Calcium Hardness Issue (low)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
S

slrising

0
Nov 3, 2017
10
Menifee, CA
Having an issue getting my CH back into range after a changing filters this spring. Before I replace the filters it was always too high around 700-800. After the filter change back in April-May it slowly drifted down into target until last month when it went to below. At the low point while waiting for chemicals it was 70-80 and at the point below 150 for about 3 weeks.

2 weeks ago I got my first shipment of Leslie’s Calcium increaser 45lbs. I added the entire 45lbs over the course of the day with little change other than salt levels increased. Also the levels started really dropping when attempting to bring CYA into proper levels using BioActive (which seems to work some), chose to try that as water is very expensive in SoCal.

Pre bio active numbers after a shock by SWG:
FCL 9.21
TCL 9.21
PH 7.2
ALY 133
CH 168
CYA 140 Estimated I can only read 125 max
Salt 3700
Temp 79.7

I then waited 1 week for FC to drop within range to use BioActive.

Test prior to addition of BioActive on same day:
FCL 1.85
TCL 2.18
PH 7.1
ALY 94
CH 117
CYA 125+
Salt 3600
Temp 74.7F

3days after BioActive:

FCL 3.89
TCL 3.89
PH 7.1
ALY 94
CH 116
CYA 100
Salt 3600
Temp 75.7

8 Days after BioActive + 45lbs. Calcium chloride: (pool begins consuming chlorine)

FCL 1.27
TCL 1.39
PH 7.4
ALY 94
CH 131
CYA 116
Salt 3800
Temp 75.2F

After ten days I added second bag of BioActive as CYA stopped dropping (pool continues consuming chlorine and calcium or calcium is binding with salt)???

FCL .63
TCL .68
PH 7.0
ALY 94
CH 120
CYA 125+
Salt 3900
Temp 74.1F

Six days after second BioActive treatment and 90lbs. Of calcium chloride.

FCL 2.84 (SWG running at 100% for 12hrs per day vs normal to maintain FCL at current test level of x.xx of 40% for 6 hrs)
TCL 3.13
PH 7.1
ALY 78
CH 96
CYA 118
Salt 4200
Temp 70.2F

Any ideas? BioActive should be dead in 4 more days. Very little algae growth, water is crystal clear. Is the calcium combining with the salt, is it being deposited into the tile and plaster since bringing below 150 for a short period?? I doubt the BioActive would consume it but who knows?

Would like to clean my filter or at least open it up to see if there is a huge deposit of calcium stuck in it. That’s the only other place I can see it disappearing to. Not sure why the chlorine consumption started either we just had SWG replaced as the ten year old on just died a week prior to this starting which is when I did the shock with the first numbers above.

Pool is 30,000 gallons in SoCal, Plaster and tile with attached spa.

Any suggestions or where to go from here?

Anyone seen this before?

Thanks,
Scott
 
LaMotte ColorQ 7, just ordered new reagents as some are expired. After testing with old test strips and my tap water I think the reagents are suspect. I will also take a sample to the store tomorrow as I now suspect the CH is probably way to high. The CH reagents are 9/16 and 3/17 which shortly after that in coincidence with the filter change out the CH starting dropping off and I know SoCal has hard water and the tap just tested at 10ppm for CH
 
Hello and Welcome to TFP!

I don't trust / believe the calcium readings provided. Without replacing vast amounts of pool water with calcium free water, there is no realistic way to drop CH from 700 to 100. That requires 6/7ths of 30k gallons or about 25k gallons of CH free water. Way more than that if your fill water has CH in it. The Bio... doesn't change the CH levels. Your filter won't remove it either. If your pool walls aren't caked with scale then neither is the filter. The calcium doesn't bind with salt. Technically the bucket of calcium chloride you added is a salt already. I believe the issue is with your testing method/ reagents.

I'd recommend retesting with a known good test kit. Try the new reagents when they come in. Or I highly recommend the TF-100 test kit, it will not give false readings. You could have bought it for less than you paid for the calcium.

For the record, the Bioactive hasn't shown to be effective & repeatable at dropping CYA. Your numbers show not much change even after 2 applications. Don't add any more, it's a waste of your money. Unfortunately money is better spent on water replacement costs.

Your increased chlorine consumption is due to your low FC level for your CYA. Algae is trying to grow and the FC is being consumed killing the algae.
 
Thanks for the reply, I do know the calcium levels dropped because we got rid of the ring and scale build up over the summer. It’s back now though and that’s why I also believe it was probably at an acceptable range before I added the calcium although the tests were probably not accurate, will find out tomorrow when I have it tested by the store. Good news is we didn’t spend over $50.00 for the 90lbs between the pool store and peladow de-icer bags.

I know FC should be higher but all summer we didn’t have an issue with the higher CYA and an FC of between 5-7. Just started as the temps have decreased in the last month. We also got some minor algae around the same time. Not sure why that happened now and not all summer? Will get the FC to match the CYA once I can get a reliable test number to work with. Also tested for nitrates & nitrites just to be safe and they don’t even register on the test so those are ruled out.

Plan to test tomorrow and swap in my fresh filters pending a test with high CH levels and then shock and keep FC around 9-11 if my math is correct?

Question what do the slam numbers mean in the calculator mustard algae and I forget the other one mean? Is it ppm to add or what? Trying to determine what I need & how much for the slam/shock process?
 
The FC issue now is likely because you let the FC drop for a while to use the BioActive product. The FC was low enough for enough time that bad things were able to grow to a point where the FC couldn't kill faster than they reproduced.

What you need for the SLAM process is liquid bleach and LOTS of it.

You don't need to use the mustard algae box. Make sure your CYA is imputed correctly in the yellow section of PoolMath. Then use the Shock level in the left box of the blue section. It will be WELL above the 5-7 range while you perform the SLAM procedure. Closer to 45-50ppm level as it is based on your CYA level. You should consider replacing water to get CYA lower. At least down to 80-90 since you have a SWG. In a perfect world, down to 40, but I think that may be unrealistic in this case.

It will be more difficult to SLAM the pool at those high FC levels. Also, pool store testing is not the recommended way of getting the FC levels. Idealy you should be checking FC a couple times a day. When the pool store sees a FC of 45ppm, if they can accurately measure that high which I doubt, they will likely spew all kinds of mis-information. You really need a FAS/DPD test for this to test at home. That test is part of the TF-100 or K-2006 or you could buy it separately. You will go through a lot of reagents so make sure you have plenty on hand. Perhaps use the 5ml sample size.

The amount of bleach needed to reach your FC level will be given in the upper yellow section of PoolMath. Measured number on the left and desired number on the right. Verify your pool volume and bleach strength are correct. Don't get sticker shock when you see the amount of bleach needed. It is a lot at that high CYA level. But once you get your FC up there, it shouldn't take nearly as much to maintain it up there.
 
Thanks for the info, will start with a partial drain and refill today after I confirm CH and CYA and then SLAM after I have better numbers from the refill.

I already have a K-2006 kit from the previous owner but will need new reagents for it as they are at least 4 years old. The pool store test is really just to confirm that my CH numbers aren’t correct. The rest of my numbers I think I can trust other CYA as they have all been consistent since I began testing.

Should I wait to swap filters until after the SLAM or is it ok to do before?
 
Good news, well sort of. Confirmed issue was expired reagents. Bio Active was effective CYA of 60. CH is back to where I began the year plus 10ppm at 760. Drained 18” of water and cleaned the filters (lots of calcium in the bottom of the filter housing). Skimmed as much calcium off the bottom of the pool as I could as well. The rest of the numbers were in range, not that it will matter much after the drain and fill. Will post after numbers tomorrow.
 

Enjoying this content?

Support TFP with a donation.

Give Support
It appears to me I would not trust your testing method. Your CYA was 60 yesterday and 90 today? Not possible unless you added a bunch of CYA in the liquid form.

I would suggest getting a TF100. Much more accurate and repeatable testing.

Take care.
 
slrising said:
LaMotte ColorQ 7, just ordered new reagents as some are expired. After testing with old test strips and my tap water I think the reagents are suspect. I will also take a sample to the store tomorrow as I now suspect the CH is probably way to high. The CH reagents are 9/16 and 3/17 which shortly after that in coincidence with the filter change out the CH starting dropping off and I know SoCal has hard water and the tap just tested at 10ppm for CH
Click to expand...
I had the lamotte test kit as well. It worked well for all test except for CH. Just like you when my reagent expired my CH reading was very low. I made the mistake of adding too much CH because I trusted the color Q. When I got my new reagent my CH reading went from sometime in the low 100’s to over 400 with just the change of reagent.

The moral of that story is don’t always trust measurements especially when they involve items that don’t just go away for no reason. Those would be CH, Salt and CYA.
 
I just don't *trust* the ColorQ tester.

Just too finicky and probably out of calibration whack. The reason I trust my TF-100 kit is because the drop tests change colors clearly and tests are reproducible.

The Speed Stir just makes it all faster.

Maddie :flower:
 
mknauss said:
It appears to me I would not trust your testing method. Your CYA was 60 yesterday and 90 today? Not possible unless you added a bunch of CYA in the liquid form.

I would suggest getting a TF100. Much more accurate and repeatable testing.

Take care.
Click to expand...

ditto x's 10 re Marty...

Any tests that have huge fluctuations on things like CH, CYA, etc and nothing was added, drained or other, the testing is bad...TF-100 w stir stick is a great way to go...and, if you think old reagents are the culprit, get 3-4 samples of water and take them to 3-4 diff stores...this would be great way to teach a child the meaning of standard deviation to access...good luck
 
Thanks for all the info, all my numbers are back in check minus salt and CH but the CH is manageable at 600. So go down further this winter if we get a good rain season like last year. Salt will be fixed tomorrow. Also found some great advice for producing great reliable tests across the board with color q 7. I now heat the water to between 78 & 82 before testing and all results are repeatable with +-5ppm running on three days now with new reagents.
 
slrising said:
Thanks for all the info, all my numbers are back in check minus salt and CH but the CH is manageable at 600. So go down further this winter if we get a good rain season like last year. Salt will be fixed tomorrow. Also found some great advice for producing great reliable tests across the board with color q 7. I now heat the water to between 78 & 82 before testing and all results are repeatable with +-5ppm running on three days now with new reagents.
Click to expand...

sl,

Keep in mind that the reagent for the ColorQ CH test is only good for 6 months.. And, that the test actually reads Total Hardness and not just Calcium Hardness. So depending on your city water, the difference can be significant.

Thanks,

Jim R.
 
Not according to my documentation and instructions it only measures CH not TH. I also have test strips that measure TH. Since there is no magnesium the water and the test strips read about the same level and it’s stayed the same after four days I’m confident the numbers are accurate.
 
sl,

I asked one of the LaMotte engineers directly and they responded that they call it CH, but the actual measurement is for Total Hardness.

I am not like most on this site that bad mouths the ColorQ.. I have both the TF-100 and the ColorQ. I like the ease of use of the ColorQ and use it all the time.

A good analogy is like using a wrench to tighten a nut. If it is not important, I just tighten it until it feels right.. But, if I need to tighten it to a specific amount, I use my torque wrench (TF-100).

Thanks for posting,

Jim R.
 

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