Original > Hot Tub Forum

Circulation Pump - are they truly a cost saver?

<< < (4/11) > >>

Spatech_tuo:

--- Quote ---Kinda makes one wonder why it would be advantageous to have ozone introduced via a 24/7 circ pump...
--- End quote ---


I'm not sure I understand the question as even those who are prefer a 2-speed pump will typically agree that the idea of 24/7 ozone is an advantage of a circ pump. Ozone has no residual, meaning as soon as it’s turned off there is none available, so you want it working as much as possible. In fact, when people with a 2-speed pump want to lower the amount of time the pump is on for filtering I always explain to them that there is a tradeoff as the more they lessen their filtering, the more they lessen the amount of time the ozone is on.

empolgation:

--- Quote ---I'm not sure I understand the question as even those who are prefer a 2-speed pump will typically agree that the idea of 24/7 ozone is an advantage of a circ pump.
--- End quote ---
Not really a specific question, I just continue to search for answers.
In this case my question would be: why is 24/7 ozone an advantage??

Athough ozone may have no residual (if it did it could be more effective), it needs to be aqueous ("disolved" - not in bubbles) to be effective. I'd like to see some empirical data to support that 24/7 circ pump ozonation is more effective. From what I've seen, at the concentrations that aqueous ozone is introduced into any spa it appears as though the amount of time ozone is introduced is irrelevant. Similar to the take on filtering, 24/7 circ pump is filtering much less water over a longer period of time than the periodic jet pump circ in a shorter period - it's volume not amount of time, where the effectiveness of ozone remains to be seen.

The only sound data I've come across is that the more you have the ozonator running the more often you'll have to maintain it and the more often you'll need to replace it. Also, a most important factor is the system's success in making the ozone usable, in aqueous form; that is in part done by length of time the ozone spends in the contact chamber before it is released into the tub to bubble up to the surface and just add to the air (by the way, careful when you open that cover - you just may get a blast of ozone... hmm is that bad? that lead me to another question, is 24/7 circ ozonation adding more ozone to the air under your cover?).

Spatech_tuo:
What you need is to mix the ozone with the water as long as possible before it reaches the top surface of the water. A good tub has a contact chamber that may be about 10 feet or so giving the ozone more chance to mix and do its job. Ozone is being drawn thought the tube and into the tub about 6-8 hrs a day for spa with a 2-speed pump and for 24 hrs a day for spas with a circ pump. The fact that the ozone is being input into the chamber for the additional 16 hrs or so is why a circ pump is absolutely an advantage relative to ozone (and I'm only speaking relative to ozone).

Mendocino101:
Spa tech....

I understand what you are saying about the 24 hour of ozone using the circ pump but if you are moving the water volume in the spa around ten times daily where with the 2 speed pump closer to 60 times even if it is getting ozone only 4 to 8 hours a day the total volume of water would still be more ozone enriched so to speak....as you are filtering more volume...am I wrong to think this....

empolgation:

--- Quote ---The fact that the ozone is being input into the chamber for the additional 16 hrs or so is why a circ pump is absolutely an advantage relative to ozone (and I'm only speaking relative to ozone).
--- End quote ---
It certainly is an advantage relative to *using* the ozonator more... but again, it is not evidence that it is more effective or "better" relative to sanitizing your spa.

Length of contact chamber does play a small part (as well as other factors) in effectiveness - is a circ pump with a 5 ft chamber better than a jet pump with 25ft? I'm not saying that circ pump ozonation is not advantageous (I don't know, but am interested to find out), I'm just saying that there is no concrete evidence to suggest that it is; just because it's fact that the ozonator is running over a longer period of time does not mean that it is more effective. Just as saying 24/7 circulation alone doesn't mean that it's more effective at filtering.

Mendo, no, you are not wrong to think that way.
It *may* not be an accurate assumption but then again you may be right on. How much effective ozone is each method introducing into the tub? How does volume and velocity of movement effect the effectiveness of a spa ozonator? And again considering the concentrations of aqueous ozone in any spa, does any of the differences matter?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page