Ok people - I'm on my own - HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Gracy101]

JO - thanks for the heads up. However, my pool was started up by my builder on June 8 and they have been maintaining it until yesterday when they "turned it over to me." The pool guy had consistent trouble running a high ph but supposedly had it balanced by yesterday.

In taking care of some punch list items before "pool school," he utilized 2 jugs of muriatic acid to clean some stains from the plaster in various areas. Then he left and those were the numbers I was left to deal with.

[bradjo]

Hi Grace;
I was just concerned that you might neutralize to early. I'm glad you are ok.
Jo

[tundraSQ]

So what are your numbers tonight?

[Gracy101]

Tundra thanks for asking. My numbers as of 8 p.m. tonight are as follows:

FC 3.0
TC 3.0
Ph 7.2
Alk 120
Calc 350
CYA 50

this morning when I woke up I ran the numbers and came up with a higher chlorine and a zero CYA. I was confused after having added stabilizer per CarlDs instructions the night before. In researching on the forum I found a post from the 12th of June referring to a problem with the CH test and my Walmart kit specifically. Waterbear suggested a way around it and when I followed those instructions tonight, lo and behold I got a Calc reading of 350.

I think I'm ok, right?

[CarlD]

If your water is clear, you look pretty good. But with a CYA of 50, I suggest you maintain FC at the high end of the 3-6 ppm scale. If the CYA range is 30-50 and the FC matching range is 3-6, you probably want to match your CYA to the same side of the range.

But otherwise your numbers look good.

[tundraSQ]

I'm concerned that you say you had zero CYA this morning...yest 50 tonight?

[Gracy101]

I was concerned too. But in researching what could possibly be causing that result (ie tester error ) I came across a post from 6/12 on another part of the forum which was relevant. It seems the particular kit I'm using from Walmart, seems to have a problem with the hardness test. Waterbear posted an alternative way to conduct the test using the kit, sorry I'm not too well versed to explain the why of it. When I conducted that part of it following those instructions it came up 50.

I printed out those instructions so that I could conduct it again this morning to compare. I'm sure that it is a more realistic result, consistent with previous numbers.

[tundraSQ]

I was concerned too. But in researching what could possibly be causing that result (ie tester error ) I came across a post from 6/12 on another part of the forum which was relevant. It seems the particular kit I'm using from Walmart, seems to have a problem with the hardness test. Waterbear posted an alternative way to conduct the test using the kit, sorry I'm not too well versed to explain the why of it. When I conducted that part of it following those instructions it came up 50.

I printed out those instructions so that I could conduct it again this morning to compare. I'm sure that it is a more realistic result, consistent with previous numbers.

yes, but CYA is not a hardness test...i'm not concerned with your cal hardness numbers...i am concerned (test kit error) with your cya stabalizer level numbers...it really can't be 50 and 0 in the same day...or did I missread something?

[Gracy101]

BIG OOOPS! Didn't mean CYA of 0 I meant a calc or hardness reading of 0. The post I was using as reference referred to the hardness test. I mistyped the abbreviation in my post.

Good catch Tundra and thank you for having my back. I need to get a little used to all these names/abbreviations.