Macerator Pump to Deck Fitting

[peghall]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

That deck arrangement is fairly common, Dave

Really??? Where??? 'Cuz although I occasionally run into an owner who's set up his deck pumpout fitting to connect a hose to dump the tank, in 20+ years I've yet to hear of another one that had TWO deck fittings.


For Windshift...
It had to have been installed by a PO...I've NEVER heard of any builder doing it that way. My guess is, it's the larger 1.5" --or 1.25" if installed in the US--deck fitting that the hose would have been connected to. And since the coupling needed (the same kind of pumpout adapter needed to connect to pumpout hoses, plus a cam coupler) is expensive, I'm not surprised that the PO didn't leave the hose behind.

But WHY would you want to find out what size hose you'd want to connect to it? Surely you wouldn't want to store that hose aboard...would you???

[SV_Windshift]

No peg, don't think I would want to carry that hose around . But I am curious

[hellosailor]

Peg, before we had a key switch, we just pulled the fuse. Voila, "disabled" and secured since there were no obvious spare fuse, most everything else was on a breaker.

I'm surprised a macerator pump has enough lift to push anything up to deck level though!

[peghall]

Pulling the fuse works. And you'd be amazed by how high a macerator pump can lift...check the head capacity on page 1 of the instructions: Jabsco macerator instructions

[jkleins]

I have to disagree about "carrying around the hose". Every RV in the world carries one around in a compartment on the bumper or under the floor not any further away from the living space then a cockpit lazarette. They actually are very clean after emptying a tank with just a rinse out.

We have a macerator to empty the RV at home so we can just use a regular garden hose to run it into a toilet. It works great and while we don't use it for drinking water, we store it with everything else in the garage and you couldn't pick the one we use out of a lineup.

They would clean up nicely after only brief exposure with just a simple sea water rinse or dunk.

I think there may be more merit to this idea then we are giving the original owner.

Jim

[peghall]

Every RV in the world carries one around in a compartment on the bumper or under the floor not any further away from the living space then a cockpit lazarette.

But on an RV, " the bumper compartment or space under the floor is in the open air, not in an enclosed locker or lazerette.

They actually are very clean after emptying a tank with just a rinse out.

Which is a lot easier to do at a dump station--or at your house--where there's running water and the hose can be disconnected and rinsed out on the ground than on on a boat several miles from shore.

They would clean up nicely after only brief exposure with just a simple sea water rinse or dunk.

Which would have to be done BEFORE you bring it aboard! and I'll lay you 8-5 that the hose will be lost overboard within the first 5 attempts to do that...which MAY explain why the hose is no longer with the boat.

[hellosailor]

"and I'll lay you 8-5 that the hose will be lost overboard within the first 5 attempts to do that..."
I don't know, Peg. The sailor who can't put a leash on a hose, or anything else, and tow it alongside for ten minutes, is a poor sailor indeed.

I think the problem is more that if you carry a hose, you need the hose INshore, and then you have to stow it without rinsing it out, since that would "discharge" sewage.

[lookoutnw]

That pic is the same as I have. Mt holding tank has teh standard flow in and flow out to pump out. It also ahas a 'Recirculating port' YUK, REcirculating the effuent intot he head for water rationing or something. I figured they came out with that deck unit to connect teh 're-circ' line to so to spray clean water intot he tank when you are pumping it out for busting anything loose on teh lower portions of the tank. Well, that my story, and that is how mine works now.

[HopCar]

Peggy, I love the key switch idea! I must admit that I usually don't properly secure my overboard discharge because it is such a PITA.
On my set up, the black water goes directly from the toilet to a holding tank. There is a Tee attached to the discharge fitting on the tank. One leg of the Tee is connected to the deck fitting, the other to a Jabsco macerator pump. The pump discharges through a 1" seacock below the water line. As I understand it, with this system to be legal I have to secure the seacock in the closed position. With the key switch I'll be able to open the seacock before I leave the dock and still be legal.

[HopCar]

I just got a look at the photo. I think Jabsco made a deck fitting like that many years ago. As I recall the second small opening was used for the vent line and wouldn't have been connected to a pump. Peggy do you remember what I'm talking about or am I just getting old and senile?

[peghall]

I've never seen it before, but you could be right. I just took a closer look at the photo and realized that it's a plate with both the deck fittings installed in it. It would make sense that one would be for a pumpout and the other a tank vent "thru-hull" design to prevent taking on water when the boat is heeled (Catalina runs vents into rail stanchions with holes on the aft sides for that reason). But that wouldn't explain the macerator pump with no thru-hull for it.

I've saved the photo to send to a couple of my own "gurus" who've been with sanitation equipment mfrs even longer than the 20+ years that I've been doing this...I'll bet at least one of 'em knows ALL about it.

It could very well have been part of a recirculator...There were a number of recirculating systems in the late 70s...Danforth (yes, the anchor mfr Danforth) made one...the Monogram Monomatic was even a legal Type I treatment device...at least one boat builder cobbled up one that used a Raritan PHII and a Kracor tank...and I'm sure they were others less well known that could very well have included Jabsco. It was a fad that came and went fairly quickly 'cuz they didn't hold much, they certainly weren't aesthetically attractive, and plus, unless they were dumped within 24 hours, they STANK!

I'll let y'all know what I find out.

[hellosailor]

Peg, don't the airlines all use blue "water" in recirculating systems for their heads? Boating maybe tried to copy it and found out boaters don't like blue?

[peghall]

Yep...they do. And Monogram--who made the Monomatic is/was a major mfr of airline recirculators. And if they aren't serviced on schedule, they stink too. Every time there's a horror story of passengers being stuck on a plane on the tarmac for hours, the complaints always include odor from an overfull toilet holding tank.

It's hard enough to maintain one that holds a couple hundred gallons...scaling it down something that only held about 4 gallons (in addition to 6 gallons of chemical soup) just wasn't a good solution. Small capacity was bad enough...being treated to a view of your last "deposit" and also the need to service it every 24 hours whether it's full or not made the whole idea totally unacceptable to boat owners.

Fun TRUE story about an airline system...happened about 10 years ago...CNN ran it:

The toilet plumbing in the aft head had a pinhole leak that no one had caught. At 30k feet, the stuff collected under a tail section in a frozen mass that built up into a fairly good sized "rock." That is, till vibration and flex broke it loose. And as luck would have it, it crashed through the porch roof a farm house somewhere in either KS or NE, I forget which...or maybe IA. They thought it was a great big meteorite...till it melted enough for 'em to smell it.

[Pblais]

Every time there's a horror story of passengers being stuck on a plane on the tarmac for hours, the complaints always include odor from an overfull toilet holding tank.

Branching out into airplanes are you I suppose the problem of hauling poop around is just is bound to be trouble no matter in the air or on the water. They need an MSD solution.

[peghall]

I dunno, Paul...Although I'm a major supporter of treatment over holding on the water, somehow I don't think "treat and discharge" from an airplane, even 30k' up, would be the best idea over major metro areas.