Thinking about bleach...

[trainwrecked]

Hello all. I recently took a 25k gallon pool under my wing. Things have been pleasant so far, no algae, water stays clear, no CC's that I can detect with Taylor 1005 kit. But, my CYA is at 60. I was doing a little research, which brought me here and to the best guess chart, which tells me I should be keeping my CL around 4-8 instead of the 1-2 where I've been keeping it. I'm using stabilized tablets, and now I understand that continued use will drive my CYA higher. However, I really enjoy the convenience of loading the feeder once a week.

So here's my question, if I switch to bleach, how often will I need to add it? I know this can vary, but I'm wondering what addition schedule people are typically following? The other option I have is to change enough water to keep my CYA down and keep using the tabs. Trying to figure the most cost effective/time effective approach.

Here are my current parameters (I know, should have gotten the K2006, it's on the shopping list):
FC / TC - 2
CYA - 60
ALK - 85 (adding about 3 pounds bicarb/week)
pH - 7.5
CH - 400 (I haven't added any, started out with this number)

It's a 25k gallon vinyl liner pool. Pump runs 24/7, Hayward sand filter and Hayward chlorinator currently using trichlor tabs.

I welcome any and all suggestions, thanks!!

[Tom007]

I add some bleach every evening, about sun set. You save a little money if you add it at night, since it has all night to work before the sun hits it the next day and starts reducing it.

I have CYA at 50, and have also thought about draining and replacing some water so I can start using the tablets again. Water is cheap where I live, plus I could just fill it with rain water over the winter when evaporation is low. I am thinking about running the roof downspout into the pool to do this.

[PoolDoc]

The higher your CYA level, the less often you need to add chlorine.

For example, if you dose to 8 ppm, it will probably be 2 - 3 days before it drops to 4 ppm, and you need to add more.

At higher CYA levels, you can dose weekly.

Welcome to the forum.

[trainwrecked]

Thanks Ben, after a few days, I am seeing that trend. I was concerned about how much bleach and how often, but it seems like a jug will last 5-7 days, which is not bad at all. My pool was clear before, but I dare say that it seems to sparkle more now that I've got the Cl up where it needs to be.

Unfortunately, I was a sucker at the pool store the first day out and bought everything... to the tune of $650. Oh well, I feel bad for the people who are not fortunate enough to figure out the chemistry on their own and who keep relying on the pool shop (who would have had me keeping my Cl too low, shocking 2x a week, adding algaecide, etc...). They actually laughed at me when I bought the test kit, they said all I should test at home was Cl and thought it was cute that I wanted to test the rest on my own, and said I would still need to bring them my water weekly.

[PoolDoc]

Unfortunately, I was a sucker at the pool store the first day out and bought everything... to the tune of $650.

They actually laughed at me when I bought the test kit, they said all I should test at home was Cl and thought it was cute that I wanted to test the rest on my own, and said I would still need to bring them my water weekly.

Wow. Just wow.

$650 for startup chemicals on a 27K gallon pool is some impressive gouging. Sorry you were the victim!

[Watermom]

No kidding, wow!!! Sorry that happened to you. Never again, though, huh?

[trainwrecked]

Never again is right!

I ordered the K-1515-A (just the FAS-DPD test) since I have everything else I need in my K-1005. I've been shooting for 6ish on the chlorine, I would like to go higher but will wait until I can get an accurate reading.


I have to say, I find all this cyanuric acid / chlorine info very disconcerting. I can't understand why there seems to be such a disconnect between the science and the regulations. Thanks for keeping this site going and keeping us informed!

[PoolDoc]

I can't understand why there seems to be such a disconnect between the science and the regulations.

Obviously, you haven't had much close-at-hand experience with government regulations, before.

Back when I serviced 20+ large (100,000+ gal) pools each summer, and hauled 300 gallon tanks of bleach around, I encountered a situation where I could choose to violate EPA regulations, OR, I could violated DOT regulations. But, the only way to avoid violating one or the other, was to stay home!

Currently, in Tennessee, certain classes of large pools are required -- by enforced health code -- to post "No Lifeguard on Duty" signs on, or near, their lifeguard stands.

And, for a truly massive example consider our current "global warming" discussion. I'm old enough to remember things that happened before a lot of folks here were born, so this time line won't be familiar to many, but here's a rough outline:

1970's -- global cooling, caused by nuclear testing, was going to kill us all. (Even some teenagers have seen movies from the 1990's and 2000's that exploited this trope.)
1980's -- the 'discovery' of the mathematics of 'chaos' reveals that weather is a 'chaotic' and therefore intrinsically unpredictable phenomena. The popularized phrase, "the butterfly effect" referred to the idea that a butterfly landing in China could cause a drought in the USA. (Again, this showed up in movies; one with Ashton Kutcher mixed time travel with the "butterfly effect".)
1990's -- after a decade of disinterest in global cooling, global warming was 'discovered', and we were 'educated' in the fact that we'd soon be underwater. (Movies, again!)
2000's -- some of the actual SCIENCE of global warming began to leak out, revealing that the data was far from monolithic, and that -- in fact -- global warming appears to have ended in 1997, or there abouts. Simultaneously, we were told in the media that,

• when it got hot, it was global warming, AND
• when it got dry, it was global warming, AND
• when it got windy, it was global warming. BUT
• when it was cold, it was global warming, AND
• when it was wet, it was global warming, TOO.

My personal observation is that public policy and regulations are more often driven by academic fads than by hard science, but that those policies usually lag a decade or more behind the fads, so that by the time a regulation is in place, it's often already academically unfashionable.

There are many, many areas of regulation and policy where the disconnect between the facts and the policy is much worse than is the case with pools!

[trainwrecked]

We'll have to agree to disagree on global warming. I have read quite a bit (and participated in some) of the research and do not feel that there is ample evidence that the warming trend has stopped. I will agree that it has been sensationalized to the nth degree, and I am open to the possibility that the trend may be a cycle that will end before we all have to live on jetskis looking for mythical land masses. However, our wholesale disregard for the environment has gotten us into trouble in the past (love canal, Bhopal, itai itai disease, the list goes on...), and will continue to do so as long as we don't pay attention to what is going on. it is important for us to use our ingenuity to follow any indication of the effects of our actions here. I firmly believe that we will never wipe out life on earth, it is much more powerful than we are, but we do have the ability to make things very uncomfortable for ourselves.

Don't get me wrong, I firmly believe in the place of skepticism and think uncommon views are absolutely necessary for any scientific progress, so keep it up!


Now, back to pool stuff! I got a solar blanket today, I'll be interested to see how it affects my chlorine demand.

[PoolDoc]

Oh, I'd agree that the data showing g.w. has stopped is not the end of the discussion. Likewise, the extremely erratic history of climatological 'science' over the past 4 decades is not the final word.

My point was, these things should be part of the discussion, and are not. I think any reasonable analysis would lead to the conclusion that the burden lies upon climatologists to prove that they are not -- THIS TIME -- Chicken Little's nest mates.

(The sky is falling; the sky is falling. . . . No, the seas are rising; the seas are rising!)