How Quats and Polyquat Algaecides work.

[PoolDoc]

I just reposted the information on this forum as I thought others might be wondering as I did, how these algaecides actually functioned.

Has anyone done testing to see if polyquat is ineffective against an algae bloom?
.
.
.

I have no wish to misinform anyone. Please delete this thread if you feel it does.

Some people do wonder about such things; I do, for one.

But, the PoolForum is not primarily about satisfying the curiousity of techno -geeks like you, or me. It's about helping ordinary, non-geeky pool owners ENJOY their pools.

That's why you won't see me recommending that someone 'test polyquats' against a bloom: chlorine is easier, cheaper, and more broadly effective. Now, if YOU decide to test it, I'd definitely like hear about your results. And, you can be sure that I'll start construction on a full blown pool lab, the first year I sell 100,000 kits. (Like that'll ever happen )

I'm endlessly curious about almost everything -- my interests range from the way meaning is transmitted via language, to the effect Robert E. Lee's command of Southern forces had on the War Between the States (as my Grandmother would call it), to why the barred owls in the Chickamauga Battlefield call in the spring (I recently found the answer to that one!), to possible practical solutions to the security and content problems that affect families, schools and churches using the Internet. But, none of those things belong here, and I try to keep them off.

I sometimes do write painfully long and detailed posts here, but usually what I'm trying to do is answer some question about technology that's being widely promoted in spite of being nearly useless for most pool owners. (eg. ozone!) The only way I know to do so is to explain, at length, and in detail, why ozone, or whatever, is usually useless.

It would be nice, in some ways, if the PoolForum could simply present the best way to do things, without constantly having to net all the 'red herrings' being constantly thrown into the pool by every sleazebag salesman. But, in the real world, fighting bad information is the necessary prelude to providing good information.

Fortunately, quats -- linear or poly -- aren't real money makers any more, so nobody's fighting too hard for their use. The linear quats are just diluted more and more, and sold in gallon jugs at a discount. So, it doesn't take much to convince people to 'just say no' to quats.

Bottom line: I don't mind your post, but it's not really that helpful to most readers. So, I'll move this thread to the "China Shop", where it can reside harmlessly!

Ben

[KurtV]

Ben, I think you may underestimate the appetite many of us "ordinary, non-geeky pool owners" have for this esoteric stuff. I think many of us want to understand the chemistry (and biology) on a little deeper level than "just keep adding bleach"; as sound and effective as that advice may be.

Keep the geeks (and their posts).

[haze_1956]

Ben

I don't have a problem with thread being moved to the China Shop, if you feel the information is not of value. However, do you feel the information I posted was inaccurate?

Because if the way polyquat functions, by rupturing the cell walls, is correct, it should be very effective against an existing bloom. A dose of poly to weaken the algae followed by high chlorine dose, would certainly shorten the time to eliminate it.

Just seems logical to me.

[duraleigh]

Way too frequently, threads like this show up that distract from the intent of the forum.....a fairly simple way to take care of your pool without throwing away a lot of money.

While it may be interesting to a VERY select few, it is not to the vast majority of people who come to the forum seeking advice. Rather, it seems more like the OP is seeking a platform for pontification.

Many of these posters are short lived on the forum. Given the argumentative nature of the OP's second post, The China Shop may not be his final destination.

[haze_1956]

Duraleigh,

I greatly resent the accusation I am being argumentative. I am ASKING to be given the correct information if what I posted was incorrect. I am lookiing to learn something, just as my intent of the thread was to teach something.

I suggested a logical method of clearing algae quicker, which I had never seen suggested on the forum and asked if it was viable.

I thought the point of this forum was to discuss ideas and inform people how to maintain their pool at minimal cost. I felt the suggestion qualified for that, and was wondering why it hadn't been discussed previously?

I would appreciate some discussion, as long it is about the topic and not any imagined motives on my part.

OK, I feel, better now !!

[PoolDoc]

I greatly resent the accusation I am being argumentative. I am ASKING to be given the correct information if what I posted was incorrect. I am lookiing to learn something, just as my intent of the thread was to teach something.

Dave's post, while true in general, goes much further than I would concerning your particular post, especially once it had been moved to the China Shop. If you want to discuss the theory of linear quat's mode of action, and someone else wants to discuss it with you . . . that's fine with me.

My original point, though, was that that sort of discussion is not interest to most folks here: they just want the algae dead, and don't really care whether it is hung, shot, or fried in the electric chair.

Regarding your question of whether quats *should* be effective, due to their mode of action, well, it's been several years since I read a journal article on quats, and I don't actually remember (from any authoritative source) how they work.

Right now, while I'm trying to get kits shipped, and server things done, and keep an eye on the forum, I really don't have time to go back and re-read some of the stuff in my files. After all, it's STILL true that quats don't mix well with chlorine, and don't work well, in the first place, until you put enough in to make the water foamy. So, I guess that's the bottom line for me.

Best wishes,

Ben
"PoolDoc"

[duraleigh]

Haze,

Yeah, I was out of line in assigning an agenda to your post. Please accept my apologies for my intemperate remarks.

I would like to think if the post had started in the China Shop, I wouldn't have said what I did.

I have read your other posts on different subjects and there is no "pontification" to be found. (I'm not even sure that's a valid word....perhaps I'm guilty myself )

There is a high percentage of people who post outside the China Shop that think "Cl" means your water is "clear". That's who I was thinking about.....nevertheless, my comments weren't appropriate to your post. I'm sorry.

[Lenny]

I don't understand the fuss over this thread.

It may not be of interest to everyone but, then, most threads aren't.

[haze_1956]

.
Thank you Dave, that was much appreciated.
.