On 2/24/2014 7:15 PM, HanK wrote:
On 2/24/2014 6:47 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/24/2014 6:32 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 2/24/14, 6:28 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/24/2014 5:54 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 2/24/14, 5:38 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 17:12:01 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 2/24/14, 5:00 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 16:18:14 -0500, KC
wrote:


Averted a disaster the other night... Went down stairs about 10 pm
to do
a load of laundry and noticed a seal had blown on the pressure
guage on
my water system in the basement and was pouring what must have
been a
gallon every couple minutes.. I must have found it less than ten
minutes
in and capped it off before my basement flooded.. it was just
one of
those things. If I had not done laundry that night, my house
would be
****ed right now...


I have been fighting a new Hayward filter for my spa. This thing
seems
to have some oversized 1.5" NPT hubs on it and you can't get a
regular
male adapter to seal.
I have cut the plumbing open and replaced it about 5 times so far.
Last time I went with schedule 80 pipe nipples with 1/4" cut off
the
end that I could run in a little farther than a regular fitting
with
a shoulder on it and that seems to be working.



You could always hire a competent plumber, but, of course, you
prefer
tinkering.

The problem is not the plumber, it is the material. If the
fittings do
not mate properly, no amount of skill would fix it. I suppose I could
have glued it up as a "pool plumber" actually advised but then you
are
****ed if you have to take it apart again. Instead of a dollar
fitting, you are buying a $250 filter housing.

BTW your regular plumber is not really a pool plumber anyway. They
really don't like screwing with them. Pool plumbers tend to be the
kid
at the pool store who got in the business because he likes the smell
of the glue.
The builder my wife worked for (Centex) had their own pool company
and
I was not impressed with the people working there.



Well, I will gladly plead ignorance about pools and pool maintenance.
Whenever we do a significant "home improvement" here, I always take
into
account how much work it will generate for regular maintenance.
That's why I don't have underground sprinklers. Everyone I see around
here who has such a system has frequent visits from the underground
sprinkler install/maintain companies. I think pools fall into the same
category...lots of maintenance.


I have no particular affection for having a pool but after having four
of them in different houses, I have to admit that technology has made
routine maintenance chores almost non-existent. Automatic chlorine
generators (using salt) and a microprocessor than monitors and
controls
it's operation has made the requirement for weekly chemical tests and
making constant adjustments obsolete. The pool we have takes some
cleanup when opened in the spring (because of our location) but
after it
is up and running, that's about all we have to do for the summer. We
have the water tested 2 or 3 times during the season just to be sure
everything is ok and it always is. We also invested in a "Shark" that
automatically scoots around the pool bottom and sides, picking up any
debris that may have fallen in and settled. I change the diatomaceous
earth filter media two or three times during the start-up, but again,
once the pool is clear and clean, it's good for pretty much the whole
season.

Not like the old chlorine pools we had before.



Oh, and I don't like to swim in pools, either. Or lakes. Or Chesapeake
Bay. The ocean is about it for me. I don't know why that is.

Never liked the chlorine in pools. Are you saying it isn't used anymore?
That's a step in the right direction!


Chlorine is still used but in most newer pools it is generated by
electrically disassociating salt. So, you don't add chlorine or
chlorine tablets. You add salt. Bags of it.

When running properly, you can't smell or detect any chlorine presence.
The system controls the required chlorination much more accurately than
by using tablets or liquid. Plus, for some reason I don't totally
understand, a chlorine by salt pool has a silky feel to the water.

I love the ocean as well but a properly operating pool is a lot more
sanitary.




Think water softener salt.

It's awesome swimming in the salted water in our pool...

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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'.

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

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.