7Iron, I presume you understand that the proper lighting conditions for the CYA test are strong indirect light. That is most easily achieved by standing outside with your back to the sun with the viewtube held in front of you shaded by your body and you are looking straight down into the tube holding it near the top with your fingers. I get very consistent results that also match the 50 ppm CYA standard when I do this.
CYA Testing Help
- Thread starter 7Iron
- Start date
duraleigh,
The order with Taylor was not "within this time frame" 6-14 through 6-18, It was yesterday, and the goal is to replenish the reagent and 50% test solution, because of so much "reading" calibration that I only have enough for 2 or 3 more tests.
???????
The order with Taylor was not "within this time frame" 6-14 through 6-18, It was yesterday, and the goal is to replenish the reagent and 50% test solution, because of so much "reading" calibration that I only have enough for 2 or 3 more tests.
???????
chem geek,
Yes the norm is outside back to sun with a bias of my face and the sample towards the north.
But because the standard is showing a 30ppm (lower ppm than the "actual 50ppm") more light is being allowed to reflect through the column of solution than should be if the solution is actually 50%.....It would help the dot disappear sooner (at the 50ppm gradient) if I did the test in a very dark bathroom.
There was one reading in the AM when we had a cloudy/overcast sky.....It really didn't change the reading..it was read at the 30ish ppm BTW, the results I get in my ofc are only marginally harder to read.
And I also get very consistent 50ppm when read in the Taylor K2006 CYA tube and I get very consistent results of 30 when using the TF tube and re-using the same solution in same exact lighting conditions
Yes the norm is outside back to sun with a bias of my face and the sample towards the north.
But because the standard is showing a 30ppm (lower ppm than the "actual 50ppm") more light is being allowed to reflect through the column of solution than should be if the solution is actually 50%.....It would help the dot disappear sooner (at the 50ppm gradient) if I did the test in a very dark bathroom.
There was one reading in the AM when we had a cloudy/overcast sky.....It really didn't change the reading..it was read at the 30ish ppm BTW, the results I get in my ofc are only marginally harder to read.
And I also get very consistent 50ppm when read in the Taylor K2006 CYA tube and I get very consistent results of 30 when using the TF tube and re-using the same solution in same exact lighting conditions
Chem Geek,,
I gave that dark bathroom comment as a tongue in check....but I filled the large TF kit tube to the 50ppm gradient and walk up and down our staircase (marginal lighting) until the dot seamed to disappear....then used the same solution in the K2006 and got a reading just about to the 60 line, the top of the meniscus was at the 60 .
I gave that dark bathroom comment as a tongue in check....but I filled the large TF kit tube to the 50ppm gradient and walk up and down our staircase (marginal lighting) until the dot seamed to disappear....then used the same solution in the K2006 and got a reading just about to the 60 line, the top of the meniscus was at the 60 .
y_not
0
7Iron,
I have been following your thread, I have an idea.
How about, when you get your reagents replenished that is, doing a video of the test?
Start to finish, that is, beginning with the mixing and going forward. That way we can see if there's anything funky going on with the TF-100 view tube.
One other question, are you sure you're getting 14ml of calibrated 50ppm test reagent and 14ml of CYA reagent in the mixing bottle to do the TF-100 view tube?
The K-2006 view tube requires only 7ml of each, so half the amount.
Mathematically I would think you could use the higher volume mix for the larger volume view tube in the smaller volume K-2006 tube, since it's still 50/50, but I don't pretend to really "get" math. Lol
So maybe worth splitting them up that way, worth a shot anyway.
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2
I have been following your thread, I have an idea.
How about, when you get your reagents replenished that is, doing a video of the test?
Start to finish, that is, beginning with the mixing and going forward. That way we can see if there's anything funky going on with the TF-100 view tube.
One other question, are you sure you're getting 14ml of calibrated 50ppm test reagent and 14ml of CYA reagent in the mixing bottle to do the TF-100 view tube?
The K-2006 view tube requires only 7ml of each, so half the amount.
Mathematically I would think you could use the higher volume mix for the larger volume view tube in the smaller volume K-2006 tube, since it's still 50/50, but I don't pretend to really "get" math. Lol
So maybe worth splitting them up that way, worth a shot anyway.
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2
y_not,
y_not (why not), do a video....I will.
I think that I did a 14ml mix solution, using both the K2006 and TF Kit reagents and got consistent 50ppm results. Had I known that trying to calibrate my "reading" was going to turn into a science project, I would have kept organized and contemporaneous records. Just realized that was not your question..."sure you're getting 14ml...?" was the question. I am sure that I am NOT getting 14ml of calibrated 50ppm test reagent and 14ml of R-0013 in the TF Kit mixing bottle. When the 50% calibrated test solution is filled to the bottom of the label it is more than 14ml and when the R-0013 is filled to the top of the label (per instructions) it is more than 14ml. My eyeballing guess is it is 15ml of each. (roughly 2 mm above the 14ml line in the K2006 mixing bottle)...But it is a 1:1 solution (water being tested and R-0013)
Earlier, JasonLion properly stated that CYA ppm readings aren't a function of volume. Which is correct, since it is the relationship between the depth of the viewing disc and the turbidity. And the depth is measured exponentially---
I am thinking that since the industry has created at least two different tubes with significantly different volumes; that someone thinks or knows that the fidelity of the test is some how effected or affected. My instincts are: that with a larger volume of solution the potential for higher fidelity results is increased, especially in mixing....the probability that I am achieving (1:1) a 50% reagent and 50% pool-water is higher.
I have no idea what the "settling" rate is for the suspended particles, as I am holding the solution inverted (relative to the opening) and pouring/dripping into the turbidity tube. The longer it takes me the more settling.
Given all that, after "extensive" testing (1 8oz and 4 .75oz R-0013 reagent used in 4 days) ; I really don't think that volume is a significant factor in consistent accurate results, at least within the context of affordability/practicality for home owners and professional pool industry folks. Although it is easier for me to get a 1:1 solution mixing in a larger container. And I am not sure about reading a larger turbidity tube, because I am not certain that I have a good one...
But non-defeative products are required.
y_not (why not), do a video....I will.
I think that I did a 14ml mix solution, using both the K2006 and TF Kit reagents and got consistent 50ppm results. Had I known that trying to calibrate my "reading" was going to turn into a science project, I would have kept organized and contemporaneous records. Just realized that was not your question..."sure you're getting 14ml...?" was the question. I am sure that I am NOT getting 14ml of calibrated 50ppm test reagent and 14ml of R-0013 in the TF Kit mixing bottle. When the 50% calibrated test solution is filled to the bottom of the label it is more than 14ml and when the R-0013 is filled to the top of the label (per instructions) it is more than 14ml. My eyeballing guess is it is 15ml of each. (roughly 2 mm above the 14ml line in the K2006 mixing bottle)...But it is a 1:1 solution (water being tested and R-0013)
Earlier, JasonLion properly stated that CYA ppm readings aren't a function of volume. Which is correct, since it is the relationship between the depth of the viewing disc and the turbidity. And the depth is measured exponentially---
I am thinking that since the industry has created at least two different tubes with significantly different volumes; that someone thinks or knows that the fidelity of the test is some how effected or affected. My instincts are: that with a larger volume of solution the potential for higher fidelity results is increased, especially in mixing....the probability that I am achieving (1:1) a 50% reagent and 50% pool-water is higher.
I have no idea what the "settling" rate is for the suspended particles, as I am holding the solution inverted (relative to the opening) and pouring/dripping into the turbidity tube. The longer it takes me the more settling.
Given all that, after "extensive" testing (1 8oz and 4 .75oz R-0013 reagent used in 4 days) ; I really don't think that volume is a significant factor in consistent accurate results, at least within the context of affordability/practicality for home owners and professional pool industry folks. Although it is easier for me to get a 1:1 solution mixing in a larger container. And I am not sure about reading a larger turbidity tube, because I am not certain that I have a good one...
But non-defeative products are required.
The 1:1 is what is important but even a 1 ml error out of 14 ml isn't going to affect the reading by very much. A 10% error at 50 ppm CYA is 5 ppm CYA. I don't know why you are seeing such a larger difference and absolute error with the long tube. We have many, many, many people using it without issue and quite a few (including myself) who have compared against standard solutions. There's no question that there is a degree of judgment as to when the dot actually disappears, but that difference usually is not the difference between 50 ppm and 30 ppm which is quite a large visible difference.
I received the new tube today from Dave at TF Kits. The results are the same. Reading just below the 30 gradient
Interestingly, when this began, (see CYA Levels off the chart thread that was started by gh0st) I called Talyor and talked with one of their techs and after describing the tube that I was using ( from their K2006 kit that purchased last year locally) he told me that Taylor had replaced the round one 2 years earlier with a square one and that they believed to it be more accurate. I purchased a new K2006 and now I have 2. When I use the old round tube I get a reading about 75% above the 40 and so I would read as 30 since it is closer the 30.
When I use the new square tube I get 50, and I mean 50 plus or minus the square version of meniscus which I would call corner legs. I recruited my wife tonight and her reading are just about they same as mine....her disappearance is just a smidgen different than mine but when rounded to the nearest gradient we are they same.
I am like a little kid at Christmas, Cant wait for the new solution and tube that I ordered.
I did a settlement test today....and you have to wait a very long time 6+ hours for the dot to reappear (not totally..it is still a little cloudy)
This is very baffling...maybe the "stackup" of variables is eliminated when using the smaller volume K2006 square tube??? Reaching for straws!!
Interestingly, when this began, (see CYA Levels off the chart thread that was started by gh0st) I called Talyor and talked with one of their techs and after describing the tube that I was using ( from their K2006 kit that purchased last year locally) he told me that Taylor had replaced the round one 2 years earlier with a square one and that they believed to it be more accurate. I purchased a new K2006 and now I have 2. When I use the old round tube I get a reading about 75% above the 40 and so I would read as 30 since it is closer the 30.
When I use the new square tube I get 50, and I mean 50 plus or minus the square version of meniscus which I would call corner legs. I recruited my wife tonight and her reading are just about they same as mine....her disappearance is just a smidgen different than mine but when rounded to the nearest gradient we are they same.
I am like a little kid at Christmas, Cant wait for the new solution and tube that I ordered.
I did a settlement test today....and you have to wait a very long time 6+ hours for the dot to reappear (not totally..it is still a little cloudy)
This is very baffling...maybe the "stackup" of variables is eliminated when using the smaller volume K2006 square tube??? Reaching for straws!!
Our neighbors just came over for wine time....and I put both of them to work, using all 3 tubes and reusing the same solution.
The rounded to nearest gradient readings are
What is interesting my wife's numbers changed ....until she took off her Walmart reading glasses and then they were the same as her 1st readings--she didn't use glasses the first time
If the calibrated solution is 50% the smaller square tube must be used....
Richard, I would pay the postage if you would mail me your large tube, and you can bank on me returning it....This is now a QUEST !!
It has to be the mfg variability of the dot, the gradient lines are the same (at least so close that I cant measure the difference), the reagents are the same, and the readings by 4 people are the same....
The rounded to nearest gradient readings are
What is interesting my wife's numbers changed ....until she took off her Walmart reading glasses and then they were the same as her 1st readings--she didn't use glasses the first time
If the calibrated solution is 50% the smaller square tube must be used....
Richard, I would pay the postage if you would mail me your large tube, and you can bank on me returning it....This is now a QUEST !!
It has to be the mfg variability of the dot, the gradient lines are the same (at least so close that I cant measure the difference), the reagents are the same, and the readings by 4 people are the same....
What about the Taylor K-1720 kit? Did Taylor say they are changing that circular tube to a square tube as well? I'm referring to part 9193. That's the same part as in the TF-100 kit.
I didn't discuss it as I only had a old K2006 kit at that time...I am not sure if I even knew there were larger tubes available then.
Not sure....the Taylor tube and solutions are being del today.....will update later
Well, I am finished trying to sort out the CYA test.
I have 3 test tubes:
1. square Taylor w/30ppm top gradient(part of a block comparator unit)
2. TF Kit large w/20ppm top gradient
3. Taylor 9193 w/30ppm top gradient
I have conducted countless readings (used all of the 8oz 50% Test Standard from TF Kit and half of the 16oz 50% Test Standard from Taylor)
I have used the Test Standard at full strength, at 50% strength and 75 % strength. Meaning I diluted the 50% to 25% and to 38% with tap water using a pipet. (I also used different solution mixtures with my pool water-i.e half pool water half test standard, etc)
The readings from the TF Kit and Taylor 50% Test Standard and R-0013 reagent were the same with the same conditions. (i.e. same tube, same lighting)
I had to "create" an ideal "specular reflection" off the concave surface of the meniscus to get consistent 50ppm when using the full strength (mixed w/ reagent at 1:1) test standard and using the tubes 2 and 3 from above. It was still difficult as the small shaking of my hand affected outcome...and WINDY conditions made it impossible.( I could see the dot and then not, especially in the larger tubes)
My conclusion:
1. It is the only reasonable test in town
2. Smaller square tube yielded more accurate results (in the 50ppm range and I think above 50ppm where my pool lives)
3. Consistent and accurate results are a function of "ideal" lighting to yield the proper "specular reflection"
4. The test should be labeled as a binary test: You have CYA above or below 50ppm!!!
BTW, I had two pool stores read my (I also read their results and agreed with their readings) CYA yesterday (60 and 50ppm), my readings at home using all my gear; is 90-100 using square tube and 60-70 using the larger tubes.. I AM CERTAIN MY POOL IS AT or ABOVE 50 and that is all I know!!
I have 3 test tubes:
1. square Taylor w/30ppm top gradient(part of a block comparator unit)
2. TF Kit large w/20ppm top gradient
3. Taylor 9193 w/30ppm top gradient
I have conducted countless readings (used all of the 8oz 50% Test Standard from TF Kit and half of the 16oz 50% Test Standard from Taylor)
I have used the Test Standard at full strength, at 50% strength and 75 % strength. Meaning I diluted the 50% to 25% and to 38% with tap water using a pipet. (I also used different solution mixtures with my pool water-i.e half pool water half test standard, etc)
The readings from the TF Kit and Taylor 50% Test Standard and R-0013 reagent were the same with the same conditions. (i.e. same tube, same lighting)
I had to "create" an ideal "specular reflection" off the concave surface of the meniscus to get consistent 50ppm when using the full strength (mixed w/ reagent at 1:1) test standard and using the tubes 2 and 3 from above. It was still difficult as the small shaking of my hand affected outcome...and WINDY conditions made it impossible.( I could see the dot and then not, especially in the larger tubes)
My conclusion:
1. It is the only reasonable test in town
2. Smaller square tube yielded more accurate results (in the 50ppm range and I think above 50ppm where my pool lives)
3. Consistent and accurate results are a function of "ideal" lighting to yield the proper "specular reflection"
4. The test should be labeled as a binary test: You have CYA above or below 50ppm!!!
BTW, I had two pool stores read my (I also read their results and agreed with their readings) CYA yesterday (60 and 50ppm), my readings at home using all my gear; is 90-100 using square tube and 60-70 using the larger tubes.. I AM CERTAIN MY POOL IS AT or ABOVE 50 and that is all I know!!