Any Pool Calculator feature requests for spring 2009?

The numbers are different for a spa. Even though the underlying ideas are similar, the higher temperatures, frequent water replacement, huge amounts of aeration, and the dramatically lower amounts of sun light change nearly all of the details. Also, more of the steps for a spa are done using rules about what to do, rather than test results.

If you know of a definitive source for recommended levels for a spa I would be happy to put them in.
 
JasonLion said:
If you know of a definitive source for recommended levels for a spa I would be happy to put them in.
This forum is my most definitive source! Aside from what I pointed to previously, there's nitro's article How do I use Chlorine in my spa. It recommends CH=100-150, TA=50-80, CYA=20-30 or so (but up to 50 is really ok). There is also some talk about how FC ought to be nudged up a bit as well, compared to the usual FC/CYA chart, as FC doesn't last as long in the higher temps and especially with higher bather loads.
--paulr
 
Because most spas do not have plaster/gunite/grout, the calcium levels can be lower. If too low, then foaming can occur. Normally foaming is inhibited if the CH is at least 100 ppm or so. You can have the CH be above 150 ppm, but it comes down to the saturation index that you can calculate with The Pool Calculator. Because the aeration in spas tends to make the pH rise and the temperature is also high, having the CH no higher than 150 ppm helps to prevent the possibility of scaling. If you watch your water chemistry, a CH of 200 is OK. 300 starts to push it.

Just keep in mind that the higher temperature of spa water has the saturation index be about 0.2 higher and that represents a CH difference between 300 ppm and 190 ppm. If one uses 50 ppm Borates in their spa water, then the risk of an unanticipated fast pH rise is far less likely.

Richard
 
I got my boric acid from The Chemistry Store. It is 20 Mule Team brand :) "technical grade" (whatever that means).

1 cup weighs 7.2 +-0.1 oz. The +-0.1 oz seemed to be some mixture of different amounts of tapping and not getting the measuring cup the exact same amount full each time. Without tapping I got 7.1 +-0.1, so not much variation really. Doing some conversions I get 0.86 g/ml.

I updated my Pool Calculator beta with my density measurement.
 

Enjoying this content?

Support TFP with a donation.

Give Support
JasonLion said:
I got my boric acid from The Chemistry Store. It is 20 Mule Team brand :) "technical grade" (whatever that means).

1 cup weighs 7.2 +-0.1 oz. The +-0.1 oz seemed to be some mixture of different amounts of tapping and not getting the measuring cup the exact same amount full each time. Without tapping I got 7.1 +-0.1, so not much variation really. Doing some conversions I get 0.86 g/ml.

I updated my Pool Calculator beta with my density measurement.
I received my Boric Acid from The Chemistry Store and I measured it's density and got 0.99 g/ml. This is after tapping the measuring cup to settle the product which is what I usually do. So perhaps what they sent me is ground a little finer. 2 cups (473 ml) measured as 16.5 ounces weight (468 grams).

Richard
 
JasonLion said:
heatmisr, WM? I assume you mean Windows Mobile. I will add that to the wish list.

What about my S60 phone?? I jest, I jest. I've got an iPod touch lying around here somewhere that could finally be put to use. 8)

Seriously, thanks for the Pool Calculator! It is extremely helpful!! :bowdown:
 
I would like to see a version of the calculator formatted to fit a pocket pc screen like 320 x 240 resolution. I currently have the web page downloaded on my phone and then I open it up in internet explorer and do my calculations. This works OK, I just have to scroll a lot to enter and view data. I like using the phone so I don't have to bring the laptop out to the pool. Love the program though, it is a real time saver.
 
I am not sure it is worth it--but I would like to be able to enter a range instead of a point target--Then the PC would calculate chems needed to reach the near side of the range. This would save having to rejigger targets because you have moved from below target range to above target range. Other than that minor quibble, current version does everything I need. Thanks for your work on this.
 

Enjoying this content?

Support TFP with a donation.

Give Support
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.