We should probably get the mods to split this off into a separate thread and move it into technical area as we kinda hijacked conmore's thread



The test wasn't conducted on the cells, it was conducted on individual plates, as some material was sent by would be suppliers as a sample for evaluation and wouldn't even be enough to make a cell. So the tests were like for like in all cases.



Good question. This is something I'm not entirely sure about, as at the time that graph was prepared I have already left the company, so don't have overview of the current process. I could only assume that chlorine levels were measured at the same time, or I might be even wrong in saying that those are Amps on a graph and it could be actual chlorine measurements or some other sort of derived figure.

Also, keep in mind that I left the company over 2 years ago now, so my info on how the testing is conducted might be a bit outdated.

With Autochlor produced materials guys conduct testing of the chlorine levels it can achieve, but i'm not sure they do such extensive tests on 3rd party material.

The anode materials represented all had different coatings, I think there is some chinese material, indian and one well known brand, but i'm not sure which one is which.

For Autochlor there are 4 different materials with different types of coatings. Each of them is intended for different applications and has different properties.

here are the properties of different types of AIS anode: http://tdconsulting.com.au/anode.php

I think that conmore's question was answered several posts ago but I could be wrong. Bottom line is that he was sold a cell that does not produce as much chlorine as his old one and he should he should challenge the merchant. However, if the mods want to split this off, thats fine.

Thanks for the link although it does bring up some more questions. Thanks for indulging me.

It looks like the primary difference between the materials is cell life. The table does not seem to address chlorine production which would indicate that perhaps there is little difference in production as was shown in the graph you posted.

Also, if I am reading that table correctly, it looks like reverse polarity has half the life of the forward polarity. For bi-polar cells, does this mean that the life is dictated by the reverse polarity? If so, does that mean that having the self-cleaning property of bi-polar cells reduces the cell life by 50% or do they simple run the cell in reverse half the time as forward?

In the text below the table there is this statement: "minimal production of by-products such as Hydrogen and Oxygen". I can understand that the oxygen production is minimized but it is surprising that they are able to minimize hydrogen production. I thought that was an opposite reaction at the cathode that there was nothing that could be done about that. This might be a question for Richard but If they reduce the hydrogen production, doesn't something else take it's place much like the chlorine/oxygen reaction? When install these cells do you see the hydrogen bubbles comming out of the returns like many other SWG owners do?

I read this as well and if having a cell reverse polarity reduces the life by 50% I'd be willing to clean the cell more often. Of course, cleaning the cell may shorten it's life even more than reversing polarity. They don't mention taking that into account. Makes you go hummmm!

Correct



bi-polar cells mean that some plates aren't connected. life of any cell is dictated by how often the polarity is reversed. but you wouldn't use SE material in reverse polarity application, it's only designed for fixed polarity cells. the cells run exactly same time in each mode.

this question goes beyond my expertise please take this with a grain of salt though, as this text comes out of sales brochure, so "minimal" might mean just "minimal possible" and not necessarily "much less then all the others".

Hi there
As I stated in my last post dated Wed 18th November 2009 I sent the salt cell back to the supplier who, in turn had to send it to the manufacturer (which is what they stated) for assessment. I contacted them on the 4th Dec and again on the 10th for an update and was told to be patient because it was a busy period etc etc. Contacted again on the 21st January and manufacturer not back till the 27th Jan. and had heard nothing. I contacted them again yesterday 1st March and received an email tonight stating the manufacturer said there is nothing wrong with the cell and they are sending it back. Well, that's great.
As I said in my OP this cell was clearly under performing under exactly the same settings on the chlorinator and balanced pool chemistry etc to the original cell. If it was working exactly the same as the original I would have had no reason to send it back.
As I said in my email back to the supplier tonight, it has been a valuable lesson for me to purchase products close enough to be able to talk to someone in person face to face. Clearly the cell is not correct and I believe I have wasted $400.00. I had hoped it would be replaced with exactly the same cell. I did say I would report back on the outcome.

Cheers

if you paid by credit card you can probably get your money back via your financial institution.

out of curiosity, which cell did you get and what's the exact model number of your SWG?
also can you send me the photos of a cell and SWG, especially the one when it doesn't pull full current, and the measurements of the plates?

looking at his other cells, I think i know where he gets them from, so if it's the same manufacturer I might be able to ask them few questions as to what your cell actually is.

Hi there
My original cell has 5 plates 200mm (8") long and including the clips is about 48mm wide, 30 amp and self cleaning (reverse polarity). When I received the re[lacement cell, first thing I noticed was the length of the plates which are 150mm long, not 200mm. The SWG is a Questa QuestaChlor-Xtra model QSCX30 TC. I'll have to wait to get the cell back from the supplier before I can take any photos of it but if you look at this eBay seller: http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll ... K:MEWAX:IT

the cell he lists appears to be exactly the same as my original cell (in appearance anyway). Same number of plates, same length, same cap and electrical connections. Also many thanks for your input.

Cheers

i've sent them an e-mail, will see what they say (if they are the supplier).
but to be honest, if the eBay ad said it's 200mm and you got 150mm, you should ask seller for refund or replacement. if they refuse - claim it on your credit card if you used one when paying for it.

As Strannik noted, it's a sales brochure. There are no other significant reactions at the cathode other than producing hydrogen gas (some plating of metals is possible, but such concentrations should be very low in pools). The main competing reaction is that of oxygen gas vs. chlorine gas at the anode.

Hi there

The eBay link I supplied was only to provide an image of what I beleive is the same cell to my original cell.
I did not purchase my replacement cell from this eBay seller, so I apologise for any confusion it caused. It was purchased as a result of an eBay seller but from his shopfront, over the telephone. I have not named the seller because I thought ethically it was probably not the right thing to do, but they are a Queensland based company and I would be happy to provide those details in a private message if you like.
As I expected, I have not had a reply to my email as yet and in that email I pointed them to this forum and these responses.
I think me calling them would be fruitless judging by how much time it took them to even respond to my email/s.

Cheers

gotcha now