Initial Pentair pump settings for our pool with spa, infinity edge, waterfall, and cleaner...and understanding labels in ScreenLogic app.

[ebot]

ACID.
You may
I realized Leslie's Muriatic Acid is like 34% HCl and only costs like 10% more/gallon, whereas Home Depot's is less than half the HCl concentration.
I put maybe 1/3 gal in last night an pH got down to about 7.6. So, I'll plan to stick with adding Muriatic prn for now. Hopefully I've got pH handled.
"very best, most cost-effective"...that's exactly what I'm after. THANK YOU!

____________________________________
Calcium Hardness / Water Softener.

Since my Calcium Hardness seems to be at least somewhat of an issue, and considering a Water Softener system was suggested, I looked into it more.
We're down in San Diego, and I read a lot of the SW has hard water issues as we mostly get our water from the Colorado River. Last couple CH readings at Leslie's were 485 and 618.
When I do a full CSI calculation I'm getting about 0.10 (I listed my CSI variables/comments at the end).

However, Dirk's Central CA situation sounds similar and recommends aiming for CSI -0.3 is best with CH on the high end of the spectrum.

____________________________________
QUESTIONS:
Looking at the photos of my pool above, I have a type of "plaster" pool right? I think it's pebble tech but not really sure tbh. I'm prett sure it's not vinyl or fiberglass though LOL.

Leslie's puts a "!" for my CH (latest 618), but TFP pool basics for plaster with SWG says 250-650 ok
(What Are My Ideal Pool Levels?),
and y'all seem to be saying so long as it's under 650, CSI is the true north star, is that right? ... still CH that high might not be so great for the pumps/plumbing, right?

So, I might not even need a Water Softener for pool care, right?

If not, I was thinking about it anyway as we do get some of that crud on our faucets and stuff and it sounds like getting water hardness down would likely help long term longevity of our plumbing and the pool pumps and SWG anyway. I did just open up our SWG again and it looked pretty frosted after having just cleaned it maybe 3 months ago. Is my reasoning on track?

I shopped softeners a bit. Since (I think) our hardness is not hugely off-target, it seemed like these newer/cheaper "magnetic" / "induction" type water softeners might be a good option. They're simple to DIY install, much cheaper, apparently no maintenance, and should get the hardness down a good bit, but we wouldn't expect it to move the needle as much as a salt based softener system. But it seems like we don't need a major reduction in hardness anyway. Something like this:

Amazon.com

Thoughts on this?

I did poke around for other softener threads, but there are 768 LOL.

Google search results

www.troublefreepool.com

This one from Lagoony helped a lot though...and he lives nearby!

Using a water softener to lower calcium hardness

I have a 26,000 gallon plaster pool in San Diego, CA. It's about 2 years old and the calcium hardness has been slowly creeping higher due to evaporation. It's currently at 750 ppm, which is well above the recommendations here. My source water from the tap is about 250 ppm. I've asked around...

www.troublefreepool.com

...I see a rec for a $400 Rheem softener, but then I'd need an installer. Don't think I could handle DIY'ing that.


_________________________________
CSI CALCULATION VARIABLES

pH 7.6
(pH keeps bumping up as noted but for now got it to 7.6 and I'm ready to keep bumping it down with muriatic and then letting it "bounce" with aeration which should get the TA down some if I undertand that right).

TA 94
(my Taylor kit agreed).

CH 618.
I tried to double check this on my Taylor but after 10 drops it still wasn't turning blue and seems to have some particulate pink stuff form. When I test Alkalinity I don't see any particulates, so I'm guessing I got some bad reagents here. I attached a photo. Do you think that means one or more of my CH reagents went bad? Dangit - it's a new kit!

CYA 40.
It was 48 at Leslie's but ~25-30 on my Taylor 9-way kit so we'll call it 40.
Looks like I ought to get this up some. I'll read up on it. If I get it to 70, CSI would be 0.04.

Temp 70
Salt 3400
___________
CSI 0.10

 

[Dirk]

Yes, you have a pebble finish. It's considered a "plaster pool" in terms of water maintenance, because the pebbles are embedded in plaster. It's plaster making your pool water-tight, and holding all the pebbles together.

While a CSI of -0.6 to 0.6 is acceptable, TFP recommends a target within the range of -0.3 to 0.3, just to play it safe and give you some wiggle room. It's suggested that users of SWGs keep their CSI slightly negative (<0.0) to help keep calcium residue from forming on the plates of their SWGs. That's why I came up with -0.3 as a target, but I use -0.3 to -0.1 as my acceptable range. I haven't had to clean my SWG for years, and no calcium ever collects on my pebble.

@JoyfulNoise can weigh in on "magnetic" / "induction" type water softeners. I have a Whirlpool from Lowes. It was easy to install because my house was already plumbed for a softener. If yours is not, then there are things to consider. Do you know? Typically there would be a large (1") copper pipe loop poking out of a wall in your garage. And what looks like a washing machine drain.



By the way, a softener will help preserve your fixtures and appliances throughout your house, and make your showers luxurious. You'll use less soap everywhere, including laundry soap. So it can be considered a good investment for more than your pool. Be aware some municipalities want a say in how you set your softener's settings, or have banned them altogether.

When you cite Leslie's CH test results, are you talking about your pool water? You know, you can run a CH test on your tap water to get an idea of what CH you're battling. Does your test suite have a CH test? You really cannot rely on pool store results. Time to upgrade your test kit if you haven't already
(Test Kits Compared).

I calculate your CSI to be +0.22, so it's getting up there. But you really don't know what it is as long as you're using pool store numbers. Upgrading your test kit is not really a suggestion. It's virtually mandatory for participating in the TFP methods. It's hands down the most important investment you can make for the longevity of your finish and the safety of your pool users.

And yes, you can somewhat deal with high CH in your pool by manipulating the other levels that effect CSI. pH is the level that has the most effect on CSI, so you can play around with the Pool Math CSI calculator to see how tweaking CH and pH levels effects CSI. My personal MO is to keep all my levels as close to the middle of the TFP-suggested ranges as possible. And the pH level compensation I use to keep my CSI at -0.3 changes throughout the seasons, because water temperature greatly effects CSI, too. Since I can't do anything about the water temp, I rely on my pH level to "adjust" my CSI.

Where I live, I go with my CSI more than CH. CSI rules my pool.

It was 48 at Leslie's but ~25-30 on my Taylor 9-way kit so we'll call it 40.
Looks like I ought to get this up some. I'll read up on it. If I get it to 70, CSI would be 0.04.

And this is why you have to have a better kit. You don't "call it 40" based on combining questionable pool store results with your own questionable CH results. You cannot maintain pool water properly that way.

Know that cleaning SWG plates with acid impacts their lifespan. The more you acid bathe the plates, and the stronger the acid you use to do it, the shorter the SWG will last. That's why maintaining a slightly negative CSI is not only good for the life of your pool finish, but good for the life of your SWG as well. As I mentioned, I haven't had to clean my SWG for years, and that'll hopefully extend its life ('cause the darn things are crazy expensive now).

 

[Dirk]

By the way, a "new" test kit is not always new. The test chemicals expire, and are dated, and it's common to buy a brand new kit only to find out it's been sitting on the shelf for a year and all the vials are expired. So check that.

And here's some help with the CH test, which can be tricky. Read the entire article carefully, including the part about "fading end point."

Calcium Hardness

A drop-based test that measures the hardness in your water. Once measured, it is used … Read more…

www.troublefreepool.com

Sorry, I don't recognize that particulate. @Newdude?

 

[Dirk]

...I see a rec for a $400 Rheem softener, but then I'd need an installer. Don't think I could handle DIY'ing that.

The tricky part about installing a softener in a house that was not properly plumbed for one is the outdoor hose bibs. A softener-ready house will have two separate plumbing circuits. One supplying water to everything indoors, and a second one supplying water to your irrigation system and outdoor hose bibs. You don't want to water your yard with soft water. So installing a softener is more than just tapping into your plumbing, it's also a matter of figuring out how to supply each fixture and valve appropriately.

Alternately, some folks don't want soft water in the house (or can't easily route it where they want and don't want it), and so install a softener only for their pool fill supply. You don't get the benefit soft water provides for your appliances and fixtures, but you can solve for your pool at least. That's usually a much simpler installation.

I installed my softener for my house first. And then later figured out how to plumb the soft water circuit to my pool's auto-fill system.

 

[Dirk]

SWG cleaning tip: if you can see well enough down the sides of the plates to determine that there is only minimal build up on the ends (like how your pic looks), you might not need any acid at all. First step is to use a spray of water to see how much that can knock off. Then you can GENTLY prod at the build up, to GENTLY scrape it away. You'd use plastic or wood as a scraper, NEVER METAL. Did I mention GENTLY!?! The precious-metal coatings on the plates are what do the magic, and what makes the SWG so expensive. Bathing the coatings in acid, or scratching at them, can remove some amount of the coatings, and that's what leads to premature end-of-life for your SWG.

Routine acid bathing is NOT recommended. If you have no build up, you don't acid wash them. And ultimately, you want to use your CSI control to keep them clean in the first place.

 

[ebot]

Thanks Dirk. More good intell!
That one picture showing some pink particulates in the sample water was during my CH testing. I use a Taylor 9-way (pretty sure that's the K-2006) that's supposed to be good. The reagents all have 2 more years to expiration so it's not that, but I put like 12 drops of the final reagent and it still wasn't turning blue like it's supposed to for CH step (which would be 1200+, so I stopped, thinking maybe something's wrong with the reagent. I guess I'll call Taylor about it.
Joyfull's not to keen on those electronic/magnetic/conduction water softeners btw.

 

[Dirk]

OK, so dates are good, but that doesn't mean that the reagents were handled well. One of them could still be bad (not likely, but possible). Let's see what others say about the particulate. Or another troubleshooting step would be to buy another set of CH reagents. You could get the small size. If that new set replicates the particulate issue, then you'd know it's not your older reagents. And so neither the old or new set would go to waste, you'll just use one, then the other, no money wasted on that experiment. But if the particulate doesn't happen with the new reagents, then you'll have your answer. That's a little extreme. Let's ask Marty:

@mknauss, do you know anything about this particulate the OP is experiencing with his CH test?

 

[mknauss]

Metals. Likely iron from the use of Colorado River water.

 

[Dirk]

I guess I'll call Taylor about it.
Joyfull's not to keen on those electronic/magnetic/conduction water softeners btw.

Calling Taylor is a good idea. They have good support staff.
And I would tend to trust Matt about water softener data.

 

[Dirk]

Metals. Likely iron from the use of Colorado River water.

Thanks! Would that effect the test results? Or can the OP rely on the drop count?

 

[mknauss]

It can cause the Fading Endpoint described in the testing directions. See Extended Test Kit Directions Archives

 

[ebot]

Thanks Dirk. More good intell!
That one picture showing some pink particulates in the sample water was during my CH testing. I use a Taylor 9-way (pretty sure that's the K-2006) that's supposed to be good. The reagents all have 2 more years to expiration so it's not that, but I put like 10 drops of the final reagent and it still wasn't turning blue like it's supposed to, so I stopped, thinking maybe something's wrong with the reagent. I guess I'll call Taylor about it...but first i'll try putting the 5 drops in first in case it's this fading endpoint thing. Cool!!!

 

[Dirk]

10 drops. You didn't mention if you were doing the 25ml test, or the 10 ml test:
- 25ml with 10 drops = CH 100
- 10ml with 10 drops = CH 250

On the off-chance that the pool store result of 618 was anywhere in the ballpark, it would take around 24 drops to start to register blue. That's with the 10ml test. You'd need about 60 drops if you were doing the 25ml test.

So the 10 drops aren't going to register anything, you just stopped too soon.

Since your CH is probably high, use the 10ml test for now and save on the reagents. Be sure to read the directions carefully before you try again. And use the fading endpoint directions.

I find that when I'm getting close to blue, I slow way down on the drops. Drop, wait 10-15 seconds, then the next drop, etc. Give the blue time to develop. Also, if you're trying to do these tests without a SpeedStir, it just makes things way more difficult and less accurate. If you don't have one, order one today. The first time you use it you'll be kicking yourself that you didn't buy one sooner.

Then please update your signature with all your test gear. It really helps take the guess work out of it for TFP advisors trying to help you. You've been a bit vague describing what test(s) you have. Model numbers are best. Look to the end of my signature for an example of what we're after.

 

[Dirk]

As near as I can make out, the Taylor "nine-way" is their K-1005 model. You need K-1006 or K-1006c. The "c" just means the kit with the larger reagent models.

What you're missing with the K-1005 is a proper FC test (FAS-DPD). But the K-1005 has everything else you need, so you can just buy the FC test separately to "upgrade" your K-1005. This:

https://www.amazon.com/Taylor-Replacement-Reagent-FAS-DPD-Refill/dp/B00QRI2UCA/

Or check with TFtestkits.net for price. Know that buying reagents from Amazon is a c-shoot, in terms of expiration dates. tftestkits will send only fresh reagents.

You'll want to have the Taylor K-1766 for testing salt, too, eventually.

Edit: sorry, I just spotted your "Taylor K-1005 Test Kit" in your signature. Perfect. Now just add the FAS-DPD kit and you're golden.

 

[ebot]

OK, for the Taylor CH test, I left a message with them so far, but realized for R12 reagent it's X drops x 10 is your ppm (I was thinking it was x 100 for some reason). Leslie's got 618ppm, so I'd expect around 62 drops, right? I tried putting 5 drops of the R12 first (before R10 & R11), but still got the pink precipitate stuff. I'm partially color blind, so always asking my wife/kids to tell me if when they think the color matches or changes on these tests, but my wife still didn't really think the solution turned blue at 85 drops....said no that's purple really. I think the 85 drops photo does have kind of a blue hue at least, and when i showed her the photos side by side she agreed maybe that is the blue we're looking for LOL. SAnyway, so I repeated the test and took photos from 50-75 drops on the 2nd round. Even at 75 drops we don't see any sign of blue. What say you? Is our CH really like 800-850 (yikes!) when Leslie's had us at 618? (Prior Leslie's tests over the months had us low 400s to low 600s). Thanks

 

[Dirk]

85 is the blue you're looking for. And assuming you stopped titrating on the drop that turned it that blue, then yes, your CH is 850.

It does start to get a little purple as you approach the end of the test, but that purple is not the end. You keep going, as you did. It's when it starts getting purple that I slow down on the drops, to let the color develop. Like 10-15 seconds between drops.

1. When was the pool originally filled? (How many months/years ago?)

2. And have you exchanged any water since then?

3. What is the CH of your fill water? (You can run the same Taylor test on your fill water, from whatever spigot you fill the pool with.)

Depending on the answers to those three questions, it is entirely possible, even likely, that 850 is correct.

Leslie's results could be very likely off that much. It is exactly why we repeat, over and over and over again, not to trust their numbers, but instead trust your results from a reputable test kit (which you have). Let go of the pool store results. Trust your kit. Trust yourself.

 

[Dirk]

So using your old numbers (which we shouldn't), your CSI is 0.23. It's still within range, but explains the deposits you're getting on your SWG plates.

You should post a new set of numbers, using only your own kit and test results, along with the CH test result of your fill water.

 

[ebot]

I'll do those things. It's the Taylor k-2005. Taylor K-2005 Complete Test Kit - High Range, Case of 6 Amazon.com
_________________
OK, i tested the tap and retested the pool CH. This seems like great news! -- Tap's maybe not that bad at all. I'm about 180 for tap and 750 for pool (I think)...wife still says it's purple

 

[ebot]

I got this tap out of the hose connection out by our pool pumps, since i read houses often have different lines to house vs yard/pools??. I'm thinking I see some blue at 18 drops, so 180ppm CH. Since I'm color challenged, I asked my daughter this time to check me on this one (wife was out). She agrees it's a change from red/pink, but also wouldn't call it blue...she says this would most accurately be described as periwinkle I'm about to run out of R12 reagent.
By the way, Taylor called back and said the little flecks are from binding with magnesium in the sample and are a normal variant...they thought adding 5-10 drops of the R12 reagent first would help too...it does seem to make less / smaller flecks for us at least.

 

[Dirk]

Do you have an auto-fill system? There looks to be a back-flow preventer valve (BFP), which is great. Those typically feed an auto-fill valve. Have you identified where your auto-fill valve is yet? There is a hose bibb on that plumbing circuit. That's the valve you should test. It might be the same water as the one you tested, but the one on the auto-fill circuit is what is filling your pool. The one you tested may or may not be what's running into your pool.



It looks like you have some sort of Pentair pool automation controller. Add that to your signature.

I don't think you finished the CH test. And you should test the other hose bibb anyway. Get some more reagent and try again, when you can. But CH 180 (and it's probably higher) coming into your pool would very quickly drive up your pool's CH. Like salt, CH doesn't evaporate with the water. Every time your auto-fill added water to your pool (all spring and summer), it was adding CH. And all that CH is still in there. A CH of 850 is totally plausible.

IMPORTANT: The key to successful pool water maintenance is proper testing. The most important aspect of pool water testing is consistency. Once you're confident you're using the very best procedures for testing, you should perform each test EXACTLY the same way, each time. To that end: you trying to discern colors, then having your wife do it, then having your daughter try it, is the opposite of consistent. Figure out who is going to help you, and have that person, and only that person, help you each time.

Taylor support is pretty good, right? Glad they confirmed what was going on. Now you know.

PS. Once you find your auto-fill valve, see if you can manually work it. Usually you can press a lever down into the water and you can hear water flowing into the pool. Then come back to the pad, and turn one or both of the valves on the back-flow preventer 90°. This is assuming your auto-fill is on. Both valves on the BFP should be positioned parallel to the pipes they are on. Turning either of those valves perpendicular to the pipe(s) should turn off your auto-fill system. Then go back to the auto-fill valve and try to run it again. If it stopped working, then you know that that BFP is, in fact, feeding the auto-fill valve.

Be sure to note which way the valves are positioned before you start, and restore those positions after you're done with this test.

If you need more help figuring out what I just wrote, take a better pic of the BFP, so that I can see its valves, and post that.