I did specifically plan the location of the cleaner pump (the one at 45°)
so that not only did the pipes not run over the top of the basket, but
that I could get my (rather large) body all around it to service the
heater and the other pumps.
So, while the octopus has grown, it now has the advantage of:
a) Must easier access to the baskets and pump
b) Easy disconnection of the pump and wiring
c) Re-use of one pump for another with only minor effort
You scare me. A lot! I'm going to have to switch nyms again, just to
start fresh! :)
BTW, I think every thing you said, turned out to be the best practice, in
the end. As was said by Bob, trader4, and others.
I just didn't understand it all.
Right now, I have to pack for camping, but, the good news is that it's
all buttoned up, and, well, the *original* leaks are wholly fixed!
The key problem is that there are new leaks, at the interface between the
pool pump and the motor.
I think there is a "seal" there that I've never replaced. Maybe I damaged
it. Dunno - but *both* motors are leaking from that location!
Unfortunately, I have the "band" tightened as far as it will go by hand:
He could have just cut off the old conduit and wires near where
they enter the motor, since he was going with new wiring anyway
Or he could have removed the conduit nut and pulled the conduit
off the connector. Or if none of that was to his liking and he
chose to rotate the whole motor, why couldn't he just rotate the
whole pump too? It's not all that much more difficult. Seperating
the motor from the pump when that whole assembly was
working and not leaking made no sense to me.
Also, wasn't there something about soaking the parts in acid?
On Sat, 18 May 2013 06:10:06 -0700, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
This is exactly what I would do in the future if/when the motor endcaps
rust on so tightly that they can't be removed. In the past, I've been
extremely frustrated with endcap bolts breaking, where I had to punch a
hole in the rusted endcap just to remove the bolts.
I *was* scared of touching the conduit - but now that I've worked with
it, it seems like the easiest of all the tasks - so - my fear of conduit
There was no way to remove the 1/2 inch elbow without spinning the motor.
Just impossible (without cutting it off or disconnecting the other end of
Both of these tasks seemed unthinkable to me before I worked with the
conduit; but now that I've worked with the conduit, my fear of disturbing
it has been greatly lessened.
Even easier, I could have *unbolted* the motor from the pump. Then it
would have been even easier to spin than a motor attached to the back
half of the pump.
I agree, in hindsight, with you.
Separating the halves of the pump created *more work* for me as I now
have to find new seals and replace them. I'll be doing that tomorrow if I
can find them in stock.
Cleaning the pump was done only because it was easy to do. It would have
been just as easy to clean the whole pump as it was half the pump, so
cleaning was not really a factor.
Aye Karumba! I didn't realize until now that you split it
by taking the pump apart instead of just seperating the motor
from the pump! I knew you went on to screw around with the
pump, but I thought that was after you had taken the motor off
the pump. I would never take a pump apart that didn't need
unless I had no other choice.
It's not the cleaning. It's that using an acid bath might be the cause
pump now leaking. I sure woudn't be quick to use acid on a pump that
was working just fine.
Well, the motors had to be turned in circles in order to remove the 1/2
inch elbow since there was no way the connector was coming off otherwise.
But I *could* have just unbolted the motors at the square flange (and, in
hindsight, that's what I *should* have done.
Removing the motors also made it easier to move the pumps about as I
juggled the setup (although in hindsight, that wasn't worth the leak).
I'm googling for a Sta-Rite Max-e-Glas II seal replacement DIY, and I see
some youtube videos, which I will check out before replacing the seal
tomorrow (if I can find a seal in stock at the local pool supply stores).
I'm a bit confused though why both pumps would leak simply from opening
them up, as I've opened them up before and didn't have this problem.
The original pics show an elbow with a nut where the conduit
connected to it, ie it's not the new type where the fitting screws
into the conduit. So, why exacly was there no way to get that
elbow off the end of the conduit without rotating the motor?
Loosen the nut, pull and work it side to side until it comes off.
If it won't come off, take a propane torch and gently apply
a little heat to the outside of the conduit.
On Fri, 17 May 2013 22:15:19 -0700, DD_BobK wrote:
That was just a joke about the nyms, since Oren is able to discern a lot
of unintended things from a single photo.
It's funny you say that though, because you're only caustic to the ones
from me. You're perfectly reasonable in the rest of the nyms. No big
deal, as I don't actually plan on changing nyms, having stopped that
privacy practice about a year ago.
I'm positive that, if I had wanted to change nyms, you'd never be the
wiser; but again, I have no plans for that as it's not really an
effective privacy measure anyway.
< / off topic discussion >
brought this up already. >>>>
You're headed to pump repair or replacement now. :(
When you put in the new pumps you can re-wire the whole installation
and get rid of that dumb box / stepping stone Rube Goldberg
Inspect the shaft bearing behind seal for rust. No rust, it should be
fine for now. The seal leaks and corrodes the bearing from chlorine
(motors squeal). Not real expensive. <<<<
but totally avoidable via the "if it ain't broke, don't fit rule".
And "better is the enemy of good enough"
Now that I've changed my attitude... his threads & DIY approach is
These threads could be scripts for a TV show.
DDD reminds me of monkey & a football.......
PS.... has anyone seen a slab mounted box in a similar situation?
IME, they're always pole, post or wall mounted.
On all of the pumps I have worked on the ceramic seal actually seals
to the impeller and the pump housing. The shaft is not sealed.
They can be pretty nasty and still work OK.
I have 3 pool pumps and a well pump that all have 5/8" shafts and use
the same bearing (a sealed 6203). I went to an online bearing place
and got 10 bearings for what one costs locally.
I throw new bearings at any pump I rebuild now.
On Sat, 18 May 2013 17:32:58 -0400, gfretwell wrote:
I have three pool pumps, one fountain pump, and two well pumps; so it
behooves me to learn how to replace their bearings.
Looking at my old AO Smith QC1102 1.0x1.65SF HP motors (I have four to
choose from) I see the bearings appear to be the same as yours.
I'll google what these markings indicate:
a. 6203V USA NSK
b. 6203D 2145 CHINA KBC
6203 is the important part. That is the size of the bearing
You also want "sealed" bearings, not "shielded" bearings in a pump and
don't lose the "slinger" that washer between the pump and motor that
seems to have no purpose.
It takes water migrating down the shaft and "slings" it away before it
gets to the bearing.
Other than that, the only trick is getting the bearing off the shaft.
A bearing puller is a great thing to have.
A piece of 1/2" schedule 40 pipe seems to be a good driver to put it
back. You want to be sure the driver only pushes on the inner race.
On Mon, 20 May 2013 02:06:54 -0400, gfretwell wrote:
Thanks for that information as the bearing designation definitely
still confuses me (if I wish to understand the various suffixes).
Googling, I see the shield is a non contact surface, while the
seal is a contact surface (for what it's worth).
The old bearings were the 6203V NSK USA while the rebuilder
(for about $150) put in the KBC 2145 6203D China bearings:
Googling, I find the AO Smith part number, size, & description is:
604005-001 ID=0.6693",OD=1.5750",W=0.470" double sealed high thrust
The nominal size for a 6203 bearing seems to be slightly different:
6203 ID=0.66993", OD=1.5748", W=0.4724"
But, maybe that's just a function of metric-to-english conversion:
IDmm, OD@mm, Wmm
The actual 6203 apparently boils down to this:
6 = metric, single row ball bearing, deep groove
2 = light duty (e.g., 40mm OD, 12mm width)
03 = 17 mm bore diameter
The 6203 is so common, I find a confusing array of suffixes:
6203D (http://webshop.abfbearings.com/Bearing/6203D-KBC/329328 )
6203V (http://www.tanchin-hk.com/bearings-shop-22026-NSK.html )
6203LL (http://www.spapartsshop.com/na-6203-ll.aspx )
6203ZZ (http://www.vxb.com/page/bearings/PROD/kit1040 )
6203RS (http://www.inyopools.com/Products/07501352012909.htm )
From the advertising, these "seem" to be what the suffix indicates:
6203D (deep groove, ball, single row, rubber seal on one side)
6203V (deep groove, ball)
6203LL (same as 2RS)
6203ZZ (double, staked, non-contact, 300 series stainless steel shields)
6203RS (rubber seals)
62032RS (two rubber seals)
This is all so confusing... that I think I'll call AO Smith for advice.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.