When we moved out here in the middle of nowhere, I wondered what I would do without a Sam's Club. Well, it didn't take us long to realize that we absolutely wouldn't 'do without'. Our nearest Sam's is a 3-hour round trip so now we go once every two or three months. Yes, when we go, we spend about $400, but we save a ton even with the cost of gas over what we would spend at the local grocery (which is 1-hr. round trip). Also, I do lots of canning with tomatoes, peppers, veggies, apples and other fruits that come into season. I can't imagine spending $.50 for a pepper in the winter when I have lots of chopped peppers in the freezer. If you really want to save, you can.

A way to gauge your flow rate is to find out the minimum flow rate on your salt cell. Bump the RPM down to the point that it just balks at flow rate and you'll have a data point for RMP to flow rate.

Thank you, that will save me some time if I switch over. Since everything is glued together including the threaded fittings into the pot I would have to replace two 3-way valves. Not a huge deal just more time and money. I just installed a 2-speed motor and it seems to be adequate at low speed. However, as the filter pressure increases the flow dramatically decreases. I was thinking a little more RPMs would be nice maybe around 2,000 or so. I have been using PhosFree to remove the Phosphates, which are now low so the flow problem may go away and the 2-speed motor may be fine. I can buy a lot of DE for the price of a VF and Intellicom. I am a little hesitant to install a variable speed pump. I had my variable blower motor fail on my house heater. Fortunately it was just inside the 5 year warranty but it still cost $280 in service calls. Could have been $280 plus over $750 for the motor.

Likely only talking to myself here in this old thread, so here goes anyway: amazondk, I do note much nuanced thought in your writings and I applaud that, but a few discrepancies have easily been spotted. First, way back up yonder, you speak of the methodology of a "sustainable" harvest, whereby only trees of large size are removed, the rest being left to grow on. Well, many decades ago here in the US, this was recognized for the mistake it is, and is known as high-grading. It can amount to the systematic removal of a given stand's best genetics for profit, leaving the weaker and less vigorous stems behind. Then, you also speak of how in the US PNW, there is so much replanting post harvest. Sure, sure, but it's all one species, so where you had doug fir, w. hemlock, w. red cedar, perhaps grand fir, etc. you now have just doug fir. That's hardly environmentally wise and is certainly not preserving the previous forest genetics. Also, in speaking of, for example, ipe's rapid growth, you do not mention that it is precisely the huge expanse of time which has allowed that and other species' gradually slowing growth rate (As they near maturity) that allows for such high-quality product. Finally, you repeat the long-discredited notion that it is young forests which are sequestering the most carbon. This erroneous thought came about when researchers initially only measured height increment in determining overall use and hence, sequestration of carbon. In fact, the old-growth tree is still, by dint of its immense overall size, still growing "faster" than the young pup, its growth simply being spread all over its many growing points. I learned that 20 years ago. All that said, I do certainly agree with some of your other points. For the best example, the often erroneous portrayal of a logged-out stand as a ruined one. If that's the case, I sure do wonder where all this great woodland here in Wisconsin came from! We supplied half the country with the wood to build this nation, in the case of a little town called Chicago, twice! Yes, nature is resilient and it can bounce back impressively. It is too bad though that your buddy seems to only want to hurl names and stereotypes around in this thread. Everybody else had reasonable things to contribute.