Optimize Your In-Floor Cleaning Effectiveness and Efficiency

[jonpcar]

Re: Method to Increase the Effectiveness of a Pool's In-floor Cleaning System

Thanks, Mark...so, GPM estimates ARE as simple as a table (for those that have watts/rpm numbers). That does make it much easier for people...and once again, I have learned something.

However, if you do decide to add a FloVis, I would put it right after the filter on the pressure side of the pump. Having extra head loss on the suction side of the pump is generally not advised unless you really don't have a choice.

This is also good to know for when I finish my tinkering. I think that I have read this somewhere on the boards: I should probably take out the FlowVIS mechanism and replace with the Jandy feedthrough mechanism, not sure what this is exactly yet except maybe just the lid of the Jandy valve, but I will find out. Unfortunately, after I rebuilt my equipment, I didn't have a choice where to put my FlowVIS (suction side of the pump) without a massive redo.

 

[jonpcar]

Re: Method to Increase the Effectiveness of a Pool's In-floor Cleaning System

Most of the values are within 10%. The model starts to deviate at lower RPM due to measurement tolerances and variances in the plumbing curve. But if you calibrate at full speed and use the estimate column for lower RPM (per the model documentation), the accuracy is a bit better:

But, this also brings into question my earliest conclusion about the speed at which it is best to run my system for simple "filtering", way back in my 2nd post of this thread. Is my conclusion that the 35% sweet spot of my pump is where I want to run my system for simple filtering (and not cleaning) wrong?...I think that conclusion IS wrong now if my FlowVIS affects those lower RPMs (30% and below)...this is, of course, only IF i remove that FlowVIS mechanism.

 

[runboy]

Re: Method to Increase the Effectiveness of a Pool's In-floor Cleaning System

...
The lower RPM deviation for the 100% case is most likely due to the check valve. Check valves change the plumbing curve characteristics with flow rate so at lower flow rate, they tend to add proportionally more head loss to the plumbing because the flapper is more closed which in turn creates more friction loss. So simple RPM scaling of GPM does not work as well for those cases but it is still fairly close.
...

So that also means that check valves are especially bad at the low RPM levels we like to be at when running our pumps right? How much loss does a flapper valve like the FloVis create at the lower levels like the 40% above?

jon, It would be really interesting to see your numbers (RPM & Watts) if you decide to take it out.

 

[gvc]

Re: Method to Increase the Effectiveness of a Pool's In-floor Cleaning System

So that also means that check valves are especially bad at the low RPM levels we like to be at when running our pumps right? How much loss does a flapper valve like the FloVis create at the lower levels like the 40% above?

jon, It would be really interesting to see your numbers (RPM & Watts) if you decide to take it out.

me too. I have a check valve after my filter and before the inline chlorinator and with very low rpm it barely opens up. rather than taking it out altogether, I was toying with the idea of trying to loosen the tension of the spring that creates the hinge for the flapper as a way of lessening the flow restriction while still allowing it to fully stay closed after pump turns off.

also, i know this thread is about popup cleaning efficiency, but I can't seem to just figure out how long to run my pump just for water circulation/basic filtration needs (non cleaning mode) when the pool is already clean. the popups work fine at low rpm for water circulation especially if they receive 100% flow return. I was always told to turn the water over at least once a day as "nothing good" happens when water is stagnant, but if the water is properly balanced that really isn't necessary is it? also, with my old single speed pump, I used to dial down my pump run time in the non-swimming months but was told with the VS pump I should leave it running longer at a lower rpm especially overnight when freezing temps are forecasted.

 

[mas985]

Re: Method to Increase the Effectiveness of a Pool's In-floor Cleaning System

But, this also brings into question my earliest conclusion about the speed at which it is best to run my system for simple "filtering", way back in my 2nd post of this thread. Is my conclusion that the 35% sweet spot of my pump is where I want to run my system for simple filtering (and not cleaning) wrong?...I think that conclusion IS wrong now if my FlowVIS affects those lower RPMs (30% and below)...this is, of course, only IF i remove that FlowVIS mechanism.

First, from my perspective, there is no real benefit to simply filtering the water at low RPM without doing something else such as skimming. So when setting low RPM operation, I would also make sure the skimmers are doing their job. You can tell the skimmer is working properly when the water travels over the top of the weir door and the water velocity increases. If you can set the RPM to the lowest value while the skimmer is still operating properly, to me this is ideal. From my own experiments, that is around 15 GPM per skimmer. But that also tends to be the operating point where the EF is near it's maximum anyway.

But really your in-floor run time should be all you need.

- - - Updated - - -

So that also means that check valves are especially bad at the low RPM levels we like to be at when running our pumps right? How much loss does a flapper valve like the FloVis create at the lower levels like the 40% above?

You can see the difference by comparing the Estimated GPM against the FloVis GPM. It is around 10-12% reduced flow rate. Not a lot and unlikely to make a huge difference in the economics.

- - - Updated - - -

also, i know this thread is about popup cleaning efficiency, but I can't seem to just figure out how long to run my pump just for water circulation/basic filtration needs (non cleaning mode) when the pool is already clean.

Zero. You don't really need any other run time. You just need about 30 min for manual chlorine addition but the in-floor run time is enough for that and if you have a SWG, you need a minimum run time for chlorine addition.

 

[Dodger]

Re: Method to Increase the Effectiveness of a Pool's In-floor Cleaning System

This is probably a dumb question, but are there other useful options that can measure flow without the check valve aspect?

I am interested in measuring the flow before my infloor manifold, but a check valve there is a no-no because it will block the over-pressure route.

 

[mas985]

Re: Method to Increase the Effectiveness of a Pool's In-floor Cleaning System

Why do really care what the flow rate is? In this thread it was used to calculate energy factor and turnover but in most cases knowledge of flow rate really doesn't serve much of a purpose. What would you do differently knowing the flow rate?

But to answer your question, there are some other ways to determine flow rate from just a pressure reading.

 

[jonpcar]

Re: Method to Increase the Effectiveness of a Pool's In-floor Cleaning System

Why do really care what the flow rate is? In this thread it was used to calculate energy factor and turnover but in most cases knowledge of flow rate really doesn't serve much of a purpose. What would you do differently knowing the flow rate?

But to answer your question, there are some other ways to determine flow rate from just a pressure reading.

I was also going to ask runboy and dodger about their particular goals...but I do believe MY system has a use model which benefits from increased GPM through my in-floor cleaning system (and still make it as energy efficient as possible)...this is what I have been thinking about over the last 2 days and don't want to just throw it out there. As it turns out, it IS specific to my system.

 

[Dodger]

Re: Optimize Your In-Floor Cleaning System's Energy Efficiency

Okay, sounds like I should just get the GPM from the pressure reading at the manifold. I just need to learn how to extract that.


Here was my thought, though, just to get your reaction:

Zodiac provides a recommended pressure range at the manifold for optimal cleaning, something like 14-19psi, or 15-20psi depending on the source of the info.

Alternatively, the in-floor pop-up nozzles are GPM rated. I was thinking that knowing the GPM going into the floor manifold would reveal if there is enough to provide max GPM to each nozzle in a zone, so we don't have to overkill on the high end of the pressure range, wasting pump energy. But also to make sure there is enough flow if I run at the low end of the pressure range (much more likely where I will be limited with my plumbing). I want to maximize the "throw" of water out of each nozzle. For example, a 12GPM rated nozzle should clean a 5 foot radius.

I assume it is not totally additive. Let's say a simple zone has 5 pop-ups with nozzles each rated at 12GPM. It probably needs more than 60 GPM at the manifold due to the distance water has to travel to each pop-up in that zone, plus elbows and tees in the lines. But at least we know 60GPM is the minimum, and maybe 70 GPM at the manifold is a good target for that zone.

Is my logic way off?

 

[mas985]

Re: Optimize Your In-Floor Cleaning System's Energy Efficiency

The reason the manufacture suggests a pressure range is because it is easy to measure and it also determines the flow rate through the heads given a certain number of heads and typical plumbing setups. So while your logic is fine, I am not sure it will result in anything better than just using the pressure ratings.

These systems are not binary. The lower the pressure, the lower the flow rate, the smaller the diameter of reach and the slower the heads will move. Now that doesn't mean that the heads will still not be effective if operating below specs. Setting everything to spec could be overkill and inefficient. However trial and error will allow you to optimize the system for both effectiveness and efficiency. Each week lower the RPM until the pool doesn't look clean anymore then bump it up again. Over time and environmental conditions, you should be able to zero in on the best settings.

 

[jonpcar]

Re: Optimize Your In-Floor Cleaning System's Energy Efficiency

Alternatively, the in-floor pop-up nozzles are GPM rated. I was thinking that knowing the GPM going into the floor manifold would reveal if there is enough to provide max GPM to each nozzle in a zone, so we don't have to overkill on the high end of the pressure range, wasting pump energy. But also to make sure there is enough flow if I run at the low end of the pressure range (much more likely where I will be limited with my plumbing). I want to maximize the "throw" of water out of each nozzle. For example, a 12GPM rated nozzle should clean a 5 foot radius.

Dodger...when we were having the early discussions about how my flow was being directed (to the walls or to the popups), I was considering this...I could have done this in my pool, I don't know about yours but you might need scuba gear.

Get a plastic garbage bag, attach some type of "ring" to its opening. Take it down to the bottom of the pool empty, and capture the flow from a popup for 30 secs (or longer if you can manage somehow). Then you of course have to measure how much was captured. If you do this for every popup, you would be well on your way to characterizing all your zones (especially the problem ones).

In our discussion, I was going to do this on my wall returns which I can actually reach from the deck.

Just a thought...you manifold would almost certainly need the ability to stop zone rotation like mine.

If you decide to do this, can you record the video and post...haha.

 

[jonpcar]

Re: Method to Increase the Effectiveness of a Pool's In-floor Cleaning System

So that also means that check valves are especially bad at the low RPM levels we like to be at when running our pumps right? How much loss does a flapper valve like the FloVis create at the lower levels like the 40% above?

jon, It would be really interesting to see your numbers (RPM & Watts) if you decide to take it out.

I agree, but this probably won't happen soon.

 

[Dodger]

Re: Optimize Your In-Floor Cleaning System's Energy Efficiency

The reason the manufacture suggests a pressure range is because it is easy to measure and it also determines the flow rate through the heads given a certain number of heads and typical plumbing setups. So while your logic is fine, I am not sure it will result in anything better than just using the pressure ratings.

These systems are not binary. The lower the pressure, the lower the flow rate, the smaller the diameter of reach and the slower the heads will move. Now that doesn't mean that the heads will still not be effective if operating below specs. Setting everything to spec could be overkill and inefficient. However trial and error will allow you to optimize the system for both effectiveness and efficiency. Each week lower the RPM until the pool doesn't look clean anymore then bump it up again. Over time and environmental conditions, you should be able to zero in on the best settings.

Thank you Mark. I appreciate you taking the time to respond. And also your wisdom!!

 

[Dodger]

Re: Optimize Your In-Floor Cleaning System's Energy Efficiency

Dodger...when we were having the early discussions about how my flow was being directed (to the walls or to the popups), I was considering this...I could have done this in my pool, I don't know about yours but you might need scuba gear.

Get a plastic garbage bag, attach some type of "ring" to its opening. Take it down to the bottom of the pool empty, and capture the flow from a popup for 30 secs (or longer if you can manage somehow). Then you of course have to measure how much was captured. If you do this for every popup, you would be well on your way to characterizing all your zones (especially the problem ones).

In our discussion, I was going to do this on my wall returns which I can actually reach from the deck.

Just a thought...you manifold would almost certainly need the ability to stop zone rotation like mine.

If you decide to do this, can you record the video and post...haha.

This is probably beyond my tinkering desire.

First, I don't have scuba gear. Second, the one time I tried scuba gear, I hated it! Third, this feels too imprecise a measurement for my taste. Fourth, my valve does not have a pause option - I think the 8-port Caretaker does, but my 5-port is just hydro-activated.

But I appreciate the encouragement!

 

[jonpcar]

Re: Optimize Your In-Floor Cleaning System's Energy Efficiency

Here is one issue (of two) that I am thinking about for my in-floor cleaning and may apply directly to some other systems (gvc). These are more “technical challenges” than issues…I am actually very satisfied with my system’s performance.

Issue 1 (Are there advantages to increasing cGPM?)

I haven’t had time to run more experiments on my in-floor cleaning system. But last night, I woke up and started thinking again (this is what usually gets me into trouble)... my new revelation is that “what I have been thinking about” the last few days might NOT be so pool-specific (at minimum, as Dodger once indicated, it might apply to 1000’s of Phoenix area Shasta pools with in-floor cleaning…I may be forced to change the thread title again, haha). In any case, I think there is some value in me throwing it out so that others can think about how it might apply to their situation.

Here are some entries from the data I posted:

Config	Pump Speed %	RPM	Watts	GPM	Filter PSI	Manifold PSI	G/kWh
A-50/50	85	2933	1342	86	19	12	3845
A-100	65	2243	473	31	14.5	12	3932
B-50/50	80	2760	1126	80	16.5	10.5	4263
B-100	60	2070	391	29	12	10	4450

First, some definitions:

a) oPSI = optimum manifold PSI is the minimum required PSI at the manifold that still cleans your pool, it is the most energy efficient point at which the cleaning system can be operated

b) cGPM = cleaning GPM, this is the cumulative flow (in GPM) through the system while running your in-floor cleaning system...for the current use model and for most systems today, cGPM is equal to the flow through popups. This is because when the cleaning system is in use, most users return 100% of the system water flow back through their popups

c) ocGPM = optimized cleaning GPM, this is the cumulative flow through the cleaning system when the manifold is at the system's optimized PSI (@ oPSI)

For me, here are two of the important takeaways from the experiments we have done

1) for optimum energy efficiency, run your pool’s in-floor cleaning system at oPSI using the minimum water flow through the system; in other words, all water flow is being directed back to the pool through its in-floor cleaning system manifold.

2) once oPSI is found It is possible to increase “cleaning GPM” (cGPM) in a system through a “parallel path” in the system (maintaining oPSI) and STILL be close to optimum energy efficiency. For my pool, the data above indicates that my system can almost triple cGPM without “significantly reducing” energy efficiency. The above two cases are not run at oPSI, but similar results should apply. Based on my numbers, I imagine that most systems have “some” room to increase their cGPM at oPSI; successfully finding those points would result in an optimization of that specific flow through your system, an optimized, cleaning GPM (ocGPM)

The question: Is increased cGPM at oPSI useful for anything other than faster cleaning (Case 1 is simply cleaning faster)? I can think of more cases where it might, all triggered by discussions on this thread.

CASE 2 of Issue 1 (using increased cGPM to make in-floor cleaning more effective)

I have definitely overplayed the monsoon argument. I initially thought that if I solved that issue, I might solve all the issues for my system. Truthfully, after trying out my improved in-floor cleaning system on one monsoon, I probably will still be vacuuming, mostly because monsoon season IS swim season. Why take a chance on algae growth, and other problems with something that only happens a few times a year?

Also, I am NOT going to continue running my system at 80gpm, which is the maximum recommended RPM for my pump given that I have 2” pipes (I found this out when Mark asked me about RPM adjustment and I went back to look at my pump documentation). When I redid my equipment pad a few years ago, I replaced all pipe that I could with 2” and larger valves; and luckily for me, back in 1993, Shasta had run 2” on the suction side. If the suction side had been done with 1 ½” pipe, like all the rest of the pipes, the recommended max pump RPM is 45GPM, a number suspiciously close to the MAX GPM I can push through my 1 ½” returns to the popups when I send 100% of the water back through the cleaning system (from my tables 50GPM).

I am going to continue to do some experiments to find my oPSI (which I currently believe is between 10 & 12 PSI at the manifold). I will then increase my cGPM to a number TBD, but probably around 50GPM. I will do this by adjusting flow through my wall returns (“parallel path”) and adjustments to my pump RPM. Currently, the granularity of my Jandy Valve actuator is not sufficient to allow me to find this spot (I only could run the 85/15 case and the 50/50 case, known now that both are inappropriately named); that is why I previously said I am going to run some experiments with the actuator taken off (I will have "infinite" cases to explore, haha).

That’s my plan, and here is why I’m pursuing this: for once my wife is right (now I am in real trouble)! During the past week, my system HAS been clearer and cleaner. I suspect it’s clearer (clarity is better) because of over-running my pump and possibly because my chlorine levels have never been more consistent than with my new Stenner pump setup. But, it is cleaner because my in-floor cleaning “dead spots” are gone.

With my system, probably because I have been overdriving well above my oPSI , I’ve never had dead spots that aren’t actually “swept” by the cleaning heads (unless one of them is stuck and not rotating). My dead spots all result from areas where pebbles/seeds/heavier material is swept from the floor, up the wall, and then falls back down into the same place. I have 2 bigger spots and 1 little spot where this occurs.

There have been quite a few comments on this thread regarding “skimming time” and the use of wall returns. Truthfully, my wall returns never moved from where the installers put them until about a week and a half ago where I started playing with them. In those early posts I mentioned that my pool (for the 50/50 case) looked like a spa now (an exaggeration of course), and that got Rob talking about his pool swirl.

Looking at Configuration B 50/50 case above (this is the spot I am actually running my system right now, it has 80 cGPM), we can determine that of that, there is about 50 GPM shooting out of my wall returns, and the remaining 30 GPM out of the popups (as shown by Config B 100 case which has "similar" manifold pressure). My theory is that this pool swirl is pushing that heavier debris around the pool walls as it gets shot up the wall…it no longer falls down in the same place and so eventually makes its way to the drain. I have also seen larger debris (leaves) actually go into the skimmer as the cleaning system is running. 50 GPM is clearly overkill to start a swirling motion in a pool. NOTE: technically we know real numbers for these test cases and those entries should not be called 50/50 case, but for now, I will leave it

I believe that increasing the cGPM using the wall returns (via the “swirl”, patent goes to Rob, haha) has made my pool cleaning more effective. I am pretty confident that I will still get this same effect as I scale back the cGPM from 80gpm towards my target of approximately 50gpm.

So Dodger, I think you summarized Rob’s and my comments very well when you listed the 3 types of things that we needed here in Arizona. But I suspect they might apply to pools with in-floor cleaning systems elsewhere as well.

Note: I hadn't really given much thought to the fact that my "dead spots were gone", because I am currently running my cleaning system twice as long as I think I will eventually and attributed it to that...but, I am considering ordering a different type of wall return nozzle and was examining the threads on my existing one (I have a problem with them, but that is a different issue). I placed the nozzle on the deck where it has remained. Over the next day or two, the dead spot near that nozzle has reappeared (little twigs, heavier type sand, some seeds). There is still this unknown with the "swirl" theory, was the local wall return fixing it for that particular dead spot (my pool specific), or was the wall return contributing to an overall pool swirl to eliminate all dead spots? Unfortunately my 2nd larger "dead spot" is also right near where my other wall return is pointed. An experiment that reverses the swirl in my pool could resolve this...but I am running out of time for experiments right now because we are going on an Alaskan cruise.

Here is a photo of the area I have talked about. Not sure if you can see the little material on the bottom of the pool, but this "dead zone" is mostly along the wall from approximately where the wall return is seen on the left (with its fitting currently removed and on top of the wall), to the step on the right. So the wall return is exactly where it needed to be to fix my problem...was it the swirl...not sure, but with 50gpm, there is a LOT of swirl.



Anyway, that is Case 1. The 2^nd case is not as advantageous but still might be useful to some. It will take me some time to get to it as we have the grandkids today.

 

[Dodger]

Re: Optimize Your In-Floor Cleaning System's Energy Efficiency

With my system, probably because I have been overdriving well above my oPSI , I’ve never had dead spots that aren’t actually “swept” by the cleaning heads (unless one of them is stuck and not rotating). My dead spots all result from areas where pebbles/seeds/heavier material is swept from the floor, up the wall, and then falls back down into the same place. I have 2 bigger spots and 1 little spot where this occurs.

This idea is the part that interested me the most in your early postings. Specifically, debris settling back down after the pop-up sprays it into the wall. I think your early posts were more general regarding suspended debris, and not specific about the role of the walls. I also have this problem in a couple of corners and will be addressing it after I solve my 2 dead spots in the middle of the floor.

 

[jonpcar]

Re: Optimize Your In-Floor Cleaning System's Energy Efficiency

This idea is the part that interested me the most in your early postings. Specifically, debris settling back down after the pop-up sprays it into the wall. I think your early posts were more general regarding suspended debris, and not specific about the role of the walls. I also have this problem in a couple of corners and will be addressing it after I solve my 2 dead spots in the middle of the floor.

Dodger, I edited my above post slightly, highlighted, in particular, the reasons I believe the wall returns have made a difference. All this is much more complex than I originally thought when I started my experiments last Sunday.

I've never previously talked about a problem that I seemed to have with "permanently usually suspended material" (I didn't want to muddy the waters even further). My water has/(had) tiny pieces of "stuff" floating around in it. I think mostly grasses and pollen, but not really sure. I was trying to address this "stuff" with my "filtering time" which Mark has convinced me should be called "skimming time". With my new setup, all that is gone. My water clarity is better than the first day I filled my pool. I'm trying to figure this out and will be posting elsewhere on the boards to find an answer but I believe it may be partially due to the increased filtering due to the changes I've made (I'm still running at 80gpm 3 hours a day just for a couple more days as part of my experiment), but it must also be a function of the free chlorine (my new Stenner Pump) that I have been adjusting throughout the week as well (I seem to recall reading that the chlorine breaks down this organic material?).

One question for you. On the thread where you and runboy were discussing his pool, you talked about aligning popup heads in the same direction. I've said a few times that I believe the popups work randomly to push/filter debris/dirt around and (eventually) to the drains. Do you think that you have been successful with your attempts to align/coordinate the popups? Actually, this is more of an open question to all reading...Does anyone believe that their popup system systematically directs the debris towards the drains? I've seen claims (specifically by PC2000, their cleaning capture zone looks appealing)...but do these systems really work? I did try to do something similar after my pool remodel. I was diving around in the pool trying to position my popups to get rid of the "dead spots" talked about in my previous post. I quickly realized there was not a way for me to do it (only one popup generally in the area of these dead spots) and gave up.

There is also this issue that you mention in that thread: even if I could have determined an effective pattern for my popups, for me it would be virtually impossible to keep the popups aligned in that pattern. As they wear, some of mine occasionally stick and don't rotate (a small percentage of the time, but it only takes once).

 

[runboy]

Re: Optimize Your In-Floor Cleaning System's Energy Efficiency

Dodger, I edited my above post slightly, highlighted, in particular, the reasons I believe the wall returns have made a difference. All this is much more complex than I originally thought when I started my experiments last Sunday.

I've never previously talked about a problem that I seemed to have with "permanently suspended material" (I didn't want to muddy the waters even further). My water has/(had) tiny pieces of "stuff" floating around in it. I think mostly grasses and pollen, but not really sure. I was trying to address this "stuff" with my "filtering time" which Mark has convinced me should be called "skimming time". With my new setup, all that is gone. My water clarity is better than the first day I filled my pool. I'm trying to figure this out and will be posting elsewhere on the boards to find an answer but I believe it may be partially due to the increased filtering due to the changes I've made (I'm still running at 80gpm 3 hours a day just for a couple more days as part of my experiment), but it must also be a function of the free chlorine (my new Stenner Pump) that I have been adjusting throughout the week as well (I seem to recall reading that the chlorine breaks down this organic material?).

One question for you. On the thread where you and runboy were discussing his pool, you talked about aligning popup heads in the same direction. I've said a few times that I believe the popups work randomly to push/filter debris/dirt around and (eventually) to the drains. Do you think that you have been successful with your attempts to align/coordinate the popups? Actually, this is more of an open question to all reading...Does anyone believe that their popup system systematically directs the debris towards the drains? I've seen claims (specifically by PC2000, their cleaning capture zone looks appealing)...but do these systems really work? I did try to do something similar after my pool remodel. I was diving around in the pool trying to position my popups to get rid of the "dead spots" talked about in my previous post. I quickly realized there was not a way for me to do it (only one popup generally in the area of these dead spots) and gave up.

There is also this issue that you mention in that thread: even if I could have determined an effective pattern for my popups, for me it would be virtually impossible to keep the popups aligned in that pattern. As they wear, some of mine occasionally stick and don't rotate (a small percentage of the time, but it only takes once).

Even with perfectly working pop ups they will get out of sync pretty quick. It just takes one person stepping on a pop up that’s active or if you run a variable speed pump at low speeds, some pop ups will get up enough to cycle and others won’t.

 

[Dodger]

Re: Optimize Your In-Floor Cleaning System's Energy Efficiency

One question for you. On the thread where you and runboy were discussing his pool, you talked about aligning popup heads in the same direction. I've said a few times that I believe the popups work randomly to push/filter debris/dirt around and (eventually) to the drains. Do you think that you have been successful with your attempts to align/coordinate the popups? Actually, this is more of an open question to all reading...Does anyone believe that their popup system systematically directs the debris towards the drains? I've seen claims (specifically by PC2000, their cleaning capture zone looks appealing)...but do these systems really work? I did try to do something similar after my pool remodel. I was diving around in the pool trying to position my popups to get rid of the "dead spots" talked about in my previous post. I quickly realized there was not a way for me to do it (only one popup generally in the area of these dead spots) and gave up.

There is also this issue that you mention in that thread: even if I could have determined an effective pattern for my popups, for me it would be virtually impossible to keep the popups aligned in that pattern. As they wear, some of mine occasionally stick and don't rotate (a small percentage of the time, but it only takes once).

My floor dead spots are clearly at the intersections of the circle-of-influence of 2 neighboring pop-ups. That is why I am working on pop-up "throw" to solve those spots. My corner dead spots with twigs are a different issue with a possibly different solution (tbd).

If my cleaner bypass is left open on lower rpm cycles, the pop-ups end up in random facing directions, which doesn't produce any noticeably great results. I tried aligning the pop-ups with a lag approach, so that a neighboring pop-up or whole zone could "sweep" some debris after the one before it moved debris to a position between them. Didn't see any obvious win, so I went back to factory recommendation for them to be roughly aligned in the same direction. To keep them there, I added a JVA to my cleaner bypass, so it only opens on higher speeds. This has kept the pop-ups >90% aligned, and produced more repeatable cleaning results, though I admit it is a subjective evaluation - the trial and error approach, as Mark described in an earlier post.

To your question, I do think some of the debris is picked up by the main drain, which we've verified to work in our pool with a dye test. Also in our pool, we have 3 wall suction ports that may play a role in cleaning (don't tell Dirk about all this non-skimmer suction, though at least it is all VGB compliant.) One of the wall ports is an always-on equalizer plumbed below the far skimmer, so I cannot experiment with various settings on that. The other 2 ports are suction for the sheers, and I plan to experiment with running that during the clean cycle, since they are right over one of my problem corners. Perhaps they can draw in the debris stirred up by that corner pop-up, but there is obviously an energy cost to run the sheers (separate VSP).

- - - Updated - - -

Even with perfectly working pop ups they will get out of sync pretty quick. It just takes one person stepping on a pop up that’s active or if you run a variable speed pump at low speeds, some pop ups will get up enough to cycle and others won’t.

As I described above, so far, I've been successful keeping mine from getting out of sync, though I'm not claiming it's doable in all pools.

 

[chiefwej]

I spent 14 years working to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of my infloor cleaning system. Adjusting timing, replacing gear pack, replaced every head in the system with new velocity type, adjusting pump speed and flow. Well, I finally found the answer!

Buy a robot. I got the Dolphin S series. Drop it in, two hours later the pool is spotless. Scrubs bottom, walls and even tile line. Pull it out and rinse filter. Total time investment is less than 15 min of my time. Power consumption? It uses very little energy and can quickly and thoroughly clean the pool in two hours (with or without the pump even running). I only wish I would have bought one earlier.

The infloor does a great job of mixing in my chemicals, and provides for even and efficient solar heating, but for cleaning.... get a robot.