eject overboard an amount equal to how much is flushed in. I have a 1 1/2 
inch standard sanitation hose that runs about 35 feet from the forward Tecma 
toilet to a wye below the aft one. Goes another 15' to the Purasan and 
another 3' to the through hull. Uses between 1 and three quarts per flush 
but let's say a gallon to be conservative.

Now, someone please check my math here.  A gallon of liquid occupies 231 
cubic inches of volume. A piece of standard sanitation hose is 1 1/2" in 
diameter and has a cross sectional area of about  1.77". Divide 232 by 1.77 
and we get around 131" of hose per gallon of you know what. Divide that by 
12 and we discover that excrement occupies around 11 feet of a standard 
sanitation hose. So it takes 4 flushes for the forward head to make it to 
the Purasan. I takes 1 1/2  for the aft head. Then it takes another 2 1/2 
flushes to fill the PS and another 1 to push a dye tablet out. Is my math 
right?

We have solved all 3 problems regardless of your of which ones bothers you 
most. Legal,  moral and passing the dye test. The LS will treat the sewage 
better than the municipal system the holding tank is plumbed to. It will 
also cover you for a dye test.

> Will a Lectrasan get you through a dye test or will the dye just pass 
> through?
> Thanks
>
> Dave Hart
> Lake Ontario