2n3055

Again the point is that you can't compare Taylor to some repackaged test kit that comes with labware of unknown quality (and provenance) with reagents refilled using unknown methods. I'm sure Taylor has spent considerable time and effort in getting the quality controls in place, then all that goes out the door because of the third-party repackaging process. Buy the Taylor R-0009s and R-0012s in pint or quart sizes and repour your own, there are considerable savings to be made this way too. There is the appearance of a better deal with the TF100, but as Waterbear pointed out, when you compare apples with apples, and when you dig a little deeper, that's not the case. That statement I keep reading about the "38% more reagent so the cost per test is less" is very very misleading. I also remember reading some poster on that forum saying "You can get a K-2006 but I don't recommend it". Just floors me.

“Manufacturer” is too strong a word, “repackager” is more appropriate. And this is why you can’t compare the TF-100 with a Taylor K-2006 on the basis of reagent size alone. The K-2006 comes with a better comparator block, with Acid Demand and Base Demand tests, with a water balance calculator (the Watergram tm), a better carrying case (the new ones are awesome), better design that minimizes errors (color coded caps, instructions etc) and with a Water Testing and Treatment Guide. And this is important, you also get Taylor quality end-to-end (consistent quality in the labeling, the labware, the droppers etc), traceable lot numbers on the individual reagents; it remains uncertain, for example, how the integrity of the reagents is assured with the TF-100, or how the repouring process is handled. And I won’t get into the whole MSDS thing or the CoAs that Taylor can supply. You’re buying a TF-100 to gain independence from the PS but you then you’re dependant on two web sites for advice. There’s no Internet in the pump room where I work. They're not including stuff from a K-2006 because they deem they are not important to you, and then adding stuff not included in the K-2006 (OTO). Then they compare the two kits. Guess who wins. They should be comparing the TF-100 ($68) to an K-1005 ($19) supplemented by DPD-FAS reagents ($12). For $31 you get pH, acid demand, base demand, dpd chlorine (not OTO), dpd-fas chlorine, cya, calcium hardness, alkalinity, treatment tables, a booklet on basic chemistry, and Taylor quality end-to-end. That's where the comparaison point should be.

True, early versions of Optimizer required the separate addition of acid.

Waterbear, what made you leave the pool store business?

Are you adding the right reagent, R-0871?

Email me.

Certainly it should be discarded, it has long expired, well past its production date. But don't take my word for it, ask Taylor, it's a 2 minute call. Compare that to the R-0871 reagents I got "from my last shipment", lot 1071D. Taylor doesn't give the expiration dates on their reagents (as Lamotte would do) for obvious reasons.

What's the lot number on the bottle?

Or you can get a K-2006 ($143 CDN) with the chlorine reagents and multiply the results by 2,25. It may be easier to obtain than the K-2106. Or get a K-2005 then just buy the FAS-DPD reagents, that too may be cheaper. A lot of dealers won't stock the K-2106 because of the slower turnaround compared to the K-2005/2006. You can multiply the results from your cheap test kit by 2,25 to get your bromine equivalent.

Give me a few days, I'll update you with the results of my little experiment.

I can get 20 Mule Team and another pail of Optimizer, add a measured quantity of each product (that would result in the same amount of boric acid) to a fixed amount of pool water and measure any change in sodium chloride if this helps clear this up. I figure tetraborate would increase the salt level more than boric acid. The other way around I can add a fixed amount of each product to a fixed amount of pool water and measure which one yields more "borates". I doubt BioGuard produces a different formulation for Canada, the market is just too small and the pool season just too short - not worth the expense. They probably changed their formulation to eliminate the need to add acid.

As a "consumer commodity", the TF100 kit may not have proper labeling, warnings and such. http://www.business.gov/business-law/adver...g-law/labeling/

Use a 20 mL sample with the Taylor salt test, each drop of titrant is then equivalent to 100 ppm NaCl, the test is that much easier to perform because there is less of a chance to overshoot the endpoint.

There you go, you fill with sample water to be tested to the A mark, fill with reagent to the B mark, shake the piston for 30 seconds, wait 1 minute, and pull up the cylinder until the black dot disappears, read the CYA level at the water level. Same as the Taylor cylinder in their Counterlab, a much easier test to perform with this cylinder than the other ones proposed by Taylor.

I think Taylor also uses a Pentair-made cylinder, Taylor #4088, as part of their Counterlab setup. 19 mL reagent 19 mL sample. If in doubt, order the CYA Standardized solution from Taylor to test your technique (or make your own standardized solution).