|
The Most Popular Video Right Now...
On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 18:45:41 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote: On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 17:06:45 -0500, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 16:46:48 -0500, wrote: I am starting to prefer the teflon paste. === Yes. I just finished a fairly complex plumbing job on the boat (new distribution manifold for 4 zones of A/C cooling water). It has more than 15 individual pipe joints and is driven by a 1 hp pool pump so there is lots of pressure and lots of opportunity for leaks. Knock on wood, everything worked fine with no leaks first time it was powered up. I've always used teflon tape previously but I've had my share of failed joints with that. The directions that come with the compression fittings I've bought or looked at said to use no tape or compound. === That's absolutely correct for compression fittings. My fittings were NPT (National Pipe Tapered Thread), a standard since 1864. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_pipe_thread |
The Most Popular Video Right Now...
On 2/24/2014 7:43 PM, KC wrote:
On 2/24/2014 6:05 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 2/24/2014 5:06 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 16:46:48 -0500, wrote: I am starting to prefer the teflon paste. === Yes. I just finished a fairly complex plumbing job on the boat (new distribution manifold for 4 zones of A/C cooling water). It has more than 15 individual pipe joints and is driven by a 1 hp pool pump so there is lots of pressure and lots of opportunity for leaks. Knock on wood, everything worked fine with no leaks first time it was powered up. I've always used teflon tape previously but I've had my share of failed joints with that. Teflon tape is tricky to use properly. It is often used in the high vacuum industry for all the feedthrough fittings that need to seal against a vacuum equivalent to 200 miles in space to atmospheric pressure. Too little tape, it leaks. To much it leaks. One secret is to wrap it in the direction of the thread, so when you are tightening the connection fitting, the tape is not being stretched back against itself. We couldn't use Teflon paste because it never completely cures and would outgas into the vacuum. So, is the end of the tape facing the direction of twist, or away from the direction of twist... I am confused. The end of the tape wrap will be *away* from the direction of twist to install the fitting. |
The Most Popular Video Right Now...
I was trying to imitate your cackling , Johnny.
|
The Most Popular Video Right Now...
On 2/24/14, 8:11 PM, True North wrote:
I was trying to imitate your cackling , Johnny. You mean the "hehehehehe" thingie he does? hehehehehe |
The Most Popular Video Right Now...
On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 17:11:16 -0800 (PST), True North wrote:
I was trying to imitate your cackling , Johnny. No explanation necessary, Don. I just figure you've got a sinus infection or a more severe plugged nose problem. |
The Most Popular Video Right Now...
|
The Most Popular Video Right Now...
|
The Most Popular Video Right Now...
On 2/24/2014 8:02 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/24/2014 7:43 PM, KC wrote: On 2/24/2014 6:05 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 2/24/2014 5:06 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 16:46:48 -0500, wrote: I am starting to prefer the teflon paste. === Yes. I just finished a fairly complex plumbing job on the boat (new distribution manifold for 4 zones of A/C cooling water). It has more than 15 individual pipe joints and is driven by a 1 hp pool pump so there is lots of pressure and lots of opportunity for leaks. Knock on wood, everything worked fine with no leaks first time it was powered up. I've always used teflon tape previously but I've had my share of failed joints with that. Teflon tape is tricky to use properly. It is often used in the high vacuum industry for all the feedthrough fittings that need to seal against a vacuum equivalent to 200 miles in space to atmospheric pressure. Too little tape, it leaks. To much it leaks. One secret is to wrap it in the direction of the thread, so when you are tightening the connection fitting, the tape is not being stretched back against itself. We couldn't use Teflon paste because it never completely cures and would outgas into the vacuum. So, is the end of the tape facing the direction of twist, or away from the direction of twist... I am confused. The end of the tape wrap will be *away* from the direction of twist to install the fitting. Good.. Cause that's the way I been doing it all my life:) |
The Most Popular Video Right Now...
|
The Most Popular Video Right Now...
On 2/24/2014 9:17 PM, KC wrote:
On 2/24/2014 8:31 PM, wrote: On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 18:32:00 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: Never liked the chlorine in pools. Are you saying it isn't used anymore? That's a step in the right direction! A salt water pool still uses chlorine, it just stays "mostly" in the generator vessel. I am amused when people complain about the chlorine tho, A properly balanced pool tests exactly the same as WSSC tap water. I have my routine down to the point that I spend about 10 minutes a week on the pool in the summer. Basically get the pH right, then I drop 2.5 tabs in the pool floater, the other half in the spa floater, shock the pool with a gallon and a half of liquid chlorine. In the winter you can cut that all by half or more. I used to run the cleaner 6 hours every day but now I just run it about once or twice a week. Because you are avoiding swings, you can run lower levels across the board than required in a regular system... Yup. What Gregg is doing is responding to what I'd call a weekly oscillation based on previous experience with three other conventional chlorine pools, especially if he needs to add a gallon or more of liquid chlorine every week. I realize that he's in Florida but during the summer we also have lots of sun and warm to hot temps up here. With the salt system I don't do anything other than have the water tested once a month at the pool store. Once, last year, they recommended adding about a quart of PH "plus" (or maybe it was "minus" .... I can't remember). Other than that it's basically maintenance free. As you mentioned, people who swim in it who are used to conventional chlorine systems almost always comment on how "silky smooth" the water feels. I wouldn't know. I think I went in the pool once last summer. It's mostly guests and grandkids that use it. Next house will not have a pool. |
The Most Popular Video Right Now...
|
The Most Popular Video Right Now...
On 2/24/2014 9:15 PM, KC wrote:
On 2/24/2014 8:42 PM, wrote: On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 19:41:56 -0500, KC wrote: It's awesome swimming in the salted water in our pool... It should be about 5 ppt salt, about the same as the bay, up in the North East spur past Baltimore (or the Potomac around Port Tobacco). Ok... I just poured in what the directions said and it was good... The computer in the chlorinatior took care of the percentages:) Gregg is wrong. I don't know what "ppt" is, but your pool and mine are not salt water. They have a relatively small amount of salt (about 3,000 parts per million or "ppm") that is used to generate chlorine. The bay he is talking about has more like 35,000 parts per million of salt. |
The Most Popular Video Right Now...
On 2/25/2014 1:34 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 21:19:11 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 2/24/2014 8:31 PM, wrote: On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 18:32:00 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: Never liked the chlorine in pools. Are you saying it isn't used anymore? That's a step in the right direction! A salt water pool still uses chlorine, it just stays "mostly" in the generator vessel. I am amused when people complain about the chlorine tho, A properly balanced pool tests exactly the same as WSSC tap water. I have my routine down to the point that I spend about 10 minutes a week on the pool in the summer. Basically get the pH right, then I drop 2.5 tabs in the pool floater, the other half in the spa floater, shock the pool with a gallon and a half of liquid chlorine. In the winter you can cut that all by half or more. I used to run the cleaner 6 hours every day but now I just run it about once or twice a week. I don't understand your comment, "A salt water pool still uses chlorine, it just stays "mostly" in the generator vessel". The chlorine generated by the cell resides in the pool water, not in the cell or "generator vessel" (whatever that is). We had a pitch at an inspector seminar from one of the engineers who designed one of the first listed salt to chlorine generators. The reaction of NaCl to free chlorine is very short lived and most of the chlorine is recombined very quickly after it leaves the actual generator element so very little circulates in the pool.. That is not really important since it has done the germ killing by then at a very high concentration of Cl. It's not a "salt water pool". The salt concentration is very low compared to that of sea water. You don't sense or taste "salt". The normal concentration of about 3,000 parts per million is well below the ability of the human taste or smell senses to detect. 5 PPT is plenty detectible. It is contact lens solution. That is what they recommend for a salt water pool here. Put 5 grams of salt in a liter of water and try it. (about a teaspoon) That is as much salt as you put in a gallon of water to cook pasta. Ocean water contains about 35,000 ppm of salt by comparison. The Gulf cruises around 38 PPT according to our monitors Also, a pool with salt system typically operates at a lower chlorine level overall than a conventional tablet or liquid chlorine system. See above. I doubt the water in the pool would even register on a chemical chlorine test. The routine that you do is eliminated. No more tablets or liquid shock that cause oscillations in the pool chemistry. The salt system is more like a closed loop proportional controller that keeps everything at a stable level, adjusting as required automatically (if you have the automated system) for heat, sunshine, use, evaporation, rain, etc. You are shocking the water every time it goes through the generator. I have a couple of neighbors with salt systems. About half are happy, one has tossed it and gone back because they could not keep the water clear without shocking the pool once a week. All of them still shock it now and then. I think a lot has to do with how hot the water is running. The one with the real problems cruises at 90 or more all year because she wants it hot. They have 10 solar collectors for a 10,000 gallon pool and she keeps if covered most of the year. I don't know where you got all your information but it's nonsense. I'd say bull****, but you're a nice guy. :-) The generated chlorine is in the pool water and registers in the pool sample tests indicated by free chlorine and total chlorine. I can "shock" the pool if necessary by enabling a timer setting on the controller to run the cell continuously for a pre-programed period of time (like 24 hours). If you do that after the pool has stabilized you can smell the chlorine by just walking by the pool. The chlorine smell isn't coming from the generator cell. :-) You like parts per trillion. The pool industry uses parts per million to express salt content. The salt content in the water in a salt system is maintained between 2,800 and about 3,600 parts per million (max). A human cannot detect or sense the presence of salt in the water below about 5,000 parts per million (your contact lens solution example). I have never tried cooking pasta in the pool. -) An automatic controller (like the one we have) will shut down the cell to prevent damage to it if the salt concentration is too high. Mine will shut off and display a "High Salt Level" error if the salt concentration gets above 3,800 parts per million. Check any of the pool companies that offer salt systems. *None* say that salt levels of 5,000 parts per million or above is needed. Excessive salt doesn't produce more chlorine, however there are different size cells that are recommended based on pool size and location. Our pool is heated and my wife likes the water warm. During the summer the pool temperature is often 86 degrees. The system automatically adjusts the amount of time the cell runs to maintain the proper chlorine level and will never require more than 2,800 to 3,400 parts per million of salt to operate. In fact, as I stated, if the salt concentration goes too high, it shuts the cell off. A high salt concentration causes too much current to flow through the cell and can damage it or the controller's power supply that runs it. If you know people who were dissatisfied because the pool water wasn't as clear with a salt system, that would be the first time I've ever heard that complaint. A salt system's water is typically clearer than a conventional tablet or liquid chlorine system. The generated chlorine is purer than any tablet or liquid and it's concentration is lower. Maybe the person or persons that reported that to you had other filter problems. My son had a pool installed by the same company at the same time we had our pool installed. At the time he lived one town away from me so climate conditions were the same. He went with a conventional tablet dispenser system. We went with the salt system, having had previous experience with conventional systems. Once both pools were up and running he was kicking himself for not going with the salt system. Our pool water was crystal clear compared to his that looked slightly cloudy by comparison. Usage wasn't the difference because all the grandkids used our pool more than his. He's the son that moved to SC a year and a half ago. He installed a pool at his new house and went with the salt system. Salt systems have a higher initial cost but long term are cheaper to operate. Pool companies make lots of money selling pool chemicals and chlorine. Salt is cheap. Here's a picture of what our pool water looks like during the day and at night with the lights on: Day: http://i802.photobucket.com/albums/yy303/Eisboch/pool1.jpg Night: http://i802.photobucket.com/albums/yy303/Eisboch/Poolinsummer.jpg |
The Most Popular Video Right Now...
On 2/25/2014 1:41 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 21:46:14 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 2/24/2014 8:42 PM, wrote: On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 19:41:56 -0500, KC wrote: It's awesome swimming in the salted water in our pool... It should be about 5 ppt salt, about the same as the bay, up in the North East spur past Baltimore (or the Potomac around Port Tobacco). Huh? Sea water is about 3.7 percent salt or 35,000 parts per million. The salt in a salt water system pool is in the 2,800 to 3,600 parts per million range. It's *not* salt water. They usually use parts per thousand when they talk about bays and oceans. Push that decimal place over 3 and we are on the same page. "ppt" is parts per trillion, not parts per thousand. |
The Most Popular Video Right Now...
On 2/25/2014 1:34 AM, wrote: We had a pitch at an inspector seminar from one of the engineers who designed one of the first listed salt to chlorine generators. The reaction of NaCl to free chlorine is very short lived and most of the chlorine is recombined very quickly after it leaves the actual generator element so very little circulates in the pool.. That is not really important since it has done the germ killing by then at a very high concentration of Cl. Gregg, think about what this guy claims. The cell is only about 10 inches long and the water flow going through it is very high. It doesn't spend anywhere near the time in the cell to kill off any germs. There's no way one pass through the cell can add enough chlorine to sanitize the water. The sanitation and germ killing takes place because the generated chlorine accumulates and resides in the pool water, not simply the cell. |
The Most Popular Video Right Now...
On 2/25/14, 6:40 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/25/2014 1:34 AM, wrote: Here's a picture of what our pool water looks like during the day and at night with the lights on: Day: http://i802.photobucket.com/albums/yy303/Eisboch/pool1.jpg Night: http://i802.photobucket.com/albums/yy303/Eisboch/Poolinsummer.jpg Here's a photo of what one of our many swimming pools looks like...complete with a special winter water heating device so our guests can enjoy themselves even when the outside temp is below freezing. Fresh, pure well water with no added chemicals, leaves cleaned out regularly, of course. http://tinyurl.com/kxmyka3 |
The Most Popular Video Right Now...
On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 06:42:08 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 2/25/2014 1:41 AM, wrote: On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 21:46:14 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 2/24/2014 8:42 PM, wrote: On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 19:41:56 -0500, KC wrote: It's awesome swimming in the salted water in our pool... It should be about 5 ppt salt, about the same as the bay, up in the North East spur past Baltimore (or the Potomac around Port Tobacco). Huh? Sea water is about 3.7 percent salt or 35,000 parts per million. The salt in a salt water system pool is in the 2,800 to 3,600 parts per million range. It's *not* salt water. They usually use parts per thousand when they talk about bays and oceans. Push that decimal place over 3 and we are on the same page. "ppt" is parts per trillion, not parts per thousand. Not the way Greg has been using it. I'm grinning because in many cases your numbers are pretty close, if you divide yours by a thousand or multiply Greg's by a thousand. However, you are right in that 'ppt' normally means 'parts per trillion', at least according to Wikipedia: "Commonly used are ppm (parts-per-million, 10–6), ppb (parts-per-billion, 10–9), ppt (parts-per-trillion, 10–12) and ppq (parts-per-quadrillion, 10-15)." I'll bet the 'parts per thousand' is something used locally down there in Florida - where folks are just a lot smarter than those of us up north. |
The Most Popular Video Right Now...
On 2/25/2014 8:05 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 06:42:08 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 2/25/2014 1:41 AM, wrote: On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 21:46:14 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 2/24/2014 8:42 PM, wrote: On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 19:41:56 -0500, KC wrote: It's awesome swimming in the salted water in our pool... It should be about 5 ppt salt, about the same as the bay, up in the North East spur past Baltimore (or the Potomac around Port Tobacco). Huh? Sea water is about 3.7 percent salt or 35,000 parts per million. The salt in a salt water system pool is in the 2,800 to 3,600 parts per million range. It's *not* salt water. They usually use parts per thousand when they talk about bays and oceans. Push that decimal place over 3 and we are on the same page. "ppt" is parts per trillion, not parts per thousand. Not the way Greg has been using it. I'm grinning because in many cases your numbers are pretty close, if you divide yours by a thousand or multiply Greg's by a thousand. However, you are right in that 'ppt' normally means 'parts per trillion', at least according to Wikipedia: "Commonly used are ppm (parts-per-million, 10–6), ppb (parts-per-billion, 10–9), ppt (parts-per-trillion, 10–12) and ppq (parts-per-quadrillion, 10-15)." I'll bet the 'parts per thousand' is something used locally down there in Florida - where folks are just a lot smarter than those of us up north. To make it even more confusing, parts per thousand is usually expressed as "parts per mil". |
The Most Popular Video Right Now...
On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 08:37:24 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 2/25/2014 8:05 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 06:42:08 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 2/25/2014 1:41 AM, wrote: On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 21:46:14 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 2/24/2014 8:42 PM, wrote: On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 19:41:56 -0500, KC wrote: It's awesome swimming in the salted water in our pool... It should be about 5 ppt salt, about the same as the bay, up in the North East spur past Baltimore (or the Potomac around Port Tobacco). Huh? Sea water is about 3.7 percent salt or 35,000 parts per million. The salt in a salt water system pool is in the 2,800 to 3,600 parts per million range. It's *not* salt water. They usually use parts per thousand when they talk about bays and oceans. Push that decimal place over 3 and we are on the same page. "ppt" is parts per trillion, not parts per thousand. Not the way Greg has been using it. I'm grinning because in many cases your numbers are pretty close, if you divide yours by a thousand or multiply Greg's by a thousand. However, you are right in that 'ppt' normally means 'parts per trillion', at least according to Wikipedia: "Commonly used are ppm (parts-per-million, 10–6), ppb (parts-per-billion, 10–9), ppt (parts-per-trillion, 10–12) and ppq (parts-per-quadrillion, 10-15)." I'll bet the 'parts per thousand' is something used locally down there in Florida - where folks are just a lot smarter than those of us up north. To make it even more confusing, parts per thousand is usually expressed as "parts per mil". If I'd just seen the "parts per mil", I'd be thinking 'parts per milliliter'. |
The Most Popular Video Right Now...
On 2/25/2014 10:00 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 08:37:24 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 2/25/2014 8:05 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 06:42:08 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 2/25/2014 1:41 AM, wrote: On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 21:46:14 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 2/24/2014 8:42 PM, wrote: On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 19:41:56 -0500, KC wrote: It's awesome swimming in the salted water in our pool... It should be about 5 ppt salt, about the same as the bay, up in the North East spur past Baltimore (or the Potomac around Port Tobacco). Huh? Sea water is about 3.7 percent salt or 35,000 parts per million. The salt in a salt water system pool is in the 2,800 to 3,600 parts per million range. It's *not* salt water. They usually use parts per thousand when they talk about bays and oceans. Push that decimal place over 3 and we are on the same page. "ppt" is parts per trillion, not parts per thousand. Not the way Greg has been using it. I'm grinning because in many cases your numbers are pretty close, if you divide yours by a thousand or multiply Greg's by a thousand. However, you are right in that 'ppt' normally means 'parts per trillion', at least according to Wikipedia: "Commonly used are ppm (parts-per-million, 10–6), ppb (parts-per-billion, 10–9), ppt (parts-per-trillion, 10–12) and ppq (parts-per-quadrillion, 10-15)." I'll bet the 'parts per thousand' is something used locally down there in Florida - where folks are just a lot smarter than those of us up north. To make it even more confusing, parts per thousand is usually expressed as "parts per mil". If I'd just seen the "parts per mil", I'd be thinking 'parts per milliliter'. Or ML |
The Most Popular Video Right Now...
On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 10:15:00 -0500, HanK wrote:
On 2/25/2014 10:00 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 08:37:24 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 2/25/2014 8:05 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 06:42:08 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 2/25/2014 1:41 AM, wrote: On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 21:46:14 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 2/24/2014 8:42 PM, wrote: On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 19:41:56 -0500, KC wrote: It's awesome swimming in the salted water in our pool... It should be about 5 ppt salt, about the same as the bay, up in the North East spur past Baltimore (or the Potomac around Port Tobacco). Huh? Sea water is about 3.7 percent salt or 35,000 parts per million. The salt in a salt water system pool is in the 2,800 to 3,600 parts per million range. It's *not* salt water. They usually use parts per thousand when they talk about bays and oceans. Push that decimal place over 3 and we are on the same page. "ppt" is parts per trillion, not parts per thousand. Not the way Greg has been using it. I'm grinning because in many cases your numbers are pretty close, if you divide yours by a thousand or multiply Greg's by a thousand. However, you are right in that 'ppt' normally means 'parts per trillion', at least according to Wikipedia: "Commonly used are ppm (parts-per-million, 10–6), ppb (parts-per-billion, 10–9), ppt (parts-per-trillion, 10–12) and ppq (parts-per-quadrillion, 10-15)." I'll bet the 'parts per thousand' is something used locally down there in Florida - where folks are just a lot smarter than those of us up north. To make it even more confusing, parts per thousand is usually expressed as "parts per mil". If I'd just seen the "parts per mil", I'd be thinking 'parts per milliliter'. Or ML Quit trying to confuse me. I just ordered one of these for my grandson who's on his way to becoming an Eagle Scout. It should happen in about two more years. http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/p...ducts_id/36596 I'd seen this one, but decided the cost was a bit high! http://www.henryrepeating.com/rifle-...agle-scout.cfm Maybe I can get the side plate engraved. |
The Most Popular Video Right Now...
On 2/25/14, 10:43 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 10:15:00 -0500, HanK wrote: On 2/25/2014 10:00 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 08:37:24 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 2/25/2014 8:05 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 06:42:08 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 2/25/2014 1:41 AM, wrote: On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 21:46:14 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 2/24/2014 8:42 PM, wrote: On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 19:41:56 -0500, KC wrote: It's awesome swimming in the salted water in our pool... It should be about 5 ppt salt, about the same as the bay, up in the North East spur past Baltimore (or the Potomac around Port Tobacco). Huh? Sea water is about 3.7 percent salt or 35,000 parts per million. The salt in a salt water system pool is in the 2,800 to 3,600 parts per million range. It's *not* salt water. They usually use parts per thousand when they talk about bays and oceans. Push that decimal place over 3 and we are on the same page. "ppt" is parts per trillion, not parts per thousand. Not the way Greg has been using it. I'm grinning because in many cases your numbers are pretty close, if you divide yours by a thousand or multiply Greg's by a thousand. However, you are right in that 'ppt' normally means 'parts per trillion', at least according to Wikipedia: "Commonly used are ppm (parts-per-million, 10–6), ppb (parts-per-billion, 10–9), ppt (parts-per-trillion, 10–12) and ppq (parts-per-quadrillion, 10-15)." I'll bet the 'parts per thousand' is something used locally down there in Florida - where folks are just a lot smarter than those of us up north. To make it even more confusing, parts per thousand is usually expressed as "parts per mil". If I'd just seen the "parts per mil", I'd be thinking 'parts per milliliter'. Or ML Quit trying to confuse me. I just ordered one of these for my grandson who's on his way to becoming an Eagle Scout. It should happen in about two more years. http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/p...ducts_id/36596 I'd seen this one, but decided the cost was a bit high! http://www.henryrepeating.com/rifle-...agle-scout.cfm Maybe I can get the side plate engraved. Maybe you should reconsider and buy him some books. |
The Most Popular Video Right Now...
On 2/25/2014 10:47 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 2/25/14, 10:43 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 10:15:00 -0500, HanK wrote: On 2/25/2014 10:00 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 08:37:24 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 2/25/2014 8:05 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 06:42:08 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 2/25/2014 1:41 AM, wrote: On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 21:46:14 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 2/24/2014 8:42 PM, wrote: On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 19:41:56 -0500, KC wrote: It's awesome swimming in the salted water in our pool... It should be about 5 ppt salt, about the same as the bay, up in the North East spur past Baltimore (or the Potomac around Port Tobacco). Huh? Sea water is about 3.7 percent salt or 35,000 parts per million. The salt in a salt water system pool is in the 2,800 to 3,600 parts per million range. It's *not* salt water. They usually use parts per thousand when they talk about bays and oceans. Push that decimal place over 3 and we are on the same page. "ppt" is parts per trillion, not parts per thousand. Not the way Greg has been using it. I'm grinning because in many cases your numbers are pretty close, if you divide yours by a thousand or multiply Greg's by a thousand. However, you are right in that 'ppt' normally means 'parts per trillion', at least according to Wikipedia: "Commonly used are ppm (parts-per-million, 10–6), ppb (parts-per-billion, 10–9), ppt (parts-per-trillion, 10–12) and ppq (parts-per-quadrillion, 10-15)." I'll bet the 'parts per thousand' is something used locally down there in Florida - where folks are just a lot smarter than those of us up north. To make it even more confusing, parts per thousand is usually expressed as "parts per mil". If I'd just seen the "parts per mil", I'd be thinking 'parts per milliliter'. Or ML Quit trying to confuse me. I just ordered one of these for my grandson who's on his way to becoming an Eagle Scout. It should happen in about two more years. http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/p...ducts_id/36596 I'd seen this one, but decided the cost was a bit high! http://www.henryrepeating.com/rifle-...agle-scout.cfm Maybe I can get the side plate engraved. Maybe you should reconsider and buy him some books. A lotta good they did you. |
The Most Popular Video Right Now...
On 2/25/2014 10:43 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 10:15:00 -0500, HanK wrote: On 2/25/2014 10:00 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 08:37:24 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 2/25/2014 8:05 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 06:42:08 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 2/25/2014 1:41 AM, wrote: On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 21:46:14 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 2/24/2014 8:42 PM, wrote: On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 19:41:56 -0500, KC wrote: It's awesome swimming in the salted water in our pool... It should be about 5 ppt salt, about the same as the bay, up in the North East spur past Baltimore (or the Potomac around Port Tobacco). Huh? Sea water is about 3.7 percent salt or 35,000 parts per million. The salt in a salt water system pool is in the 2,800 to 3,600 parts per million range. It's *not* salt water. They usually use parts per thousand when they talk about bays and oceans. Push that decimal place over 3 and we are on the same page. "ppt" is parts per trillion, not parts per thousand. Not the way Greg has been using it. I'm grinning because in many cases your numbers are pretty close, if you divide yours by a thousand or multiply Greg's by a thousand. However, you are right in that 'ppt' normally means 'parts per trillion', at least according to Wikipedia: "Commonly used are ppm (parts-per-million, 10–6), ppb (parts-per-billion, 10–9), ppt (parts-per-trillion, 10–12) and ppq (parts-per-quadrillion, 10-15)." I'll bet the 'parts per thousand' is something used locally down there in Florida - where folks are just a lot smarter than those of us up north. To make it even more confusing, parts per thousand is usually expressed as "parts per mil". If I'd just seen the "parts per mil", I'd be thinking 'parts per milliliter'. Or ML Quit trying to confuse me. I just ordered one of these for my grandson who's on his way to becoming an Eagle Scout. It should happen in about two more years. http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/p...ducts_id/36596 I'd seen this one, but decided the cost was a bit high! http://www.henryrepeating.com/rifle-...agle-scout.cfm Maybe I can get the side plate engraved. Hey, if you got it a grand isn't too far out of line for becoming an Eagle Scout.. |
The Most Popular Video Right Now...
On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 10:47:34 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 2/25/14, 10:43 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 10:15:00 -0500, HanK wrote: On 2/25/2014 10:00 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 08:37:24 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 2/25/2014 8:05 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 06:42:08 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 2/25/2014 1:41 AM, wrote: On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 21:46:14 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 2/24/2014 8:42 PM, wrote: On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 19:41:56 -0500, KC wrote: It's awesome swimming in the salted water in our pool... It should be about 5 ppt salt, about the same as the bay, up in the North East spur past Baltimore (or the Potomac around Port Tobacco). Huh? Sea water is about 3.7 percent salt or 35,000 parts per million. The salt in a salt water system pool is in the 2,800 to 3,600 parts per million range. It's *not* salt water. They usually use parts per thousand when they talk about bays and oceans. Push that decimal place over 3 and we are on the same page. "ppt" is parts per trillion, not parts per thousand. Not the way Greg has been using it. I'm grinning because in many cases your numbers are pretty close, if you divide yours by a thousand or multiply Greg's by a thousand. However, you are right in that 'ppt' normally means 'parts per trillion', at least according to Wikipedia: "Commonly used are ppm (parts-per-million, 10–6), ppb (parts-per-billion, 10–9), ppt (parts-per-trillion, 10–12) and ppq (parts-per-quadrillion, 10-15)." I'll bet the 'parts per thousand' is something used locally down there in Florida - where folks are just a lot smarter than those of us up north. To make it even more confusing, parts per thousand is usually expressed as "parts per mil". If I'd just seen the "parts per mil", I'd be thinking 'parts per milliliter'. Or ML Quit trying to confuse me. I just ordered one of these for my grandson who's on his way to becoming an Eagle Scout. It should happen in about two more years. http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/p...ducts_id/36596 I'd seen this one, but decided the cost was a bit high! http://www.henryrepeating.com/rifle-...agle-scout.cfm Maybe I can get the side plate engraved. Maybe you should reconsider and buy him some books. I'll be doing that also. I can't afford to pay for college for all the grandkids, but I might could buy their books for them. A laptop has made a nice graduation present for nieces and nephews who've gone to college. The last one got a Mac. Don't remember which one. We put it in a 'Refurbished HP' box. She was blown away when she opened the HP box only to find a Mac box. So, your snarky little comment got a nice reply, eh? |
The Most Popular Video Right Now...
Since when did you start worrying about the cost of a gun?
If the Eagle Scout one wasn't a tad gaudy, I'd say go for it. The kid would have it forever and maybe pass on down to your great grandchildren. |
The Most Popular Video Right Now...
|
The Most Popular Video Right Now...
|
The Most Popular Video Right Now...
On 2/25/2014 12:36 PM, True North wrote:
Since when did you start worrying about the cost of a gun? If the Eagle Scout one wasn't a tad gaudy, I'd say go for it. The kid would have it forever and maybe pass on down to your great grandchildren. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Got any pictures of your guns that you'd like to share? |
The Most Popular Video Right Now...
On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 12:31:47 -0500, wrote:
On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 08:05:30 -0500, Poco Loco wrote: I'll bet the 'parts per thousand' is something used locally down there in Florida - where folks are just a lot smarter than those of us up north. It is the standard in every water quality monitoring organization I have ever seen. This is your neck of the woods http://www.chesapeakebay.net/maps/ma...ll_1985_200 6 There is a push to go to PSU which is just the electrical conductivity of the water but that is mostly because it is easier to measure with a meter and people like meters, whether they are right or not. There is something about looking at a numeric display that implies confidence, even if it just comes from a random number generator. HEY! We're gettin' smarter up here! Yay. |
The Most Popular Video Right Now...
On 2/25/2014 12:48 PM, KC wrote:
On 2/25/2014 12:44 PM, HanK wrote: On 2/25/2014 12:10 PM, wrote: On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 06:40:27 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: You are shocking the water every time it goes through the generator. I have a couple of neighbors with salt systems. About half are happy, one has tossed it and gone back because they could not keep the water clear without shocking the pool once a week. All of them still shock it now and then. I think a lot has to do with how hot the water is running. The one with the real problems cruises at 90 or more all year because she wants it hot. They have 10 solar collectors for a 10,000 gallon pool and she keeps if covered most of the year. I don't know where you got all your information but it's nonsense. I'd say bull****, but you're a nice guy. :-) The generated chlorine is in the pool water and registers in the pool sample tests indicated by free chlorine and total chlorine. I can "shock" the pool if necessary by enabling a timer setting on the controller to run the cell continuously for a pre-programed period of time (like 24 hours). If you do that after the pool has stabilized you can smell the chlorine by just walking by the pool. The chlorine smell isn't coming from the generator cell. :-) I just know what the guy told us. Have you even seen one of those cells run in a clear glass vessel? He had one at the seminar. When it runs there is a chlorine foam that turns the water greenish milky white and by the time it gets to the end of the vessel, most of that chlorine is gone, put back into the salt compound. Maybe the guy who invented it does not understand how it works. I don't really know. Granted most of the thrust of his pitch was the convoluted process he had to go through to get the U/L listing. If the chlorine concentration ends up being as strong as it is in a regular pool (3 ppm or so), a lot of the sales pitch goes out the window. You like parts per trillion. The pool industry uses parts per million to express salt content. The salt content in the water in a salt system is maintained between 2,800 and about 3,600 parts per million (max). A human cannot detect or sense the presence of salt in the water below about 5,000 parts per million (your contact lens solution example). I have never tried cooking pasta in the pool. -) Parts per THOUSAND not trillion. Don't go all Harry on me here. I also want to know how they test down to that precision without using lab grade equipment. It certainly isn't going to be one of those aquarium testers. If you can't taste a teaspoon of salt in 2 liters of water, you eat too much salt. If you know people who were dissatisfied because the pool water wasn't as clear with a salt system, that would be the first time I've ever heard that complaint. A salt system's water is typically clearer than a conventional tablet or liquid chlorine system. The generated chlorine is purer than any tablet or liquid and it's concentration is lower. Maybe the person or persons that reported that to you had other filter problems. I just know they had a pool company guy there almost every day, all last summer. The last I heard they were going to get their money back on the salt system and go back to regular chlorine. Next time I see them I will ask what happened. Salt sanitation is great. keep the salt concentration between 3000 and 3600 PPM and adjust chlorine levels between 2 and 5 PPM. Keep PH between 7.4 and 7.6 PPM and you're good to go. Stabilizer at 50 PPM helps keep the other indicators from bouncing. There's a couple other things to test for but they're minor. Maybe the system couldn't keep up.... The heat and sun (iirc) take the chlorine back to a salt state, where it goes through the filter and gets converted back to chlorine. If the system isn't big enough, and the sun is direct all day, maybe they just didn't know what they were doing... You may have hit the nail on the head. Greg says he'll find out. |
The Most Popular Video Right Now...
On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 09:36:51 -0800 (PST), True North wrote:
Since when did you start worrying about the cost of a gun? If the Eagle Scout one wasn't a tad gaudy, I'd say go for it. The kid would have it forever and maybe pass on down to your great grandchildren. I really can't see the extra $800 to make the gun 'pretty'. It doesn't make the rifle a better rifle. I plan to get the receiver cover engraved, if possible. If nothing else, I could have a brass plate engraved and mounted on the stock. I agree with you that the Eagle Scout Golden Boy is a tad gaudy. The kid will still have it forever and pass it down as he desires. |
The Most Popular Video Right Now...
|
The Most Popular Video Right Now...
On 2/25/2014 12:14 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 07:00:07 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 2/25/2014 1:34 AM, wrote: We had a pitch at an inspector seminar from one of the engineers who designed one of the first listed salt to chlorine generators. The reaction of NaCl to free chlorine is very short lived and most of the chlorine is recombined very quickly after it leaves the actual generator element so very little circulates in the pool.. That is not really important since it has done the germ killing by then at a very high concentration of Cl. Gregg, think about what this guy claims. The cell is only about 10 inches long and the water flow going through it is very high. It doesn't spend anywhere near the time in the cell to kill off any germs. There's no way one pass through the cell can add enough chlorine to sanitize the water. The sanitation and germ killing takes place because the generated chlorine accumulates and resides in the pool water, not simply the cell. Have you ever looked at an ozone system? They clean the water in the cell too. BTW what does your water test at in the pool? Not sure what you are asking. Test for what? I know it reports free available chlorine and total chlorine as two of the test report items. |
The Most Popular Video Right Now...
On 2/25/14, 1:29 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/25/2014 12:14 PM, wrote: On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 07:00:07 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 2/25/2014 1:34 AM, wrote: We had a pitch at an inspector seminar from one of the engineers who designed one of the first listed salt to chlorine generators. The reaction of NaCl to free chlorine is very short lived and most of the chlorine is recombined very quickly after it leaves the actual generator element so very little circulates in the pool.. That is not really important since it has done the germ killing by then at a very high concentration of Cl. Gregg, think about what this guy claims. The cell is only about 10 inches long and the water flow going through it is very high. It doesn't spend anywhere near the time in the cell to kill off any germs. There's no way one pass through the cell can add enough chlorine to sanitize the water. The sanitation and germ killing takes place because the generated chlorine accumulates and resides in the pool water, not simply the cell. Have you ever looked at an ozone system? They clean the water in the cell too. BTW what does your water test at in the pool? Not sure what you are asking. Test for what? I know it reports free available chlorine and total chlorine as two of the test report items. What little I have read of this thread reinforces my long-held belief that owning a swimming pool requires more effort than it supplies fun. :) |
The Most Popular Video Right Now...
On 2/25/2014 1:32 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
What little I have read of this thread reinforces my long-held belief that owning a swimming pool requires more effort than it supplies fun. :) Naw, we are just debating how a pool gets chlorinated using a salt system. I am no pool expert but curiosity has prompted me to try to understand the process. That said, and having had three conventional pools (two in Florida and one up here) and one salt based system at our current pool the advantages of the salt system are crystal clear to me (pun intended). 1. Far less maintenance. Pretty much automatic. 2. Cheaper to operate. Salt is cheap. Pool chemicals aren't. 3. Clearer water. 4. Softer water. 5. No need to inventory or store dangerous chemicals. Only disadvantage is a higher initial cost. I should mention however that all salt systems are not the same. Some are manual systems and need more checking, adjustments and intervention. We opted for the fully automatic, microprocessor based system that senses and adjusts as requirements and demand dictate. At the beginning of the summer season the cell is operating approximately 55-60 percent of the time that the pool pump is on. By the middle of the season it has dropped to about 45 percent of the time and towards fall it is operating about 30-35 percent of the pump on time. |
The Most Popular Video Right Now...
On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 13:55:59 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 2/25/2014 1:32 PM, F*O*A*D wrote: What little I have read of this thread reinforces my long-held belief that owning a swimming pool requires more effort than it supplies fun. :) Naw, we are just debating how a pool gets chlorinated using a salt system. I am no pool expert but curiosity has prompted me to try to understand the process. That said, and having had three conventional pools (two in Florida and one up here) and one salt based system at our current pool the advantages of the salt system are crystal clear to me (pun intended). 1. Far less maintenance. Pretty much automatic. 2. Cheaper to operate. Salt is cheap. Pool chemicals aren't. 3. Clearer water. 4. Softer water. 5. No need to inventory or store dangerous chemicals. Only disadvantage is a higher initial cost. I should mention however that all salt systems are not the same. Some are manual systems and need more checking, adjustments and intervention. We opted for the fully automatic, microprocessor based system that senses and adjusts as requirements and demand dictate. At the beginning of the summer season the cell is operating approximately 55-60 percent of the time that the pool pump is on. By the middle of the season it has dropped to about 45 percent of the time and towards fall it is operating about 30-35 percent of the pump on time. A friend in North Carolina has a new pool - a year or two old. During a recent visit he said it was a 'salt water pool' although the salt was very mild. He bragged about how easy the maintenance was compared to other pools he'd had. He loved it. If I were ever to have a pool, which I'm not, I'd definitely be looking into that salt system. |
The Most Popular Video Right Now...
On 2/25/2014 1:55 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/25/2014 1:32 PM, F*O*A*D wrote: What little I have read of this thread reinforces my long-held belief that owning a swimming pool requires more effort than it supplies fun. :) Naw, we are just debating how a pool gets chlorinated using a salt system. I am no pool expert but curiosity has prompted me to try to understand the process. That said, and having had three conventional pools (two in Florida and one up here) and one salt based system at our current pool the advantages of the salt system are crystal clear to me (pun intended). 1. Far less maintenance. Pretty much automatic. 2. Cheaper to operate. Salt is cheap. Pool chemicals aren't. 3. Clearer water. 4. Softer water. 5. No need to inventory or store dangerous chemicals. Only disadvantage is a higher initial cost. I should mention however that all salt systems are not the same. Some are manual systems and need more checking, adjustments and intervention. We opted for the fully automatic, microprocessor based system that senses and adjusts as requirements and demand dictate. At the beginning of the summer season the cell is operating approximately 55-60 percent of the time that the pool pump is on. By the middle of the season it has dropped to about 45 percent of the time and towards fall it is operating about 30-35 percent of the pump on time. Like I said.. there have been dozens of pools tried in my neighborhood for 40 years... 99% fail because of the area and conditions. I am the only one with a pool on our street, and coincidentally the only one of three that has survived more than a year / I am the only one using a salt system.... |
The Most Popular Video Right Now...
On 2/25/2014 1:25 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/25/2014 12:10 PM, wrote: If the chlorine concentration ends up being as strong as it is in a regular pool (3 ppm or so), a lot of the sales pitch goes out the window. One of the advantages of a salt system is that the chlorine level required in the pool water is less than that of a conventional pool. What does all the sanitizing work is "available free chlorine ions" which is *all* the cell generates via electrolysis. Bulk chlorine in the form of tablets or liquid contains less free chlorine ions, so more of it must be used. Not only that but I think the constant levels instead of the wild swings in a manual system, allow for a lower level across the board to maintain instead of chasing a half day or so of too low levels.... |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:47 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com