5 reasons to use a Salt-Water Chlorination (SWC) system

[SeanB]

Richard is correct. Also, I was not speaking only to this post. This was a pattern that I have noticed and felt it appropriate to step in. As you all have probably noticed, I don't usually get involved in controlling the content of discussions.

I could let the site turn into a free for all and let everyone sell what they want, but I doubt anyone but the salesman would care for the result.

Like I said, and I don't wish to belabour this further, but while most of Strannik's posts have been useful, he has certainly had an agenda to them - beyond just being informative. He may not have been beating you over the head about it, but the sales pitch was there. It may just be that some of us are just better at spotting it - maybe it's my background in sales, or perhaps it's just my desire to keep this site unbiased. Either way, I think he understands where I am coming from, and I consider the matter closed.

 

[JasonLion]

I'm new to the site, so I don't have the benefit of having read those threads. Can you point me to one that concludes a break even?

The previous discussions I have been referring to took place on another site. Some of the threads there include this one and this one. Neither thread specifically concludes that a SWG will break even though.

If you follow through my previous posts on this thread I calculated approximate break even for an IntelliChlor-20 on my pool using Strannik calculator with a few adjustments, though you have to plug the IntelliChlor numbers into my previous AutoPilot estimate.

One way to summarize the results of the various calculations is that the cost of bleach over several years can be substantial, which can help justify the up front costs of a SWG. Another way to summarize is that a SWG can save money on some pools and won't save money on other pools.

 

[j4ydubs]

A calculator that computes the cost component for comparison is great. Giving one-sided arguments for going with SWG without any warnings of items to be mitigated can lead to problems, as we have seen with a small number of pools.

I agree, a balanced discussion is best, but I wouldn't expect someone who sells SWCG's to talk bad about them. I expect others to chime in and give the other side. That doesn't seem to be happening in this thread though. The other side is basically saying "nuh huh, it been discussed before" and that's that. I'd that to either see that discussion happen again (maybe there's new data to add?) or be pointed to the previous discussion.

I'm all for shooting down someones calculation or theory, but that hasn't happened here, yet.

John

 

[j4ydubs]

The previous discussions I have been referring to took place on another site. Some of the threads there include this one and this one. Neither thread specifically concludes that a SWG will break even though.

Thanks Jason. I'll read through those. I've never been to that forum.

John

 

[SeanB]

I agree, a balanced discussion is best, but I wouldn't expect someone who sells SWCG's to talk bad about them.

I agree, but that does not mean he is allowed to try and sell them here either.

I expect others to chime in and give the other side. That doesn't seem to be happening in this thread though. The other side is basically saying "nuh huh, it been discussed before" and that's that. I'd that to either see that discussion happen again (maybe there's new data to add?) or be pointed to the previous discussion.

I'm all for shooting down someones calculation or theory, but that hasn't happened here, yet.

John

:lol: :lol: :lol: The other side? I own an SWG. I recommend them often. I have been accused of fostering a a "pro-salt bias" on this site!

Again, I'm not concerned with the cost discussion continuing and did not even lock the thread. Again, this was not just about this thread alone. I saw a pattern, gave Strannik a heads up and that's that. I'm not knocking the guy and I think he and I have an understadning. Please, carry on with the topic if you want it to continue. Otherwise, I think we've more than covered this diversion.

 

[Guest]

:lol: :lol: :lol: The other side? I own an SWG. I recommend them often. I have been accused of fostering a a "pro-salt bias" on this site!

You wouldn't by any chance be referring to , as poolsean referred to him, Toilet Paper Guy? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Perhaps Strannik would like to visit his anti salt blog....so many lies, so little time! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Strannik]

interesting read :-D
who is this guy?
he certainly has a grudge against SWG sales reps.
seems as if his wife has cheated on him with one and he is on revenge mission

Too much to comment, and i haven't read all of it yet, but one thing caught my eye:
When he speaks about galvanic corrosion, and reasons to why manufacturers didn't admit it earlier he mentions one of the reasons being:

Either (a), they’re so thoroughly incompetent that they didn’t even Google the subject before they jumped in with both feet and started selling salt systems.

I'm surprised that a person like him, who apparently did a lot of research, and claims to speak only truth doesn't know a simple fact, that back in the 70-ies when first SWG systems appeared on a market, there was no Google, nor was there Internet or PC for that matter.

 

[chem geek]

Strannik,

You can read the vigorous (I'm being kind) discussion in several threads in this section. The unfortunate thing is that we really were starting to get to the bottom of why there seemed to be more issues in certain parts of the country and not in others. In addition to some obvious things such as different local stone materials being used, the issue of climate came up. So a combination of factors relating to type of stone, rates of evaporation, lack of summer rains to dilute, all come together to possibly be a source of issues with higher salt levels exacerbating a problem that was probably "on the edge". Of course, one can use better materials or seal the stone and discussions I had with a couple of pool guys in your neck of the woods said that in Australia with some areas of higher ground water salt levels and sea exposure, much stone material was either fired or sealed to weather saltier conditions better. This isn't something that is generally thought of here in the U.S. except in certain coastal areas where salt spray is a more obvious item to deal with. It's just too bad that the attitudes got in the way of what could have been decent discussions.

If you look at the blog, you'll see that I've posted a few comments and tried to correct what I believed were incorrect statements, but I also explored the science of corrosion a little bit on some issues in this thread on The Pool Forum. The only things I can say that are reasonably certain is that if you have an indoor pool with no CYA with a higher salt level and have higher chlorine levels (close to 5 ppm), then stainless steel corrosion can be fairly rapid (within a year). The solution, of course, is to just use a small amount of Cyanuric Acid in the water to significantly reduce chlorine's corrosive effect (the chloride in salt acts to slow down the healing of the passivity layer in stainless steel) and a study by SWG folks pretty much came to the same conclusion. It also appears that aluminum is a metal that is "on the edge" towards more rapid corrosion if in saltier water as my own pool builder says that's the only corrosion he's seen that is highly correlated with the salt pools he now installs (85% of his new pools are SWG). The manufacturer of the automated covers that were "invisible" when opened (so had their aluminum leading metal bar touching the water) mitigated this problem by attaching a sacrificial zinc block to the bonding wire (which also connected to the aluminum). We've also seen salt splash out causing corrosion on an aluminum cover track here on this forum.

My own pool isn't an SWG pool, but we seal our hardscape trowled concrete (that is made to look like flagstone) every year anyway, just to protect the substantial investment and keep it looking great.

Most people don't have problems with their SWG pools, but it's important to know what issues can occur so that they are properly mitigated.

Richard

 

[vincent]

Hey guys,

Very interesting thread and can be a new record for being the fastest growing thread. But I wouldlike to add a bit.

There are other factors to be considered:
1. SWG can be equiped with Timers, no flow (or low flow) safety, etc
2. All cell comes with certain warranty to cover premature failure and the lower output/run time, the longer the cell life (correct me if I'm wrong) but what happen if one is to run at lower output (with higher capacity system) expecting it to last longer but did not?

Keep going guys but limited to all pro and cons and informative.

Cheers.

Vincent

 

[Guest]

Very interesting thread and can be a new record for being the fastest growing thread.

Hardly. We've had some that had REAL activity to the point that one grew to 14 pages in less than 3 weeks! (At the rate this 2 week old one is growing we might hit 6 pages in another week.)

 

[Strannik]

it's important to know what issues can occur so that they are properly mitigated.

this is something i 100% agree with. People should have full information provided to them so they can take swift action if needed. For most (if not all) problems associated with the use of SWG there are solutions which, if applied in time, can minimize or avoid the damage, and the resulting unhappiness, anger etc etc. Unfortunately some sales people (especially at the lower end of the food chain) only worry about sales numbers and not about what happens after the sale is made.
Unfortunately people usually tend to blame the manufacturer, rather then those who sold them the system.

 

[Strannik]

2. All cell comes with certain warranty to cover premature failure and the lower output/run time, the longer the cell life (correct me if I'm wrong) but what happen if one is to run at lower output (with higher capacity system) expecting it to last longer but did not?

You are right here, we covered this on previous page with JasonLion.

With regards to what's going to happen if the big cell fails when run at lower output - it will highly depend on circumstances and on manufacturer's warranty policy (or maybe even people making decision). Most manufacturers probably will make you buy a new cell if the old one is well out of warranty period. The main reason for this is that it's hard to establish whether the customer is being honest or not.

 

[Guest]

The main reason for this is that it's hard to establish whether the customer is being honest or not.

They probably aren't. One thing I have learned is that people lie about their pools and how they care for them. Just look at all the people that post on these forums that have pool chemistry problems that their numbers are 'fine' but when bottom lined about what the actual numbers are it becomes a different story! Sorry if that sounds harsh but it's the truth! (I won't even go into some of the stories I get at work about why some people are returning merchandise, often broken. We have a very liberal return policy but it does get taken advantage of, like returning a filter cartridge that has obviously been used!)

 

[Strannik]

I know, i just didn't want to offend anyone by calling them liars

We also get faulty chlorinators, with people claiming it just stopped working by itself, and when we open it up you see that it has been full of water from customer's kids playing with garden hose. Or customers claiming that chlorinator doesn't work since the day he bought it, and when you open it up the internal wiring is all messed up. Of course occasionally you get honest people, but that's a rare occurrence.