new salt chlorinator system

[JimK]

(testing addition of signature)

[Watermom]

It's there!

[waterbear]

Ben, the 5% CAME from Chem geek! It has been proven to be effective in a vast majority of salt pools, possibly because of the super shocking that occurs in the cell. (In fact I am not familiar with one case where there were algae problems with someone following it and making sure that FC did not drop below that but,as we know, there are always exceptions to everything!) Also, remember that 5% is the MINIMUM FC level you should run.

[JimK]

Ben, the 5% CAME from Chem geek! It has been proven to be effective in a vast majority of salt pools, possibly because of the super shocking that occurs in the cell. (In fact I am not familiar with one case where there were algae problems with someone following it and making sure that FC did not drop below that but,as we know, there are always exceptions to everything!) Also, remember that 5% is the MINIMUM FC level you should run.

Interesting that this pool calculator, www.poolcalculator.com/ , recommends the same thing. If I type in a CYA level of 80, for SWCGs it recommends a minimum FC level of 4 (ie 5%).

Here's a snippet from that site;

...Many people find that a SWG will work with a slightly lower FC level than other forms of chlorine....

[waterbear]

The pool calculator was originally written by "JasonLion" over at TFP and it was at TFP where chem geek (Richard) basically came up with the 5% and we tested it out and it worked very well (back when I was a Mod over there) so it's no surprise that Jason incorporated Richard's guidelines into his pool calculator. We did a lot of experimentation and 'tweaking' in the early days of TFP. The pool calculator has since been sold to pSIFlow Technology Inc. and I am not sure if it is being updated anymore.

The active ingredient in the original Optimizer is/was sodium tetraborate pentahydrate (borax). It requred the addition of acid along with it to maintain the pH. If you have the pH neutral product that does not require acid addition to maintain pH then it is mostly boric acid with some borax (about 90% boric acid and 10% borax, pentahydrate form, by weight). 50 ppm is considered optimum for borate in a halogen (chlorine or bromine) pool, 30 ppm is the lowest effective level for algaestatic effect. 50 to 80 ppm is recommended for biguanide pools but there is a very small concern of possible toxicity at the higher levels. These levels go back to the original tests done by John Girvan of Proteam in his test pools in St. Augustine and Jacksonville, Florida in the early '80s before he sold his company to Haviland and went to work for them.

[PoolDoc]

Speaking of CH levels, the paperwork that came with my pool states that CH is necessary to keep the liner from becoming brittle. Is this true or BS?

I've several times talked to engineers at the companies that make the vinyl sheeting (not completed liners) and they tell me it is NOT true. In any case, if you did have loss of calcium chloride, it wouldn't make the vinyl brittle. PVC is naturally brittle, with or without calcium carbonate filler -- you have to add a plasticizer to make it flexible. Loss of plasticizer WILL make it brittle.

Interesting that this pool calculator, www.poolcalculator.com/ , recommends the same thing. If I type in a CYA level of 80, for SWCGs it recommends a minimum FC level of 4 (ie 5%).

As Waterbear notes, it's not exactly a coincidence.

50 to 80 ppm is recommended for biguanide pools but there is a very small concern of possible toxicity at the higher levels.

As best I can tell, the toxicity issue applies primarily to folks who have (a) male dogs who (b) drink a lot of pool water, and (c) have not been fixed, but are planned (d) for breeding. Significant borate ingestion can impair canine fertility and is possibly mutagenic. One of the other PF Support Team members does not use borates because she breeds German Shepherds and they do drink a lot of pool water.

[JimK]

The pool calculator was originally written by "JasonLion" over at TFP and it was at TFP where chem geek (Richard) basically came up with the 5% and we tested it out and it worked very well (back when I was a Mod over there) so it's no surprise that Jason incorporated Richard's guidelines into his pool calculator. We did a lot of experimentation and 'tweaking' in the early days of TFP. The pool calculator has since been sold to pSIFlow Technology Inc. and I am not sure if it is being updated anymore.

Thanks for the clarification.

The active ingredient in the original Optimizer is/was sodium tetraborate pentahydrate (borax). It requred the addition of acid along with it to maintain the pH.

Yes, this is what I use. I have to add acid as it does cause the PH to shoot up.

...50 ppm is considered optimum for borate in a halogen (chlorine or bromine) pool, 30 ppm is the lowest effective level for algaestatic effect. 50 to 80 ppm is recommended for biguanide pools but there is a very small concern of possible toxicity at the higher levels. These levels go back to the original tests done by John Girvan of Proteam in his test pools in St. Augustine and Jacksonville, Florida in the early '80s before he sold his company to Haviland and went to work for them...

So according to this information, my borate level of 50 is fine. Correct?

I've several times talked to engineers at the companies that make the vinyl sheeting (not completed liners) and they tell me it is NOT true. In any case, if you did have loss of calcium chloride, it wouldn't make the vinyl brittle. PVC is naturally brittle, with or without calcium carbonate filler -- you have to add a plasticizer to make it flexible. Loss of plasticizer WILL make it brittle.

I see. It has been quite some time since I purposely added calcium to the pool since the CH level always seems to be in the lower to mid 200s (last night I checked my records going back a few seasons to verify this). As was mentioned here, I guess the calcium is coming from the cal hypo I use to shock, and since it hasn't been continually increasing, I'm assuming that we get enough water exchanges via rain throughout the season to keep it in check. Also, I've never experienced any scaling on the SWCG cell.

You said the loss of plasticizer would cause the vinyl to become brittle. What causes a loss of plasticizer?

As best I can tell, the toxicity issue applies primarily to folks who have (a) male dogs who (b) drink a lot of pool water, and (c) have not been fixed, but are planned (d) for breeding. Significant borate ingestion can impair canine fertility and is possibly mutagenic. One of the other PF Support Team members does not use borates because she breeds German Shepherds and they do drink a lot of pool water.

That's not an issue here as we don't have any dogs. Besides, if we did have any, they would be fixed (I use to work at an animal shelter know all too well the consequences of too many dogs and cats and not enough good homes; it's absolutely heartbreaking......).

You mentioned you thought a borate level of 50 might not be enough. Could you elaborate and suggest a level that may be more appropriate for me?

Thanks everyone. I'm learning alot here and appreciate the feedback.

I do feel bad for hijacking this thread, so I'll at least try to share with the OP some of my experience with using a SWCG.

First of all, although this is the only pool I've ever owned and it has always had a SWCG so I cannot compare 1st hand to a traditionally chlorinated pool, my guess is that despite what manufacturers say there is really no cost savings in the long run (the units aren't cheap and replacement cells are expensive). I think in the end overall costs are similar.

Also, even though my SWCG has a "superchlorinate" feature (causes it to run at 100%) for shocking, I no longer use it. With my first/original cell, I did use this feature on a regular basis (per pool stores instructions) and my cell ended up failing within 4 years (it still had a little warranty left on it, so the replacement cost was reduced). I stopped using the superchlorinate feature once I got the new cell. It makes sense to me that the fewer hours I put on the cell, the longer it will last. So now when I want to shock, I turn the cell off and just use the traditional method (cal hypo in my case). Next month it will have been 4 years since I got the replacement cell and so far it's still working fine. Hopefully this means I will get more seasons out of this cell than the last one. Bottom line, I only use the SWCG to maintain FC levels.

The first few years of owning my pool, I had an issue with metal staining (each successive season it got worse and more frequent). At first it was just on the steps and I had to clean them a couple times a season with ascorbic acid (not a big deal). As time/seasons went by, the steps would stain more frequently and eventually the entire liner started showing staining (a big dose of ascorbic acid was required to get rid of all the stains: the process was a pain but it worked). The manager of the place who installed our pool said that this was a side effect of the SWCG; that the small amount of impurities (iron?) in the pool salt were building up and causing the staining. At that time after a bit a research I started using Jack's Magic Purple Stuff and have not experienced any staining since (a tip: ordering it online is much cheaper than buying it in the store, although it still cost me about $200 per season [May-October here]). Supposedly, it's also suppose to help protect the cell and help it last longer. I would like to hear from our experts here about this issue with SWCGs (if it really is the cause).

In another thread in which I was asking if CYA was necessary, I referenced an article I found that included that person's experience using a SWCG. He complained that the cell failed within a year and the manufacturer wouldn't honor the warranty. I found this puzzling since I've also experienced a couple problems while under warranty and had no trouble with the same manufacturer honoring it. It made me wonder if the reason his warranty claim was denied is because he didn't maintain the pool according to the manufacturer's instructions (he wasn't using any CYA). He also complained that the salt was corroding his stainless ladder. I also found this puzzling since I've never experienced this issue (our pool was installed in 2004 and has always used a SWCG since day one). I guess just make sure you don't keep too much salt in the pool (follow the manufacturer's guidelines).

For me, there are three primary advantages to having a SWCG;

1. Convenience. Maintaining constant FC levels is easy once you get everything balanced and going. I don't have to mess with handling and storing chlorine (except for the cal hypo I use to shock with).

2. The water feels better and is much less irritating to my skin and eyes (friends have also mentioned this about our pool). That said, perhaps you could get the same benefit in a traditionally chlorinated pool by adding salt to it (what do our experts here think?)?

3. We can go on vacation without worrying about maintaining FC levels.

I hope something in here helps the OP.