As has been mentioned, I've seen the most benefit from indoor installations. In 10 years I've met two customers who were able to detect that their ozonators had gone out based on water clarity (not counting the folks who notice the UV light has gone out). One was an indoor pool that immediately began to build up chloramines, the other was a hot tub that was being used with no other sanitation until I took it over.

Most ozonators, particularly CD units, are dead in three years. If they were any sort of panacea for water quality the demand from hot tub owners for replacements would be deafening. Instead, when informed that their ozonators are no longer working or are faulting, most opt to just disconnect the unit and carry on.

I have nothing against them. I think they make more of a difference than than most ionizers, UV sanitizers, etc. on the market, but the cost/benefit for standard outdoor pool installation just doesn't add up.

I also want to add that the circ pump in the Del units is a VERY small pump and while it is helpful for chemical purposes it does nothing for filtration or circulation and should not be factored into any turnover calculations. Not that anyone said it should, but just want to be clear.

Of course it did! Ozone is an oxidizer and adding more oxidizer to the water is going to increase the oxidation potential! IF it didn't increase the ORP reading then there is a problem somewhere with the ozonator!
Just don't get me started on ORP readings correlating to properly sanitized water!

I should have edited my previous post to imply that ozone was pretty ineffective by itself...in place of other sanitizers. It should, indeed, enhance any other sanitizer in use.

ozone is Ok (not great, but ok) for small volumes of water with high turnover and low number of people, like home spa

the only problem is that you need to constantly run it

My experience with my test pool is that the ozone unit resulted in an overall reduced USE of chlorine.

My impression was that yes the ozone destroyed some chlorine, but it was a minority fraction and more than made up for it by allowing reduced chlorine levels to maintain the same ORP number.

I agree, ozone is expensive for what it provides.
Ozone is not for everyone.

Ozone affects the ORP reading, without providing any residual sanitation in the bulk pool water. The ORP set point needs to be re-calibrated to FC levels in the pool water as determined by a test kit when using ozone.

I think this is a very good thread. I'm bumping it because of that.

I'm getting a pool built, my builder includes a paramount Clear03 as standard equipment. I know I'm being charged for it anyway, but it's not a line item, and removing it wasn't going to save me any money. Bottom line, he says he won't build a pool without one. He's also reluctant to build a pool with a SWG... will do it if that's what the customer wants, but won't if there's a substantial amount of flagstone.

I'll have a substantial amount of flagstone, so he won't install it for me.

Anyway, my pool should be ready to go in a few weeks.. probably won't get to swim for another couple of months. I plan on going BBB, hoping the maintenance would be as "easy" as you guys have been saying. So I'll monitor chlorine usage, & keep you guys updated.

I have both. The SWG is essential. The ozone is a luxury.
Ozone helps with high bather loads, hot tubs, covered pool water or indoor pool water.