Hayward Blog Pushes Use of SWG

[chessie6]

http://blog.haywardpoolside.com/pool-ca ... 6f30de375e

There's so much missing information here, like in our case we can't use a SWG or else our heater will corrode as we don't have the newer style made with titanium (this is what our repair guy told us based on his experience). I just don't like reading stuff like this.

Best,
Jan

 

[duraleigh]

That article is garbage. The first table (I didn't go further) is so full of baloney it dismisses any chance at credibility of any other part for me.

It's interesting that a perfectly fine manufacturer of pool products would allow such drivel with their name behind it.

 

[ping]

Take all articles regarding pool products with a grain of salt. They all seem to be skewed to make their product the best thing you can add to your pool.

The corrosion in the heaters is caused more from improper water balance than anything else. An improper SWG install, not following mfgs recommendations, can also lead to corrosion in the heater. If you are maintaining your water per TFP guidelines, then you should have no problems with the heater by installing a SWG. You need to aware that SWG's are not set it and forget it. They still require frequent testing and they might even require you to add more acid to lower the pH. Another aspect that they don't mention is that the pump might need to run longer than what you have been running it in order to make enough chlorine for the pool. Out here in CA, that extra run time adds up quickly in money that might not have been expected.

That said, I do like my SWG for the convenience of not having to add liquid everyday during the summer.

 

[Poolsean]

That article is garbage. The first table (I didn't go further) is so full of baloney it dismisses any chance at credibility of any other part for me.

It's interesting that a perfectly fine manufacturer of pool products would allow such drivel with their name behind it.

Hi Dave, it's not usually within my "bend" to defend Hayward, but the chart is fairly accurate. If you look at any Chlorine container, it will tell you the percentage of "available chlorine", which is what Hayward is referring to, give or take a few units.
What they are not calculating is the initial upfront cost for the system, nor the cost of electricity to generate this chlorine.

I use a similar chart in my presentations, but factor in the operating electrical costs.

 

[duraleigh]

I have no problem with the accuracy of the chart. It's the INTENT of the chart and text that makes it garbage. Here's an excerpt leading into the chart..

It’s important that you know about the chlorine you use to sanitize your pool. You might just be shocked at what you’re dumping in your water, and the money you’re wasting.

The implication is quite clear (and even more clearly false to those that understand chlorination) So what's shocking? Isn't the implication that the anything other than an SWG loads your pool with who knows what impurities? Isn't the implication meant that you only get your money's worth with SWG chlorine and the others are polluting your pool with certainly something awful?

The novice walks away from that chart with a clear impression that LQ is only giving you about 10% of your money's worth and leaves your pool with Lord only knows what "mystery filler" as the other 90%

This forum takes pride in separating facts and hyperbole and that article has so much hype in it the facts become irrelevant. Kudos to the marketing people who wrote it (that's their job) and shame on Hayward for using it.