WaterGuru - A Test

[IceShadow]

The waterguru only test PH, Alkalinity and Chlorine. And it only test Chlorine up to 5PPM. If you have a CYA of 40 your target is 5-7PPM for Chlorine. If you have 50PPM your target is 6-8PPM. So you would not be able to tell how much your FC was unless it was under 5PPM which you would not want anyways as you would be approaching your minimum FC.

Actually it only tests pH and FC. But if you send in a lab test it gets other things. Here’s what it shows on a daily basis:


Here’s the lab test results:



So it doesn’t follow TFP recommendations. That’s fine; I can use the numbers as a quick check and do a manual test weekly to be sure they’re not out of line. So when it works it does what I want it to.

Hopefully the new unit has less issues.

 

[JoyfulNoise]

Thanks for all the detailed reports.

I was a little surprised by one thing you mentioned here. What kind of suggestions does the Wayerguru make that differ from what’s recommended here? From what I read Waterguru is run by Richard Falk aka ChemGeek (https://www.poolspanews.com/compani...ice-of-the-cmahc-cyanurate-ad-hoc-committee_o), so if anyone should know good water chemistry I would expect it to be him.

is it just Calhyppo vs liquid chlorine?

Actually it only tests pH and FC. But if you send in a lab test it gets other things. Here’s what it shows on a daily basis:

View attachment 344418
Here’s the lab test results:

View attachment 344419
View attachment 344420
So it doesn’t follow TFP recommendations. That’s fine; I can use the numbers as a quick check and do a manual test weekly to be sure they’re not out of line. So when it works it does what I want it to.

Hopefully the new unit has less issues.

Let me try to shed some light on why Recommended levels are different.

I'm not trying to put any words in @chem geek 's mouth and he can certainly respond to any of this (you can also catch him on e-mail if you like) but in a business like pool equipment company, WaterGuru must present recommendations that are within the regulatory guidelines established for recreational water bodies. In other words, if the EPA & CDC (and any State level governing body) sets recommended levels, then the manufacturer must comply with those. Doing otherwise would open you up to serious liability issues. However, having had many conversations with Richard, I do believe that he feels the recommended levels of 2-5ppm FC are all one needs because his thinking on water chemistry has changed somewhat over the years. To speak for him, I would say that he believes the standard TFP levels of FC being 7.5% of CYA is too high a ratio and he would like to see that number lowered. But his reasoning is predicated on his research that pool owners ought to be measuring and controlling phosphate levels as phosphates can drive algae growth. So his position, if I have accurately gauged all of our conversations over the years, is that if you control for phosphates (meaning keeping them at zero as best as possible but, at the very least, below 1000ppb), then your FC/CYA ratio can be much lower than what is recommended by TFP.

This position is obviously divergent somewhat from what TFP teaches. TFP takes the position the it is more important for the pool owner to practice a simple method of pool care that doesn't involve a lot of unnecessary testing and water conditioning. Treating and controlling phosphates is seen as adding more of burden onto pool owners and, because the industry isn't very honest or reliable with their recommendations for phosphate control or the chemicals they sell to do it, your asking the pool owner to expose themselves to more work and dishonesty than they should. So TFP takes the position that it's ok to run a pool with a higher FC/CYA ratio because, even if it costs more to do so, it's simpler in the end. TFP also has the luxury of being a non-profit web forum so we are not bound by regulations to follow the guidelines that the CDC and EPA place on the pool industry.

So, in the end, you need to look at guidelines as suggestions and ask yourself if what is being taught seems reasonable and achievable.

 

[qnuck]

Hello,

I am looking to get a WaterGuru Sense and this is the shape of my skimmer. It is 9 inches across. There is 4 inches from the top of the concrete to the water, and I don't know what happened to the door (prior owner) but there is a floating skimmer weir to provide suction.

I don't know if that weir will interfere with the WaterGuru, or if the WaterGuru will prevent the Weir from working.

Thank you!!

 

[IceShadow]

Unsure. It has a sensor that dangles down into the skimmer so it may interfere. Hard to say….I suppose you could always get it and return it if it does interfere.

 

[KKell]

Let me try to shed some light on why Recommended levels are different.

I'm not trying to put any words in @chem geek 's mouth and he can certainly respond to any of this (you can also catch him on e-mail if you like) but in a business like pool equipment company, WaterGuru must present recommendations that are within the regulatory guidelines established for recreational water bodies. In other words, if the EPA & CDC (and any State level governing body) sets recommended levels, then the manufacturer must comply with those. Doing otherwise would open you up to serious liability issues. However, having had many conversations with Richard, I do believe that he feels the recommended levels of 2-5ppm FC are all one needs because his thinking on water chemistry has changed somewhat over the years. To speak for him, I would say that he believes the standard TFP levels of FC being 7.5% of CYA is too high a ratio and he would like to see that number lowered. But his reasoning is predicated on his research that pool owners ought to be measuring and controlling phosphate levels as phosphates can drive algae growth. So his position, if I have accurately gauged all of our conversations over the years, is that if you control for phosphates (meaning keeping them at zero as best as possible but, at the very least, below 1000ppb), then your FC/CYA ratio can be much lower than what is recommended by TFP.

This position is obviously divergent somewhat from what TFP teaches. TFP takes the position the it is more important for the pool owner to practice a simple method of pool care that doesn't involve a lot of unnecessary testing and water conditioning. Treating and controlling phosphates is seen as adding more of burden onto pool owners and, because the industry isn't very honest or reliable with their recommendations for phosphate control or the chemicals they sell to do it, your asking the pool owner to expose themselves to more work and dishonesty than they should. So TFP takes the position that it's ok to run a pool with a higher FC/CYA ratio because, even if it costs more to do so, it's simpler in the end. TFP also has the luxury of being a non-profit web forum so we are not bound by regulations to follow the guidelines that the CDC and EPA place on the pool industry.

So, in the end, you need to look at guidelines as suggestions and ask yourself if what is being taught seems reasonable and achievable.

Thank you, that’s a really helpful explanation. It makes me wonder if maybe I should be controlling for phosphates because I keep opening up my pool from cover failures and massive leaf debris and have trees dumping copious amount of gunk into it, so that the last few summers I found myself having to SLAM almost half the pool season. With the dumping, solar cover that is impossible to clean completely, and windy city debris floating around the air I can count on something re-introducing algae into the pool almost weekly. No need to reply, I’ll make sure to do my research on the forums when I have time and stick with the straight TFP method for now.

 

[Jaywalker]

That's an extremely useful compilation. Thanks.

I don't test as much as I used to because we have water in which the pH rises predictably and the FC drops, if not predictably, then regularly, and at 15% of CYA it isn't hard to balance it there. I suppose I need to look harder at phosphates, however, and drop the FC. Again, thanks.

 

[Jaywalker]

Let me try to shed some light on why Recommended levels are different.

I'm not trying to put any words in @chem geek 's mouth and he can certainly respond to any of this (you can also catch him on e-mail if you like) but in a business like pool equipment company, WaterGuru must present recommendations that are within the regulatory guidelines established for recreational water bodies. In other words, if the EPA & CDC (and any State level governing body) sets recommended levels, then the manufacturer must comply with those. Doing otherwise would open you up to serious liability issues. However, having had many conversations with Richard, I do believe that he feels the recommended levels of 2-5ppm FC are all one needs because his thinking on water chemistry has changed somewhat over the years. To speak for him, I would say that he believes the standard TFP levels of FC being 7.5% of CYA is too high a ratio and he would like to see that number lowered. But his reasoning is predicated on his research that pool owners ought to be measuring and controlling phosphate levels as phosphates can drive algae growth. So his position, if I have accurately gauged all of our conversations over the years, is that if you control for phosphates (meaning keeping them at zero as best as possible but, at the very least, below 1000ppb), then your FC/CYA ratio can be much lower than what is recommended by TFP.

This position is obviously divergent somewhat from what TFP teaches. TFP takes the position the it is more important for the pool owner to practice a simple method of pool care that doesn't involve a lot of unnecessary testing and water conditioning. Treating and controlling phosphates is seen as adding more of burden onto pool owners and, because the industry isn't very honest or reliable with their recommendations for phosphate control or the chemicals they sell to do it, your asking the pool owner to expose themselves to more work and dishonesty than they should. So TFP takes the position that it's ok to run a pool with a higher FC/CYA ratio because, even if it costs more to do so, it's simpler in the end. TFP also has the luxury of being a non-profit web forum so we are not bound by regulations to follow the guidelines that the CDC and EPA place on the pool industry.

So, in the end, you need to look at guidelines as suggestions and ask yourself if what is being taught seems reasonable and achievable.

That's a very useful compilation - thanks.

I don't test as much as I used to. My pH rises very predictably and my FC drops - if not predictably, at least regularly, so I get by with regular additions of muriatic acid every two days. I've pretty much ignored phosphates, but that will now change. Again, thanks.

 

[Rq120]

Question, if you test on your own (such as monthly calcium, cya, etc) can you input those numbers in the WG app?

 

[IceShadow]

Question, if you test on your own (such as monthly calcium, cya, etc) can you input those numbers in the WG app?

No. PoolMath is still best for tracking.

 

[Rq120]

No. PoolMath is still best for tracking.

That is kind of annoying. Seems like it would make sense to be able to input your own numbers so their CSI/CYA are accurate, especially since the app allows for notifications

 

[IceShadow]

Sure, but they’re trying to sell their own equipment and chems, so they’re not going to encourage people to test other ways. That’d be like Facebook having a spot to link to a competing website’s profile.

 

[Rq120]

Thanks for your input. I went ahead and bit the bullet and ordered one. My pool is pretty easy/reliable as it only needs acid about every 1.5-2 weeks and have to adjust the SWG minimally based on swimmer load, temp, etc CH, TA never seem to change. So I think this will be nice to glance at the pool in between manual testing and I can push out the manual tests a bit.

 

[Jaywalker]

I ordered one in July and, unfortunately, had to return it yesterday.

The main problem was the erratic chlorine reading. At first I thought it was a predictable 2 ppm under my FAS test reading; If that had been so I probably would have kept it. Reading off is okay as long as it's predictably off, but this wasn't - it varied between 2ppm and 6.5ppm, and that's too much to be useful. The pH reading was dead on, however.

There was one glitch I earlier thought would cause a return. For three days, while we were on a trip, the reading wasn't available, and since readings on the road were a big part of my purchase, that wasn't going to work for me. Inexplicably, on the fourth day, all the past readings were available on my cell phone.

Even so, when I called CS about a return, I asked if they could send me a replacement and extend the 45-day warranty; they said they could not. Too bad - I'd like one if it worked. I'll try again next Spring. One thing that worries me a little is if the source of the inaccuracy is in the replaceable part and that I won't know if I'll get a good one or bad one.