AlphaChaotic

It was brought to my attention recently that in Connecticut, there has not been one reported instance of galvanic corrosion as caused by SWGs. Granted, this information is coming from an international sales rep for SWGs but it warrants looking in to. I'm curious if there's anyone on the forum from Connecticut who is familiar with Connecticut building codes or if there's a pool owner who has had a pool built in Connecticut according to these guidelines who can give me insight into what could possibly be different that what goes on in the South (Louisiana). I've been browsing through Connecticut Code roughly half the day and I can't really take anymore =) Would appreciate any feedback.

Sand in the pool as caused by direct blow-back from the filter, will always be located about a foot either to the right or left of the returns.

As well, I will say that calcium hardness is not so important in a liner pool. Should you have had gunite, I would definitely say you want your calcium hardness to be at a higher level. Do you have tiling along the top of your pool? That could be a concern for you running at lower levels of hardness.

Hey J, I would recommend lowering your PH to a more comfortable range of 7.4-7.6. Human tears are approx 7.4. I would increase my calcium hardness to approx. 150 ppm. And you definitely, definitely, definitely want to get your CYA up to 80 ppm. I would then follow by showing with DiChlor Shock or a lithium-based shock at a rate of 1 pound per 5000 gallons.

Hey everyone. I'm sure some of you may have taken notice to my sporadic postings on this site and TFP. Yet, I've as of yet not taken the time to properly introduce myself to you all. My name's Ashley and I'm a salesman for a pool and spa business based out of Southern Louisiana. Most of my posting has centered around SWGs and what I was beginning to see as a problem in pools utilizing an SWG: rust, cost and failure rate. I'm aware that galvanic corrosion and traditional corrosion are two separate processes and I understand the chemistry behind it. So I do believe that its possible to protect everything below the water line in a properly balanced pool utilizing a properly functioning SWG. Most of the sales seem to center around the use of zinc sacrificial weights placed in your skimmer to protect those precious metal components. Yet, what I'm seeing, and what I've heard from another technician at The Pool Tool Co. is that those disks are about 25% effective as preventing corrosion. What was offered as a substitute was an inline anode that can be bonded into the pool, if required. The cost is higher than an anode: $15 as opposed to $109, respectively. The weight should be replaced every six months for optimum effectiveness but the in-line anode can last up to a year-and-a-half. You replace the anode when about 1/2 deteriorated and replace with an $25 replacement anode. The protection offered vs the higher cost appear to balance one another out so I recommend the in-line anode more powerfully in my sales presentation. The problem really arises around the splash-out zone. Top rails (if metal), decking (concrete, wood, stone, etc.), surrounding lawn furniture, etc., need to be sprayed down daily when in use and I recommend sealing the decking at least once a year. And this is the thing: its my job as a salesman to present them with ALL the facts concerning SWGs and if, in the end, they decide to go with that type of sanitizing regimen, it's my job to provide them with a means to a desired end. In an ideal world, it would be smooth sailing and proper water chemistry as provided by my store. I want to know: What are you guys' impressions, straight-up, on SWGs and their viability as a stable, money-saving, easier-to-maintain alternative to chlorine, and the many competing effective alternatives? We're currently using the CompuPool CPSC series SWGs. We have, in the past, burned through Ecomatic and AquaTrol. Not quite sure what happened with AquaTrol but Ecomatic, after having a good system the first year, seeming as if to cut costs by downgrading to a 12 gauge wire when it should have been an 8, on the ground wire to the 2ndary plug underneath which normally would go to your pump. The 12 gauge wire couldn't handle the load and would burn out and sometimes melt the inside of the case. CompuPool, on the other hand, has been a problem from the beginning. The only thing going for this system, in my opinion, is that is has a integrated timer. I would say a good 80% of my units sold are coming back for warranty issues and are being replaced sometimes 3 and 4 times, as of yet. My hunch is that the fuses, 3.15 are too small for the load and we need to upgrade to a 5. We've tried that and it seems to solve the problem if only for a little while, if at all. As well, customers are reporting that their timer settings are changing and modifying themselves on their own accord! As of yet, those reports are unverified. So with me, it comes down to quality and cost effectiveness. CompuPool isn't proving itself with its quality and I have to question the cost effectiveness. My system retails as right around $900. Once you figure in the salt required to get the system up and operational, and your sacrificial anode system, whether that be weight or in-line, you'd be right at around $1184. I figure the average customer spends about $60 a month on chemical regimen. At best, you'll still be looking at $20 at least once you factor in possible additions of salt and your weekly maintenance regimen. So saving $40 a month, it would take you 2.5 years, if you run your pool all year round to pay off your system and actually start to see some headway chemically / financially! Around here, of course, no one runs their pool year-round. So in our case, it would take 5 years to pay off your system chemically. Well, at 3 years your cell itself runs out of warranty and most cells seem to peek at 3-5 years even with scheduled cleanings. So, figuring in approx. $500 to replace the cell, it'll now take you yet another year to break even. So is that cost advantage really there? And is it really any easier to maintain? Let the jury decide but I have my opinion. Regardless, I don't recommend salt systems on pools anymore. Again, I have a huddle meeting with the sales rep from CompuPool flying in from Australia at 9 AM tomorrow morning. I have my opinions and data gathered from a semi-thorough investigation of the various postings on both sites but I'd like you regular posters' off-the-cuff impressions and opinions on SWGS and the topics I've covered above. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated before I face off with this guy in the morning. He's there to give us a tech demo of the system so I'm anxious to see that

You know, we sell a very similar product at the pool store at which I work. Although I've never first-hand experienced its use on a spa, I've seen its advantages in the pool market. We're located in Southern Louisiana and have a lot of rural outlying areas surrounding us from which a lot of our customers hail and more often than not, these rural customers are operating on a well-based system. We use the filter to remove the copper and iron present in their water. I suppose its always a good idea to use these but I tend to get conflicting information at times: Some customers will come in having used the filter, and true to its marketing campaign, there will be no copper or iron present or if it is, it will be significantly below .5 ppm. So based on that information, again, I would say the product is true to its marketed purpose. Yet at the same time, I see customers come in, again on well water, and having not used the filter, still be at no or very low ppm for copper or iron. Still in all, I usually tend, even in this instance, to have the customer go on and treat with a metal sequesterant if only to protect them from those times when they need to refill and by doing so may stand at risk to introduce additional contaminants / metals into their pool water. It comes down to this I suppose: If you have really hard water in which you know metals will be present, why not use the filter? Of course, you'll want to follow up with the use of a metal sequesterant to seal the deal to make sure your water doesn't go disco when you add sanitizing chemicals to the water. Getting back to your question though: I do think the filter would be worth the cost to remove any organic contaminants to the water prior to having to treat chemically. Ashley

I definitely recommend vacuuming to waste. After you've killed the algae present in the water, you surely don't want that waste contaminating your filter. Once you've used a floccing agent like "Super Fallout" that algae will fall out of suspension and be ready to vacuumed to waste. Only way that makes sense to do it.

Chem, At what rate would you recommend adding the Borax and muriatic acid to get to the 30-50 ppm reading? Let's say, on a 16'x32' at 13,500 gallons? Ashley

You may want to try the Vogue pool line. Vogue Pools is a subsidiary of Zodiac Pools who are better known for their line of fiberglass pools and Baracuda automatic pool cleaners. The Revelation and the Impact are the only two pools made in that line out of poly-resin. The other sibling, the Alias, is an entry-level, all-metal frame pool. http://www.piscinesvogue.com/ Ashley

There is a Waterways pump and sand filter system on the market that retails for right around $399. You get a 100 pound sand filter and a 1 HP Waterways pump. Granted there are many other systems out there.

Richard, Where are you getting your information that the recommended range of 1-3 ppm FC is incorrect? 4.5% of the CYA level which I prefer to maintain at 40 ppm? Quite interested in this... Ashley

It sounds as if you've found yourself a good pool store. Most pool sales professionals work on commission so for a salesman to take the higher road, and lay out the true pros and cons as he now knows them, so as to allow you to make an informed decision, isn't as commonplace as it should be. First off, I suppose I should lay one blatant falsehood surrounding salt systems and "salt generators" and the like: A salt system is not a true alternative to a chlorine sanitizing regimen! That theory rests on the foundation that salt, somehow, by its own nature is some kind of sanitizing agent. It, in fact, is not. It is true, however, that it is significantly different from the "traditional" chlorine-based regimen. The whole concept of salt water pools centers around electrolysis. Most salt systems are made up of two components: A cell (where all the magic happens) and the control panel (in most instances waterproof). The control panel provides information to the user/owner concerning your current salt content measured in ppm (parts per million), and the options to super-chlorinate and and internal timer allowing you to set the pump and filtration system to operate at two separate intervals in a 24 hour period. Some people, indeed run their pump 24 hours a day; it's just that I find two separate 6 hours periods in one 24 hour period to be just as effective and much less aggressive on the power bill. The cell will resemble a battery. Inside are usually 4 to 5 titanium disks. Now it needs to be understood that this cell installs between the pump and the filter. As water is returned to your pool, it passes through these titanium disks which are receiving a small electrical charge (depending on model, anywhere from 1-4 amps.) The salt, which has already been added to the pool, in the meantime has been doing a little prep-work of its own. Once salt enters the water, it breaks down; one of those splits being an inactive chloride ion. That ion, mixed with the water, passed through the charged titanium plates, becomes active as well and then become an active chlorine ion. See: Chlorine Pool. Another falsehood I hear repeated often enough is that employing a salt system and owning a salt water pool is markedly easier to maintain in comparison to chlorine. About the only thing I've found it to be easier on is the pocketbook. What these systems do for you is eliminate the need to utilize chlorine pucks and shock your pool weekly as part of a scheduled maintenance as set up by your local pool store. Its also not true that you never need to shock your pool when running a salt system. If algae gains a foothold in your pool and when even running your salt system at full capacity, you find yourself not being able to maintain a chlorine reading, it would at that point be necessary to shock your pool with a non-chlorinated shock, which tends to run a little higher than standard granulated chlorine. As well, you still to need to monitor and maintain proper alkalinity, pH, hardness and stabilizer levels. Doing so requires manually adding chemicals and re-treating if necessary. And thats why I say its not so much easier to maintain, just less costly to maintain. I find, on average, whereas you may spend 90 bucks a month on chemicals used to properly maintain a chlorine-based regimen, you'll find yourself on average, spending 20-25 dollars a month. Most systems can or nearly can pay for themselves in three years. And then you get to the main disadvantage of a salt water pool and the original inquiry: The corrosion to your metal pool components caused by the electrolysis process that's tantamount to the system. It's going to happen! Let me repeat that: It's going to happen! Whether you have an above-ground pool or in; whether it be to metal pool components or to your brick coping or your concrete deck or your flagstone hardscape.... Yeah, you get the idea... Not what you've been hearing right? Well the truth of the matter is this: Your most widely used means of negating the corrosive nature of the charged salt content in the pool is the placement of a zinc disk or an anti-electrolysis weight, placed into or bolted in to your skimmer basket. These seem to be about 25% effective at protecting the metal components of your pool that sit below the water line. You can also ask your salesman about installing an in-line zinc anode. These, when properly installed and bonded into the system grid are 95%-100% effective at protecting metal components below the water line of your pool. In a nutshell, and according to the principles of galvanic corrosion, when two metals come into proximity to one another in an environment made active by the electrolysis process within the system, the corrosion will be drawn to the weaker of the two metals. Titanium, on the galvanic spectrum (remember titanium is used the cell of your salt chlorine generation system), is one of the strongest metals. So at that point most of the metal components of your pool (skimmer screws, light niches, ladder railings, etc.) would fall victim to the corrosion process. But by placing the zinc anode into the mix, you, in essence sacrifice that metal to the greater good of the pool. An added bonus: As it releases itself into the pool, it tends to coat the metal components present in the pool with itself to provide an even greater level of protection. So when properly changed, on average once every 6 months, you save yourself that hassle and get to focus on enjoying the pool itself and remembering the reason you signed up for all this anyway =) At this point you'd probably be ready to sign on the dotted line. Right? But did you notice I mentioned several times before that those processes only protect the metals lying below the water level? Thats right: Your top rails will still fall victim to the corrosion process. Your ladder anchors will still fall victim as well as anything else metal within the splash zone. Oh and by the way, at this point its not a bad idea to mention that a light hosing down does a world of good in situations like these. Just take a hose after a heavy swim and spray down the top rails and the ladder and the lawn furniture and the decking (wood or stone). I was speaking to a gentleman on the phone today who reps one of the in-line zinc anodes commonly sold. They're now testing out whether or not battery-shaped steel cable, mounted under your top rail and bonded to the steel frame of your pool with the other end dangling into the water, when used in tandem with a traditional sacrificial disk or in-line anode system, would effectively quash rust issues with the pool entirely. That, as of yet, is still under analysis. There are also reports coming out of Texas, most notably sited on http://thepoolbiz.blogspot.com, that there is a marked increase in damage being done to flagstone decking and coping. The science behind it is basically this: That when water rich in salt content is splashed onto something, especially something porous, that this salt water is absorbed. In time, the water from the equation evaporates and the salt is left within. I'm no scientist but from that point, crystallization occurs and can stain, discolor, and practically explode your stone from within. So yes, discoloration to your plaster can occur if you choose to incorporate salt and electrolysis into your sanitation regimen. Yes, salt water provides for a much softer swim. Yes, salt water, in the long run is much cheaper to maintain chemically. And yes, is does have its disadvantages, as noted above. There are advantages and disadvantages to every system and chemical regimen out there. The key to navigating that path is knowing those pros and cons and choosing your course in spite of the fact. There's no cure-all method out there. There's no fill and walk away system out there no matter what someone may be trying to sell you. In the end, this has all been leading to an end: The day your pool installs and the day you can first swim. The reward of choosing the right system for your unique needs, and knowing the potential consequences beforehand of any decisions you've made, and then bathing in the pleasure and status that comes along with ownership of an item such as your own pool.