dlleno

good that makes a lot of sense: Just use the std dichlor-then-bleach (or perhaps MPS occasionally if you have it) method after building the bromide bank. on a similar note: you've said before that, at least emperically, folks are getting longer (2x) drain intervals from the dichlor-then-bleach method. What is the primary reason for this? is it (primarily) because CYA no longer grows without bound with each dose of dichlor? or is it (also) because people using this method are more likely to be more careful about water balance, and more likely to employ more precise measurements of adjustment chemicals? on a related subject -- the startup. I've seen different comments, no doubt aiming at different things, regarding what adjustments to make first. In particular, when to shock and when to heat. I have to admit these have never been an issue for me, as my source water is dern close to perfect out of the tap so I can shock and heat right away. But to help me understand the underlying principles, here are some thoughts I would like to check: - I can see that one should be motivated to introduce chlorine shock to the spa asap after filling, to control bacteria growth. However, if there are metals in the water it would seem best to add a sequestrant first (if it is needed) perhaps even as the spa is filling. How long should one wait to shock after adding the sequestrant? After the fill, then shock, unless of course your water is too wacked out... - If the source water is really wacked out, one might not want to shock until things are within reasonable limits. for example, if TA is very low, you risk a precipitous drop in pH (baking soda easy/quick fix). On the other hand, if TA is very high then you shouldn't wait until you have achieved balance perfection before shocking -- as that would give the bad guys too long to grow. It appears that Superchlorinating with a high pH and high TA shouldn't be an issue because you will be bringing those parms down over the next few hours as you fine tune. - It seems like the same precautions as above would apply to turning on the heater. So, for example, if you were in a hurry to start the heating process (mine takes 8-9 hours to heat), then you should at least wait until the water is safe enough to shock before heating. Then with heater on, you can continue to fine tune the balance. So: 1. fill/metal sequestrant if needed 2. quick balance if needed 3. shock. 4. turn on heater if you're in a hurry 5. fine tune balance while FC is decaying 3 and 4 would happen nearly at the same time. i suspect many (including me) can skip 2. Any holes in my thinking?

yea thats what my results seemed to indicate -- that high CYA may in fact impact the bromide conversion, in which case MPS would yield this result. that is, the conditions under which MPS gave a good result is when the CYA was high in my bromine spa. I was noting this because I was trying to rationalize my eperience with your earlier statement. I was attemptiong to suggest that that CYA accumulation in a bromine spa in fact might be a factor after all, and that for one-step users it might be benefitial to stop using the mixed granules at some point and use bleach for the oxidier. Moreover, to me is strong evidence that a good two-step program would involve bleach, not dichlor, for the oxidizer to avoid the same thing.

ok, good; that makes sense -- If I may play this back in my own words to insure I have understood: Chlorine has a chance of oxidizing some wastes before the conversion to bromine completes, but this time window is very short. Therefore: 1. cost factors aside, regular oxidation via dichlor is fine and dandy. 2. the initial chlorine shock is advantaged by waiting for some time before adding the bromide salt. MPS is an interesting twist on the story. looks like there may be some tertiary benefit in using MPS occasionally for a shock. Empirically I can point to a few historical experiences where an MPS shock did produce a noticeable difference compared to a straight dichlor shock though -- especially near the end of the drain interval when using 85/15 dichlor/bromide granules regularly. in fact, that experience is what started me thinking (years ago) about a "brominating concentrate then switch to dichlor" method - presuming that after some period of time the addition of more bromide would do little more than contribute to TDS.

Chem Geek: In my efforts to understand the differences between chlorine and bromine I came across some comments of yours -- from various threads, and from TFP as well. my apologies I did not collect the original reference. I would be grateful for clarification in the context of starting up a bromine spa: Certainly, during the startup procedure there is an opportunity to do this quite conveniently, i.e. superchlorinate prior to adding the bromide bank. moreover, one could easily wait until FC decays to some level (say 4 ppm FC) before adding the bromide bank (presumably to delay the onset of bromine and prolong the benefits of chlorine) , at which time the spa would be instantly converted to 9ppm bromine, right? My curiosity is around why would the shock be more effective this way, if the below is also true: This is significant, and a clear argument in favor of using chlorine bleach (or even dichlor) to oxidize the bromide bank on a regular basis for normal usage, right? or choosing tablets that contain chlorine? what about the MPS behavior: does it also attack waste residuals before becoming available to oxidize the bank? as for the CYA contributions of dichlor: is this truly a don't care in a bromine spa or would a growing accumulation of CYA (due to regular oxidizing with dichlor) have an impact?

+1 on Amato for me anyway. when I bought my 2106 it was from Amato via Amazon because they priced it more attractively there. But I find that the reagents via Amazon's various outlets are more expensive than going through Amato directly.

I realize this is an old thread but I had to chime in on the "my spa store won't sell me sodium bromide" subject. while I have used the one-step product successfully, and realize that it doesn't give you a bromine spa for a while I remember clearly receiving the advice that "we don't sell it anymore because it absorbs water and clumps up." FYI imho, looking back, this was a marketing decision by BioGuard -- the big label cohort of the spa store -- to help them sell more of their "brominating concentrate" which is essentially 15% soduium bromide and the rest Dichlor. Now, as I am emerging from the spa store fog, thanks in no small part to the experts here, I find the salt readily available, and my approach to water chemistry changing!

Well... I would be reluctant to invite a group of 9 year olds in mixed company over for a natural soak :D lol, but thats just me. If its just me and the missus its no suits...after dark... making sure that the neighbors aren't showing any particular interest :-) Personal policies aside, the point is that for some of us, suits are gonna enter the tub. I think the important message, as I read the comments here, is to apply a foam control approach that has the least possible impact upon the chemistry of your water. I've tried to assemble the below from least to most (chemical) impact. please add/correct/comment as inspiration strikes... 1. Best is to reduce the number of suits that enter the tub. 0 is good :-) 2. If suits have to enter, try to control the washing routine, i.e. don't wash them, washing by hand if necessary, etc. 3. If you can't control things per the above, then you can educate your guests to be "foam aware" in their own suit washing policies, and (when possible) encourage pre-soak shower/rinse 4. If foam appears, try natural maintenance steps first, such as scooping foam out 5. There are chemical products steps as well, such as regular use of an enzyme product for example. Raising CA is an option as long as balance can be maintained, etc -- I wouldn't be very fond of raising CA, if it made balance more difficult. Frankly, if all those efforts fail, the sky won't fall and the angels will still keep on singing if you end up having to use an anti-foam product.

Lagreca I'm sure you will find the acceptable CYA levels in the stickies, expressed both as a number in ppm and as the total amount of dichlor you use over time. In a nutshell, as you add Dichlor your CYA will rise to a point where adding more is detrimental. when you reach that point, start using bleach instead. Here is a quote from Nitro's method: there is of course a business dimension as well, from my experience anyway. spa stores are motivated from a business and customer perception perspective to offer a complete solution, i.e cradle to grave support, service, etc. of the spa they sell you. Some even hold water maintenance classes, which have both educational and marketing value. There's nothing wrong with making a profit, don't get me wrong, but neither is there anything wrong in choosing not to buy. So the spa stores typically line up with one or more big label chemical companies, often with one or more of the high dollar alternative sanitation methods. For example, Baqua was a hot topic back in the 90s. Not too recently the biofilm thing got a lot of attention and so companies lined up with their various offering. Even Silk balance has their high dollar enzyme based cleanser. Anyway, the stores make money on chemicals so they want you to come back. its not a conspiratorial thing don't get me wrong, but even with 200 loyal customers maintaining their tubs, the spa store won't make much money on chemicals if they advise their customers to get bleach, borax, and baking soda from the grocery isle, use the pool calculator, and shop online for Boric Acid. Meanwhile the big label companies buy washing soda in large quantities, package it in small containers, label it "pH up" and charge, well, you know. They do the same with Baking soda only they call it "Total Alkalinity increaser" -- again not to deceive people (at least not the honest stores) but to offer a total branded solution to build customer trust. And, to be sure, a great many customers want that: some would not even think of buying baking soda, but prefer that the label says "SpaGuard" on it, for example. Hooray for free markets. With much enthusiasm, I have to say that using the knowledge I continue to receive here, there is no longer any reason for me set foot into a spa store unless its to talk about servicing my spa ,buying a replacement part whatever. or for example, if I haven't planned my online purchases very well and I need some phenol red or dry acid. I still call them "my" store because they are great folks, stable, good business practices and all of that, and deserve to stay in business. I'll give them business whenever it is warranted. I'm on a first name basis with the owner, and have known the vast majority of the staff in more than one city where they do business over the last 20 years. I just don't by chemicals from them anymore due to the cost. Today I have a Taylor 2106 and I buy all of my replacement reagents from Amato Industries. Some things (like the 2106 itself) are cheaper via their Amazon outlet; some things like Reagents I find are cheaper from them directly. I purchased sodium bromide from intheswim and SpaGuard products like their stain and scale control (I have metals) from hydropool. Boric Acid from Dudadiesel.

yea I joined this forum to help me make that same transition and have benefited enormously from the expertise here. It has been a mind bending process but things are making so much more sense now its like the spa store fog has been lifted. I operated my first hot tub quite successfully for 20 years using high dollar proprietary chemicals, and following the store's advice. But now I know, for example, that I have been filling my spa with unnecessary CYA and that there are much cheaper ways to oxidize sodium bromide. There are stores that have varying degrees of expertise, to be sure, and some are very knowledgeable. Some owners invest heavily in training and have stable organizations. but they will all be guided under some proprietary label. Most of the trained experts, however, will speak over their heads and pull stuff out of the air if they are challenged because they don't understand the underlying chemistry -- they rely on what they have been told and how the big label companies have trained them. I know. I was under their guidance for 20 years, and so my mind was in that groove of "the solution to your problem is always found on our shelf". Can't really blame the store owners though -- they are in business to make money after all. So are the big label companies. Frankly, some need that approach, and a great many spa store customers are highly successful in maintaining their spas. I'm just glad I'm pulling out of the fog. and it sooo much more rewarding and fun to do it for less. So again, hats off and thanks to the experts here that consistently offer sound technical explanations and lifting the fog

ok, so first about powdered Boric acid from Duda. thats a rat hole not worth exploring anymore; Chem Geek when you said " For example, the powdered Boric Acid from Dudadiesel" I thought you were saying that Duda sold ONLY powdered which meant to me that whatever is in the box I just received from them must be powdered. I had to check my order though, and the label: Rest assured I have the granular. and, convinced now of my error regarding units, I see no reason not to use the pool calculator's assumption of the volume of granular Boric acid, expressed in fluid ounces. but there is a more accurate way... my interest in accuracy is more about reducing the problem of compounding tolerances -- the calculation will have some small error due to its assumptions of bulk density which themselves have a tolerance. ON top of that you have the error of the volume measuring device itself and one's method of filling it. I have access to a postal scale which I can use to "calibrate" my measuring cup. or better yet measure out portions of 19 ounces -- something I will use only as often as I fill up my spa.

ahh. you sir have identified the problem in your first paragraph, with the rest of the verbiage correct, although unnecessary. I live in a world where an ounce is a unit of weight (ok mass) and when the pool calculator said "ounces by volume" that never once rang the bell, "fluid ounces ,dude!", which of course is a unit of volume. Ounces by volume meant "converting mass to volume using some assumption of density" so: "ounces by volume" = conversion to the well known unit of volume known as the fluid ounce. doh! Had I made that correlation this would all have made sense. Moreover, the painful excursion into the weeds for which I most profusely apologize would not have happened, had I correctly applied those two units of measure. repeat: an ounce is a unit of mass and there are more than 8 of those in a US/English cup. doh! repeat: a fluid ounce is a unit of volume and there are exactly 8 of those in a US/English cup. repeat: somebody made up a new term to me called a "ounce by volume" that really means "fluid ounce"yes even with my misapplication of the units the error was only 10-15 percent of. and by the way I rounded up to 24 oz with the rest of the error caused by the unit mixup ... But in any case it is now clear the the pool calculator is simply converting ounces to fluid ounces.the only confusion that remains is So Duda sells powdered, they are a minority among on-line sources, and their stuff is like 1.5x bulkier. Since the Pool calculator assumes 55 ish is lbs per cubic foot (as supplied by the American Borate company, for example), this appears to be a significant density difference, no? Therefore, would it not be best to apply an appropriate factor to account for this? I mean if the pool calculator tells me to us 23 fluid ounces of granular, should I not use 30 something ounces of powder? I'm not feeling the urge to purchase scales and weigh this stuff, just the urge to understand the most accurate way to measure the right amount by using a US/English cup.

ok I'm following you now -- just some semantic and terminology differences remain, I believe, probably because I'm not a chemist. Dimensional analysis and units of measure are important to me and I like to be precise. If you hand me a US/English measuring cup and tell me that it will measure 8 ounces of something when full, then I will tell you that you (and the measuring device) are assuming the density of water. If I then fill that cup with cooking oil and triumphantly declare that I have measured 8 ounces, I will be wrong because I did not respect the density assumed by the measuring device you gave me, written or implied or stated it doesn't matter. If I go into a convenience store, and select a "32 oz" plastic object shaped like a large cup, with the intention of filling it with Coke, then that volume measuring device is assuming the density of water (a good assumption, to be sure). And if I fill that 32 oz vessel with popcorn I will certainly not have 32 ounces of popcorn because I did not respect the density that the volume measuring device assumed when it declared itself to be "32 oz" So -- when the pool calculator says "19 ounces by weight equals 21 ounces by volume", that means it has assumed the density that results in that relationship. My job, then, is to understand what that means in terms of my ability to accurately measure the right amount of boric acid. As for the volume/weight equivalence itself, I see the derivation, and that helps me understand why the pool calculator does what it does, so thank you for that. It sounds like that particular density factor happens to be assumed and accepted within some technical community and that the equivalence has some purpose or practical application somewhere (that I don't see yet because I'm not a chemist). But it doesn't really (accurately) help answer the question at hand, which is: How much (volume) of this white granular substance that just arrived from Duda do I put into my spa? It would seem more prudent to use the bulk density of the substance itself, in the form that I received, and at the temperature which I expect to measure it -- rather than some theoretical density figure that has little correlation or relationship to what I am trying to measure. I also see the chemistry that you described, which is that the white granular stuff in the bag from Duda really is boric Acid, due to the fact that it is a combination of Boric Oxide and water. Moreover, I now see that the 56% figure is itself affirmation that the substance is in fact pure Boric Acid, and that the substance is stable in that form. If the percentage were any different, then the chemistry you described would not apply, and the substance would not be pure Boric Acid, You are just confirming that when the Pool calculator says to use 19 ounces of pure Boric acid, this means "19 real ounces of that white stuff from Duda that is 56% Boric Oxide by analysis". now it makes sense. Now back to the volume equivalence. If I am to measure 19 real ounces of the stuff I got from Duda, and I can't measure ounces directly because I don't have a scale, then I have to use a volume measuring device that is calibrated in weight, either physically or in my head. That means the volume measuring device I would expect to use, in order to measure this weight, has to assume the right density. In order for my measurement to be accurate, why would I use the pool calculator's "by volume" approximation? why wouldn't I use the actual bulk density of the stuff I got from Duda? If I am to use the volume of a U.S /English cup to measure the weight of my boric acid ,I have to calibrate that cup according to the density of my boric acid that I have in my hands (well, in my garage). To do this, I will write "6.33oz" (approximately) at the top of that cup (or in my head). that is, 1 cup of Boric Acid weighs 6.3 ounces. Is that not right? or is the bulk density I saw (50lbs per cubic foot) not the right number to use for this purpose? Assuming it is the right number, I Now have a volume measuring device that has assumed a particular density and is now calibrated to measure the weight of my boric acid: Three of those cups will equal 19 ounces. FYI I derived that figure from using the advertized bulk density of boric acid supplied as 56% by analysis Boric Oxide. I assumed that this density would itself assume room temperature and so I used the density of water at the same temperature, for the calculation. The pool calculator is doing the same thing just expressing it differently-- is it attempting to express the real weight "by volume" and it is using the conversion factor that you derived. However, when the pool calculator says that 19 real ounces is 21 ounces "by volume" that means nothing to me because I have no measuring device that is calibrated in ounces which, when filled to the "21 oz" mark, will yield a 19 real ounces of pure boric acid. If one insists on expressing 19 real ounces of Boric acid in terms of some different number of "ounces" I would rather choose a conversion factor that makes sense and reflects the temperature of the substances of interest when I make the measurement (not spa temperature). So I choose this ratio: (density of water)/density of boric acid) = 1.246. Now I can think of my US/English measuring cup in terms of 8 "ounce" equivalent units, and all I need to do is multiply the real 19 oz by this ratio to find out how many of these "cups" I need. This correlates to something useful: ergo, 19 real ounces is 24 ounces "by volume". equals three cups Of course I believe your derivation of the volume / weight equivalence. I'm sure it has basis in something useful, just not for this. or am I really into the weeds now? (edited 2/24/14)

ok I need to rewind a bit here to explain myself better and also to help me understand what appear to be the assumptions used by the pool calculator. I think I need a real chemist to set my sails here... The numbers, 19oz "by weight" and 21 oz "by volume" came from the pool calculator. In other words, the pool calculator told me that: 1. 19 real ounces (measured on a scale) of a substance that can be purchased today under the label, "Boric acid", is required to achieve 50ppm Borates in a 500 gallon vessel. ok, so Boric acid must be readily available, easy to identify and easy to purchase. 2. 19 real ounces of that same substance would measure as "21 ounces" when placed inside of some volume measurement tool that is labeled in units of weight. Some assumptions have to be made here, which I will get to ... The process of measuring the weight of any substance "by volume" depends upon the density assumed by the measuring device, and the most natural approach is to assume the density of water. This might sound like captain obvious, but recall for example that one cup is not always 8 ounces. A cup of cooking oil weighs about 6.4 ounces and a cup of table salt weighs something like 9.6 ounces. Interestingly enough, there is a compound known as "Boric Acid" which, in its pure form, would weigh 19.7 ounces per cup! The casual observer surfing the net will notice that the term "Boric Acid" is applied to more than one compound. For example there is the substance H3BO3 "Hydrogen Borate", which is available from Amazon at approximately $7 per pound. This compound weighs about 11.5 ounces per cup (density greater than water), in its purest molecular form (assuming it is available that way). Apparently, however, we don't put this into our pools and spas, or the pool calculator would have a very different "by volume" conversion factor! The granular substance commonly available on the market, recommended on this site for the purpose of pH buffering and labeled "Boric acid", appears to be Boric Oxide, B2O3. I came to that conclusion because Duda Diesel does not sell H3BO3; they sell Boric Oxide, B2O3 and label it "Boric Acid". This is a compound which, in its pure molecular form, is 2.46 times heavier than water. However, it is not available in its pure molecular form, it is available as ~56% Boric Oxide with a density that is actually LESS than that of water. hmmm... the plot thickens This raises two important questions with respect to the pool calculator's recommendation for Borates: 1. Does the pool calculator in fact assume ~56% Boric Oxide B2O3 (as supplied by Duda) to calculate the weight of the substance it calls "boric acid" to achieve the target level of borates? Or does it assume H3BO3 perhaps in some near pure form? I'm not a chemist but it looks to me like either would work: B2O3 has twice as many Boron atoms as does H3BO3 (Boron must be heavy), but at 56% purity, it would contain about the same number of boron atoms as the same volume of H3BO3! but now I'm way over my head and its starting to hurt. Does it matter whether we put H3BO3 in the water or B2O3? 2. If the pool calculator does in fact assume ~56% B203, I'm not following its "by volume" approximation which applies a factor of 1.073 (It says 382 ounces "by weight" required for a 10,000 gallon pool, or 410 ounces "by volume"). where did that conversion factor come from? According to the American Borate company, the density of their 56.3% B2O3 product is approximately 49-51 lbs per cubic foot. Lets call it 50. The density of water is approximately 62.3 lbs per cubic foot (at room temperature), which translates to a "by volume" factor of 1.246, not 1.073, and results in a pool calculator error of about -14%, or about 4 pounds "short" in a 10,000 gallon pool. Something tells me that no one is going measure that much boric oxide using a kitchen measuring cup, so pool owners are likely immune to this error -- they will use true weight, not volume. But for us hot tub owners who dont' own scales... also: assume for sake of discussion that the pool calculator is not using the density of water in its "by volume" approximation, but perhaps some average or approximation of the density of commonly used dry pool chemicals -- and that the volume measuring devices you obtain from the pool store calibrated in "ounces" are based on that approximation. I don't believe this can be true , as the density of two very common chemicals -- sodium bisulfate and sodium bicarbonate -- have such different densities it would be silly to assign the same approximate density to both. This is why it makes sense - IF you are going to measure weight in terms of volume -- that you use a measuring device that always assumes the density of water -- like ordinary tablespoons, teaspoons and cups, and then apply the appropriate conversion factor based on the actual density of what you are trying to measure. that is, the "by volume" factor is (density of water)/(density of substance). So the pool calculator may be on the right track here, but something just doesn't line up re: the "by volume" factor of 1.073. Real 56% Boric Oxide is lighter (less dense) than this: therefore, either the "by volume" conversion factor is just some silly mistake, or it is assuming the wrong density of B2O3 altogether, in which case both numbers are in error. back to my 500 gallon spa: So I have this 56% Boric Oxide stuff that just arrived from Duda. If I trust the pool calculator's "by weight" calculation of 19 ounces of "Boric Acid", (that it refers to 56% Boric Oxide), then I would want to apply the 1.246 "by volume" conversion factor, not 1.073. (density of water)/density of substance). In other words, I put in 3 cups of B2O3 into the water, instead of 2.75. calling chem geek....lol (edited 1/23/2014)

you might have some luck using a product like Spaguard's stain and scale control to keep things in suspenders :-)

I've used a bromine spa for nearly 20 years, with ozone and brominating concentrate, with no such issues. in fact, my (old school UV style) ozone generator bit the dust I just managed without it. Note that when you start out with the granules you have a chlorine spa until the bromide bank builds up. Frankly if there is something wrong that causes the spa to eat bromine, a switch to chlorine won't solve that problem. I would concentrate on solving the problem itself first. Certainly, you have to choose the sanitizer method that best fits your preferences. I don't find bromine to be a pain, as long as it's workings are understood, and I've never used a bromine floater. that said, I will underscore Chem Geek's recommendation to decontaminate a new spa. Especially if it sits for several days in the summertime or at room temperature, in its drained form.

ok good. So 21 oz "by volume" assuming the density water would be 21/8 = 2.625 cups, so for all practical purposes 2 3/4 cups of boric acid for a 500 gallon spa, which is only 1 ounce (or about 5%) more than prescribed. I think I'll try that on my next fill!

awesome thanks. more dots connected! :-). o good; borates are not volitile. You've confirmed for me that testing for borates isnt critical, and that using the pool calculator (19 oz boric acid for my 500 gal spa) is enough. In fact, if I used the pool calculator correctly, and then used the strips, what would I be testing - the pool calculator or the strips? BTW, what does the pool calculator mean when it refers to a unit of weight "by volume". For example it says 21 oz "by volume" (of boric acid), which makes no sense. Unless this refers to that volume which, when filled with water, would weigh 21 oz? That is, a convinience for folks who don't have scales and depend on the measures of volume that assume the density of water, i.e. 8 onces per cup?

The actual borate level must not be that critical then if maintenance isn't required even after replacing evaporated water. Given 50ppm target what is the tolerance range for good results .. 45-55? 40-60? And what is the effect of going too high?

Oh I'm using bromine... But no real issue with low pH I raise ta towards the end of the water s life and I'm running 120 ppm ta now. I just wanted to understand the borax vs soda impact especially when borates are part of the pH plan.

After reading the stickies, I'm still not quite clear on the topic of raising pH chemically and the associated effect on TA. I get that any chemical method of raising pH will also raise TA, but what is the practical impact of adding sodium carbonate vs bicarbonate vs borax? and along with this -- 20 mule team borax will raise pH but also add borates, meaning one should keep track of total borates, right?

Is borate level maintenance and periodic testing needed? If so what is the recommended test method?

What is your ca level? CA precipitation goes with the territory for phosphate buffers. Soft water only for me...

Btw... The key for me when I was using spa sentry was to start with softened water. No ca problem then. I do have a 2106. Ordered from Amatos which I found to be prompt and reasonably priced . Where do you guys get your reagents? I need more dpd powder and 872. I'll probably turn to Amatos again unless there's something better

ok this is good. actually its awesome. FYI my fill water is rather good on the nuymbers: 100 ish CA , 90ish TA, and pH near 8 when heated. . To summarize: 1. sanitizer 2. TA to 80ppm for bromine (I'm not using tablets). you didn't mention pH here but I assume you want pH in the slightly high region before adding the borates? 3. Boric Acid 4. final pH adjustments

ok good I think I'm catching on here -- dichlor then switch to bleach manages the CYA and FC levels better, and at a lower cost but at the expense of some loss in pH control which can be moderated with the low TA+ Borates method? Boy that is not story you will hear in a spa store, to be sure! ok also an aha moment I realize that ozone will oxidize the bromide reserve, assuming there is one. ok then I must not be tuned right as I am not getting that result: what I find is a pH rise from the start of the water lifecycle, so I begin with 50ppm TA, and a chlorine spa (at first) while using the brominating one-step granules. then as the water gets older, the bank builds, and pH tends to fall, I presume due to the lower pH of the bromine -- so TA gets raised into the 100ppm reagion. thats about where it is now. when I leave for a week I have to add soda ash to bump pH up to around 8 or higher, and I shock with MPS resulting in 15ppm or so bromine before I leave. when I get back, pH is around 7.6-7.8 but no bromine. where might I be going wrong? regarding the "strength" of the buffer -- yes I've used the spaguard buffer and its strong allright. most of the time it produced pH on the high side for me. before I got used to it I tried to add some bisulfate to bring things down, and the spa just laughed at me, and I ended up destroying buffer, lol. Basically what I'm hearing is that the borates method exerts control over pH swings but you still montitor things and manage pH and TA as you would normally do -- just not as often. I'm interested to try it for bromine -- anything specific to using Borates with Bromine that are critical?