I've tried to write a full response 4x now but I keep getting side-tracked. Sorry!

I'm going to try again, but rather than writing a response, I'm going to try to summarize the issues and state my view. If you disagree, and can prove me wrong, or justify an alternative position or conclusion, I would be grateful of you do so. I don't like being proved wrong, all that much, but I like it much better than BEING wrong!

Probably, each point could be its own thread; feel free to spin off a thread if that will avoid confusion.

OK. Issues.



0. (This is not really a conclusion; just a bit of information.) At PF, for every person who registers, there are more than 25 who just lurk! That's good! We could not answer 25x as many questions as we do.

So, some of my positions here, reflect the sense I always have of 25 lurkers with pools, who are reading over my shoulder.

1. At PF, I prefer the least accuracy and simplest explanation consistent with both truth and function. Chem_Geek and I have talked about this before: he prefers more accuracy. I have not always thought this way, to the degree I do now. But even when I was working on the testkits, my ORIGINAL goal was mostly to get pool owners out of pool stores, and I felt I needed a more accurate kit, in order to get pool owners to trust their results.

2. I do NOT want posts at PF that suggest that pool owners measure 32% muriatic acid, beyond 1/8th or 1/2 of a gallon jug. I've opened a thread on this in the Contributors' section. If you disagree, I welcome your input, but please take it there.

3. I decided a long time ago to prefer the "dose, test, dose, test . . ." (DT) approach to pool chemistry over the "test accurately, calculate, measure carefully, dose" (TCMD) approach that pool stores claim to use. The ONE exception to this is chlorine dosing, where pool owners often need enough (or a little more) RIGHT now.

One reason (among many) for my preference is that the TCMD approach can only work consistently if the TEST are accurate AND the CALCULATION is accurate AND the MEASURING is accurate AND the pool volume numer is accurate. In my experience, it's rare that all these coincide.

4. Given the 3 points above, and given my very considerable skepticism about Girvan's 'studies', I can't see any benefit to the elaborate 'official' program pushed by Proteam. Maybe there is one, but you'll have to explain it do me. I don't doubt that it works; I just don't have any reason to think it works better than a simple DT approach.

5. I don't like spas, and haven't for a long time. Basically, I think you can divide spas into 3 groups:
+ Spas with full-time trained attendants or with functioning ORP/pH controllers, calibrated daily, that trigger reliable bleach and acid feed pumps;
+ Spas attached to pools, that SHARE water and treatment with the pool; and
+ Heated cesspools. (I think this is by far the largest group!)

I'm open to the possibility that a spa with an attached high-output ozone feeder could represent a 3rd group of spas that ARE sanitary. Under those circumstances the LACK of a sanitizing residual would be good, since you wouldn't have to deal with the ozone equivalent of the spa with 200ppm Br. (Been there; somebody else did it; did see the saggy bathing suits!)

6. We have enough PF users with IG pools and attached spas, so that I've got to get over myself, and create space for spa answers that are good, or at least, as good as they can be. (I still don't see any way that, given how people are, there's anyway for non-automated, non-attended stand-alone spas to be anything but cesspools . . . or chemical fire-pits!

7. There is no way to maintain carbonate alkalinity in a spa IF pH levels are maintained in the 7.0 - 7.8 range. I discovered that 20+ years ago, after installing a bleach / acid feed system, and an ORP/pH controller on the Marriott in Atlanta. I balanced everything just so; turned on the feed system, adjusted it; turned on the controller and calibrated it . . . and then turned on the blower. 10 minutes later, my 120 ppm TA was below detection with the Lovibond tablets I was using then. Rebalance; repeat; same result. Do over, again. Fortunately, I had my Eureka! moment, before going for a 4th time.

8. Pools with attached spas, are pools with super-high-output aeration. If the spa is used regularly, CA cannot be maintained on those pools, either.

(I made a BIG mistake in my answer in the thread that triggered this: I assumed that, since the OP said his pH rise was related to his SWCG, it was. But, based on the info we have from him, it's just as likely it was from his spa aeration.)

9. If we're going to deal with spas, we need to make SURE we know which type the OP is talking about: (a) stand-alone, (b) shared equipment, but NOT shared water, (c) integrated. In most cases, only integrated spas can be consistently sanitary. And, we need to make sure that WE have made clear which type it is, so the lurkers will understand.

10. I need to write a "using borax" page that includes borax hazard info. Then, we need to reference that page in borax posts, partly as CYA, and partly so people who are frightened of chemical hazards will be able to trust us.

11. I think Chem_Geek settled it, but I'll state it: buffers cause water to resist pH change; they do not cause or push pH change themselves. In water systems that already have a drift, due to SWCG use, aeration, or trichlor use, different buffers will great different 'stop' points in the pH drift. Buffers (that I know about) in pools include carbonates, cyanurates, phosphates and borates. I don't think phosphates are deliberately used anymore, with the demise of "Perfect pH".

(I like the viscosity analogy much better; an alternate might be driving on concrete vs driving in loose sand, or something along that line. It might be possible to apply the spring analogy to the way CA 'disappears' when the pH drops, but 'reappears' when it goes up. But, that just popped into my head; I haven't considered it.)

12. . . . that's all I can think of, now.

[Gotta go -- will check for spelling & other errors when I get back]