A member recently suggested that my best option to minimize pool maintenance was to convert to SWCG. I'm now seriously thinking of doing that because the relative who monitors and maintains my pool during the summer is taking an extended vacation this summer.
I've been researching all aspects of the conversion. The one thing that bothers me is the very high CYA (70-80) and rather low minimum FC (3) and target FC (5) suggested here. It just seems like there's little margin for error and considerable margin would likely be required if the pool isn't checked frequently. My pool survived a bad experience with very high CYA and chlorine tablets. I've finally got the water chemistry as perfect as possible and I haven't had to shock since resolving the basic problems about 9 months ago. I'm rather reluctant to tempt fate again.
It appears that a SWCG pool has proven more stable and bullet-proof than a Non-SWCG pool. It also appears that it can survive with the high CYA and low FC. Is the high CYA strictly to minimize chlorine use/generation so the system can be sized smaller and use less energy? Using liquid chlorine in my case seems to work great at CYA 30 or so and keeping FC in the 2-7 range results in a maximum chlorine usage of about 30 ounces of 11% per day in the summer. It's much less than that other times of the year. I think that equates to the equivalent of only 1/4 pound of chlorine per day, much less than the capacity of the smallest common SWCG generators. I was actually thinking of going with a 1.5#/day generator for greater capacity, life and efficiency. I think my use is low, especially for Florida, because the entire pool is screened and only gets direct sun for probably 7 hours per day.
In my case is CYA 50 and FC target 5 unreasonable? Won't this still result in low chlorine generation, excess capacity and long life while giving me considerable sanitation margin?
I've been researching all aspects of the conversion. The one thing that bothers me is the very high CYA (70-80) and rather low minimum FC (3) and target FC (5) suggested here. It just seems like there's little margin for error and considerable margin would likely be required if the pool isn't checked frequently. My pool survived a bad experience with very high CYA and chlorine tablets. I've finally got the water chemistry as perfect as possible and I haven't had to shock since resolving the basic problems about 9 months ago. I'm rather reluctant to tempt fate again.
It appears that a SWCG pool has proven more stable and bullet-proof than a Non-SWCG pool. It also appears that it can survive with the high CYA and low FC. Is the high CYA strictly to minimize chlorine use/generation so the system can be sized smaller and use less energy? Using liquid chlorine in my case seems to work great at CYA 30 or so and keeping FC in the 2-7 range results in a maximum chlorine usage of about 30 ounces of 11% per day in the summer. It's much less than that other times of the year. I think that equates to the equivalent of only 1/4 pound of chlorine per day, much less than the capacity of the smallest common SWCG generators. I was actually thinking of going with a 1.5#/day generator for greater capacity, life and efficiency. I think my use is low, especially for Florida, because the entire pool is screened and only gets direct sun for probably 7 hours per day.
In my case is CYA 50 and FC target 5 unreasonable? Won't this still result in low chlorine generation, excess capacity and long life while giving me considerable sanitation margin?