AquaclearNZ
-
Posts
19 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by AquaclearNZ
-
-
Hey guys whats up? I've been trying to think of how to light my waterfall at night . . . I got one suggestion to go to a holiday store and get some lights then string them through some clear plastic tubing like christmas lights sort of . . . I kind of want to put a fiber optics type light under the cracks of the rocks but dont' want to spend that much money . . . what do you guys think?
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
-
It is most likely a device that puts copper and/or silver ions into the water. I recommend against such "ionizers". They are a waste of money.
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
-
By the way, it's not just the U.S. that doesn't allow copper/silver metal ion systems to be used in commercial/public pools or spas without a stronger sanitizer (e.g. chlorine), but this link shows that Australia follows similar strict guidelines.
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
-
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
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 -
The standard recommendations in the industry for SWG pools of 1-3 ppm FC with 60-80 ppm CYA are insufficient to prevent algae growth. If the FC is maintained at least at 4.5% of the CYA level, then green algae is prevented (yellow/mustard algae requires a higher FC level to prevent, but usually you get rid of it completely and can then maintain a normal FC level).
Phosphate removers are one way to prevent algae; algaecides are another; but chlorine alone can definitely handle it. This is known science since at least 1974 based on the amount of active chlorine (hypochlorous acid) concentration in the presence of Cyanuric Acid (CYA) as described in the paper in this link. The industry doesn't normally talk about this FC/CYA relationship I suspect because they believe it would hurt stabilized chlorine sales, but there are literally thousands of pool owners at The PoolForum and Trouble Free Pool who are able to maintain algae-free pools using chlorine alone, by understanding this relationship (or at least by following simple charts based on that relationship).
So, if one has a CYA of 80 ppm in their SWG pool, they should maintain a minimum FC of 3.6 ppm (4 ppm FC to be safe). This amount of chlorine is technically equivalent in hypochlorous acid concentration to 0.05 ppm FC with no CYA. It doesn't take a very high chlorine level to prevent algae growth, and it takes even less to prevent most bacteria growth. CYA acts as a chlorine buffer holding most of it in reserve.
There is, of course, nothing wrong with using a phosphate remover or a PolyQuat 60 algaecide. It just costs more -- usually around $2-4 per week depending on size of pool. The initial dose for the phosphate remover will cost far more if there are substantial phosphates in the pool. It's a great insurance policy if one does not believe they can consistently maintain chlorine levels or if one is using stabilized chlorine and doesn't want to raise the FC level as the CYA level continues to climb.
By the way, algae growth rates do not continue to go up and up as phosphate levels climb. There is a limit to algae growth even under ideal nutrient conditions (mostly phosphates and nitrates as carbonates are plentiful). If the chlorine level is sufficient to kill algae faster than it can reproduce (double time is roughly 3-8 hours for algae under ideal conditions), then the amount of chlorine used is minimal since the algae doesn't get started -- that is, you just end up killing whatever is on the edge of pool surfaces or gets blown in, just like other organics (pollen, leaves, etc.).
Richard
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
-
My fiberglass pool is about 20 years old. Last year we noticed excessive water loss and had the pool tested for leaks. The technician concluded that cracks around the main drain were the problem and applied some underwater patch. The pool started leaking again about 6 months later so I assumed it was the same cracks and the patch was no longer holding. I left the pool site unused for the last 6 months then drained it completely last week to fix the cracks.
After draining the pool I found that the side has a large bulge about 5 feet long and 2.5 feet tall located about half way down on the deep end (9ft) directly under the skimmer. I suspect that a leaky skimmer may have caused the bulge. I got a quote to repair and they was close to $3000 but I am almost broke.
I plan to cut out a rectangle of the fiberglass and try to fix this bulge myself. I hope that I can fix the skimmer plumbing as I have the pool side cut open. I am concerned about having a cave in once I remove the cutout. I expect that I should reinforce the opening somehow while I work and use hardy board as a backing to try and push the fiberglass back in to shape against the hardy board and patch it back together. I am using pool and spa fiberglass repair materials found at Lowes.
Can anyone give me advice on how to remove this budge and the patch it back up with a good fiberglass repair? Can anyone tell me if it is feasable to try and fix the leaky skimmer from underneath? My only other option is seems is to jack hammer the cement slab around the skimmer and dig it up from the top.
Thank you
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
-
They are both made by Chemtura (parent company of Biolab,which is considered to be their commercdial pool care division. Their residential "dealer" line is now just Bioguard.), along with Guardex, Omni, Hydrotech, Synergy, SoftSwim, Sun, Pooltime, and a few other product lines (not to mention the cleaning products and industrial products chemtura makes). Pooltime and Aquachem are their 'big box' lines sold at such places as Walmart, Home Depot, and Lowes, Bioguard is their 'premium' brand and Guardex, Omni and Sun (along with their other brands) are their 'poolstore' brands. Their testing systems are designed to maximize chemical sales for their dealers (especially Bioguards infamous ALEX system) and Chemtura takes the corporate stance that high CYA levels up to 200 ppm are fine for residential pools.
(sure they are, this is how they keep selling you algaecides and clarifiers that really would not be needed if your water was PROPERLY balanced!)IMHO, chemura is one of the biggest 'streetwalkers' in the industry in the way it lies to it's customers and dealers.
This is the same company that resells sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) but labels it sodium hydrogen carbonate (just another name for baking soda) and tries to lead the public and it's dealers to believe it's something different and better by calling it balance pak 100 and saying it's NOT sodium bicarbonate! (but it really is!)
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
-
Lorraine,
The amount of "active" disinfecting chlorine that kills bacteria, keeps algae from growing, and oxidizes ammonia and organics is proportional to the FC/CYA ratio and has little to do with FC by itself. Free Chlorine (FC) is a measure of the chlorine capacity or reserve, not the active amount. Most of the FC is chlorine that is bound to Cyanuric Acid (CYA) and is essentially not effective as a sanitizer nor in preventing algae or oxidizing. Graphs that show the percentage of active chlorine with no CYA and with CYA present are here.
Yellow/mustard algae is more resistant to chlorine than green algae and can require an FC level that is 15% of the CYA level in order to keep away (normal green algae can be kept in check with an FC that is 7.5% of the CYA level for manually dosed pools or 5% of the CYA level for SWG and possibly some automatically dosed pools). Shocking a pool to get rid of green algae quickly is an FC level that is 40% of the CYA level and for yellow/mustard algae it's an FC that is 60% of the CYA level. You didn't have anywhere near that amount of chlorine so the algaecide probably did help somewhat. Normally when the CYA is that high, a partial drain/refill to lower it is the best solution since it would take too much chlorine to kill algae otherwise (without using supplemental algaecide or a phosphate remover as a preventative).
Your extra chlorine demand was likely chlorine getting used up fighting the algae. Once you shocked the pool enough, you got ahead of the algae growth and killed enough off so that the chlorine demand dropped considerably. With very high CYA levels, the chlorine will last much longer unless the pools have high bather load in which case the ammonia/urea from sweat/urine will consume chlorine. However, with high CYA levels (above 80 ppm, especially) you would need to use a supplemental algaecide or phosphate remover to prevent algae or would have to maintain a proportionately higher FC level which isn't practical.
You can read more about maintaining a pool using unstabilized chlorine (chlorinating liquid) so as not to continue to increase the CYA level at the Pool School. With Trichlor pucks/tabs that you have been using, for every 10 ppm FC that they add they also increase CYA by 6 ppm. By the way, for the Cal-Hypo product you used for shocking, for every 10 ppm FC that it adds it also increases Calcium Hardness (CH) by 7 ppm. Last, but not least, with Dichlor powder/granular, for every 10 ppm FC that it adds, it also increases CYA by 9 ppm.
So at this point you have some choices. You can use a supplemental algaecide of PolyQuat 60 weekly or you can use a phosphate remover also with weekly maintenance and then not worry as much about the CYA level (though this costs more) or you can dilute the water to lower the CYA level and switch to unstabilized chlorine (chlorinating liquid or unscented bleach) to prevent the CYA from rising and then just maintain an appropriate FC level to keep algae from growing.
Richard
The Quat based algaeicdes or an algae killer containing benzyl ammonium chloride will effectivly work to beat the algae
however, once the algae has gone there are a couple of easy steps you can take to prevent re-occurence and also help lower your chlorine consumption
removal of phosphate - or nutrients from the swimming pool water. algae are plants and require 2 things to grow, water and nutrients. Phosphate accumulation in a pool is normal, thye are introduced through a variety of sources, however the most common source we are finding here is through suntan oils, high bather load = high amount of suntan oil in the pool therefore nice nutrient rich water.
your chlorine will work to effectivly combat algae to a point, however it makes a lot more sense to have the chlorine working as an active bacteriacide - killing bugs, not plants
-
thanks chem geek.
I tried adding vinegar, since I had it around. I did lower the pH, but not by much, and it also bubbled up, sort of like a chemistry set volcano I made when I was a kid (except that one was baking soda, not soda ash). I wonder if the other acids you mentioned will also make it bubble up?
Best, David
Congratulations - you just re-created your high school experiment
Alkalinity level in a swimming pool is a meausre of alkaline materials in the pools water, and is also offten referred to as buffer, as it acts as a buffer against change in pH
To increase the alkalinity level - you add sodium bi-carbonate - the common household name for this product is baking soda
Use a muriatic acid, or sudium bi-sulphate to reduce the pH safely
-
I drained some of the water and refilled..now at 3700. Thanks waterbear for the response
The concentration of salt at that level will not hurt your other equipment - in New Zealand and the southern hemisphere we have high salt chlorinator models that like up to 7ppm salt
-
I noticed algea in pool today, what do I need to do...we are new owners, this is actually first full summer to have pool...liner inground saltwater pool...
Any info appreciated...thanks
Adding more chlorine is a simple solution, however while it will effectivly kill your algae, theres a pretty good chance it will return
heres why, your pool water has an abundance of phosphate - essentially algae food. Your algae, like all plants need 2 things to grow and flourish, water and nutrients. Which one would you like to get rid of ?
Read more about algae in swimming pools here
Additionally to prevent re-occurence, use a regular treatment of a long life alagecide in conjunction with regular phosphate testing, your local pool shop should be able to test this for you
I Am Thinking About Adding A Pool Heater
in All Swimming Pools Types
Posted
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