Re: To shock or not to shock
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tokmom
Why did the CC go so high after shocking and adding stabilizer? Is this normal? The weather will be nice this Sunday, so we are hoping to swim. Husband says the pool does have a stronger chlorine smell this morning.
When you cover a pool, CC's and CC precursors -- pool goo -- can't escape. Pool goo (it's a technical term here ;) ) consists of bad pool chemicals, sweat, pee, suntan lotion PLUS whatever else gets in the pool and reacts with chlorine. Sunlight, chlorine, and aeration get rid of pool goo. Lose the sunlight, and cover the pool with a vapor-tight cover, and Voila', you have an indoor-chemistry pool. Indoor-chemistry pools have problems with goo.
So, while I don't know exactly where YOUR particular CC's are coming from, they aren't unexpected.
Does that help?
Re: To shock or not to shock
Ok, I wondered if the pool being covered for a good couple of weeks had anything to do with it. The sun (GASP!) has decided to make an appearance today. Maybe we will take off the cover and let it air out.
Should we see if the CC drifts down on it's own in the next few days?
I like the word Goo. At least I understand it, lol.
Re: To shock or not to shock
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tokmom
Ok, I wondered if the pool being covered for a good couple of weeks had anything to do with it.
Very likely.
Quote:
Maybe we will take off the cover and let it air out. Should we see if the CC drifts down on it's own in the next few days?
Yes, please.
Quote:
I like the word Goo. At least I understand it, lol.
Thanks, I prefer the sort of naming that nuclear physicists do (it's a "quark") to the sort the military and school teachers do (CRT = "Criterion Referenced Test" . . . ????) or physicians ("Doc, my skin is red and inflamed!". "Yes, you're suffering from erythema." "Wow, thanks, Doc! I never would have known." [ erythema = red & inflamed skin ])
But, I slip sometimes. Currently, I'm using the phrase "epistemologically modest" a lot (not here, in my other life), and currently only my sons know what I mean, sorta, kinda. Unfortunately, every other way I've tried to say it takes a paragraph or more.
Re: To shock or not to shock
"epistomologically modest"? Is this intended to be an insult (doesn't sound like you)? Akin to calling someone obtuse? Or do you mean the understanding and incorporation of the knowledge that one's knowledge, no matter how developed, is woefully incomplete. Leaving behind the pride one may have of his own knowldege and adopting a more humble view of one's self?
Re: To shock or not to shock
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BigDave
"epistemologically modest"? Or do you mean the understanding and incorporation of the knowledge that one's knowledge, no matter how developed, is woefully incomplete.
Yes, that. It hadn't occurred to me that it could be an insult, but I see that. But, I wouldn't use the word "woefully". Rather I would say the knowledge possible to us is sufficient, but the areas of certain knowledge are far less extensive, and far more pragmatically rooted, than any classical Western thinker would have admitted. And, I would say that the "woe" we feel is rooted not in need, but in arrogance.
It's a concept I've been working with, as I've tried think about what sort of knowledge is actually possible, if one recognizes the problems that led to "epistemological despair" (post-modernism), and acknowledges the "epistemological hubris" of the past, in both modernist and theological rationalism. Ironically, some of this was fleshed out, in my mind, over the past 2 years, as my younger son and I have worked with a group of teen Burundian boys, via Scouts and church. The struggle to communicate with them effectively, given their limited English and my absent Kirundi and Swahili. More than that, their conceptual poverty -- an idea I never encountered before I met it in individuals -- has reshaped, in very substantial ways, the manner in which I think about communication, and understand literature from the past.
The concept is related to CS Lewis' Mere Christianity, in both derivation and content, though what CS Lewis himself said about such things was usually only implicit.
Still, this is massively OT. I will probably be opening, after the 4th, a access-by-request-only section of the forum in which such things will not be OT.
