Cyanurics ~

[Heavyhook]

Cyanurics ~
Benefactor or bomb? I have been reading advice in the forum since I purchased a new home in April this year. It has a 12600 gallon above ground never ending head ache. Anway I wanted to post a link to a web page that I ran across a while back concerning the correct amount of CYA to be used in a pool. This is written by Kent Williams, Executive Director of the Professional Pool Operators of America. Here he presents very good data that backs up what is being preached in this forum concerning the correct amounts of CYA to be used and the effects of using to much. I hope everyone finds this as helpful as I have. I would love to read any comments the veterans in this Forum have concerning Mr. Williams data and conclusions! The link is [ DELETED - Ben / PoolDoc ]

[PoolDoc]

OK, I'm gonna take this one. But, I've got to be careful, because my dislike for Kent Williams extends beyond what is completely reasonable.

(Reading over this, I realize that my dislike of Kent still shows through. I tried to prevent that, but I'm not going to rewrite it again. Just realize that -- although I think I got my facts right, I dislike the man, and couldn't keep that out of my post.)

First: A full answer to the question of cyanuric acid (stabilizer) and chlorine requires getting into the whole issue of the chemical relationships that exist among the various. Richard (Chem Geek) has gone further than anyone else . . . and MUCH further than Kent Williams . . . in understanding and explaining analytically what's going on. But, that answer is very complex, and while much of Richard's analysis is consistent with the practical conclusions I reached when I published my "Best Guess" chart, and consistent with the experiences of (now) thousands of pool owners, it still has never been verified experimentally in a formal, repeatable sort of way.

If that's REALLY the sort of discussion you're interested, Richard can (and probably will) take it up with you, but we first need to move this thread into the China Shop.

Second: Kent is not a disinterested pool observer with nothing to sell, and the PPOA is not an 'independent' association. Rather, he is very aggressively -- but somewhat deceptively in my opinion -- selling his consulting services and the PPOA, which he entirely owns and controls. This is the issue that lies behind my dislike of Kent: I was deceived by him, and thought that the PPOA was independent, and that he was just its representative, rather than its owner and proprietor. He didn't even attempt to correct this misunderstanding, even in the personal contact we had years ago.

Third: The "Benefactor or Bomb" chart is old data, more than 10 years old. And though he knows of the work done here, and at Trouble Free Pools, and by Richard, since then, he hasn't changed anything to reflect that new information. There are reasons why he wouldn't want to do so that have to do with his past history with Strantrol and commercial pools, but again, that's China Shop stuff.

Richard has responded to virtually the same question you asked, and responded rather more generously than I would, suggesting that Kent's information applies more to commercial pools than residential ones. I'm not going to do that: Richard knows more about the chemical relationships among chlorinated cyanurates in pools than anyone I know . . . but I know a LOT more about operating large commercial pools than either Richard or Kent. The "Best Guess" guidelines to chlorination apply just as well to large commercial pools, as they do to residential pools. In fact, because of the way apartment and hotel pools tend to be operated, they would be MUCH safer if they were operated with high CYA / high chlorine per the Best Guess chart, then if they were operated per Kent's recommendations.

Finally: Kent, as an old Strantrol employee, is very pro-controller in his thinking. The problem is that using ORP (or "redox) measurements to control chlorine levels on outdoor pools is very problematic. The reasons are complex and technical. The presence of CYA makes these problems much more difficult to resolve. Strantrol -- years ago -- adopted the tactic of slamming CYA as a sales and product promotion tool, since their products don't work well on stabilized pools. Kent should disclose his connection to all this, but doesn't. The fact that he doesn't makes me pretty skeptical about the reliability of his "data".


Bottom line: if you want to run your pool well, operate it according to the Best Guess Chart, or according to Richard's more complex version at TFP. If you want to dig into the complexities of chlorinated cyanurate chemical equilibrium levels, and the relationship of these equilibrium levels to ORP or redox levels, to oxidation rates, and to sanitation, that's fine too. But we need to move this thread to the China Shop first.

Best wishes,

Ben / PoolDoc

zguidez

[waterbear]

Kent Williams paper keeps getting referenced on one forum or another by someone who thinks they have just found the "holy grail".
It has been discussed ad nauseum again and again (such as in this thread from 2006 from the Pool Forum archives that Ben answered) and the end result is that the info on here and TFP is referenced and posted and the as is the chemistry of chlorinated isocyanurates and the realities of ORP controllers with links to papers .

Actually I find the very last paragraph of his paper the most telling in its vagueness (emphasis and comments mine):
"This writer has, by the way, used cyanuric acid successfully
and with benefit in his own pool for years." (Yet he never states if his own pool uses ORP controllers or what the CYA level is--interesting ,no?)
"Trash or treasure, curse or blessing, yin or yang, it’s all in the context of
consequence! " (So does this mean it's good or bad or is he still sitting on the fence on the subject. As someone in Oz once said "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.")
"We just hope, if you’re using CYA, it is appropriate
for you and it works for you. Frankly, for many operators,
it’s not and it doesn’t." (Because of ORP controllers or orverstabilization?)

IMHO, this thread should just be locked. I don't think that there is anything more to add after what Ben had to say.

[Heavyhook]

As a Newbee I guess I just commited capital murder. When I referenced Mr.Williams piece it was because I found as a lay person the charts made it easier for me to understand CYA's relationship to chlorine usage. Its apparent from the responce that there is a vile history between Kent Williams and some members here. Of which I desire not to be a part of! I was not interested in the least reguarding his coments on ORP.
I thought his conclusions about using the lower amounts of CYA in a pool was in line with the thinking on this Forum and his charts seemed to back that up. That was the sole reason for my making the post!
As a new member I was only trying to share something I thought would be helpful. I never expected a fire storm of responces and the summary execution that it has brought.
Thanks for such a warm welcome to your site!

[Watermom]

Doug,
Please do not take offense. None of the comments are directed at you. You had no way to know that apparently this Kent guy isn't on the up and up. I don't think there is a "firestorm" of response to your original post and certainly, none of it is directed at your personally.

There is a lot of good information here on the forum and a lot of very knowledgeable people who are most willing to help pool owners. Hope you will stick around and be a part of our pool community. I personally, would like to welcome you to the forum! Happy to have you here!

[waterbear]

First, welcome to the forum!
The comments are most certainly not directed at you!
However, it is not that CYA is bad and that the smallest amount is good as the cyanurics paper suggests, that is far from the case and there are times when a higher CYA level IS desirable, such as with SWGs and in climates with strong sun such as AZ and FL. Also, gas chlorination warrants the use of higher CYA levels.
What is bad is the indiscriminate use of chlrorinated isocyanurates like trichlor and dichlor (particularly with cartridge and bump style DE filters) and NOT paying attention to the effect they have on the CYA which is all too common and encouraged by the manufacturers of teise products (like Chemtura , who own the Bioguard, Sun, Hydrotech, Omni, Guardex, and mass market AquaChem and PoolTime brands and take the corporate stance that CYA levels up to 200 ppm are not a problem!)

I think that many 'newbies' get the impression that CYA is bad. This is not true, proper use of CYA is the best think that has happened to chlorine sanitized pools in the past 50 years (which is about as long as CYA has been used in pools.) What is bad is ignoring and not understanding what CYA actually does in the pool. Knowledge is power and THAT is what the responses to your initial post are really all about and that this forum is all about.

Understand that there are a lot of people in the pool industry with self serving interests. This forum tries to avoid that and is the only one to my knowledge that does and I am active on several pool and spa forums and have moderated one other popular forum the past and asked to be a moderator on another one so I feel I do have some perspective on this.

Welcome to the forum and please try and understand where the responses came from. They were not directed at you!

[giroup01]

Let's not forget the TrueTex guy too!

[PoolDoc]

Hi "HeavyHook";

I'm sorry if we seemed to be attacking you -- I know all the people who responded, and I'm 99% certain that none of them intended to do so. I know I did not.

Since it seemed we were, I would ask you to consider how your post appeared to us.

First, you wrote, "I would love to read any comments the veterans in this Forum have concerning Mr. Williams data and conclusions!". That's pretty much what you got. The fact that several of us have reason, personal and otherwise, to consider Kent less than 100% candid or trustworthy is relevant. Because you were a new poster, it was reasonable for us to assume that you were considering following Kent's advice and guidelines. And since we know that doing so will cause you unnecessary pool problems, it was appropriate to caution you that Kent is not what he presents himself to be.


Second, and nothing against you is implied by this, those of us who are "veterans" of the forum have to keep in mind that our responses to YOU are read by dozens or even hundreds of others. In fact, if you search Google for "kent williams" and "cyanuric" and "acid", this very thread is the second result. [ Google search ] Most people wouldn't realize that -- no criticism implied or intended -- but it's something in the back of my mind all the time.

In other words, some of us realize that when we respond to you, we're also writing answers that all sorts of other people will read. And, we want people to know that Kent is not a trustworthy guide to home pool chemistry


Third, and this is again not something anyone expected you to know, the Pool Forum regularly encounters new posters who register for the unannounced purpose of promoting this product or that site or this other idea. Typically, such posters will began promoting their cause or product with their first or second post. Often this "promotion" is couched as a question. It's unfortunate, but your post fell into that pattern, and put us 'on guard'. If I had checked your registration, I would have seen that you were a Doughboy owner, and thus unlikely to be promoting Kent's work. But I didn't, and since signature lines don't appear for Temp subscribers, none of the other posters could have known that, either.

Obviously, whether continue participating here or not is up to you. But we really weren't attacking you, and our issues with Kent are primarily a matter of facts and not personalities.

Hope we see you again,

Ben

[Heavyhook]

Thanks everyone for clarifying what was going on with regards to Kent Williams. As stated before I was mearly trying to share some information I thought might be helpful. While searching the WWW I ran across his article , and thought the graphs that were included would be helpful to other as it has been to me in understanding how CYA and Chlorine work together(only to find out there is no science behind them).
One thing I guess I forgot is just because something is published on the net does not make it true! And To find out that someone has created a Persona with their own credentials by establishing the" POOL" origination, if it really exist. And naming them self president to give legitimacy to their cause is something I never expected.
I'm glad there are members here with the experience and knowledge to know the difference. I have only owned my pool since the end of May and have relayed on INTERNET sources in this short time, instead of pool stores to educate myself on its operation and care.
Unfortunately in a Capitalistic Society this happens all to often and is not limited to Pool service/supply company's. Auto Repair/Maintenance, Plumber's, construction contractors, insurance sales persons etc. are only a few examples. Its just another example of how uneducated consumers get taken advantage of. Everyone in these professions are not all self serving but enough bad apples exist to give entire parts of their respective industries a bad name. Many our chasing every dollar that can be taken from the unwary consumer.
I have enjoyed reading the Forum and appreciate your efforts to keep the shysters out, Thanks Doug

[chem geek]

I have a post on Pool Water Chemistry in The China Shop that has some graphs based on the chemistry determined back in 1974 when the chlorine/CYA relationship was definitively determined. However, the graphs on CYA's protection of chlorine from breakdown from sunlight make assumptions that we have since found to be incorrect. Namely these graphs do not take into account that there is an additional CYA protection effect by shielding lower depths from UV -- not just from binding to chlorine to make it more stable. Also, the graphs I made on chlorine breakdown in sunlight use Kent Williams' data for the presumed rates of breakdown of chlorine bound to CYA from UV in sunlight and those rates may be incorrect.

I also have a link to an ORP post that shows the fallacy of using ORP for absolute measurements. It can be OK to use for process control to maintain an FC level by using an ORP mV "setpoint", but that's about all. (Ben, if you could allow the "CODE" to work again in vBulletin, that will make some formatting work better -- also, if vBulletin allows for subscripting and superscripting, that would be helpful as well).

I wrote E-mails to Kent Williams at PPOA in 2004, 2006 and 2007 and never received any response. My comments with regard to Kent Williams' paper and commercial pools are limited to his suggestions regarding the importance of supplemental oxidation due to the high bather loads in such pools and have nothing to do with the chlorine/CYA chart which applies to the chlorine levels needed to prevent algae in ALL pools. The oxidation of bather waste, particularly urea, can be very slow if there is no exposure to UV or higher water temperatures (i.e. spas). So indoor pools and high bather load pools can benefit from supplemental oxidation not only to oxidize faster but also to help prevent disinfection by-products (DBPs) which virtually every scientific paper shows to be mostly proportional to bather load. Though one could raise active chlorine levels (either raising FC or lowering CYA to raise ORP) for faster oxidation as he proposes, one could increase DBPs by doing so.

Richard