I have a Dimension One Aurora spa, about 3 years old, and it uses a gizmo called a "Vision" cartridge that is said to put "minerals" in the water that makes the chlorine more effective so you can use less chlorine and still have clean safe water. I can't find much info other than that provided by Dimension One so I really don't have any way of knowing whether this thing actually does anything. The recommendation from the Dimension One people is to change it and the water every six months. I also change the filters every six months. But the Vision cartridges cost about $80 apiece and I'd like to know whether they're actually doing anything before I buy another. Does anyone have any knowledge of this other than what the maker and sellers claim in their ads? Any way to test for silver in the water (that seems to be the main implication, that silver ions are introduced by the cartridge and they act as a biocide)?
Dimension One Vision Cartridge worth the money?
- Thread starter johninsd
- Start date
- Jul 21, 2013
- 64,851
- Pool Size
- 35000
- Surface
- Plaster
- Chlorine
- Salt Water Generator
- SWG Type
- Pentair Intellichlor IC-60
If you maintain the proper chlorine levels there is not need to spend more on alternative sanitizers.
www.troublefreepool.com
Alternative sanitizers and "chemical free" pools--The Truth!
Pool owners frequently seek out "Chemical Free" alternatives to pool water sanitization. Many claims in favor of these systems and methods have been made (usually by the manufacturers of such systems) often without adequate scientific proof of their efficacy. Let's take a look at them and see...
www.troublefreepool.com
Well, here's some science from the WHO (World Health Organization) on it's use as a potable water purification method.
[/URL]
Here is some less tedious reading.
www.lenntech.com
Here is what Wikipedia has on the subject.
en.m.wikipedia.org
So, now that we have addressed the science, I will say that I swear by mineral purifiers, use them in my own spa, and recommend them to my customers. The cartridge used by D1 is a bit higher priced than other available products (spa frog, nature2) but lasts longer. Check out those other products for a comparison.
[/URL]
Here is some less tedious reading.
Copper-silver ionization as a disinfectant
description of water copper-silver ionization as a disinfectant
Copper-silver ionization - Wikipedia
Think I'll save the 80 bucks and see if it makes any difference going without the Vision cartridge.
- May 23, 2015
- 25,681
- Pool Size
- 16000
- Surface
- Plaster
- Chlorine
- Salt Water Generator
- SWG Type
- Pentair Intellichlor IC-60
Well, here's some science from the WHO (World Health Organization) on it's use as a potable water purification method.
[/URL]
Here is some less tedious reading.
Here is what Wikipedia has on the subject.Copper-silver ionization as a disinfectant
description of water copper-silver ionization as a disinfectant
So, now that we have addressed the science, I will say that I swear by mineral purifiers, use them in my own spa, and recommend them to my customers. The cartridge used by D1 is a bit higher priced than other available products (spa frog, nature2) but lasts longer. Check out those other products for a comparison.Copper-silver ionization - Wikipedia
Sorry, but that does not really address the science.
Those are nice articles that explain some of the science behind what minerals can potentially do, but they do not address the fundamental question of whether or not the presence of minerals in recreational water (pools or spas) are effective enough to act as a proper sanitizer. The short answer is, they are not effective from a disease transmission standpoint. And, since we are talking about a hot tub here, person-to-person disease transmission is absolutely the most important aspect to discuss.
The EPA only allows mineral sanitizer in a hot tub when two conditions are met - the water temperature is above 100F AND there is a residual oxidizer present (typically MPS). The reasoning behind those conditions is due to the pathogen inactivation time. When those conditions are met, certain pathogens, such as legionella, have adequate inactivation times. When those conditions are not met, pathogens can survive and grow. Here are some links to threads written by @chem geek that details much of the actual science related to alternative sanitizers and their pathogen inactivation times. [EDIT]
The latest in chlorine and chemical free spa treatments
only in New Zealand, can people get away with selling this s**t, http://simplesilver.co.nz and the number thta have jumped on this bandwagon is unbelievable :hammer: we have a national swimming pool water quality standard - however lax authorites mean you can package any form of...
www.troublefreepool.com
Nature2 And Mps Non-chlorine Shock
I believe I finally found a scientific source that would explain the effective use of MPS in hot tubs for disinfection supporting the Nature2 claims and results regarding their "low chlorine recipe". The following is the information and source: At 77ºF Potassium Monopersulfate provided only 16.8%...
www.poolspaforum.com
The short answer is this, in a private residential settings, you might be able to get away with clear looking water using a mineral sanitizer in a hot tub and it could likely be safe enough for you and your family since you all share the same "bugs" day-in and day-out. But, given the fluctuations in temperature and sanitizer levels, it is more than likely a residential hot tub will be home to lots of disease-causing pathogens and, if friends come over, you are exposing them to whatever you have and they are exposing you to whatever they have. Chlorine, when used properly, is the single most effective sanitizer you can use, hands-down. Everything else is an unnecessary and expensive complications. When you couple good hot tub care, with proper water maintenance (plumbing purges) and the proper use of chlorine, a hot tub can be as trouble free as a pool.
Last edited:
- May 23, 2015
- 25,681
- Pool Size
- 16000
- Surface
- Plaster
- Chlorine
- Salt Water Generator
- SWG Type
- Pentair Intellichlor IC-60
Below is the "lost link" I was referring to in the above post. As you can see, Richard gives a quick side-by-side summary of the log reductions of various pathogens by chlorine, copper and silver ions -
www.troublefreepool.com
And Richard ends with this quote which I wholeheartedly agree with -
The thread in that post is specifically talking about a pool product, ecoSmarte, but it applies to hot tub products just as well. Mineral sanitizers are probably the least effective means of controlling pathogens in recreational water bodies and so any product that makes claims of "reduced chlorine use" along with "mineral ionizers" should be treated very skeptically.
converting my ecosmarte system to chlorine
I have a 20,000 G inground pool. I bought a house and the pool came with it. Right now the water is nice and clear. But after reading that even though it looks clean, it might not be. Is it easy? Can I just unplug my eco-smarte box and add the stuff I need?
www.troublefreepool.com
And Richard ends with this quote which I wholeheartedly agree with -
The thread in that post is specifically talking about a pool product, ecoSmarte, but it applies to hot tub products just as well. Mineral sanitizers are probably the least effective means of controlling pathogens in recreational water bodies and so any product that makes claims of "reduced chlorine use" along with "mineral ionizers" should be treated very skeptically.
Oh, I agree that they aren't sanitizers in and of themselves, I never said they were nor do the manufacturers, but I do believe that they allow for lower sanitizer levels in the spa and I do use them myself and recommend them to my customers who also use them with success.
I am not familiar with chem geek or Richard, but I do believe the science that I read from other sources. As has been pointed out to me on several occasions, this forum is for private pools and spas and is therefore not subject to health department regulations, though it's users do like to name drop the EPA when it suits them. I still have been unable to find any information on what the EPA has to do with pools and spas aside from product labeling. They do determine if a beach, river, or lake can be used as recreational water. I certainly have never run into anyone from the EPA doing a pool inspection, but the health department has lots of inspectors out every year. They also do not recognize mineral purifiers, ozone, or any other private products, but are very serious about turnover, which this forum says is a "myth".
As always, I give the advice I believe without regard to what TFP may say. The opinions of TFP do not change my experiences in the least, nor do articles written by TFP users. Please provide some other source, preferrably a scientific one not some blog or parts supplier, to validate your views. Then perhaps I will consider it as valid and may change my opinions. Until then, as always, I stand by what I said.
I do find it rather frustrating that users will derail a thread to argue with me for posting my thoughts on a topic. If I were the OP I certainly wouldn't appreciate it. If you insist on arguing, please do so by private message.
I am not familiar with chem geek or Richard, but I do believe the science that I read from other sources. As has been pointed out to me on several occasions, this forum is for private pools and spas and is therefore not subject to health department regulations, though it's users do like to name drop the EPA when it suits them. I still have been unable to find any information on what the EPA has to do with pools and spas aside from product labeling. They do determine if a beach, river, or lake can be used as recreational water. I certainly have never run into anyone from the EPA doing a pool inspection, but the health department has lots of inspectors out every year. They also do not recognize mineral purifiers, ozone, or any other private products, but are very serious about turnover, which this forum says is a "myth".
As always, I give the advice I believe without regard to what TFP may say. The opinions of TFP do not change my experiences in the least, nor do articles written by TFP users. Please provide some other source, preferrably a scientific one not some blog or parts supplier, to validate your views. Then perhaps I will consider it as valid and may change my opinions. Until then, as always, I stand by what I said.
I do find it rather frustrating that users will derail a thread to argue with me for posting my thoughts on a topic. If I were the OP I certainly wouldn't appreciate it. If you insist on arguing, please do so by private message.
Maybe you should re-examine the name of the website. Because I'm sure not typing RDspaguy.com in to the address bar.
Bad information is going to be challenged and corrected every time. That was true the first time it happened, it will be true all the other times it happens.
It is only bad information in the opinions of certain TFP users. The scientists who provide the source of that information are much more credible than some random forum users. I can write some articles and post them, then reference them as validation of my opinions just as TFP does, but I wouldn't expect anyone to accept that as validation. I am not sure why TFP does. Or why I hear about the EPA, whos authority on pools and spas only extends as far as product labels from what I can find.
Provide some credible source for your opinions, if you can.
Provide some credible source for your opinions, if you can.
- May 23, 2015
- 25,681
- Pool Size
- 16000
- Surface
- Plaster
- Chlorine
- Salt Water Generator
- SWG Type
- Pentair Intellichlor IC-60
Please re-read the link in my post #6. When I refer to Richard, I am referring to Richard Falk, aka chem geek . Richard was instrumental in developing the scientific underpinnings of the TFPC Method and has been a vocal advocate of the chlorine/stabilizer relationship in recreational water care, ie, static FC values are meaningless when not corrected for CYA levels. His work has gotten attention by CA health boards and he is currently a member fo the CDC working group that writes the Model Aquatic Health Code (MAHC) that is a federal version of recreational water health codes that can be adopted in part or in whole by State health agencies.
If you read that link in Post #6 you will see Richard's chart that shows the effectiveness of Chlorine versus Copper versus Silver in terms of pathogen inactivation times. Richard did not make-up that data. If you look at the bottom of that chart he references all of the scientific papers from which he got the data including World Health Organization (WHO) data as well as international sources (European and Australian Health authorities). His scientific analysis is rock solid and built on peer-reviewed papers submitted to respected scientific journals.
The reason why I reference many of Richard's post is that he has already done a lot of the work in collating and organizing the information and, as such, he, not me, deserves the credit for his hard work. This is not being "self-referential" ... it is being professional and courteous to the work he has performed. You may also go to the CDC Website and look up the Model Aquatic Health Code, his work sits there too.
As for your issue with using the EPA reference, my use of the reference is absolutely appropriate. The EPA doesn't just control "product labelling". The EPA is the only authority in the United States at the federal level that can say what chemical is or is not a registered pesticide. Pool sanitizers, under federal law, fall under the broad category of "pesticides". The EPA, in conjunction with the CDC data on pathogen sterilization, sets the parameters by which product manufacturers must demonstrate that their products are effective sanitizers (limit disease transmission and reduce pathogen growth). The EPA sets federal regulations that all States must abide by when it comes to sanitizers for commercial/public pools. The EPA does not regulate private pools or spas but chemical manufacturers must adequately label their products whether for commercial recreational water bodies or residential water bodies. As to this date, the EPA only recognizes three chemicals that are effective pool sanitizers - chlorine, bromine, and biguanide/peroxide (aka, Baquacil). In commercial spas and hot tubs, silver ions may be used but only in conjunction with MPS (potassium monopersulfate) and only if the spa water temperature is maintained above 100F.
If you read that link in Post #6 you will see Richard's chart that shows the effectiveness of Chlorine versus Copper versus Silver in terms of pathogen inactivation times. Richard did not make-up that data. If you look at the bottom of that chart he references all of the scientific papers from which he got the data including World Health Organization (WHO) data as well as international sources (European and Australian Health authorities). His scientific analysis is rock solid and built on peer-reviewed papers submitted to respected scientific journals.
The reason why I reference many of Richard's post is that he has already done a lot of the work in collating and organizing the information and, as such, he, not me, deserves the credit for his hard work. This is not being "self-referential" ... it is being professional and courteous to the work he has performed. You may also go to the CDC Website and look up the Model Aquatic Health Code, his work sits there too.
As for your issue with using the EPA reference, my use of the reference is absolutely appropriate. The EPA doesn't just control "product labelling". The EPA is the only authority in the United States at the federal level that can say what chemical is or is not a registered pesticide. Pool sanitizers, under federal law, fall under the broad category of "pesticides". The EPA, in conjunction with the CDC data on pathogen sterilization, sets the parameters by which product manufacturers must demonstrate that their products are effective sanitizers (limit disease transmission and reduce pathogen growth). The EPA sets federal regulations that all States must abide by when it comes to sanitizers for commercial/public pools. The EPA does not regulate private pools or spas but chemical manufacturers must adequately label their products whether for commercial recreational water bodies or residential water bodies. As to this date, the EPA only recognizes three chemicals that are effective pool sanitizers - chlorine, bromine, and biguanide/peroxide (aka, Baquacil). In commercial spas and hot tubs, silver ions may be used but only in conjunction with MPS (potassium monopersulfate) and only if the spa water temperature is maintained above 100F.
Thank you Joyful. I will read them with that in mind. I did not read them before, I admit, seeing just another forum thread.
I have read some of the side by side time comparisons, I even referenced one, and do not find an issue with an 8 hour reduction in a private spa, as that is overnight in a covered spa with no new pathogens being introduced and the typical user has it covered and not in use 20 or more hours per day. It is not acceptable in a public spa, of course, due to both regulations and use, but works fine for me and my many private spa customers. And this forum is for private, not public, pools and spas.
Regarding mps, in my view it is a weak oxidizer and not a sanitizer at all. I much prefer ozone for oxidation, which is it's primary advantage in a spa in spite of some sanitizing ability. If I had to choose between mineral purifier and ozone, I would choose ozone every day of the week.
I have stated in several posts that none of these eliminates the need for a chemical sanitizer, only reduces the amount needed. The OP of this thread was using his mineral purifier in conjunction with a chemical sanitizer, and his spa manufacturer does not say he doesn't need one, nor did I. And I have never met a happy biguanicide user, so sanitizer means chlorine or bromine to me.
I think the root of the issue is that I recommend a product that is not stand-alone and is therefore, in your opinion, not necessary. But I feel that anything that helps a spa owner avoid potential problems resulting from the heavy use and poor maintenance practices that are unfortunately common in the field is a good thing. I can't understand why anyone would feel that it is a bad thing. Or would assume that because I recommend it I am saying that a sanitizer is not needed. All I said is that I use one myself and recommend them to my customers, which is true. I even provided some scientific information from credible sources in the hope that it would prevent another sidetracked thread by showing that it is not just my opinion but scientifically valid. Yet here we are again...
I have read some of the side by side time comparisons, I even referenced one, and do not find an issue with an 8 hour reduction in a private spa, as that is overnight in a covered spa with no new pathogens being introduced and the typical user has it covered and not in use 20 or more hours per day. It is not acceptable in a public spa, of course, due to both regulations and use, but works fine for me and my many private spa customers. And this forum is for private, not public, pools and spas.
Regarding mps, in my view it is a weak oxidizer and not a sanitizer at all. I much prefer ozone for oxidation, which is it's primary advantage in a spa in spite of some sanitizing ability. If I had to choose between mineral purifier and ozone, I would choose ozone every day of the week.
I have stated in several posts that none of these eliminates the need for a chemical sanitizer, only reduces the amount needed. The OP of this thread was using his mineral purifier in conjunction with a chemical sanitizer, and his spa manufacturer does not say he doesn't need one, nor did I. And I have never met a happy biguanicide user, so sanitizer means chlorine or bromine to me.
I think the root of the issue is that I recommend a product that is not stand-alone and is therefore, in your opinion, not necessary. But I feel that anything that helps a spa owner avoid potential problems resulting from the heavy use and poor maintenance practices that are unfortunately common in the field is a good thing. I can't understand why anyone would feel that it is a bad thing. Or would assume that because I recommend it I am saying that a sanitizer is not needed. All I said is that I use one myself and recommend them to my customers, which is true. I even provided some scientific information from credible sources in the hope that it would prevent another sidetracked thread by showing that it is not just my opinion but scientifically valid. Yet here we are again...