Just an FYI, the TF-100 test kit uses the same Taylor reagents as the K-2006, but includes quantities that are more inline with what you actually need based on the frequency of testing. You can see the comparison here: Recommended Test Kits
Test Results and Pool Calculator Question/Issue
- Thread starter johnsimion
- Start date
- Status
Just an FYI, the TF-100 test kit uses the same Taylor reagents as the K-2006, but includes quantities that are more inline with what you actually need based on the frequency of testing. You can see the comparison here: Recommended Test Kits
Okay, so I received my TFT-100 test kit and more information about the pool size. I called the pool builder and they did some calculations over the phone and told me that my pool holds 19,000 gallons. However, my construction diagram shows 610 sf and an average depth of 4.5 (3.5 to 5.5). Using several web sites that have formulas to calculate volume, I came up with 21,587 plus about 700 for the large spa. I also laser-measured the pool and came up with about the same thing using other formulas on-line. I don't know what the builder is doing but I think they are wrong. Therefore I am using 22,500 gal from now on.
Using my LaMotte ColorQ first, I tested my water today at 76 degrees and got the following results: FCL 4.13, TCL 4.13, PH 7.8, ALK 91, CH 273, CYA 41. I also had bought the Taylor salt test kit and the SpeedStir, and that yielded a result of 3600 ppm (which was both easy to read and consistent with my expectations, considering the quantity of salt I dumped into the pool).
I was then eager see what the new TFT-100 test kit had to say. I first decided to run the "daily" tests for chlorine and PH. I got results of basically, "I have no friggin' idea." My wife and I kept going around looking at the colors with white paper and bright lights for quite a while, then decided that the chlorine is off the charts (i.e., over 5 on chlorine. The "weekly" chlorine test also showed chlorine of 5.5. At least, I think so. I am using the SpeedStir with the LED lights on it. It's really pretty. The test is so subjective I have no idea what I just read. It looked really clear on the SpeedStir. Later on I took the test tube off the SpeedStir and it looked a little pinkish again. I don't know why the chlorine would be that high considering the SWG only runs at 60% for about 10 hours a day. By comparison, the PH test in the TFT-100 was a struggle to even read it, looking at it inside, inside with a bright light, inside with a bright light and white paper, and outside with and without white paper. The consensus of my wife and I was that it was somewhere north of 8.2.
[BTW, using the Taylor results, the PoolMath said I should add 57 oz of 29% muriatic acid to reduce the PH from 8.2 down to 7.5. If I use LaMotte, it says I should use 33 oz to reduce from 7.8 down to 7.5. Soooo ... I added 57 oz of acid, waited a little over an hour and retested. Now LaMotte reports 7.4 and the consensus of my wife and I is that the color on Taylor puts the PH definitely higher than 7.5 but lesser than 7.8.]
The ALK test wasn't too hard to do and yielded a result of 140 compared with LaMotte's result of 91. However, the TFT-100 seems to warn of higher ALK test results initially due to static electricity or something that makes the droplets too large, so that test mostly seems consistent with LaMotte.
The CH test was off-the-charts ridiculous. Ridiculously hard to read the results, and the results themselves were ridiculous results as well. I read the instructions several times and had my wife go over the instructions with me the second time because the first time I got results of 550 (25 drops). The second time we measured together while she read the instructions to me, and we counted drops together. Neither one of us could really tell at what point there was sufficient color change. However, the second time we compromised and agreed that there was sufficient color change after 20 drops to read the CH at "merely" 500. Of course, there is a big problem with that result -- my pool is 3/4 filled with soft water, and the local water district information says the calcium in the tap water is 287. So somehow my soft water pool has almost twice the calcium as the local tap water. Either the $*&# test is wrong or someone is sneaking in my pool at night and adding calcium. And NO, we didn't do the $*$& test wrong unless two college graduates cannot understand plain English in the instructions after reading them about 3 times and running the test twice. It's not like the instructions are that complicated, it's just reading the results that's complicated.
The CYA test was also ridiculous. "Add the mixed liquid until you can't see the black dot at the bottom." OMG. My wife and I actually argued over whether we could actually see the dot or not. My wife said she couldn't see the dot when the result was at about 40 something, same as the LaMotte. However, I thought I could still see the dot when it was 32 and I thought, "This is just stupid" and so I gave up on that one. Did I see the dot or didn't I? Heck if I know.
Using the figures from LaMotte, I get a CSI of -0.03, "balanced." Using the figures from the TFT-100 -- such as they are -- I get a CSI of +0.85, "scaling likely." So, I go either from "balanced" to "scaling likely" depending on whose test I use. But people in this forum have advised me that what I have now is just residue from air-dried droplets near the spillover from the spa.
As an additional comment, I don't see sufficient difference between these results to justify the difficulty in doing the Taylor tests and dealing with readings that are subjective that IMHO the kit is inevitably going to get varying results depending on who's reading the test, what light they look at the colors with, and how many cups of coffee they had first. A PH range from 7.5 to 7.8 is not particularly helpful in adjusting the pool. LaMotte's PH test gives me an exact figure that may (or may not) be slightly off, but at least I can use it to try to adjust the pool. Moreover, apparently it's not a huge error and certainly less than the error that creeps in from subjectively trying to judge the Taylor colors. The Taylor experience reminded me strongly of an eye test at the doctor's office. Read the last line. Is it an "E" or an "R"? Is it "blue" or is it still "purple"? Does "sorta blue" count? Shouldn't my wife and I be able to read the same results from the same test without having to have deliberations as if we are a jury? If we can't read the same results today, what results will we read tomorrow? It doesn't matter one whit whether the chemicals and tests are better than LaMotte if I can't count on consistency. The LaMotte is MUCH easier to use and the instructions are MUCH easier to read and understand, too.
Using my LaMotte ColorQ first, I tested my water today at 76 degrees and got the following results: FCL 4.13, TCL 4.13, PH 7.8, ALK 91, CH 273, CYA 41. I also had bought the Taylor salt test kit and the SpeedStir, and that yielded a result of 3600 ppm (which was both easy to read and consistent with my expectations, considering the quantity of salt I dumped into the pool).
I was then eager see what the new TFT-100 test kit had to say. I first decided to run the "daily" tests for chlorine and PH. I got results of basically, "I have no friggin' idea." My wife and I kept going around looking at the colors with white paper and bright lights for quite a while, then decided that the chlorine is off the charts (i.e., over 5 on chlorine. The "weekly" chlorine test also showed chlorine of 5.5. At least, I think so. I am using the SpeedStir with the LED lights on it. It's really pretty. The test is so subjective I have no idea what I just read. It looked really clear on the SpeedStir. Later on I took the test tube off the SpeedStir and it looked a little pinkish again. I don't know why the chlorine would be that high considering the SWG only runs at 60% for about 10 hours a day. By comparison, the PH test in the TFT-100 was a struggle to even read it, looking at it inside, inside with a bright light, inside with a bright light and white paper, and outside with and without white paper. The consensus of my wife and I was that it was somewhere north of 8.2.
[BTW, using the Taylor results, the PoolMath said I should add 57 oz of 29% muriatic acid to reduce the PH from 8.2 down to 7.5. If I use LaMotte, it says I should use 33 oz to reduce from 7.8 down to 7.5. Soooo ... I added 57 oz of acid, waited a little over an hour and retested. Now LaMotte reports 7.4 and the consensus of my wife and I is that the color on Taylor puts the PH definitely higher than 7.5 but lesser than 7.8.]
The ALK test wasn't too hard to do and yielded a result of 140 compared with LaMotte's result of 91. However, the TFT-100 seems to warn of higher ALK test results initially due to static electricity or something that makes the droplets too large, so that test mostly seems consistent with LaMotte.
The CH test was off-the-charts ridiculous. Ridiculously hard to read the results, and the results themselves were ridiculous results as well. I read the instructions several times and had my wife go over the instructions with me the second time because the first time I got results of 550 (25 drops). The second time we measured together while she read the instructions to me, and we counted drops together. Neither one of us could really tell at what point there was sufficient color change. However, the second time we compromised and agreed that there was sufficient color change after 20 drops to read the CH at "merely" 500. Of course, there is a big problem with that result -- my pool is 3/4 filled with soft water, and the local water district information says the calcium in the tap water is 287. So somehow my soft water pool has almost twice the calcium as the local tap water. Either the $*&# test is wrong or someone is sneaking in my pool at night and adding calcium. And NO, we didn't do the $*$& test wrong unless two college graduates cannot understand plain English in the instructions after reading them about 3 times and running the test twice. It's not like the instructions are that complicated, it's just reading the results that's complicated.
The CYA test was also ridiculous. "Add the mixed liquid until you can't see the black dot at the bottom." OMG. My wife and I actually argued over whether we could actually see the dot or not. My wife said she couldn't see the dot when the result was at about 40 something, same as the LaMotte. However, I thought I could still see the dot when it was 32 and I thought, "This is just stupid" and so I gave up on that one. Did I see the dot or didn't I? Heck if I know.
Using the figures from LaMotte, I get a CSI of -0.03, "balanced." Using the figures from the TFT-100 -- such as they are -- I get a CSI of +0.85, "scaling likely." So, I go either from "balanced" to "scaling likely" depending on whose test I use. But people in this forum have advised me that what I have now is just residue from air-dried droplets near the spillover from the spa.
As an additional comment, I don't see sufficient difference between these results to justify the difficulty in doing the Taylor tests and dealing with readings that are subjective that IMHO the kit is inevitably going to get varying results depending on who's reading the test, what light they look at the colors with, and how many cups of coffee they had first. A PH range from 7.5 to 7.8 is not particularly helpful in adjusting the pool. LaMotte's PH test gives me an exact figure that may (or may not) be slightly off, but at least I can use it to try to adjust the pool. Moreover, apparently it's not a huge error and certainly less than the error that creeps in from subjectively trying to judge the Taylor colors. The Taylor experience reminded me strongly of an eye test at the doctor's office. Read the last line. Is it an "E" or an "R"? Is it "blue" or is it still "purple"? Does "sorta blue" count? Shouldn't my wife and I be able to read the same results from the same test without having to have deliberations as if we are a jury? If we can't read the same results today, what results will we read tomorrow? It doesn't matter one whit whether the chemicals and tests are better than LaMotte if I can't count on consistency. The LaMotte is MUCH easier to use and the instructions are MUCH easier to read and understand, too.
Wow. You should be in the black and white portion of infomercials ...
I have no idea how you made this so difficult.
I have no idea how you made this so difficult.
Johnsimion,
I'd like to start off by welcoming you to the site. While things at first maybe frustrating, all will get easier as you go. Promise!
I'd like to pause this thread to the members and allow the OP to answer these questions.
Can you first watch these videos to help you use the TF-100. They're rather short and will help you in seeing each test preformed.
Next off, can you test the water again using the TF-100 and respond with the following results.
FC
CC
CYA
PH
TA
CH
From there we can help you best with your pool.
I'd like to start off by welcoming you to the site. While things at first maybe frustrating, all will get easier as you go. Promise!
I'd like to pause this thread to the members and allow the OP to answer these questions.
Can you first watch these videos to help you use the TF-100. They're rather short and will help you in seeing each test preformed.
Next off, can you test the water again using the TF-100 and respond with the following results.
FC
CC
CYA
PH
TA
CH
From there we can help you best with your pool.
The ColorQ is known to not measure higher CH levels above 300 ppm accurately. You may have started with soft water, but evaporation and refill will increase the CH level since CH does not evaporate. Being in Las Vegas, Nevada with hot dry air you will have a lot of evaporation. See this map or this listing that shows very high evaporation in your area (Boulder City is near Las Vegas) with 116" of annual evaporation. That's 9.7 feet so for a 4.5 foot average depth pool that is over 2 pool volumes. That would be an increase of 2*287 = 574 ppm CH from evaporation and refill alone. So let's just count from February when your pool was filled. Evaporation would be (starting with March and going through September) 7.56+10.67+13.79+16.57+16.45+14.41+11.51 = 90.96" or 7.6 feet where again for 4.5 foot average depth pool that would be 1.7x pool water volume so 1.7*287 = a 480 ppm CH increase. Note that if you heated your pool at all (I suspect you don't, but if you did since you listed "solar" in your signature) then the evaporation rate would be even higher than what I used. Also, the waterfall will increase evaporation as well and it also contributes to rising pH due to carbon dioxide outgassing.
I assumed no water dilution, and this is a reasonable assumption since you have a cartridge filter it may be oversized and not cleaned often so not diluting the water as much as with backwashing a sand filter. Given the desert environment, I assume there's no rain overflow. And I assumed you didn't intentionally dilute the water and that carry-out and splash-out were minimal.
But go ahead and use the ColorQ that you find so much easier since apparently you don't value accuracy. If you do ever decide to get accurate readings, then to save drops when doing the accurate Taylor CH test, use the 10 ml sample size where each drop then represents 25 ppm instead of 10 ppm. And as far as static electricity goes, that is easily handled by wiping the dropper tip with a moist cloth. You should be able to tell if you've got static electricity because the drops will squirt out instead of forming nice drops that hang before dropping.
Perhaps you should take a look at the videos on the Taylor site by clicking on "Pool/Spa" and then select the demo to watch under "K-2006 Complete™ Kit with FAS-DPD" in the list at this link. [EDIT] Leebo wrote his post when I was writing mine so he already suggested this. [END-EDIT]
If you want to virtually eliminate evaporation, then use a pool cover, but to keep the pool cooler you should use a reflective or white cover, not a dark one, since you don't want to have the sun add any heat to the water, at least not during the very hot summer. You could uncover at night which will help to cool it off and will have some evaporation, but overall less than not using any cover at all. If you want to help heat the pool in the winter, then you could switch to a clear bubble-type cover to let the sun help heat the pool.
I could go over your other tests, but let's start first with this claimed "ridiculous" value for CH and get straight on that before tackling each of the other tests you also don't like or trust.
Chem Geek said, "The ColorQ is known to not measure higher CH levels above 300 ppm accurately. You may have started with soft water, but evaporation and refill will increase the CH level since CH does not evaporate."
Absolutely correct, which was why I installed a soft water onto my auto-feed line BEFORE I drained and refilled. My pool was brand new in February 2014 but filled (then) with hard water. It was 3/4 drained in August 2014 due to calcium buildup, which was due to CH readings on the ColorQ of 338, 346, etc. Those readings may in fact have been inaccurate since they were over 300. However, ever since refilling with soft water and using the soft water auto-fill, my ColorQ has given me consistent readings between 240-270 (usually around 245). Those readings are consistent with expectations, considering the amount of hard water that was left in the pool before the refill. Even if the soft water auto-fill was not working properly, I still fail to see how I could achieve a CH reading nearly twice that of the local hard water in six weeks. And the soft water auto-fill DOES work properly, same line is also connected to my outdoor sink and I can taste the soft water there.
You said, "to save drops when doing the accurate Taylor CH test, use the 10 ml sample size where each drop then represents 25 ppm instead of 10 ppm." Actually that is exactly what the instructions said (there is nothing in the instructions about using anything OTHER than 10 ml sample size, I'm looking at the instructions right now). This was the procedure I followed TWICE. It's not complicated to DO, it's only complicated to READ. It's not like the salt test where the color changed sharply. With this one the color changes from real purple to less purple to lilac to less lilac to sorta blue to truly blue. It's incredibly subjective but I settled for "sorta blue." The first time I needed 25 drops of R-0012 to get a "sorta blue" color, the second time it was 25 drops. 20 drops x 25 = 500 ppm.
I did watch the Taylor videos and they look like what I did, although they use a different test bottle-thingie to do the test in than the one I received -- theirs has a much larger water container for the PH, but they still use the same amount of reagent. Ditto for the CYA test, the kit I received has a different tube. In none of the videos do they actually read the test and tell you THEIR result. They just show you how to read the test and looking at the video, it appeared to be less than 100% clear what the result would have been. The Taylor video for CH is kind of funny. When they use the large (first) sample, they only used about 9 or 10 drops, which would be about 90 ppm (it's hard to tell because the man doing the test pretty much slops through it). However, when they did the CH using the 10 ml example, they used 22 drops before the sample turned blue. That would put their CH at 600 ppm. Of course, they never discuss their actual results. If they were using a different water sample, one would think they would say that but they didn't.
You also said, "... before tackling each of the other tests you also don't like or trust." Other than the CH, I trust the Taylor tests okay because the results aren't much different than my ColorQ. Well, at least I think so, since they are far more difficult to read. Mainly I just don't see any reason to go through the hassle.
Absolutely correct, which was why I installed a soft water onto my auto-feed line BEFORE I drained and refilled. My pool was brand new in February 2014 but filled (then) with hard water. It was 3/4 drained in August 2014 due to calcium buildup, which was due to CH readings on the ColorQ of 338, 346, etc. Those readings may in fact have been inaccurate since they were over 300. However, ever since refilling with soft water and using the soft water auto-fill, my ColorQ has given me consistent readings between 240-270 (usually around 245). Those readings are consistent with expectations, considering the amount of hard water that was left in the pool before the refill. Even if the soft water auto-fill was not working properly, I still fail to see how I could achieve a CH reading nearly twice that of the local hard water in six weeks. And the soft water auto-fill DOES work properly, same line is also connected to my outdoor sink and I can taste the soft water there.
You said, "to save drops when doing the accurate Taylor CH test, use the 10 ml sample size where each drop then represents 25 ppm instead of 10 ppm." Actually that is exactly what the instructions said (there is nothing in the instructions about using anything OTHER than 10 ml sample size, I'm looking at the instructions right now). This was the procedure I followed TWICE. It's not complicated to DO, it's only complicated to READ. It's not like the salt test where the color changed sharply. With this one the color changes from real purple to less purple to lilac to less lilac to sorta blue to truly blue. It's incredibly subjective but I settled for "sorta blue." The first time I needed 25 drops of R-0012 to get a "sorta blue" color, the second time it was 25 drops. 20 drops x 25 = 500 ppm.
I did watch the Taylor videos and they look like what I did, although they use a different test bottle-thingie to do the test in than the one I received -- theirs has a much larger water container for the PH, but they still use the same amount of reagent. Ditto for the CYA test, the kit I received has a different tube. In none of the videos do they actually read the test and tell you THEIR result. They just show you how to read the test and looking at the video, it appeared to be less than 100% clear what the result would have been. The Taylor video for CH is kind of funny. When they use the large (first) sample, they only used about 9 or 10 drops, which would be about 90 ppm (it's hard to tell because the man doing the test pretty much slops through it). However, when they did the CH using the 10 ml example, they used 22 drops before the sample turned blue. That would put their CH at 600 ppm. Of course, they never discuss their actual results. If they were using a different water sample, one would think they would say that but they didn't.
You also said, "... before tackling each of the other tests you also don't like or trust." Other than the CH, I trust the Taylor tests okay because the results aren't much different than my ColorQ. Well, at least I think so, since they are far more difficult to read. Mainly I just don't see any reason to go through the hassle.
Thanks for clarifying. I didn't understand that the auto-fill had a softener still on it. I thought you only initially used soft water for most of the initial fill water. You can see what the Taylor test CH reading is for your sink water if that is on the same softener. It's possible the softener isn't working or not as much as you think though I presume by "taste" of the soft water you are referring to the increase in sodium relative to calcium. Usually you can't readily taste only a few hundred ppm of salt and the chloride level isn't changing (calcium is replaced with sodium), but sensitivity varies by person. This paper gives a sodium taste threshold of 6-60 (median of 12) mmole/L NaCl which is 350 to 3500 ppm (median of 700 ppm).
Yes, the CH color change of red/purple to blue is more subtle than the TA test change from green-to-red. Also, the fading endpoint that can occur from metals in the water can make the transition less distinct, but that can be overcome by first adding a good amount (say 8 in your case) of titrant drops before adding the calcium buffer and indicator dye. You count these initial drops to to your total titrant drops you use after the indicator dye.
Yes, the CH color change of red/purple to blue is more subtle than the TA test change from green-to-red. Also, the fading endpoint that can occur from metals in the water can make the transition less distinct, but that can be overcome by first adding a good amount (say 8 in your case) of titrant drops before adding the calcium buffer and indicator dye. You count these initial drops to to your total titrant drops you use after the indicator dye.
All tests are done until the final drop causes no further color change and that drop does not count. Sounds like you were trying to stop early.
Sounds to me like you mind was made up long before you started the tests. Thousands of folks have used this test kit successfully and it is generally recognized as the most precise/accurate on the market..
Probably a better avenue for you would have been to contact TFTestkits directly to see if they could help you but you chose to post half-truths on a public forum instead.
Why don't you PM me and send me your phone number and we'll see if we can get you satisfied with your transaction?
Probably a better avenue for you would have been to contact TFTestkits directly to see if they could help you but you chose to post half-truths on a public forum instead.
Why don't you PM me and send me your phone number and we'll see if we can get you satisfied with your transaction?
I do suggest you contact Dave since he can do things like send you additional dropper tips in case by unfortunate luck the one you got wasn't machined correctly or something like that. There are also the standardized solutions that can be used not only for validating the test, but the methods being used:
R-7064 100 ppm TA Standard Solution
R-7063 200 ppm CH Standard Solution
R-7065 50 ppm CYA Standard Solution
R-7064 100 ppm TA Standard Solution
R-7063 200 ppm CH Standard Solution
R-7065 50 ppm CYA Standard Solution
You could have said, "John, apparently we have some sort of a problem, either with the test kit or with the way you're doing it, we can't be sure but why don't you PM me and see if we can work this out." My, how wonderful to hear that because you know, we are all human. Test kits can have problems and sure, I could have made some kind of mistake (although I still don't know what). Could I have handled things better? Probably so, but whatever mistakes I made in how I posted were amplified 1000 times when you chose to call me a LIAR without even stating the grounds. Then you have the nerve to expect me to PM you to get me satisfied? Really? REALLY??? Well, for the record, everything I posted was 110% true and it wasn't necessarily even bad information about the kit. The test kit operated as it should have (other than the CH) and I pointed that out. I even pointed out that the salt test worked well and that most of the tests resulted in similar results to the ColorQ. My last post said, "I trust the Taylor tests okay because the results aren't much different than my ColorQ." The fact that this test kit is complicated and difficult to read is 110% true. And for this you accuse me of being a LIAR?
I appreciate the fact that you run the forum and the PoolMath calculator, but you could use some training in customer service. Thanks to the others for actually being helpful.
^^^ This is hilarious. I defy you to find better customer service than you could get from Dave.
I can not agree with this kit being complicated ... I mean my 7YO does it. Not sure how counting drops until the color stops changing could be any easier. Granted the CYA test is a little tricky to get used to. And you do have to match colors on the pH test, but if you can measure it within 0.2 ... that is good enough.
I can not agree with this kit being complicated ... I mean my 7YO does it. Not sure how counting drops until the color stops changing could be any easier. Granted the CYA test is a little tricky to get used to. And you do have to match colors on the pH test, but if you can measure it within 0.2 ... that is good enough.
It's clear that this thread is going nowhere at this point. I'm going to close this thread to further posts. JohnSimion, if you wish to start another thread, please do so and post the answers to the following questions. What is your
From there we will be VERY glad to help with your pool's water.
- Free Chlorine
- Combined chlorine
- Cyanuric acid
- Calcium Hardness
- Total alkalinity
- pH
From there we will be VERY glad to help with your pool's water.
- Status