+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 25 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 13 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 241

Thread: ozinator experience

  1. #21
    chem geek is offline Lifetime Member Whibble Konker chem geek 4 stars chem geek 4 stars chem geek 4 stars chem geek 4 stars
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    California
    Age
    59
    Posts
    2,230

    Default Re: ozinator experience

    Even if the ozonator doesn't produce enough ozone to leave a residual, it will still kill free-floating algae that passes through it. Of course, this doesn't do any good for algae growing on walls that won't get circulated, but it could provide an incremental difference.

    An FC of 2 ppm with a CYA of 40 ppm is the minimum level for an SWCG pool (it's roughly an FC that is 5% of the CYA level for such pools) and will usually be enough to prevent green and black algae growth. So what you saw in the past was probably due more to your higher CYA level where the FC wasn't high enough so having incremental help to prevent algae growth was more noticeable.

    Of course having the appropriate FC level for the CYA level, be it an SWCG pool or a manually dosed pool, will be enough to prevent algae. Usually any other system such as an ozonator is going to cost more so you could look at it in the same vein as using a weekly Polyquat 60 algicide or using a phosphate remover. There are many different ways of preventing algae growth. Using chlorine alone is usually the least expensive.
    15.5'x32' rectangle 16K gal IG concrete pool; 12.5% chlorinating liquid by hand; Jandy CL340 cartridge filter; Pentair Intelliflo VF pump; 8hrs; Taylor K-2006 and TFTestkits TF-100; utility water; summer: automatic; winter: automatic; ; PF:7.5

  2. #22
    BigDave's Avatar
    BigDave is offline Lifetime Member Whizbang Spinner BigDave 3 stars BigDave 3 stars BigDave 3 stars
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,932

    Default Re: ozinator experience

    Thanks Richard,
    I see it the same way (I think).
    My problem with this is with the anecdotal evidence and measures that are so widely variable as to make comparative analysis impossible.
    Statistics can support almost anything you want if the sample is small and you know what you want to find.

    I applaud exploring the "Things Everyone Knows", even one pool at a time. The Empiricist in in me screams "Uncontrolled, Off-the-Cuff studies have no value".

    Sorry to be negative but for me there's just too many moving parts.

  3. #23
    PoolDoc's Avatar
    PoolDoc is offline Administrator Quark Inspector PoolDoc 5 stars PoolDoc 5 stars PoolDoc 5 stars PoolDoc 5 stars PoolDoc 5 stars PoolDoc 5 stars PoolDoc 5 stars
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    11,085

    Default Re: ozinator experience

    I, on the other hand, think there can be some value in imperfect analysis.

    Maybe it's because PoolSolutions and the 'BBB method' existed for 6 or 8 years BEFORE Richard got up to speed on pool chemistry and started pumping out 'perfect analysis! Of course, it wasn't 'called' that, till Carl called named it. But the ideas were there. And all of my analysis was imperfect and anecdotal.

    I recognize the problems you identify. But I think that, in reality, not so many advances in any field are based on perfect analysis. Rather somebody with some good intuition, a well-honed disregard for what every one knows, and often imperfect data collected in a sometimes random fashion works out a likely conclusion, and begins testing it.

    I was pretty sure that a lot of the 'BBB' ideas were right, because they'd worked -- according to anecdotal reports -- for many hundreds of people. And that was long before Richard laid down a careful analytical understanding of what was going on.

    Further, my experience is that what Richard does is very, very unusual among careful analysts. A dozen names pop in my head, of PhD researchers at Olin, Occidental, Monsanto, Akso Chemie, and others that I talked to over the years -- guys who were knowledgeable beyond my wildest dreams, and yet who couldn't see what was useful even in their own work. I'm convinced many of those guys could have studied ants for years, and yet never recognized an anthill!

    Without a doubt, the guys I learned the most USEFUL stuff from were very much 'seat-of-the-pants' chemist. One was a country chemist, Steve Driggers, who'd married in a family (the Mayo's) who'd gotten rich selling bleach and other chemicals to the Dalton chenielle mills, and later, the carpet mills. The other was the guy who started United Chemicals, Jock Hamilton. He loved talking about what he'd figured out, and I think I was one of the few people he ever met who was really, really interested in what he had to say. And he would mix in buckets of manure with the good stuff -- on purpose, I suspect. But I read between the lines and learned a LOT of practical pool chemistry from him.

    In fact, he understood at least some of the cl-cya "Best Guess" ideas long before I published them, and begin selling his bromide products -- deliberately as a means of providing a free halogen residual in 'over-stabilized' pools. Trying to puzzle out the basis for his bromide products was one of the efforts that triggered my realization of what was going on with cl-cya. (It totally pi$$ed him off, when I figured out a seat of the pants way to prove that bromide was a primary ingredient in most of his products. That was before it was on the label and before MSDS sheets!)

    Richard, as a careful analyst who can see the forest, seems to be the exception to the general pattern applying to careful analysis.

    So I think the value of an effort like "ozinator" is willing to make is that his work *may* raise some useful questions, and suggest some likely conclusions.. If it does careful analysis will be needed to validate those conclusions. But such analysis probably won't be where it begins.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    133

    Default Re: ozinator experience

    Quote Originally Posted by BigDave View Post
    Statistics can support almost anything you want if the sample is small and you know what you want to find.
    As in "there are lies, then come damn lies, and then there are statistic!"

    Yes, any data can be presented as a "statistic" or a "fact" but that's not helpful unless the point is to deceive. When I say statistical relevance I mean data that supports a conclusion that there is a difference, probably a T-Test with a p-value < 0.05 which basically means no more than 5% chance that the conclusion is wrong. That is not a trivial thing to achieve and I think you're right that the odds favor the experiment failing, but let's see what we get.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    133

    Default Re: ozinator experience

    Quote Originally Posted by chem geek View Post
    Even if the ozonator doesn't produce enough ozone to leave a residual, it will still kill free-floating algae that passes through it. Of course, this doesn't do any good for algae growing on walls that won't get circulated, but it could provide an incremental difference.

    An FC of 2 ppm with a CYA of 40 ppm is the minimum level for an SWCG pool (it's roughly an FC that is 5% of the CYA level for such pools) and will usually be enough to prevent green and black algae growth. So what you saw in the past was probably due more to your higher CYA level where the FC wasn't high enough so having incremental help to prevent algae growth was more noticeable.

    Of course having the appropriate FC level for the CYA level, be it an SWCG pool or a manually dosed pool, will be enough to prevent algae. Usually any other system such as an ozonator is going to cost more so you could look at it in the same vein as using a weekly Polyquat 60 algicide or using a phosphate remover. There are many different ways of preventing algae growth. Using chlorine alone is usually the least expensive.

    Thanks for having a look and chiming in!

    I think from what you just said and something BigDave said it’s all starting to come clear.

    The ozonator manufacture says this:

    “With proper installation, setup and steady bather use, we guarantee that our Ultrapure UV Ozone generator will give the following benefits within the first three to six months, or we will refund your purchase price:
    -Chlorine use decrease by at least 50% to maintain a 1.0 to 2.0ppm residual
    -
    -“

    For the 1st 6 years I had the pool I targeted a FC of 0.5- 1.0 so based on everything I read here I clearly do not use enough CL to keep the pool clean, there is no longer any question in my mind about that and I think that is the key to my experience with the ozonator.

    If the FC level is high enough to kill everything out in the pool then ozone at the pump couldn’t possibly be helpful. So, add an ozonator to a properly chlorinated pool and the outcome should be no change which I think is what others on this forum have found.

    In my case though, the pool is CLEARLY under chlorinated. With e CYA at 50-70 and the FC at 0.5 – 1.0 I’ve got the FC I should have?…. so there MUST be organics making their way to the pump and the ozone lying in wait for them. When the ozonator is on my pool stays sparking and clean, when it’s off it doesn’t be4caue I don’t have enough chlorine.

    Why don’t I just add more chlorine you might ask? Well, my wife Lana grew up in Europe near near the ocean and when I first said I’d like a pool she was horrified about the idea of swimming in a “chemical pond”. She spend some time on google and found a lot of stuff like this:

    http://swimming.about.com/od/allergy...ol_problem.htm

    that link chorine to lung problems. Meaning while it’s pretty safe to drink, it’s not so safe to breathe. The deal I made with Lana was to buy the ozonator assisted system and keep the chlorine low in the pool…and it seems to work but I’m looking forward to actual data.

  6. #26
    PoolDoc's Avatar
    PoolDoc is offline Administrator Quark Inspector PoolDoc 5 stars PoolDoc 5 stars PoolDoc 5 stars PoolDoc 5 stars PoolDoc 5 stars PoolDoc 5 stars PoolDoc 5 stars
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    11,085

    Default Re: ozinator experience

    I don't have time to get into a discussion of this, at least till after July 4th, but I'll give you some bottom line info:

    + There are real problems with air and water quality with INDOOR or COVERED pools.

    + I'm familiar with these problems, both as a 'pool guy' and as the father of an elite distance swimmer with chronic severe asthma and allergies. I personally gave him allergy shots for 5+ years.

    + Most of the medical studies are crap, because they didn't to the work to accurate quantify conditions in the pool.

    + The best analytical work I know of is what Ernest Blatchley of Purdue has been doing. Many of his studies are available for download as pre-pubs or private copies via his CV site at Purdue.edu.

    + Only in the last few years has WHO and other related entities begun to do any work on quantifying complex health risks in a manner that allows meaningful ranking and prioritization. But I can tell you personally that my family LOVES swimming in the ocean, but has received far more injuries in their lifetime ocean swimming of 200 hours or less of water time, compared to 5,000+ hours of pool time. (Both my sons were competitive swimmers; my wife taught water aerobics for 10 years.)

    The ocean risks were not pulmonary -- severe cuts, envenomation by stingrays and jellyfish, allergic reactions to bites, etc. -- but were not less severe or significant.

    + Ozone IS used in Europe to reduce halogenated organics in indoor pools -- again, the problem is non-existant on properly maintained OUTDOOR pool exposed to solar UV -- but to replicate those effects, you'd need a corona discharge ozonation system capable of generating DANGEROUS amounts of ozone (it really is much more toxic than chlorine gas!), and then installing a contact chamber, a deozonation state, and a re-chlorination stage.

    + Bottom line: since your pool is outdoors, you're trying to solve a problem that doesn't actually exist, using a system intrinsically incapable of achieving the goals (reduced DPBs) you've set for it. But that failure is almost certainly being masked by the effects of chlorine + solar UV.

    + But, that doesn't mean I'm not interested in the outcome of your ozone system use.

  7. #27
    PoolDoc's Avatar
    PoolDoc is offline Administrator Quark Inspector PoolDoc 5 stars PoolDoc 5 stars PoolDoc 5 stars PoolDoc 5 stars PoolDoc 5 stars PoolDoc 5 stars PoolDoc 5 stars
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    11,085

    Default Re: ozinator experience

    I should add, if you REALLY want to maximize water quality there are TWO steps that will make a big difference:

    1. get an oversized DE filter, and match it with a polyspeed pump running 24/7, and backwash frequently. When guests are present or during other high load periods, run the pump on high speed, and leave it there for 10 hours after the load ends.

    DE will remove reactants that other filters can not; backwashing will strip the collected contaminants from the circulation system.

    2. Do contaminant control. The halogenated organics that cause the effects your wife is concerned with are almost SOLELY the result of chlorine reacting with 'people goo': sweat, urine, feces, body oils, lotions, skin flakes, etc. Eliminate these and you eliminate DPB formation almost completely.

    I once solved a fitness center's pool air quality problems by persuading the facility director to (a) shorten kiddie swim classes from 75 minutes to 45 minutes and (b) mandate that participating parents agree to 'toilet' their children immediately before swimming 100% of the time!

  8. #28
    chem geek is offline Lifetime Member Whibble Konker chem geek 4 stars chem geek 4 stars chem geek 4 stars chem geek 4 stars
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    California
    Age
    59
    Posts
    2,230

    Default Re: ozinator experience

    When there is CYA in the water most of the chlorine is bound to it so the actual active chlorine level is very, very low. It's roughly the equivalent of only 0.1 ppm FC with no CYA. So forget about comparing this to commercial/public pools that have 1-2 ppm FC with no CYA since they have 10-20 times as much active chlorine in the pool. What we are talking about is even lower than the lowest level in DIN 19643 in Europe which is 0.3 to 0.6 ppm FC with no CYA when no ozone is used and 0.2 to 0.5 ppm FC with no CYA when ozone is used. Also, the bather load in residential pools is far, far lower than in commercial/public pools. As Ben noted, disinfection by-products come from bather load -- there are far, far fewer when there is lower bather load. Also, the lower active chlorine level due to the CYA in the water means that chlorine reaction with swimsuits, skin and hair is also far, far lower than in a pool not using CYA (unless the FC is kept extraordinarily low such as 0.1 ppm and that is not practical and simply not done).

    Now, if you really, really, really want to go lower than an active chlorine level of 0.1 ppm FC equivalent, then yes you can use supplemental systems to prevent algae growth. An ozonator is only one such system and is more expensive and as I pointed out doesn't do anything for algae growing on pool surfaces unless you use enough ozone to retain some residual in the water (and that can get very expensive to size an ozone system to that level). You could instead use Polyquat 60 algicide weekly or you could use a phosphate remover. Both will lower the FC level needed to prevent algae growth. There is no miracle here -- ozone can be looked at in the same vein as using an algicide or a phosphate remover.

    Now where ozone does have a unique advantage is when looking at high bather loads or for pools not exposed to sunlight. In those situations, supplemental oxidation is useful to handle the bather waste.
    15.5'x32' rectangle 16K gal IG concrete pool; 12.5% chlorinating liquid by hand; Jandy CL340 cartridge filter; Pentair Intelliflo VF pump; 8hrs; Taylor K-2006 and TFTestkits TF-100; utility water; summer: automatic; winter: automatic; ; PF:7.5

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    133

    Default Re: ozinator experience

    Don't get me wrong, I am in no way attacking CL as unsafe, just explaining the situation.

    My wife is absolutely the one in charge in our house and to her ALL chemicals are dangerous and need to be looked at.....and I suppose to some extent she's right. When she can smell a chemical I have some explaining to do....and she can smell most stuff if I even reach for the can much less open it and 8 years ago the ozonator system was the compromise that was struck.

    CYA or not, anything the goes into you lungs is going to react, it's only a question of when so that argument will get me no where.

    Same with trading CL for other algicides. I have used it 3-4 times over the years but when I do Lana orders the pool closed for a random number of days.

    CL reading over 4....pool closed

    CL reading over 2 is ok for a day or so if we're having people over...but normally 1 is what she wants to see because the instructions say 1-4 is ok, so 1 is ok.

    That's my world. Cost of maintaining the pool is not on the list really....I like to save money, but I like Lana happy more.

    I should re-state, I keep a solar cover on the pool, it's normally open less than 2 hours/day so I probably could drop the CYA a whole lot lower...except on people over days and then I guess I'd end up dumping in CL all day.

    ....no easy answer I guess.

  10. #30
    chem geek is offline Lifetime Member Whibble Konker chem geek 4 stars chem geek 4 stars chem geek 4 stars chem geek 4 stars
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    California
    Age
    59
    Posts
    2,230

    Default Re: ozinator experience

    So in your situation a phosphate remover would probably the another alternative to an ozonator because instead of adding a chemical it actually removes a chemical from the water (well, it does both). It adds lanthanum chloride and that precipitates lanthanum phosphate (and lanthanum carbonate) so it removes phosphate from the water when you clean/backwash the filter. Phosphates are an essential nutrient for algae growth so would let you use the lower chlorine level you desire and you'd even be able to have a higher CYA level so the active chlorine level could be even lower so she'd likely smell even less chlorine (and chloramines, except for monochloramine) than she does now.

    It's too bad she doesn't know chemistry well enough to understand that the FC level is really meaningless unless she were to drink a lot of pool water. In terms of the actual rate of reaction of chlorine with her swimsuit, skin and hair and the reaction rate creating any disinfection by-products, it's the active chlorine level that matters and that depends on the FC/CYA ratio. With CYA in the water, most of the chlorine is bound to it (over 95%) and it is NOT volatile so you aren't breathing any in and it does NOT absorb through the skin and it is NOT very reactive (roughly 1/150th the reactivity compared to unbound chlorine). It is the chlorine that is unbound that does all those things.

    So your wife would swim in another pool with 1 ppm FC with no CYA even though the active chlorine level is OVER 10 TIMES HIGHER. Indoor commercial/public pools often have 1-2 ppm FC with no CYA and they smell a LOT more than your pool, partly due to not having any CYA and partly due to the higher bather loads.
    15.5'x32' rectangle 16K gal IG concrete pool; 12.5% chlorinating liquid by hand; Jandy CL340 cartridge filter; Pentair Intelliflo VF pump; 8hrs; Taylor K-2006 and TFTestkits TF-100; utility water; summer: automatic; winter: automatic; ; PF:7.5

+ Reply to Thread

Similar Threads

  1. Borates Experience
    By BigDave in forum Pool Chemicals & Pool Water Problems
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 06-24-2011, 12:22 AM
  2. what is your experience with slats?
    By henningdalgaard in forum Pool Equipment & Operations
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-02-2011, 08:03 AM
  3. Does anyone have experience with the Trutest?
    By salinda in forum Testing and Adjusting Pool Water Chemistry
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 06-07-2007, 07:06 PM
  4. My first IGP building experience
    By ogrejelly in forum In-Ground Pool Construction and Repair
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-22-2007, 12:15 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts