TP Insulation

[Reese]

pH.  Do not use a floating feeder except for Brilliance.

I know that Brilliance claims to be chlorine free, which you have mentioned as a benefit regarding off-gassing damage -- but is it also pH buffered?

[Gary]

As a consumer  what am I expected to do in order to properly take care of my pumps? I did not see anything in the maual, or warrenty. Did I miss something?

Maintain proper water chemistry, nevertheless all seals will wear out and start leaking. To prevent the leaking from damaging the motor check the pump for any signs of leakage. Catch it early and all you need is a new seal.

A good time to look and when you do a drain and fill. The area that you want to pay close attention to is where the shaft enters the pump.

[Brewman]

I know that Brilliance claims to be chlorine free, which you have mentioned as a benefit regarding off-gassing damage -- but is it also pH buffered?

Brilliance sanitizer is pretty much all bromine.  Brilliance shock, which is MPS, is not buffered.
 When I used their sanitizer and shock I was contantly having to adjust my water.

[windsurfdog]

(hoof beats heard in the distance...)

TP relies on the large  pumps for:

- Maintinaing the warm air barrier.  Without it,  as Tman says, it's ability to provide effective insualtion is gone.

- Circulaton and filtration

- Therapy.

The main pumps does triple duty and is the heart of the system for the 3 main systems of a Thermal pane  tub.


Question: What is proably the single biggest failure of any tub? I am told the pumps,
Question: What produces the most strain on a pump? Starting it up.

drew,
My circ. pump is the only pump that runs outside of the single 2-speed therapy pump that circulates water on low speed twice a day for 2 hrs. each.  What did you mean about larger pumps?  I don't see it in my TP application.

[Tom]

Remember Arctic and how they got blasted starting a few years ago when they first showed up on the boards pitchin how they were so much better because of their insulation??

I wasn't around back then (probably lucky I wasn't!)  However, there is a scientific basis for that claim.  Oddly enough, five years later, there still seems to be only one published comparative study of the thermal efficiency of hot tubs.

http://www.arcticspas.com/downloads/performance/Thermal%20Performance%20Test%20of%20Spas.pdf

Tman122 and others have quite correctly pointed out numerous problems with that study, but AFAIK it still remains the only such research available.

[loosenupspas]

GITTY UP COMON GITTY UP.......I SELL TP.....NOT CHARMIN.....WORKS GREAT HERE IN FLORIDA....CUSTOMERS LOVE THEIR COLEMAN SPAS....ONE LAST THING....CS SELLS MANY MANY SPAS IN CANADA...A GROWING MARKET IN FACT....IT MUST WORK WELL....SIMPLE LOGIC...ISNT THERE ROOM FOR COMPETING IDEAS....OR ARE THE TP GUYS SHAMMING CONSUMERS?  FIFTY CENTS A DAY TO OPERATE.....THIS IS WHAT I TELL MY CUSTOMERS AND NONE IN ALMOST FIVE YEARS HAVE RETURNED TO COMPLAIN ABOUT OPERATING EXPENSES......FAR FAR FROM ENERGY HOG STATUS.  SADDLE UP.....

[Tman122]

No one is saying there is not room for "alternate ideas" Its just this idea is not better, just different.

[rick]

new ideas and innovations are always slow to be accepted especially when it poses a threat to the standard.

Coleman 480 - 3 years running,  no leakies,  no loose fitties,  no burned up pumpies,  no big electricity spikies,  no circ pumpies,  no complainties.  

[Vanguard]

Tom,

I have a question on the report you linked.

Did the testers run the tests based on no users, just normal operation?

If so, I noticed they actually started the jet pumps on Hot Spring on the test.  Why did they do that?  Wouldn't that corrupt the test since Hot Spring uses a circ pump and doesn't need a "filter cycle?"  Seems to me that would cause the Hot Spring results to have higher power consumption than it should have.  How long did the researchers run the jet pumps?

It looks to be a pretty good test, but I question why the researchers turned on the Hot Spring jet pumps.  If they tested the Hot Spring without using the jet pumps, what would the result have been?

[Tman122]

You question why they turned on the pumps but not the double r-factor in the Arctics cover where 80 percent of the heatloss occurs? Tom is right though it is the only test out there, even if it was sanctioned by a manufacturer and not a fair comparision.  

[Tman122]

I only respond to these kind of threads because I love contraversy, I thrive on it.

[Tom]

Tom,

I have a question on the report you linked.

Did the testers run the tests based on no users, just normal operation?

If so, I noticed they actually started the jet pumps on Hot Spring on the test.  Why did they do that?  Wouldn't that corrupt the test since Hot Spring uses a circ pump and doesn't need a "filter cycle?"  Seems to me that would cause the Hot Spring results to have higher power consumption than it should have.  How long did the researchers run the jet pumps?

It looks to be a pretty good test, but I question why the researchers turned on the Hot Spring jet pumps.  If they tested the Hot Spring without using the jet pumps, what would the result have been?

If you read the study, you'll note that it is for "steady state" operation, with no actual use or simulated use.  While some have suggested that this makes the results inapplicable to "real world" use, it is nonetheless scientifically sound as all models operated under similar constraints.

As far as I can tell, the Vanguard pumps were run in order to make the operating conditions similar for all the tubs, and while on the face of it that seems reasonable,  it may indeed have affected the results.  

There are many other discrepancies with the study; I suggest you search the board if you're interested.  Tman122 in particular has gone over the study closely, so a look at his past posts would be worthwhile.

[Tom]

You question why they turned on the pumps but not the double r-factor in the Arctics cover where 80 percent of the heat loss occurs? Tom is right though it is the only test out there, even if it was sanctioned by a manufacturer and not a fair comparision.  

Not only sanctioned, but commissioned by Arctic!    

You want to go through all this cover stuff again, Tman?  Pfui.  Read page 3:  "The client [Arctic Spas] made the selection of the spa vendors and models, but the independent third party that conducted the research [Alberta Research Council] purchased them as any consumer would purchase them.  This includes spas produced by the client, so that no modifications could be made to the spas."--my emphasis.    
And if the Arctics came standard with thick covers and the others didn't, whose fault is that?  Pfui, I say!  And if the Arctics came with standard covers and still got good results, how is that a problem?  Pfui, and again pfui!  

If you or anybody else wants to shell out ($250,000 should do it) for a more "fair" test, go to it!

There, Tman, your daily dose of controversy.

[Steve]

I've never understood the argument about the covers used? :-/ If that's the way they are purchased and Arctic happens to have a superior cover, then good on them! I could see the beef if they utilized an upgraded cover for the test but that wasn't the case at all. Tough to bit*h about it as standard equipment...

I also disagree with the suggestion that 80% of heat loss occurs from the top (unless you're talking about the cover off?) nor the suggestion that a thicker cover is more efficient but that's an entire new thread.   Is there data you have on this Tman or is it a guess?   I can't leave here...there's just sooooo much to learn!  

[Tman122]

I have an Infared camera available to me ( a buddy does home evaluations for the local power company) And if you ever get the chance you should look at an outside hot tub in -20 degree weather. You will clearly see a heat plume rising from the tub straight up. Yes some heat is illuminating from the sides and traveling upward, but in the FF spa we looked at and my combination Foam/TP there was substantialy more heat loss from the upper lip at the cover seal and from the cover seam and around the cover. You just have to look at it if you ever get the chance. And yes 80 percent is an approximation.......not a guess!!!

A cover upgrade is standered in Northern Minnesota.........

Oh and tell me Steve....why would a cover with R12 be as effiecient at stopping heat loss, what ever the percentage, as a cover with R20? I understand what your saying if the numbers were an R40 cover versus an R60 but I think an R9 versus an R19 would be substantial....Doc?

I believe the extra inches on the Arctic cover relate to an almost double R-Factor....Doc?

Sorry I keep asking for Doc but I don't feel like looking up the numbers, it's friday and I am on my second beer with no repairs scheduled for the weekend for a change.