Bio-Active CYA Reducer trial
- Thread starter Rflasck
- Start date
Study of Measured CYA readings vs Sample Temp
I decided to run a detailed trial of measured CYA readings vs sample temperature.
Conditions:
All temperature measurements were made using a digital thermocouple.
Air temp = 75F
Pool water temp =73F
A Taylor K-2006 kit was used to measure CYA levels
All measurements were made within one 15 minute period.
Sky was cloudless; Sun almost directly overhead. During measurements, sun was behind me coming over my left shoulder.
Procedure:
A two cup sample was prepared using pool water and tap water. Dilution was 1 part pool water and 3 parts tap water.
Sample bottle was filled with diluted sample to 7 ml. R0013 was added to bring total volume to 14 ml.
Sample was shaken for 30 seconds. Then let rest for 60 seconds, Then sample bottle was immersed in an ice bath or warm water bath to achieve desired temperature. The bottle then was shaken for 10 seconds. Then sample was checked to assure no bubbles were present. Then thermocouple probe was used to measure sample temperature. Then the CYA measurement was taken. Measuring column was slowly filled until black dot disappeared. Then raw reading was observed on side of column. During column fill procedure, no observations were made of column height to assure elimination of user expectation bias. Raw reading was made only after column had been filled to the point of having the black dot disappear.
Note that ALL measurements were made from a SINGLE FILL of the Taylor K-2006 sample bottle.
Results:
55F raw reading of 100 meaning CYA level of 400
65F raw reading was 90 meaning a CYA level of 360
74F raw reading was 100 meaning a CYA level of 400
86F raw reading was 95 meaning a CYA level of 380
Conclusion:
Between sample temperatures of 55F and 86F there is no statistically significant CYA reading dependence on sample temperature. See graph below.
Comment: Under the very best of highly controlled circumstances there appears to be error bars of about +/- 10 percent on CYA readings. For casual readings the error bars are probably +/- 20%. Errors are NOT +/- an absolute number but are a percentage. Also, realize that the diluted samples did not have astronomically high CYA levels, but were equal to or less than the raw reading of 100, which everyone considers to be within a proper range of the Taylor test kit.
I cannot upload the graph because of a memory quota on the website. Can I get a dispensation, or can I delete graphs from previous posts in this thread to free up memory for new graphs?
Richard
I decided to run a detailed trial of measured CYA readings vs sample temperature.
Conditions:
All temperature measurements were made using a digital thermocouple.
Air temp = 75F
Pool water temp =73F
A Taylor K-2006 kit was used to measure CYA levels
All measurements were made within one 15 minute period.
Sky was cloudless; Sun almost directly overhead. During measurements, sun was behind me coming over my left shoulder.
Procedure:
A two cup sample was prepared using pool water and tap water. Dilution was 1 part pool water and 3 parts tap water.
Sample bottle was filled with diluted sample to 7 ml. R0013 was added to bring total volume to 14 ml.
Sample was shaken for 30 seconds. Then let rest for 60 seconds, Then sample bottle was immersed in an ice bath or warm water bath to achieve desired temperature. The bottle then was shaken for 10 seconds. Then sample was checked to assure no bubbles were present. Then thermocouple probe was used to measure sample temperature. Then the CYA measurement was taken. Measuring column was slowly filled until black dot disappeared. Then raw reading was observed on side of column. During column fill procedure, no observations were made of column height to assure elimination of user expectation bias. Raw reading was made only after column had been filled to the point of having the black dot disappear.
Note that ALL measurements were made from a SINGLE FILL of the Taylor K-2006 sample bottle.
Results:
55F raw reading of 100 meaning CYA level of 400
65F raw reading was 90 meaning a CYA level of 360
74F raw reading was 100 meaning a CYA level of 400
86F raw reading was 95 meaning a CYA level of 380
Conclusion:
Between sample temperatures of 55F and 86F there is no statistically significant CYA reading dependence on sample temperature. See graph below.
Comment: Under the very best of highly controlled circumstances there appears to be error bars of about +/- 10 percent on CYA readings. For casual readings the error bars are probably +/- 20%. Errors are NOT +/- an absolute number but are a percentage. Also, realize that the diluted samples did not have astronomically high CYA levels, but were equal to or less than the raw reading of 100, which everyone considers to be within a proper range of the Taylor test kit.
I cannot upload the graph because of a memory quota on the website. Can I get a dispensation, or can I delete graphs from previous posts in this thread to free up memory for new graphs?
Richard
The easiest thing to do is to get a free PhotoBucket account.
You can delete attachments by going to Settings -> Attachments, which lists attachments and allow you to delete them.
You can delete attachments by going to Settings -> Attachments, which lists attachments and allow you to delete them.
You can put your graphs on photobucket (jpeg format) and link them to your TFP posts.
To post more/larger pictures, you either need to raise your storage allotment by Becoming a TFP Supporter or follow the How To Post Pictures tutorial.
OK. I have deletes my early posted graphs.
Here is the Measured CYA level vs sample temp graph.
Sorry, if the results do not conform to the writ of common wisdom. If empirical data and theory are at odds, I usually chose to go with the empirical evidence.
1) there is no statictically significant dependence of measured CYA level with sample temperature
2) causual CYA measurements are at best about +/- 20 percent.
3) after 12 days, the BA-CAR seems to be unable to lower my CYA level below about 300, and has flatened out at about 350.
I will probably try one more pouch (the third pouch) toward the end of this week, to give the BA-CAR one last shot. I was seriously hoping that the BA-CAR would lower my CYA levels to below 100, but I am not optimistic at this point.
Dickl
Here is the Measured CYA level vs sample temp graph.
Sorry, if the results do not conform to the writ of common wisdom. If empirical data and theory are at odds, I usually chose to go with the empirical evidence.
1) there is no statictically significant dependence of measured CYA level with sample temperature
2) causual CYA measurements are at best about +/- 20 percent.
3) after 12 days, the BA-CAR seems to be unable to lower my CYA level below about 300, and has flatened out at about 350.
I will probably try one more pouch (the third pouch) toward the end of this week, to give the BA-CAR one last shot. I was seriously hoping that the BA-CAR would lower my CYA levels to below 100, but I am not optimistic at this point.
Dickl
Last edited:
Dear Blizzle and Patrick_B,
I'm sorry for wasting your time with what you consider to be erroneous results that are not useful. Nevertheless, I stand by my postings. I won't waste any more of your time. Regardless, I thank TFPs for wonderful information regarding the BBB method.
Richard
I'm sorry for wasting your time with what you consider to be erroneous results that are not useful. Nevertheless, I stand by my postings. I won't waste any more of your time. Regardless, I thank TFPs for wonderful information regarding the BBB method.
Richard
I think you misunderstood the side conversation. This thread is by far the most accurate one regarding this product and I appreciate the reports.
We were refuting the comment where someone thought the temperature could change the CYA by 73ppm and worried how they could test a level of 50ppm with that much error. And then after the fact you proved the temperature in fact has basically no impact like we postulated.
Keep up the good work, just wish the report showed better results for the sake of all pool owners
We were refuting the comment where someone thought the temperature could change the CYA by 73ppm and worried how they could test a level of 50ppm with that much error. And then after the fact you proved the temperature in fact has basically no impact like we postulated.
Keep up the good work, just wish the report showed better results for the sake of all pool owners
Richard, you completely misunderstood me as well. Jason summed it it up nicely. It had nothing to do with your testing, merely that the test itself is incapable of such accuracy as outlined in the post that Blizzle mentioned. You've wasted no one's time, and we are very appreciative of all your work. I think you've done a fantastic job of documenting this trial, and I hope you continue.
Richard,
Thank you for posting all your hard work and results. I hoped you would have had better results from the product; many of us have CYA challenges for various reasons such as pool stores' poor advice. I was also hoping your challenges would be further addressed by the vendor kind enough to post here. Perhaps your CYA is so high that testing is beyond the capabilities of the test kit; frequent testing with results in the same range do suggest no benefit. There are others here though that would have an informed view of tolerance ranges of the test kit.
Either way, I hope you will continue with any updates.
Bill
Thank you for posting all your hard work and results. I hoped you would have had better results from the product; many of us have CYA challenges for various reasons such as pool stores' poor advice. I was also hoping your challenges would be further addressed by the vendor kind enough to post here. Perhaps your CYA is so high that testing is beyond the capabilities of the test kit; frequent testing with results in the same range do suggest no benefit. There are others here though that would have an informed view of tolerance ranges of the test kit.
Either way, I hope you will continue with any updates.
Bill
I've been out of town for 10 days.
Day 26 results: Still No Joy! I decided to add my last (third) pouch of BA-CAR to the skimmer today after the following readings:
FC=3.5
PH=7.7
CYA=400
Richard
Day 26 results: Still No Joy! I decided to add my last (third) pouch of BA-CAR to the skimmer today after the following readings:
FC=3.5
PH=7.7
CYA=400
Richard
Well, I am certainly glad to hear you were out of town and not that Patrick and I inadvertently angered you enough to leave us.
Thanks for reporting back!!!
This certainly does not bode well for the products future, IMO.
Funny enough, after these reports started showing up, the BioActive guy has not come back and posted at all.
Thanks for reporting back!!!
This certainly does not bode well for the products future, IMO.
Funny enough, after these reports started showing up, the BioActive guy has not come back and posted at all.
borjis
LifeTime Supporter
That is disappointing.
But the instructions DO say the treatment was tested on levels at / around 150ppm.
Maybe with CYA sky high like that it just can't be over come. (they should say that on the packaging if true)
If it doesn't do anything to my pool, then I'll fess up to it being useless.
I have 100 ppm cya, proper water temp as of this past weekend and FC should
be at 3 tonight or tomorrow.
If it can't lower it down with what their instructions indicate as "ideal" then ya, waste of money.
But the instructions DO say the treatment was tested on levels at / around 150ppm.
Maybe with CYA sky high like that it just can't be over come. (they should say that on the packaging if true)
If it doesn't do anything to my pool, then I'll fess up to it being useless.
I have 100 ppm cya, proper water temp as of this past weekend and FC should
be at 3 tonight or tomorrow.
If it can't lower it down with what their instructions indicate as "ideal" then ya, waste of money.
Rflasck
Thanks for your research. My own CYA is a bit high and this product research is very informative.
Thanks for your research. My own CYA is a bit high and this product research is very informative.
Day 27 results: Still No Joy!
Water clear - no algae
FC=2.5
PH=7.7
CYA=360
Will wait a few days to publish updated graph.
Richard
Water clear - no algae
FC=2.5
PH=7.7
CYA=360
Will wait a few days to publish updated graph.
Richard
Last edited:
Day 28 results: Still No Joy!
Water clear - No algae
FC=1.5
PH=7.6
CYA=340
Richard
Water clear - No algae
FC=1.5
PH=7.6
CYA=340
Richard
Last edited:
Richard,
Love the graphs! Great testing, and easy to understand, even for a newbie pool owner like me.
Michael
Love the graphs! Great testing, and easy to understand, even for a newbie pool owner like me.
Michael
Z7What
0
Wow I just read every post in this thread and I have to commend you on your hard work and detailed testing and documentation of the results.
Im curious as I live in the south but you mentioned you not able to drain and refill your pool due to drought. Can you explain this to me? Is it that you can only use so much water a month? If so what is the fine involved in going over the allowed limit?
If I understand it correctly you are almost $200 worth of CYA reducer with plenty of time spend testing and documenting the results, this may sound extreme but buy a 5 gallon bucket from HD knock on each neighbors door and offer them a dollar to fill it up.
That's crazy man I hope you get it straight soon!
Wayne
Im curious as I live in the south but you mentioned you not able to drain and refill your pool due to drought. Can you explain this to me? Is it that you can only use so much water a month? If so what is the fine involved in going over the allowed limit?
If I understand it correctly you are almost $200 worth of CYA reducer with plenty of time spend testing and documenting the results, this may sound extreme but buy a 5 gallon bucket from HD knock on each neighbors door and offer them a dollar to fill it up.
That's crazy man I hope you get it straight soon!
Wayne