Cyanuric instability

Jump to latest Follow Reply
TishTash

TishTash

0
Bronze Supporter
Aug 8, 2018
155
Merrick, NY
I‘ve riding 40 ppm CYA for the early part of the season here in the Northeast, pre-SWG. When the UV loss started creeping past the 4 ppm FC each day, I bumped it up to 60, anticipating an upcoming SWG install. When it arrived, I increased it to 80 as per TFP guidelines.

I’ve had a little backwashing and splashout, but nothing spectacular; more evaporation than anything else. And yet ...

When I just tested for CYA, I got 50! Is this possible? I would think a rather large proportionate drain and refill would be required for something like that to happen. (That or I’m imagining I’m seeing a dot well past the endpoint, lol.)
 
A little test error and some degradation during the summer months.

No need to raise it now. Your summer is winding down.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TishTash
TishTash said:
All true, but I have a month left; wouldn’t it be beneficial to reduce daily UV Cl loss even now?
Click to expand...
I’m 45 mins East if you, and every yard is different and all, but this is the first year I didn’t need a mid summer boost in CYA. It has been humid and nasty out many days, but no extended triple digit stretches so you’re probably fine where you’re at. If you notice any trouble maintaining the FC then by all means address it then.

TishTash said:
I tested again, and it’s now 40 (and I really tried to not imagine seeing the dot). So off I go to dump some CYA in a sock. 😄
Click to expand...
You know you can do the test over and over right ? Just keep sucking back into the squirter and try as many times as you need. It’s one of the nice parts about that test, don’t have to get it perfect the first try. I’ve second guessed myself silly on that one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TishTash and mknauss
Newdude said:
You know you can do the test over and over right ? Just keep sucking back into the squirter and try as many times as you need. It’s one of the nice parts about that test, don’t have to get it perfect the first try. I’ve second guessed myself silly on that one.
Click to expand...
Yes, that’s how I get to use both tubes (the one that comes with the TF-100 and the one that comes with the K-2006). I even have the Taylor sliding tube, but it’s usefulness is limited given it goes straight from 60 to 100. (I mean, what’s that all about?)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Newdude
Just wondering, but why does the TF-100 use over twice as much reagent (with twice as much pool water of course) than the K-2006? I mean, there’s enough solute to easily best the number of Taylor tests (~15 vs just 6), but I was curious as to any advantage to gauging 32ml vs 14ml.
 
Also worth noting, It’s 2020 and we are on the verge of self driving cars and 5G laparoscopic surgery with the Dr halfway around the world, Yet how do we test CYA ???? Well when the googley eye blinks, that’s your #.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: TishTash
TishTash said:
Just wondering, but why does the TF-100 use over twice as much reagent (with twice as much pool water of course) than the K-2006? I mean, there’s enough solute to easily best the number of Taylor tests (~15 vs just 6), but I was curious as to any advantage to gauging 32ml vs 14ml.
Click to expand...
The size of the test vial. The K2006 test kit uses a smaller test vial.
 
mknauss said:
The size of the test vial. The K2006 test kit uses a smaller test vial.
Click to expand...
No, I understand you need enough to potentially fill the larger tube. I suppose my point is using the smaller tube (and mixing bottle) would yield even more tests (~35!) for the TF-100 with its larger solute bottle.

I realize one needn’t normally test for CYA all that often, but 35 tests vs 15 (not to mention an amazingly meager 6!) is nothing to sneeze at....
 
Last edited:

Enjoying this content?

Support TFP with a donation.

Give Support
but why does the TF-100 use over twice as much reagent (with twice as much pool water of course) than the K-2006?
Click to expand...
If you compare the view tubes, the TF-100 view tube drops to a CYA of 20 ppm whereas the k-2006 only measures down to 30. That much volume is needed in the TF-100 to get a reasonably accurate 20 ppm reading. When the kit was first developed, it was felt that 20 ppm reading was worth the few cents the extra reagent cost. (And, yes, it IS pennies)

Move to today's ranges and the CYA suggested range has pretty much left 20 behind and now a minimum of 30 seems to make more sense.

As a result, the new, upcoming TFPro kit will contain that smaller view tube and use the same amount of R-0013 as the K-2006 test kit. In other words TFTestkits is keeping it's flagship testkit closer in line with todsay ranges that have evolved over the past 13 years.

So, will the TF-100 go to the smaller view tube and also test nothing lower than 30? The jury is still out but my bet is they will.

Takeaway? If the cost of the reagent is a problem, there is a really good chance you are testing too much. CYA should probably be tested 3 times or so when you are first establishing your ppm and then, after that, once every 30 days is gracious plenty
 
  • Wow
Reactions: TishTash
duraleigh said:
If you compare the view tubes, the TF-100 ... drops to ... 20 ppm whereas the k-2006 only measures down to 30. That much volume is needed in the TF-100 to get a reasonably accurate 20 ppm reading.... Move to today's ranges and ... now a minimum of 30 seems to make more sense. As a result, the new, upcoming TFPro kit will contain that smaller view tube and use the same amount of R-0013 as the K-2006 test kit.

... If the cost of the reagent is a problem, there is a really good chance you are testing too much. CYA should probably be tested 3 times or so when you are first establishing your ppm and then, after that, once every 30 days is gracious plenty.
Click to expand...

I agree CYA doesn’t need to be tested often at all. That being said, the extra amount was always welcome.

I hope the new Pro test has more R-0013 than the K-2006. 35 is excessive, granted, but 6 is way too little, IMHO. A 4 oz bottle, keeping it at around 15-16 like the TF-100, would be optimal, again IMHO.
 
poolnoobgrandma said:
$16 at Amazon for a pint that will last two years.
Click to expand...

Well, actually $17, but point taken. Alternatively, you can get 8 oz for $11 from TFTestKits, and I believe Amazon sells a quart for $29. There are also off-brands of 8 oz for $7, and two 32 oz that go for $25 and even $17!

P.S. Check this out: Taylor sells a gallon for a mere $43!

Amazon.com : TAYLOR TECHNOLOGIES INC R-0013-G CYANURIC ACID 1 GAL : Swimming Pool Liquid Test Kits : Patio, Lawn & Garden

Amazon.com : TAYLOR TECHNOLOGIES INC R-0013-G CYANURIC ACID 1 GAL : Swimming Pool Liquid Test Kits : Patio, Lawn & Garden
www.amazon.com
 

Attachments

  • D8CD44A8-E749-4EFB-AA65-C7F0D2186DB4.png
    D8CD44A8-E749-4EFB-AA65-C7F0D2186DB4.png
    329.9 KB · Views: 6
Last edited:

Enjoying this content?

Support TFP with a donation.

Give Support
You must log in or register to reply here.
Thread Status
Hello , This thread has been inactive for over 60 days. New postings here are unlikely to be seen or responded to by other members. For better visibility, consider Starting A New Thread.
Top Bottom
Back
Jump to latest Follow Reply