AquaclearNZ

All depends on when and how you want to swim Solar is the cheapest to run, but no guarantees on temp it will reach as you are obviously a the mercy of the sun Heat pump - cheaper to run than gas (around 20%) however will work less efficiently at the start and end of the season as the air temp cools Gas - heat when you want it - school holidays / winter parties. These are also a lot cheaper if you do not swim all the time and simply want to heat the pool when you are using it - ie predominantly weekeks ? also a good cover is pretty much essential if you are heating as this will lower the cost by around 30% if you know your local gas cost per mj and electricity cost - please post and i can do a little bit of maths for you

perhaps send a couple of pictures there are plpenty of applications and galleries on my sites, and we also do a lot of custom work, could recommend a oucple of ways to do it

i have a couple of well proven ones from the last few years, however while they will get rid of the black spots you are still left with a clear lump under the gel coat - after treatment keep your ph around the 7.0 - 7.2 mark sodium metabisulphate works as does lo-chlor stain remover #1 check out lo-chlor.com for more info i have sold both for 15 years, #1 works every time and is ph neutral, so easier to rebalance however in full fairness - your pool surface is looking pretty screwed

Will be a floatron - commonly known as a waste of time and/or money maintaining correct chlorine level and reducing phosphate will work just as effective. and be a lot lighter on the wallet

the increased deterioration caused by salt is not going to vary a lot between 3pt and 6pt salt the simple fact of having salt present i nthe pool water and a form of electrolysis going on cuts the life of most of the equipment by 50% we do have soft stone finishes, and i wouldnt recommend using salt at any percentage around them ladders and diving boards - we have those too ,the difference in the speed of degredation to this equipment would be negilible, you have already cut its life in half by adding salt to the pool and the original concern was adding slightly higher salt than the manufacturers recommendation around the 4ppm mark........... if the original concern was the salt level was at 40ppm or similar, then my answer would have been somewhat different

im a fan of 12V lights, and the thought of what could go wrong with 120V live in the pool due to light leaking scares the crap outta me, there are RCD type devices ,however IMO the peace of mind afforded by spending $50 on a transformer to run 12V is well worth it there is no light output difference between 12V and 120V

Funny you should mention Zodiacs US attempted registration - that was the same product that brought about the APMVAs press releases on ionisers a few years back

what type of cleaner / vac do you have ? suction cleaners - ie barcuda run happily with a lower flow, to much and it can affect the way its diaphragm opens and closes are you running all the water through the cleaner

price seems a little bit high - why do you want fibre optics ? i only ask as i have been involved in fibre optic and LED pool lighting for 8 years with a seperate company for it http://www.specializedlightingconcepts.co.nz theres a pile of fibre optic and led galleries on there you can see the difference my ideal suggestion would be for the SaVI melody poo/spal light from Nexxus Lighting www.nexxuslighting.com LEDs produce a better light in the water with a wider beam spread, longer life, better output and no noisy illuminator at 14 x 7 you owuld only need 2 of the savi melody

there are a couple of products i have used over here in NZ, and they now have manufacturing in the states. They come from an australian based firm with 25years in doing stain treatments for pools www.lochlor.com, thye can put you onto a stockist multi stain remover is a good bet, alternativly mail them direct and they mail have an alternative for you

as Richard said - im a believer in phosphate removal and algaecide use however chlorine will effectively kill off any algae present my train of thought is removing the food supply (phosphate) from the water - and effectily starving it of food you will also need to drop your stabiliser level via dilution if it is outside of its acceptable range tri-chlor is fine for maintaining a chlorine residule, although your consumption of this seems excessive some more information regarding the rest of your water balance would be a great help to all here CYA PH ALK CAL

If there is a reduction in chlorine usage, it isn't in having chlorine fight less algae growth. As I wrote, once you get ahead of the algae growth, the chlorine kills any nascent algae before it gets started so the consumption of chlorine is minimal. However, if you don't get ahead of such growth by maintaining a high enough FC level, then the chlorine consumption would be high. A lot of people just have their FC / CYA ratio close to or even below the level inhibiting algae growth so that results in more chlorine consumption, but knocking out the algae (by shocking the pool, at least initially) and keeping the ratio a bit higher prevents such growth from getting started. If there is less chlorine usage after using a phosphate remover, it is from having a lower Free Chlorine (FC) level such that there is less lost due to breakdown from the UV in sunlight since such loss is proportional to the chlorine concentration. That is, there is lower consumption during the day but not at night. I can see that this might be cost effective in a larger commercial/public outdoor pool with direct sunlight (i.e. no pool cover) where chlorine usage is a primary expense, and especially at low-to-moderate (not high) bather loads. As long as the pool doesn't get a lot of phosphates from fill water and/or blown-in fertilized soil, then the phosphate remover maintenance cost would be reasonable. You'll still have chlorine consumption from the bather load and from stuff that gets blown into or dropped into the pool which is why it doesn't help as much for high bather-load pools. High bather load pools are also where one doesn't see much benefit to CYA levels above 20-30 ppm -- because the proportion of chlorine used oxidizing bather waste is higher than that lost from sunlight. In areas with lots of direct sunlight, having the pool with a higher CYA level, even with a proportionately higher FC level, results in lower chlorine consumption. That is, 2.2 ppm FC with 30 ppm CYA loses more chlorine to sunlight than 6 ppm FC with 80 ppm CYA. This was not an obvious result, but found through some experiments after reading about several user's experiences. We still don't know exactly how this works since the disinfecting chlorine (hypochlorous acid) concentration is similar in both cases, but it seems that it may be due to CYA's UV shielding effect of lower depths combined with imperfect circulation near the surface (in which case this works well in low-bather load pools, but probably won't work in more frequently used pools). At any rate, regardless of CYA level, if you use a phosphate remover or algaecide you can have a lower FC/CYA ratio and that results in lower chlorine loss from sunlight at any CYA level. So I don't think it's a one-method-fits-all. I also think that a PolyQuat algaecide or a phosphate remover are great insurance policies. As you say, you'll never have a green pool. So if someone thinks they can't maintain a proper chlorine level at all times, then these are great products. They are also essential if one uses stabilized chlorine (e.g. Trichlor tabs/pucks) and has their CYA levels climb. Richard Like shoes there is no one size fits all solution But i have seen first hand the effects of reduced phosphate level on FC consumption NZ has one of the worst levels of UV in the world - many thanks to the rest of the world putting a whopping great hole in the ozone layer above us - however our commercial pool water quality standards do not allow for the running of 6ppm+ average chlorine with 80 - 100ppm CYA, and NZ as a fairly "green country" most pool owners want to use as little chlorine as possible, and by as little as possible the mindset is 1.0 - 2.5ppm You have what works for you and i have what works for me - and thats the great thing about an open forum, it exposes people to new ideas............ and probably much like yourself after 18 years in this industry - i still learn something new....... Im sure we would have a fantastic conversation over 18 or 20 beers - however may bore anyone within earshot to death

I dont disagree with you on the standard, and was involved in writing the standard in NZ my agrument is why continue to pump triple the amount of chlorine you require into a pool, while a phosphate remover may cost $20 or so (depending on your start level), this cost is easily recovered by using a lot less chlorine. A personal example that comes to mind is a school swimming pool here, with a very high bather load and years of accumlated phosphate buildup there were continual algae problems as soon as the chlorine levels dropped below 3ppm. The cost of the phosphate treatment was in excess of $200 NZ, pool was floced with an aluminium compound to remove the bulk of the phosphate, then treated with a Lanthanum compound to reduce phosphate to less that .4ppb. The resulting saving was 80L (20 gallons) of liquid chlorine per week. The free chlorine level remains a lot more static as it is not being used to try and kill algae or prevent it from growing, and is infact left there for its main purpose - to sanitise the pool water I am all for saving pool owners money, and definitly not into selling chemicals people dont need, my personal opinion is to let the chloine work effectivly as a sanitiser and use less of it, and if phosphate level is maintained - never have a green pool

The $3k repair bill may not be so bad compared to the cost of making a mess of it yourself, then still having to get someone it unnless you are experienced in laying fibreglass this can get really messy opening the side can be like opening a big can of worms, if your skimmer has been leaking, the back section is going to be pretty messy, and will likely cave in once you cut the side out leaving you with a nice cavity to repair/fill You should be able to glass patch the skimmer from the inside - apply the matt like a bandage with a light layer to seal it, that is providing it is definitly the skimmer and not a leak from the pipe itself or a cracked fitting underneath it

I agree with you there Waterbear...... they are the only company i know that can sell the same product in 5 different bags all with different names, and that great Alex program will tell yo uthat you need to add all of them together it is however a great profit making program for dealers til the customers find out