High CYA - what to do first

Jump to latest Follow Reply
I used the shaded images since the test should be done with back to sun and tube in the shade.

Maybe 50 if that's the first picture? I might even go with 40 if that first image was 50. If your CYA is that low, that may explain why you're maintaining 5.
 
Your CYA is less than 60. Here, bottom of page:

Why Monitor Cyanuric Acid?

While I am not encouraging anybody to ignore TFP guidelines about measuring CYA, I, personally, am seeking my own path. Those pictures were not shot in the shade of anything, nor outside in the sun, or shaded from the sun or whatever. They were taken indoors, in a lit room or studio, with some diffused and/or ambient lighting (IMO, based on the shadow and some professional experience in photography). It is those conditions I attempt to recreate when testing my own CYA. And I don't blink or glance or do the hokey-pokey. I stare at the thing and dare the dot to reveal itself!

That said, under whatever conditions, the bleepin' CYA test is ridiculous. The bane of TFPC!! I'm considering this gizmo for my next battle with the cyabeast (pronounced kai-ya-beest):

Cylinder, CYA w/ movable slide to measure CYA, plastic (for K-0200 K-0206)
 
triptyx said:
I used the shaded images since the test should be done with back to sun and tube in the shade.

Maybe 50 if that's the first picture? I might even go with 40 if that first image was 50. If your CYA is that low, that may explain why you're maintaining 5.
Click to expand...
The first picture is 60.

Dirk,
This is by far the most frustrating test of the bunch. I am thinking of that slider, as well, but I don't know if it'll resolve the main issue because the test's endpoint isn't exactly clear. In my shaded pictures, the 60 CYA is not quite a dot but it's also not white like a cotton ball. I assume the whole rigmarole of where/how to stand and hold the tube is simply to increase contrast so the endpoint is more clear.

The problem with Taylor's example is that I can barely make out the dot in the last photo! Or I'm just imagining it. I really don't want to have to do a double blind CYA test on my darn pool :D
 
bizzle said:
The first picture is 60.

Dirk,
This is by far the most frustrating test of the bunch. I am thinking of that slider, as well, but I don't know if it'll resolve the main issue because the test's endpoint isn't exactly clear. In my shaded pictures, the 60 CYA is not quite a dot but it's also not white like a cotton ball. I assume the whole rigmarole of where/how to stand and hold the tube is simply to increase contrast so the endpoint is more clear.

The problem with Taylor's example is that I can barely make out the dot in the last photo! Or I'm just imagining it. I really don't want to have to do a double blind CYA test on my darn pool :D
Click to expand...

OK, so this is not TFP sanctioned, at all. Just my thinking about it. So Mod's can delete, no problem.

I don't have any confidence in the outside shade test instructions. It's not reproducible or consistent, and I think that's important for all the tests. I also believe that the CYA test has the largest margin of error (I got that from Taylor direct). Though it's not clear if that is so because of the chemistry involved, the subjectivity involved, or both. Doesn't matter. It's bad either way.

So what I'm attempting to do for myself, is to establish a very consistent and reproducible test procedure. For me. For my pool. So that means indoors, same lighting, no glancing, etc. Maybe using that slider gizmo, because half the battle is squirting a little test juice at a time. Total pain.

To account for the possibility that my results might not match TFP's, or even Taylor's, I'm thinking this: it doesn't matter. My supposition is: I will eventually learn what number my foggy water is telling me. Doesn't really matter in relationship to someone else's test result, or even the CYA chart. (OK, this is where they might want to edit me!) I'll glean a number, but it'll be a consistent number. And I'll use the TFP FC/CYA chart as the starting point, and dose my pool accordingly. Then I'll track the result. If I'm burning through FC more than I think I should, I'll adjust. And if my FC seems to be locked up more than it should be, I'll adjust the other way. Eventually, I'll know what to do about CYA based on how I view my dot, under my light, and not anything else. Dot disappears at W, add X pounds of CYA. Dot disappears at Y, drain Z amount of water. It's a vague concept, for sure. And a bit hard to explain, but it's clear in my head (though not clear yet if I can make it work, or how long it'll take). I think this is kind'a a variation of the double-blind you refer to, isn't it?

I just know there's got to be a better way than relying on a shadow from the sun, which is technically different, even under ideal conditions, 365 days out of every year! Certainly where my waist is seems to be a moving target as well. Not sure what the problem is there!!

If I figure it out, you all will be the first to know!! ;)
 
bizzle said:
My eyes definitely aren't what they used to be, but whenever I've looked at this photo I've always been able to see a soft outline of the dot.

Am I imaging it or do other people see it, too?
Based on what I'm seeing, it looks like it's between 60 and 50, right?
Click to expand...

I see the ghost of the dot in Taylor's pic. I think this is something to shoot for. It's white enough to call the test done, but barely there enough to assure you you haven't gone too far. That's how I interpolate Taylor's photos.

Based on your pic's, your CYA is less than 60 and more than 50. TFP recommends rounding up, presumably because that would mean you're calculating with a number that's equal to or slightly higher than your actual CYA, which would be safer than the other way around, in terms of sanitizing your pool (that's a guess). So your CYA is 60 for purposes of Pool Math.

This is where that slider would come in handy. It would basically allow you to "redo" the test over and over, until you fine tune the position and then read the number, without having to dump out and re-squirt the sample over and over.

After I confirm it works with the reagent of the K2006 (it's got to, right?), I'm buyin' it!
 
Dirk describes a lot of good logic there. Also, you'll find an FC level that works for your pool and your schedule, so what Dirk said is also working with your knowledge of the FC level that works for you. You can call your CYA at 60 ppm and go for it for a while. Or raise to 80 right away, whatever makes sense to you. Then choose your range with around 4-5 ppm FC leeway. Set the SWG and see if FC stays in your chosen range.

There's a great question above regarding flow. Make sure your minimum flow rate has the SWG working as much as it's set for.

Thanks, everyone for jumping in. Lots of experience here with the same sun, and also with hotter water.

If you've been at around 50, then to some degree that explains the higher FC loss, which is also greater when the FC level is higher than needed for that CYA level.

As far as expected setting, and provided the SWG is working correctly, you're at or above the high end of the FC depletion range for TFPers in Texas, Arizona, and California.
 
Were it me, I'd call it 60, add CYA to boost it to 70 using the sock method (I'm assuming you don't have any possibly undissolved CYA in the filter, etc), then let it run as-is for the weekend, testing daily to see where the FC level maintains.

Maintaining FC 5 is a good spot for 60 CYA with an SWG, but by raising the CYA you could likely lower the amount of time your salt cell has to run and increase its longevity. If 70 works better for your FC levels, then push to 80 CYA, adjust runtime as needed to maintain FC 6, and call it a season. :)
 

Enjoying this content?

Support TFP with a donation.

Give Support
Things are looking more normal now that we're considering my baseline CYA at 60.

I went out of town today but before I left around 10am the SWG was reporting a low flow error--so that was at least 3 hours of no chlorine production. Then I checked my app around 6pm (I really wish Screenlogic would send alerts to the device rather just in-app) and it was showing low flow error again--so that was at least 2 hours of no chlorine production.

I have it set for 13 hours (from 7am to 8pm) at 60% and at least 5 of those hours were no production today, yet at 10pm the Cl was still 4.5ppm. So it's slightly lower than it has been this past week but nowhere near where we'd expect it to be if something was wrong (like an algae outbreak, for example).
 
I have a FlowVis, and my SWG wants 21GPM, not 20. 21 is 1500RPM on my pool, 1400RPM gets me the Low Flow light, if that's of any help as a reference... Manual says 25GPM minimum, with a 5GPM margin of error:

The IntelliChlor® SCG is designed to operate with water flow rates from 25 +/- 5 gallons per minute (gpm) up to105 gpm.
Click to expand...
 
Sorry for not being clear, but I'm not having any problems with the pump. I was simply pointing out that even though the pump hadn't been running fast enough the Cl level was still stabilized. Even though it hadn't been generating for roughly half the time it was only a .5 ppm loss for the day, which indicates I don't have an abnormal chlorine loss and this is simply due to the heat and my low CYA.

The reason the pump wasn't flowing adequately is because one of the grids has a hole in it and debris gets through and jams up inside the SWG and I also think the CYA is building up on the filter grids resulting in lower flow. I had to open it up, clean it out, and increase the RPMs of the pump but it's running fine now :)

I'll have to wait for the CYA to fully dissolve before I can break my filter down and change out the broken grid.
 
I have a lot of tools and toys and gizmos. Seems like they break down or stop working or otherwise go out of whack faster than I can fix 'em!!
 
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