Optimize Your In-Floor Cleaning Effectiveness and Efficiency

[Dodger]

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.

Ha! The Robot Empire Strikes back!


Chief, some of us aren't pursuing robots for various reasons, as mentioned earlier in the thread. Plus, we still have a lot of those 14 years of fun tinkering to do! (We admit to enjoying this part.)

 

[jonpcar]

Ha! The Robot Empire Strikes back!


Chief, some of us aren't pursuing robots for various reasons, as mentioned earlier in the thread. Plus, we still have a lot of those 14 years of fun tinkering to do! (We admit to enjoying this part.)

Haha, cut me off before the pass! Yeah...I've only really had about 2 weeks total tinkering so far (even though I've had my system for 25 years).

 

[Arizonarob]

(don't tell Dirk about all this non-skimmer suction, though at least it is all VGB compliant.)

You had to go there didn’t ya. Don’t you understand he’s like Beetlejuice? If you say Dirk 2 mo.. DOH, one more time, he’ll appear!

 

[gvc]

Haha, cut me off before the pass! Yeah...I've only really had about 2 weeks total tinkering so far (even though I've had my system for 25 years).

I haven't heard of anyone mention the cause/effect of varying the popup flow duration times. my popup control box has a dial that can be turned to regulate how long the popups operate with return water flow from 15 sec to 60 sec(also has pause setting) before they go down and go to the next station, but this may be just for the 8 port caretaker valve system. the faster the system rotates from one port to the next may affect how well they clean by pushing the debris. shorter rotation time may prevent dust / dirt from settling back to the floor or..allow for faster push to the deep end drain suction?

 

[Dodger]

I haven't heard of anyone mention the cause/effect of varying the popup flow duration times. my popup control box has a dial that can be turned to regulate how long the popups operate with return water flow from 15 sec to 60 sec(also has pause setting) before they go down and go to the next station, but this may be just for the 8 port caretaker valve system. the faster the system rotates from one port to the next may affect how well they clean by pushing the debris. shorter rotation time may prevent dust / dirt from settling back to the floor or..allow for faster push to the deep end drain suction?

I think those are the right ideas, gvc. Unfortunately, my 5-port Caretaker doesn't have the timer/pause feature, so I can't contribute to that kind of tinker report.

 

[jonpcar]

I haven't heard of anyone mention the cause/effect of varying the popup flow duration times. my popup control box has a dial that can be turned to regulate how long the popups operate with return water flow from 15 sec to 60 sec(also has pause setting) before they go down and go to the next station, but this may be just for the 8 port caretaker valve system. the faster the system rotates from one port to the next may affect how well they clean by pushing the debris. shorter rotation time may prevent dust / dirt from settling back to the floor or..allow for faster push to the deep end drain suction?

I’ve thought about this quite a bit, gvc. I hesitate to throw more of these thoughts out there so quickly without properly digesting and understanding some of the information we do have. But since you’ve asked…

All of us have watched our popups in action. It doesn’t take that long to push around debris/dirt on the floor, and if it doesn’t move it “this” time, it can go around again and move it “next” time. By itself, that observation doesn’t necessarily help us make a decision to run fast or slow. But we know more about energy efficiency now.

I hesitate to go back to the term “low energy cost water” but that is the easiest way to explain this. edit: so I wontWe know that for a given PSI, the energy cost of water flow in the system is pretty much the same at any given time. BUT, during transitions of the manifold from zone to zone, PSI is significantly reduced and flow increases through the system (this is when there are two zones on simultaneously). Flow during the transition times is significantly more energy efficient than flow during the time when only one popup is active; filtering is more cost efficient during that time.

The conclusion from this is that average cleaning energy efficiency increases by spending as much time in the transition period between zones as possible (and as little time "in" the zone as possible). You accomplish this by running your manifold valve selection as fast as it can…in your case, 15 seconds per zone. In addition, this accomplishes a goal as close as possible to the pulsing/filtering/pulsing/filtering idea that many have floated throughout this discussion, and that most believe would result in improved effectiveness. That remains TBD. EDIT: gvc, if your dialing mechanism simply slows/speeds the entire rotation cycle then you won't see any improvement (mine is like this, speeding up the popup on-time speeds up transition-time as well...no proportional gain). I assumed your dialing mechanism worked different then mine...that it increases/decreases only the on-time of a popup, transition time remains the same. If your manifold doesn't work as described in the previous sentence, then I believe there will be little benefit or difference to changing the rotation time, faster or slower.

In fact…this was one of only two ideas in that “Public Domain Declaration” that I thought might be patentable (no longer), but probably not enforceable. Based on what we have learned through discussion in this thread, I truly believe in-floor cleaning companies have made the wrong choice by trying to minimize transition times and maximize “popup pulse time”. It actually should be opposite, with a deliberate attempt to maximize flow during the transition by fully opening two, or more zones simultaneously.

------------EDIT-----------------

The more I thought about this last night, the more I actually believe this IS ONE "golden panacea" for many of us with already installed in-floor cleaning systems. If a new "cam" were designed for our manifolds we could easily take advantage of the energy efficiency gains associated with lower system PSI during zone transition times and simultaneously implement a "pulsing" type cleaning system that many on this thread have already suggested (blast away, filter, blast away, filter, continue).

Also...it reduces the burning desire to find the optimum energy efficient PSI (oPSI) for the manifold in any given system, which probably exists but is always going to be somewhat "subjective" to find. If the popups only operate for 15 seconds at oPSI, and then, say 45 seconds in transition/filtering...there is much less urgency to operate the popups during full-on-time at oPSI. You could set your pump RPM so that your manifold PSI during full-on-time of one zone is way above oPSI (say 20+, much higher than anyone here is suggesting is needed), and blast away the dirt and debris. This is because your system would compensate for this "energy inefficiency" by operating at very energy efficient levels during the transition times, similar to efficiencies that are obtained at equivalent GPMs during "skimming time".

My son has a 3d printer...I don't know if the plastics on those have the strength/chemical properties (for PSI, chlorine, etc) to print a new cam. But, I already have a design in mind for my cam. I don't know about cams on other manifolds. My understanding is that some manifolds don't really have cams (which open valves in the manifold)...they are based on rotating a "hole" around to let water flow into a particular zone...these would require a significantly different solution than what I am thinking about...but probably still doable.

This "solution" also partially addresses a problem that I feel exists on the suction side of my system, which I have not talked about yet.

NOW, I really want a new manifold mechanism…haha, but I still want my "swirl", too.

 

[jonpcar]

I took some more data today. I redid all cases (100,50/50,80/15+aerator, 80/15). I couldn't find the smaller screws to replace the actuator screws in order to take it out; therefore I played with the aerator (full on without the spray nozzle off the end) to run with a new case with the cleaning GPM that was between the 50/50 (2-notch Jandy) and the 80/15 (1-notch Jandy). I like what the data showed me so I am probably going to put in a permanent adjustable bypass between the filter output and my wall returns. It will always be on while I am "skimming" or "cleaning". I really want a 1 1/2" bypass, but given the fixtures I have, I will probably only have a 1" which means I will have to keep the Jandy open "one notch" when running the cleaning system.

I havent determined my optimum PSI yet but it is most likely going to be between 10-14 PSI. Based on the table below the GPM to the popups will be about 30, I am targeting about 25-30 GPM for the wall returns, for a total cleaning GPM of 55-60.

100% case data (no flow through parallel path) from zone 3 of my popups, this data is from today:

Pump Speed	RPM	Watts	GPM	Filter PSI	Manifold PSI	G/kWh
70	2415	573	32	16.5	14	3351
65	2243	469	30	14.5	12	3838
60	2070	388	28	12.5	10	4330

Here is data from my new case (85/15 1 Notch Jandy + aerator full on) . The permanent bypass will allow me to take the aerator out of my final solution. I will probably end up operating somewhere within the range of this table, no direct correlation of PSIs but I think you get the idea.

Point that is closest to where I want to run (85/15 1-notch Jandy + aerator, I feel like Goldilocks, the parallel flow in this case is "just right")

Pump Speed	RPM	Watts	GPM	Filter PSI	Manifold PSI	G/kWh
80	2760	1020	61	19.5	14.5	3588
75	2588	840	57	17	12.5	4071
70	2415	691	53	15.5	11	4602

For completeness' sake, here is the data from (50/50, 2-notch Jandy, too much flow in parallel path, too much cGPM for system, exceeds my pump's recommendations)

Pump Speed	RPM	Watts	GPM	Filter PSI	Manifold PSI	G/kWh
95	3278	1934	98	23	14	3040
90	3105	1641	91	20.5	12.5	3327
85	2933	1366	87	18.5	11	3821

For completeness' sake, here is the data from (85/15, 1-notch Jandy, NO aerator, too little flow in the parallel path, increased cGPM is too little for any real use)

Pump Speed	RPM	Watts	GPM	Filter PSI	Manifold PSI	G/kWh
75	2588	738	42	18	15	3415
70	2415	612	40	16	13	3922
65	2243	496	37	14	11	4476

Not sure why the efficiencies look better for the 2nd case where I will be running (goes against what we have talked about previously), the PSI's are even higher than the 100% case, but I think Mark is probably right about some of the measurements variability. Another possible explanation: the aerator return path shoots onto the pool's surface without any effective back pressure (other water) against it, possibly a bad guess (help Mark???). If this is true, then I would then expect efficiency to go down somewhat when I put in the permanent bypass. In any case, I don't believe that based on the data, I will lose much efficiency by opening this parallel path.

The data for my system has consistently shown that for a given manifold PSI (whether it is the optimum or not), increased cleaning GPM through a parallel path can still operate at approximately the same energy efficiency. I have definitely figured out what to do with my "extra" GPM by using it turn on the wall returns and "swirl" my pool. I put the wall jet fixture "back on" today and that dead spot once again disappeared (from a previous post). My system may be special (short run from skimmer/drain to pump, large filter), but I suspect many systems might have room to do some adjustments to cleaning GPM, if only to optimize the energy efficiency of their system (like I didn't for 25 years).

Dodger and runboy...you both seem to be making some plumbing changes to your system. If you think there might be usefulness for you, I would recommend putting the first jandy valve after your filter directly to the valve manifold so that it has maximum available pressure to it. This assumes that you are going to open and always "run" a parallel path that you can use to send flow to the heater, chlorinator, spa/pool returns, etc. My system is like this and is definitely one reason that I am able to obtain higher manifold PSIs. Also consider a permanent adjustable bypass (mine is probably going to be a simple ball valve) around that Jandy so that flow can be fine tuned to adjust PSI for the manifold.

runboy, from your pictures on another thread, your system looks tailor made for that except for your stenner insertion point/check valve.

I've still got a lot of things running around in my head but I'll continue to work on some of it after I get back from our cruise (leave Monday). We haven't really talked about suction side and that is where I feel I still have a significant issue with my system. There are also other ways to take advantage of increasing cleaning GPM other than the way I have done it...I haven't gotten around to documenting some of those ideas.

 

[jonpcar]

If you haven’t noticed already, I edit and re-edit prior posts in an attempt to make them more clear, correct errors, add additional info, etc. If there are parts of those posts that are referenced or discussed in subsequent posts , I always try to edit/keep those sections so that the original context of the discussion can be understood. I may not always be successful in that, but that is my goal.

I have edited the first post in this thread many times, If you haven’t read it recently, it might be worth your while. I've added a "prelude" to the thread so that people finding this thread at a later time won't necessarily have to wade through all the chaos...not that the chaos has stopped yet, haha.

 

[jonpcar]

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

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).

I like the experiments...hopefully something will turn up.

But, I will go beyond runboy's reply about trying to establish popup synchronization to clean your system: I am skeptical (haha, back at you) of increasing in-floor cleaning effectiveness by trying to synchronize (somehow) the directions of the popups, even assuming that you can/do actually keep them in that assigned synchronization "pattern". I can't do this on my system, so it may be my turn to inject skepticisim partially because I cannot really try and/or experiment with this.

I would sure like to hear from other in-floor cleaning system owners regarding attempts/claims about syncing of popups.

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.

The highlighted sentence from your post is the one I want to address. For my system, I believe that 90%+ of the debris (heavier material like sand, seeds, twigs) is filtered through the drain. I believe that "most" of the "temporarily supended material" (ex: stirred up dirt from a monsoon, lighter sticks, etc) is filtered through the drain because it tends to "hang out" near the bottom of the pool even when stirred up. Finally, the "permanentlyusually suspended material" (grass, pollen, stuff that floats around with the slightest pool water movement) is filtered out by the drain AND the skimmer. I have said that after a monsoon, I previously ran at full drain (no skimmer) to clean my pool of the dirt, and although subjective...for me the results were a no-brainer...it worked better. BUT, these days my in-floor cleaning system is RARELY used to clean up after a monsoon. So this leads into the other "issue" that I feel my in-floor cleaning system has: decision/implementation of drain/skimmer suction for everyday in-floor system cleaning. I won't talk about it yet, I haven't had time to fully think about this.

With your above post, you have definitely broached this subject (decision/implementation of drain/skimmer suction for everyday cleaning) with your specialized suction ports. I have done my own "experiments" on the suction side, and hopefully can address those later (after my cruise). But I really LIKE some of your thinking here and hope that others also think about how "the suction side" impacts their in-floor cleaning system's effectiveness.

 

[runboy]

...Dodger and runboy...you both seem to be making some plumbing changes to your system. If you think there might be usefulness for you, I would recommend putting the first jandy valve after your filter directly to the valve manifold so that it has maximum available pressure to it. This assumes that you are going to open and always "run" a parallel path that you can use to send flow to the heater, chlorinator, spa/pool returns, etc. My system is like this and is definitely one reason that I am able to obtain higher manifold PSIs. Also consider a permanent adjustable bypass (mine is probably going to be a simple ball valve) around that Jandy so that flow can be fine tuned to adjust PSI for the manifold.

runboy, from your pictures on another thread, your system looks tailor made for that except for your stenner insertion point/check valve...

You are correct. I could very easily ad a T on my return line bypassing all my additional plumbing and go directly to the infloor cleaner. This would most likely give me higher pressure at the manifold, but on the other hand my pressure is already pretty decent. An other issue with this is that I like to ad my chemicals during my cleaning cycle with high flow and I would have a hard time plumbing for this with the suggested setup.
I don't think a parallel path would give me anything in effectiveness compared to what I have now. I see a pressure drop on the manifold anytime water is directed other places than to the manifold. I maybe would end up with better efficiency overall, but that's a different matter.
I think if I were to go that route I would automate a Jandy valve and bypass all plumbing going directly to the cleaner only when needed.

 

[Dodger]

Dodger and runboy...you both seem to be making some plumbing changes to your system. If you think there might be usefulness for you, I would recommend putting the first jandy valve after your filter directly to the valve manifold so that it has maximum available pressure to it. This assumes that you are going to open and always "run" a parallel path that you can use to send flow to the heater, chlorinator, spa/pool returns, etc.

Yes, we discussed this option in the past week as we've been planning out the re-plumb. Decided against it for a couple of concerns related to chlorination.

First, the SWCG has minimum flow requirements, so even if the parallel path is always on, that puts another pressure point on the total flow demand.
Second, I just don't like having any flow that is not chlorinated. Too risky to be left accidentally closed and start an algae party, especially by a future owner who isn't a TFPer.

However, in addition to shortening the run and #turns, we are adding a heater bypass. Hopefully I can post some results by the end of the weekend.

But you will probably be off to Alaska by then. What cruise line are you taking? That is one itinerary we haven't cruised yet.

 

[jonpcar]

You are correct. I could very easily ad a T on my return line bypassing all my additional plumbing and go directly to the infloor cleaner. This would most likely give me higher pressure at the manifold, but on the other hand my pressure is already pretty decent. An other issue with this is that I like to ad my chemicals during my cleaning cycle with high flow and I would have a hard time plumbing for this with the suggested setup.

The parallel flow I have added is/will be roughly equal to my previous cleaning flow...pretty high. Did you ever calculate your flow rate through your cleaning system using Mark's chart? You and dodger both mentioned the chemical dispersal...but chemicals disperse! haha. No high flow needed.

There doesn't seem to be consensus in TFP as far as how Stenners should be used to inject chlorine. Some do it thoughout the day, some like to "mini-shock" the water by injecting it all at once. I do the second early in the night so that levels stay high throughout the night before the sun degrades it. If mini-shocking works (and I have no idea), you may gain an advantage by injecting all into your spa, letting it flow down your "possible problem area" stream, and then into your main pool. Just a thought when I read that thread on your pool.

I don't think a parallel path would give me anything in effectiveness compared to what I have now.

I think you might be surprised. I am vested in this method. I think there is an advantage. But, I keep hoping I can convince someone to experiment with me...haha.

I think if I were to go that route I would automate a Jandy valve and bypass all plumbing going directly to the cleaner only when needed.

Yes, exactly...

 

[jonpcar]

Yes, we discussed this option in the past week as we've been planning out the re-plumb. Decided against it for a couple of concerns related to chlorination.

First, the SWCG has minimum flow requirements, so even if the parallel path is always on, that puts another pressure point on the total flow demand.

I don't know your chlorinator flow demand but as I told runboy, the parallel flow I am planning is pretty high...maybe not high enough for that.

Second, I just don't like having any flow that is not chlorinated. Too risky to be left accidentally closed and start an algae party, especially by a future owner who isn't a TFPer.

I think the TFP family has expanded mightily due to the "algae parties" created by other methods. This may be the best way to recruit more, haha.

However, in addition to shortening the run and #turns, we are adding a heater bypass. Hopefully I can post some results by the end of the weekend.

But you will probably be off to Alaska by then. What cruise line are you taking? That is one itinerary we haven't cruised yet.

Sounds like a good plan (given that my efforts to recruit your were rebuffed ). We are going on Princess Cruises...its an 11-day trip. Really looking forward to it!

 

[jonpcar]

In-Floor Cleaning System (IFCS) BKMs for Effectiveness and Efficiency

I have filled in “a” rough outline based completely on the direction that I am personally headed. Points in this outline are possibly inaccurate/incomplete and there is definitely not consensus for them. It is “what I could quickly list before getting ready for my cruise”. Some of these are theoretical, BUT are listed here as “black & white,” when in fact there is a “grayness” and/or subjectivity associated with them. Hopefully, these do stimulate further thoughts and/or actions by others.

The goal of establishing BKMs for IFCSs may too “pie-in-the-skyish” and I/we lose interest and desire to get there; in fact, it is very likely that this effort stops before we get there. It’s a project that is technically challenging; so, for now, I am having fun with it. I am not expecting my system to see any more significant jumps in effectiveness/efficiency, like I believe I have seen this past week (until, I can get my newly designed 3D printed cam, haha).

Optimistically, BKMs that may be developed (at least some of them), can be applied to very simple systems like I had for 20 years, as well as to the more complex systems that some TFPers have. Some BKMs will only be available and/or optimizable to those with IFCS automation. Through the discussions on this thread, I have realized that requirements and goals ARE going to be different for those of us with an IFCS; so BKMs will never be universally applicable or accepted.

Finally, many will want to trade-off “efficiency” for “effectiveness” or vice versa when operating their IFCS. As owners/users of IFCSs, we already have made a shared decision to do just that: for various reasons we have chosen to use an IFCS, despite the fact that there are more efficient methods out there. BKMs may help us to mitigate and/or improve that choice as we develop further trade-offs for operating our IFCSs.

1) Using IFCS to clear foreign material from the pool (particles, debris, etc)

Definitions:

Bottom Material (heavy, bMat) – debris that is primarily pushed around by popups
Temporarily Suspended Material (medium, tsMat) – material pushed around AND usually temporarily suspended in the water by the popups, tends to want to stay near the bottom of the pool
PermanentlyUsually Suspended Material (light, usMat) – the slightest currents usually keep this material suspended (renamed, thanks Mark)
Floating Material (light & medium, fMat) – TFP Best Known Method is to get this out quickly by skimmer action before it sinks

A) Run your IFCS popups and suction from bottom drain to most effectively and efficiently clear bottom material (bMat) and temporary suspended material (tsMat)….”turnover” a word many TFPers dislike.

• run this task, if possible, with the suction FULL through the drain. The bottom of the pool is where the majority of this material is at. Drawing from the drain “helps” to localize the filtering of material from this bottom layer of the pool
• if you ignore claims of IFCSs effectively moving material “towards” the drain (I do here), this becomes a “turnover” problem. The volume of water “near the pool bottom” needs to be “turned over” repeatedly to clear this material out…how much of it you filter is dependent on how many times you “turnover” this bottom layer of the pool (Mark indicated 60% each pass). This is a choice you make in you pool cleanliness, for instance, you may choose to do a more thorough popup cleaning run once a week, and other times just keep this material in check by shorter popup runs.
• Turnover rate is dependent upon cleaning GPM (cGPM), the faster you filter, the faster this task gets done. This task, in of itself, can possibly be made more effective and/or efficient using increased cGPM methods
• It may be beneficial to run at a slower than optimum manifold PSI (oPSI) in order to keep material near the bottom (popups don’t kick it up as much) and increase turnover efficiency (Mark’s idea)

B) Run suction through the skimmers (don't use popups if possible) to most effectively and efficiently clear usually suspended material (usMat) and floating material (fMat)

• Run this task, if possible, with full suction through the skimmer(s). Realistically, pumps operating in their most efficient range probably generate sufficient cGPM to suction from the drain simultaneously…there are probably pool circulation advantages to doing this
• Run this task as efficiently as possible for your system through use of BKMs for pump speed when skimming/filtering
• As many have pointed out, for IFCSs, it is much more efficient to capture floating material (fMat) at the surface than at any other level in the pool. Therefore, run this task as much as you deem necessary in your system to capture that material before it sinks.

2) Using In-Floor Cleaning System to “brush” "sweep" the walls and floor

This can be classified and possibly done as a separate task than (1A). It doesn’t have to be, but there may be some advantages to doing so.

• This task needs to be done at oPSI (optimum manifold PSI) or a higher, less efficient, manifold PSI. This could move bottom material (bMat) around that might be caught in corners or dead spots, and “sweep” pool floor and wall surfaces to suspend clinging material off (“swept” material most likely becomes usually suspended material, usMat)
• This task might be more effectively done AFTER the pool has gone through step (1A). That way, material stuck in dead spots of the pool may be moved to a new spot to prepare for the next time the “turnover” task (1A) is run again (ex: next day). usMat created by "sweeping" the pool surfaces would be cleared through skimming/filtering (1B).
• Separating this task from the “turnover” task might enable the overall cleaning cycle to be more effective and efficient
• This task, in of itself, can possibly be made more effective and efficient using increased cGPM methods

3) Using In-Floor Cleaning System for other reasons

• Pool circulation (could be combined with some of above)
• Appearance, convenience

---------------------------------------------

I’ve run out of time…have to pack. Hopefully to be continued…and hopefully not too many errors in my thought process above. Here is briefly what I hope to implement with my IFCS (the run schedule is TBD):

1. Run my popups at oPSI (or possibly below) with full bottom drain draw to accomplish (1A)
2. Run (2) at higher than required oPSI to sweep/clean pool surfaces (very short time, probably less than an hour on a schedule TBD)
3. Skim/Filter (1B) for max time, but still avoid on-peak electricity costs. Mostly skimmer suction draw for this task…

BUT I have an issue that may prevent me from doing this. The one regret that I had on my pool remodel…I didn’t (possibly couldn’t, I don’t know) separate the drain and skimmer suction lines and return them separately to my pump. So automatically changing/controlling the suction draw between the drain and the skimmer is not yet possible in my system. Darnit! I am thinking about a solution for this. Many systems DO have this option and I believe should implement this when using their IFCS.

Completely missing from this post: Use models for systems other than my own...

 

[runboy]

..

I think you might be surprised. I am vested in this method. I think there is an advantage. But, I keep hoping I can convince someone to experiment with me...haha.


Yes, exactly...

But I did kind of test it. Any flow directed anywhere else but my cleaners lowers my pressure at the manifold. Even one little click on the Jandy. Yes, my Pump is showing me that GPM increases, but my infloor cleaners are getting less flow nonetheless.

 

[mas985]

Only particles that are less than about 1 micron in size (i.e. colloids) can remain suspended indefinitely in water and those are too small for pool filters to remove. The only things a pool filter can filter out of pools are particles that will either sink or float and large enough so that the capture size of the media can remove (sand: 20 microns, cart: 10 microns, DE: 5 microns).

Also, I don't think the in-floor is going to be very effective at "brushing" the walls or even the floors. You still need to physically brush the pool surfaces with a brush. You know, like what a robot does.

 

[jonpcar]

But I did kind of test it. Any flow directed anywhere else but my cleaners lowers my pressure at the manifold. Even one little click on the Jandy. Yes, my Pump is showing me that GPM increases, but my infloor cleaners are getting less flow nonetheless.

runboy, those experiments we did definitely showed by opening ANY sort of parallel return path, PSI at the manifold IS always going to be decreased, same as your "test". But you compensate for the lost PSI at your manifold by increasing the RPM of your pump to "restore" it. This "restores" your manifold GPM outputs to the popups AND further increases the flow in the parallel path.

Go back and look at the tables in post #147, which I have expanded to include previously unposted data for completeness sake. By moving the manifold back closer to the filter output, you have more "room" in your pump RPM to easily accomplish this. I suspect you may not be able to make that happen with the manifold located where yours is, but not sure.

By the way, I suspect one of the main changes they have made in In-Floor Cleaning Systems popup performance is that they have increased the flow through the popups themselves (your popups are A&A version 2, mine are version 1). There may be less "room" for a parallel path and still stay within your pump's specifications in newer systems. But to determine that, you would need to know the GPM on your 100% cleaning case, something I believe we can calculate from Mark's spreadsheets if you run that case and record wattage/rpm.

Still trying to talk you into it...haha

 

[jonpcar]

Only particles that are less than about 1 micron in size (i.e. colloids) can remain suspended indefinitely in water and those are too small for pool filters to remove. The only things a pool filter can filter out of pools are particles that will either sink or float and large enough so that the capture size of the media can remove (sand: 20 microns, cart: 10 microns, DE: 5 microns).

Also, I don't think the in-floor is going to be very effective at "brushing" the walls or even the floors. You still need to physically brush the pool surfaces with a brush. You know, like what a robot does.

Agree...the terms I use are MUCH too strong. I will change this term to Permanently Usually Suspended Material (light, usMat) – the slightest currents usually keep this material suspended

And I will change the "brushing" term to "sweeping"...I considered "dusting" as well . I am sure you realize why I separated this "sweeping" due to your suggestion (might make the entire process more efficient by allowing lower PSI popup operation during 1A ), but also because I am thinking about dodger's problem (and mine, and many others) that have dead spots that might benefit from a very high blast to move the debris to another location or to sweep that spot in the middle of the popups that isn't reached currently by the lower PSI that they usually run their popups at.

Don't know if that is feasible or not but we will see; it didn't work for me in my dead spots even though I have been overdriving my popups (higher PSI than I need) since my remodel...but the "swirl" definitely did work for me. Hopefully it still will when I lower my cGPM to my target of 55-60. This will push 25-30 GPM out of the wall returns.

 

[runboy]

runboy, those experiments we did definitely showed by opening ANY sort of parallel return path, PSI at the manifold IS always going to be decreased, same as your "test". But you compensate for the lost PSI at your manifold by increasing the RPM of your pump to "restore" it. This "restores" your manifold GPM outputs to the popups AND further increases the flow in the parallel path.

Go back and look at the tables in post #147, which I have expanded to include previously unposted data for completeness sake. By moving the manifold back closer to the filter output, you have more "room" in your pump RPM to easily accomplish this. I suspect you may not be able to make that happen with the manifold located where yours is, but not sure.

By the way, I suspect one of the main changes they have made in In-Floor Cleaning Systems popup performance is that they have increased the flow through the popups themselves (your popups are A&A version 2, mine are version 1). There may be less "room" for a parallel path and still stay within your pump's specifications in newer systems. But to determine that, you would need to know the GPM on your 100% cleaning case, something I believe we can calculate from Mark's spreadsheets if you run that case and record wattage/rpm.

Still trying to talk you into it...haha

I am not just 100% convinced a parallel path will reduce my TDH. Anyway since I do have type 2 heads I can upgrade them to venturi heads which would further reduce the need for increased pressure at the manifold:
Gamma 4 Venturi Power A Manufacturing

 

[Dodger]

So, my re-plumbing job is finished and it went really well. I probably missed jonpcar off for his cruise, but will quickly report that the main goal of my re-plumb was achieved. That is, the pressure loss from filter to Caretaker manifold was drastically reduced. I am really happy about that. Instead of losing 7-9psi between these 2 points, I now only lose 2-3.5psi. These readings were taken at the likely cleaning speed of 3000rpm.

I need to take lots more data, but it means that I can now achieve the minimum Caretaker psi of 14-15psi to see how much it helps clean up the dead spots, both on the floor and in the corners. I'm not sure if I will have enough pressure and flow to contribute testing of jonpcar's theory, sending some return amt to the wall, but I will try.

Note that I did NOT install a flow meter. By far the biggest change is the heater bypass, but I also halved the run of 2" pvc and took out more than half of the elbows.