Here is something fun to do. Fill your FC test vial with tap water and see what the amount of FC in tap water is, you will be surprised, yet we drink with it, cook with it, etc.
Why does this method work?
- Thread starter JohnA902
- Start date
Alright, I think I have a good analogy. At least it sounds good in my head.
You need to get from Baltimore to DC at 5:00 on a Friday. So you put that in to an old non-internet connected GPS and it tells you it will take 54 minutes. Now you know and I know that this trip is not going to take less than an hour because that GPS is not accounting for traffic. So you pose the same question to Google Maps and it takes in to account traffic and tells you that it will take closer to 2 hours. Google is using important factors that the GPS is not and that is saving you from being an hour late.
Pool stores know that it takes X amount of chlorine to keep algae at bay. They don't account for the things that will slow the chlorine down (CYA). TFP knows that it takes X amount of active chlorine and that there are variables that determine what FC leads to what active chlorine level. There is a chart here where you can see that the FC/CYA ratio is equivilent to roughly 0.2 FC in a completely unstabilized pool: http://troublefreepool.com/~richardfalk/pool/HOCl.htm
Finally, you are only factoring in daily FC levels when giving the statement that we use more chlorine. When you take out the weekly shocking most people do, the "super shocking" that comes with cloudy or green water, and the fact that there is generally less organics in our water due to the higher FC level, we actually use LESS chlorine overall in many cases. It seems like we are using more because we are tracking our usage and maintaining higher daily FC levels, but if you actually compared it directly to the total amount of chlorine others use you would be surprised.
You need to get from Baltimore to DC at 5:00 on a Friday. So you put that in to an old non-internet connected GPS and it tells you it will take 54 minutes. Now you know and I know that this trip is not going to take less than an hour because that GPS is not accounting for traffic. So you pose the same question to Google Maps and it takes in to account traffic and tells you that it will take closer to 2 hours. Google is using important factors that the GPS is not and that is saving you from being an hour late.
Pool stores know that it takes X amount of chlorine to keep algae at bay. They don't account for the things that will slow the chlorine down (CYA). TFP knows that it takes X amount of active chlorine and that there are variables that determine what FC leads to what active chlorine level. There is a chart here where you can see that the FC/CYA ratio is equivilent to roughly 0.2 FC in a completely unstabilized pool: http://troublefreepool.com/~richardfalk/pool/HOCl.htm
Finally, you are only factoring in daily FC levels when giving the statement that we use more chlorine. When you take out the weekly shocking most people do, the "super shocking" that comes with cloudy or green water, and the fact that there is generally less organics in our water due to the higher FC level, we actually use LESS chlorine overall in many cases. It seems like we are using more because we are tracking our usage and maintaining higher daily FC levels, but if you actually compared it directly to the total amount of chlorine others use you would be surprised.
When this subject came up and I could tell they didn't want or weren't ready for the answer... I would quickly default to "its a salt pool" even though it wasnt. Because those are the "in thing" and so much better for you than a chlorine pool. Everyone feels better about a salt pool rather than the devil "chlorine pool". And due to adding so much liquid over time was tasting salty anyway. Regardless, it made for the ability to move discussion to somewhere else quick without arising any undertones of discussing religion or politics. Since then I actually did add a SWG for convenience.
- Jan 4, 2016
- 5,288
- Pool Size
- 44000
- Surface
- Plaster
- Chlorine
- Salt Water Generator
Me too!!! I think it's the old 80/20 or 90/10 rule. The pool stores and services will always have the 80/90% that just want simple. It's a crying shame though with respect to the number of unsafe pools out there. There's around a quarter million pools in Sydney and almost everyone here "knows" that all you do is "take your water to a pool store and they'll give you what you need."
I have a friend who's a poolie, and he has two sets of chems. One set is the usual stuff you see, already over-priced with great margins. He has another fancier "brand-name" set of the exact same ingredients that costs twice as much. Around 1/3 of his customers just want the "good stuff" because that's what their parents/friends/colleagues use. Someone with a marketing MBA can probably tell us why!
Another place you can point people to is THIS thread and the industry articles contained there in. I don't know why but some people are more prone to believe what they perceive to be a professional publication than the literally thousands of positive results this site represents.
I was a bit conflicted about the article on one hand it is good the industry is starting to come around, on the other it does not seem right that others are getting credit for all the heavy lifting that founding members did.
When I first found the forum I did a lot of reading of Chem Geek and Jason Lions posts both new and old and while my understanding would come and go depending on how deep the chemistry got it is all worth a look at. Chem Geek even replied to one of my posts it was like talking to a minor celebrity is that strange of me?
These days I don't question it, I did my due diligence in the beginning to be sure the foundation is sound but I have a limited amount of gray matter storage space and don’t want to fill it up too much with the why, when all I care about are the results.
I was a bit conflicted about the article on one hand it is good the industry is starting to come around, on the other it does not seem right that others are getting credit for all the heavy lifting that founding members did.
When I first found the forum I did a lot of reading of Chem Geek and Jason Lions posts both new and old and while my understanding would come and go depending on how deep the chemistry got it is all worth a look at. Chem Geek even replied to one of my posts it was like talking to a minor celebrity is that strange of me?
These days I don't question it, I did my due diligence in the beginning to be sure the foundation is sound but I have a limited amount of gray matter storage space and don’t want to fill it up too much with the why, when all I care about are the results.
That article makes me laugh each time I see it. They quote "Robert Lowry, one the industry's most prominent authorities on water chemistry". Not to belittle him in any way, but the science behind his work came from Chem Geek.Another place you can point people to is THIS thread and the industry articles contained there in. I don't know why but some people are more prone to believe what they perceive to be a professional publication than the literally thousands of positive results this site represents.
I was a bit conflicted about the article on one hand it is good the industry is starting to come around, on the other it does not seem right that others are getting credit for all the heavy lifting that founding members did.
When I first found the forum I did a lot of reading of Chem Geek and Jason Lions posts both new and old and while my understanding would come and go depending on how deep the chemistry got it is all wort a look at. Chem Geek even replied to one of my posts it was like talking to a minor celebrity is that strange of me?
These days I don't question it, I did my due diligence in the beginning to be sure the foundation is sound but I have a limited amount of gray matter storage space and don’t want to fill it up too much with the why, when all I care about are the results.
Where we are today is in large part due to a small group of folks.
One more quick analogy for John in his social discussions:
With tfp, your pool's "immunity" is fortified precisely, through testing, to avoid "illness" and to identify and address first signs of illness well before disease takes hold.
Pool store prescription, like big pharma, is profit seeking, reactive, cookie-cutter, and and not formulated in target to precisely identified parameters (until we get that whole genome thing worked out)
With tfp, your pool's "immunity" is fortified precisely, through testing, to avoid "illness" and to identify and address first signs of illness well before disease takes hold.
Pool store prescription, like big pharma, is profit seeking, reactive, cookie-cutter, and and not formulated in target to precisely identified parameters (until we get that whole genome thing worked out
)
ionizer
Gold Supporter
this was a really good thread. i appreciate the question being posed by the OP because it's the same type of thinking i want to be able to explain to others when I tell them "yeah my FC is at 8ppm, but it's safe, because my CYA is at X <60ppm lets say>"
i spent a ton of money on pool store stuff i probably didnt need when i opened my pool, but the main issue was really that my CYA was simply too high and all the chlorine in the world wasnt going to help me (and even if it did, i would have to maintain too high of a chlorine level that it would be cost prohibitive)
even after draining to 10 inches in my shallow end (which i shouldnt have done as i did b/c it caused an existing tear in the liner to tear more) my CYA is still at 60. Over the course of the summer I'll see if it remains there or starts creeping up (due to tabs which I will continue to use b/c I can't simply test everyday) ill do some draining and water adding, but in much smaller increments than I did all at once before.
i spent a ton of money on pool store stuff i probably didnt need when i opened my pool, but the main issue was really that my CYA was simply too high and all the chlorine in the world wasnt going to help me (and even if it did, i would have to maintain too high of a chlorine level that it would be cost prohibitive)
even after draining to 10 inches in my shallow end (which i shouldnt have done as i did b/c it caused an existing tear in the liner to tear more) my CYA is still at 60. Over the course of the summer I'll see if it remains there or starts creeping up (due to tabs which I will continue to use b/c I can't simply test everyday) ill do some draining and water adding, but in much smaller increments than I did all at once before.
Just for the record, I don't test every day either. Every other to every third day if all has been well. More often if I've added something or need to tweak something?
That's a very good point. I was only thinking of my constant avg FC level. It's been 40 days and I've never shocked.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk