Last night a neighbor was telling me about his sister's pool in Kentucky from where he and his wife had just returned. He said she went from spending tons of $$$$ on chemicals to spending very little (about what we spend with the BBB method) by use of something called a FlowTron, which is an ionizer, that can be bought for around $200. He said she uses that and a small amount of chlorine pucks (stabilized chlorine). She is absolutely sure her pool has never been better and she's saving so much money compared to before, she's thinking of starting to sell the ionizer.
The skeptic in me says (1) if it's too good to be true, it probably isn't; and (2) if it worked that well we'd be promoting this contraption along with the BBB method. I pointed out that the oodles of money she was spending before was unnecessary in the first instance, and so it may only seem that this FlowTron thing is doing all the work, when in actuality the chlorine's doing it. The neighbor is a defensive/know it all sort of guy (despite knowing nothing about pools) and got instantly mad at me and walked away. This is the same guy who, whenever the chance, says things to me like "Yeah, I hear all pools do is suck you dry" (but we can bet he doesn't say that to his sister). My response is always that it's like any type of recreational activity that people choose to pay for, such as scuba diving, owning a boat, caving across the country, stock car racing, and the list goes on and on.
Personality issues aside, can anyone contribute to this argument, one way or another? If the FlowTron thing works so well and brings chlorine usage way down, why don't we all have one?
Listen to your inner skeptic. She could take the ionizer off the pool, and find that the pool water doesn't change, as long as she maintains her chlorine. The chlorine is doing the work. If the ionizer actually made a difference in the water, why does it also require chlorine?
Last summer, just out of curiosity, I put an ionizer on my koi pond, which is next to my pool. What I ended up with, within a couple of days, was a nice, cloudy, algae-filled pond. Just practical evidence to confirm that the ionizer doesn't actually do anything to the water, except maybe add a bit of copper or silver, and I don't want either. It certainly doesn't do anything to keep the water clean.
Janet
John and Janet, thank you. Good first-hand knowledge, too, Janet!
I'm not at all surprised. This woman stopped using hundreds of dollars worth of chemicals every month and her water sparkled, and she simply attributed it to the ionizer. It's just one of those misattributed cause & effect things. When her CYA eventually builds up and her pool goes cloudy or she gets algae, she'll probably think the ionizer broke down.
While I probably won't point this out to the neighbor unless he brings it up again, the next time he tells me how all pools do is suck you dry, I'll ask him if the same concept applies to the hundreds of dollars he spends every month on cigarettes and beer. Maybe then the point will finally get across.
The ONLY gadget that TRULY lets you cut back on chlorine usage is a Salt Water Generator, because it makes chlorine by breaking down salt (Sodium Chloride) into its components: sodium and chlorine.
Everything else is pretty much a scam.
Carl
Just the other day a customer of mine (I'm not in the pool business) and I were talking about his pool and he told me he's used a flowtron ionizer for several years and he loves it. He didn't mention using any chlorine at all but I had to cut the conversation short. I told him I'd be back to learn more about it, just because I like to learn more about pools. I'll certainly pin him down about whether he uses chlorine as a supplement. He said he uses the flowtron 3 days in and 1 day out, though I'm not sure why.
Hal
20x40 IG gunite free form, approx. 27K gal, 60sq DE filter, Jandy Stealth 2hp 2speed pump, Polaris 380, SWCG
Bookmarks