How Quats and Polyquat Algaecides work.

[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.

[PoolDoc]

I don't understand the fuss over this thread.

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

It's always a judgement, as to how to moderate the PoolForum. In the end, it comes down to my judgement. I won't even begin to claim that the way I do it, or see it, is the BEST way.

But it's the nature of forums to drift off topic. And when that happens, their value is diminished their value, especially for newbies.

The original post had two features that caused me to move it.

First, it was theoretical, and didn't reflect a current problem, needing a solution. This time of year, it's nearly impossible to respond to all the immediate questions, and it's really not (in my opinion!) the right time of the year for speculative discussions.

Second, it addressed a chemical that is almost always a 'second-best' answer. In other words, there's almost never a pool situation where linear quats are are the best available tool. Consequently, I tend to view dicussions of how linear quats work, or how to optimize their use, as a bit of a waste of time. It's sort of like trying to figure out how to get good results sending a photo by fax, when email's available, and the photo can be sent instantly with no loss of resolution by email. There are ways to improve fax resolution . . . but why bother if you've got email?

The only time I can think of, where "linear quats" are the best answer to a pool question is on PHMB treated pools. But, if a pool's on PHMB, they've got worse problems than quats can solve.

Anyhow, for better or worse, that's the way I saw it.

[haze_1956]

.
Thank you Dave, that was much appreciated.
.