Question on Filter cycle time and ‘minerals’

[Methuselah]

@RDspaguy, Methinks you are taking issue with the wrong contributor

Twas eye who said someone from work abandoned the frog system because they couldn't get it to work for them. I also said

Also, people report problems more often here in this forum trying to get that system to work for them. I'd suggest researching here if you plan on making the frog system your main sanitation system...

You take issue and state copper and silver ion systems do work. Heck, I had no idea the frog system was copper/silver. That said, I wholeheartedly agree my statement offers zero proof the frog system has issues nor does it prove there is a disproportionate number of people using it correctly that have issues with it.

HOWEVER, I'm going to say I think there's a valid basis to my statement the way it's written. The problem is I'm on a tablet so without a keyboard it takes me an hour to compose a complete response, so I make things as brief as I can. In this case, too brief.

The whole story, in my opinion and only my opinion, is that many people post here because they are trying to solve an issue. Accordingly, they are, in the case of the frog system, usually doing something wrong. Maybe they let the cartridge "expire" or deplete, didn't use MPS or CHL sufficiently with it, or overtaxed the systems ability to maintain sanitation.

So above, I eluded the frog systems have disproportionate number of problems, but can be made to work (I suggested research). More accurately I could have said the frog system seems to only get mentioned here (seemingly) because it can be advertised or represented as an easier system, leading some into thinking it is a stand-alone system.

Again, the preceding paragraph could be "expanded and expounded" into 10 paragraphs but I'd be typing for days so am shooting for brief again.

It seems because this site "caters" to SWG and dichlor/bleach methodology mostly, that there's not a lot of "activity" on the frog system, and I do stand by my original comment mention of the frog system is generally negative. That said, I'm going to add, at least for those folks that come here with issues using the frog system, I kinda believe that system doesn't simplify sanitation. On the contrary, in my opinion, it complicates it.

Please note I did not, and will not say it's not a workable system, or that because my coworker abandoned it the OP should do likewise. You are 100% correct that I also did not encourage using it. Maybe that was unfair of me, but as much as it makes me out to be an Rear for saying it, I think the complications of using it, learning how to know when you can be confident it's safely doing its job, etc. imply that people that are already here because the system failed to maintain sanitation may be better off switching to a different system.

I mean no disrespect in saying this, but when people come here asking for help troubleshooting SWG and dichlor/bleach systems we ask for test results, right? As @Newdude pointed out, the testing part's a question mark.

Bottom line, I think if someone is using the frog system, understands it, rigidly adheres to supplemental sanitation requirements, maintains PH in required range, etc. it would probably work for them. I just don't think it's the easiest (or cheapest) way to accomplish hot tub sanitation.

Again, a 2 hour typing session cutting tons of corners trying to be brief. Hopefully I didn't offend too may people. That was not my intention.

 

[Methuselah]

Per your other thread, with use of the frog system you must use additional oxidizer.

If I recall correctly your bather load equated to about 15 ppm each 1 hour session. I'm thinking if its cloudy perhaps you let the minimum necessary CHL level go too low?

As @RDspaguy pointed out, your mineral system kills the bad stuff, but cannot break down waste. What does the frog system manufacturer recommend on MPS frequency and amount?

I know this isn't much help, I'm kinda new to hot tubs...

 

[ajw22]

It should be noted by readers of this thread that the discussion on the effectiveness of the frog system and mineral sanitizers applies to standalone spas and hot tubs which is the section this is in.

The story is very different with a pool.

People often get confused in their arguments between a standalone hot tub and a pool.

A hot tub is NOT a small pool.

 

[RDspaguy]

Methinks you are taking issue with the wrong contributor

I am not taking issue with any contributor, and @Newdude has my respect from many other threads. We just disagree on this subject, and that of ozone too if I'm not mistaken. I have been arguing both points since starting on this forum, and will continue to do so as I see the value in them where others do not. Probably because I've used them myself, seen so many problem spas, recommended them so many times, and heard back from so many people reporting good results. Unless you have used it yourself, you're just a philosopher. Philosophy is fine, but should not present itself as knowledge. I suggest all the nay-sayers actually BUY ONE and see for yourself with an open mind. I suspect you'll be surprised.

just don't think it's the easiest (or cheapest) way to accomplish hot tub sanitation.

Does no-one hear me? It is not a primary sanitizer. You cannot stop using chlorine because of it. It (slowly) kills stuff CHLORINE DOES NOT. It also slows the spread of things is hasn't killed. Plus, it deters biofilm, and helps keep the water clear if you forget to sanitize once in a while. Everyone talks about how slow it is, but in a closed spa overnight is all you need. So if maybe you don't add quite enough chlorine after use you've got a backup to prevent your spa from smelling like wet dog butt when you open it. Worth every dime to me and most spa owners I know. I don't understand why everyone here is so vehemently opposed to it. Because you don't need it if you never mess up? Who never messes up, even here?
Yes, it has an effective ph range, so does everything, and if your ph is that bad you've got bigger problems than your mineral purifier not working. I've always wondered if the pathogens themselves can survive at ph ranges that interfere with sanitizers. I mean, do you really need chlorine at ph 9, or 6?
Yes, you can get some reactions at high ph levels and high sanitizer levels that lead to some metals coming out of solution and causing stains, but that does not mean the metals are all gone from the water. Just as iron stains on your pool do not mean there's no iron left in your water.
Unfortunately, we have to trust that the manufacturer is putting enough in there to be effective. In my experience, they are.

 

[RDspaguy]

Proof requires something positive, not something untestable.

The only thing untestable to the spa owner is the ppm of the metals. The results are easily testable by anyone using it. As for proof, I give you the internet. Do your own studies, as I have in order to defend my opinion here, as if my 26 years in this business are not proof enough. The evidence is everywhere that minerals work. Even the link @Newdude provided proves it. What is questioned here is their effectiveness in a spa. Critics argue that kill times (depletion rates) are too long and do not provide protection from person to person contamination. True. Which is why they will never be a stand-alone sanitizer for spas. But as a secondary sanitizer in a closed system for 8 hours will destroy almost everything normal chlorine ranges will, and a few things they won't. That is not useless by any means, it just doesn't replace chlorine. In my opinion it is both useful and worth the money. And I challenge anyone to prove that it is not effective in a spa if used as directed. All I've heard here is conjecture and references to reported problems, which all chemical systems have, even chlorine.

 

[Methuselah]

Does no-one hear me? It is not a primary sanitizer. You cannot stop using chlorine because of it. It (slowly) kills stuff CHLORINE DOES NOT.

Maybe that's why it fails for some people, could it be they think it a system and not just a component. Anyway I dont recall saying the frog system was a PRIMARY sanitizer.

... vehemently opposed to it.

Where did I say I was vehemently opposed to it?

I agree mistakes happen regardless of system, bromine, dichlor/bleach, SWG, or frog. However, I clearly stated it was (just) my opinion the frog system seems to be more complicated.

I've read posts the cartridge had unknowingly depleted (that also happened to the person at work). I'm just too lazy to type ad finiem on the differences and what parts of those differences add complexity (like MPS making CC read high and the obfuscated instructions on how to fix that with some additional reagent).

I'm sure the frog system has merit, don't oppose it, believe it can work in a hot tub, and would never recommend it despite having never tried it. That doesn't mean I don't recognize the huge contributions you bring to this forum, and it doesn't mean I don't have the utmost respect for you.

 

[Newdude]

Maybe that's why it fails for some people, could it be they think it a system and not just a component.

I get what SpaGuy is saying above about hopefully giving the average user one extra layer of protection. But I see it as people using it as one more reason to be lazy/cheap with their chemicals. 'I don't need to stay on top of it because I have all these failsafes'


We can't get people to use enough chlorine on the daily as it is. With the manufacturers of these secondary systems claiming that using less chlorine is a big reason for purchasing one, people will use even less than 'not enough' or none at all. The average user doesn't stand a chance.

 

[Methuselah]

I get what SpaGuy is saying above about hopefully giving the average user one extra layer of protection. But I see it as people using it as one more reason to be lazy/cheap with their chemicals. 'I don't need to stay on top of it because I have all these failsafes'


We can't get people to use enough chlorine on the daily as it is. With the manufacturers of these secondary systems claiming that using less chlorine is a big reason for purchasing one, people will use even less than 'not enough' or none at all. The average user doesn't stand a chance.

+1

The sad part is he's right about sparse posting here meaning that it works for most people using it. Many folks find this forum while researching a problem...

The problem is as you say however. The ones that do come here MAY be the hardest ones to convince that laziness isn't an option. There, I said it

There are so many knowledgeable people on this forum, but the old adage remains true - you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink. The frog system may be a time tested, great system, but for those that show up here I believe the majority would be better off without it.

I think my attitude ruffles feathers, hopefully it's not taken as disrespect.

Edit (adding):

I just found this, check out the link in post #6 and answer in #7:

Ozone and Ionizer Combined

Has anyone ever combined an Ozone generator that generates 10 g/hr of ozone with a copper/zinc/silver ionizer (electric current)?

www.troublefreepool.com

 

[Oly]

I did add the oxidizer ( I think it was 1.5 oz) two days back when it was cloudy

I don’t believe I have used any surfactant(not sure what that is
The spa was filled last Monday as it’s new
Filter scheduled to be cleaned this Sunday as it’s new
I don’t have any spares as it’s a new spa
I have a cover that’s on when not in use and the spa is under a covered patio
Taylor 2006 says ph is 7.0 the Taylor 1000 kit says 7.2 with the spa not running.

Your spa was no doubt water tested for leaks after manufacture and then drained and placed into storage for some time before it was delivered to you. The trouble is not all of the test water is removed and you did not purge and sanitize your tub prior to use. Do a search for "biofilms" and also for a spa cleaning product, "AhhSome". Starting clean is important for new spa owners.

 

[Methuselah]

@Fugazi,

The fc frop you posted is an indicator you need to add more chlorine. Did you abide the chart?

FC/CYA Levels

It is necessary to maintain the minimum at all times, at least in tubs without the frog system. With that frog system you probably need to monitor cc as an indicator. The neutralizing reagent is R-0867.

Alternatively, you can hit it with up to shock level CHL and see how it behaves. If it stays it has nothing to kill off... Be aware Ozone systems do reduce FC some. UV too, I believe (not sure).

I apologize if I derailed your thread with all the back and forth on the frog system. Please let us know how things are going.

 

[RDspaguy]

Where did I say I was vehemently opposed to it?

Where did I say I was talking about you? You're kinda new here, you probably missed out on most of the discussions I've had about this, and ozone, on this forum. I am referrencing those.

We can't get people to use enough chlorine on the daily as it is.

Exactly! And you're talking about the small percentage of owners who bother to try to educate themselves by coming here. I've heard this forum mentioned by customers exactly twice in my 26 years in the spa business. And you should see some of the nastiness I run into out there. If it kills nasty, however it does it or long it takes, it's a good thing. If you personally don't need it, great! But far too many need all the help they can get, and to them I say use it. It's cheaper than a drain/clean/fill or bacterial infection. But it's not chlorine and never will be.

people using it as one more reason to be lazy/cheap with their chemicals.

My friend, people don't need a reason for that, it just comes naturally.

The average user doesn't stand a chance.

I know y'all here find it hard to believe, but most people who use a "mineral purifier" have few problems, in my experience. I know I've never had any when using it that I can blame on it. I've learned to curb my advice here, but if I told you how I ACTUALLY maintain my tubs you'd have a seizure or something. I recommend much more chlorine than I actually use with 24/7 ozone and a mineral stick in my filter. That's the truth, like it or not.

just found this,

Funny. That's exactly what I do in a spa. And recommend to my paying customers, with the detail that the ozone be on a 24/7 injection system. And, no, I don't sell them. In fact, since the internet I can't compete on parts so have the customer order it themselves unless it's a generic part I carry in my truck. So I'm not just making a buck off of some snake oil, I believe in the system and have used it.
I don't get stains, but I maintain my ph. Stains on an acrylic tub are not a big deal in any case, unlike a plaster pool. Frankly, where I'm from you're going to get scale too. Remove the scale and you remove the stain.
I am also aware that .5ppm of chlorine is gone as soon as my foot hits the water, and this product recommends a constant residual of .5ppm, even in use. So if you use it and don't immediately treat it so that you have at least .5ppm free chlorine, (which will take alot more than just raising it by .5ppm depending on bather load and duration) You're liable to have a problem. And if you want person to person protection you must add chlorine before use. They could be clearer about that detail in the directions. They just say to keep at least .5ppm, they don't talk about how.

Be aware Ozone systems do reduce FC some. UV too, I believe (not sure).

Ozone reduces fc and cc, rapidly with exposure, but exposure rates vary with system. That's why I recommend the 24/7 system. You will see little effect from an ozone system that only runs during a filter cycle. Those are just there so they can say they have ozone, and give it a bad reputation.
UV also burns off chlorine, that's the reason we put cya in a pool, but in a UV chamber it is so concentrated compared to sunlight that I suspect cya has little effect on it. I don't know for sure, I've only seen a few dozen UVs, and none were on my tub.
I will say that, in my opinion, the elimination of cc and reduction of fc is the main advantage to these systems. In my experience, people complain of chemical odors upon opening the cover (which can get bad, trust me), and struggle with the shock process. Smell chlorine and they don't add it, which as we all know is when you need the most. These devices solve those issues. They are like mini shock machines, getting rid of your byproducts while lowering, not raising, your fc. Oh yeah, and doing a little sanitizing while they're at it (bonus!). Honestly, what more could you want from a light bulb?

 

[Farmgal]

You really should ask the zebra about that.

You all are funny. I use the floating @ease frog with weekly nonchlorine shock and a bit of chlorine shock if I have more than just us 2 in the hut tub.

I use the @ease frog system because I don't use the hot tub often and it helps keep levels of ph and chlorine ok. It is a very hard system to understand...I have many printed pages of info and websites tagged to understand it. The hot tub supplier NEVER explained the nonchlorone system to me. And I was informing them things like when using MSP the chemical levels of FC, CC will be higher than using chlorine, but not to worry.

I have found contacting @ease, Ahhsome and all other chemical supplers, with my questions helped me to better understand what I am dealing with and how all the chemicals work together.

This is a great forum to learn all things hot tub and then make your decision on what is best for you to use. The hit tub supplier was not helpful. (Yes, 'hit' tub supplier )