|
Posted by ron on April 16, 2007, 8:16 am
yes the solar blankets are a hassle and don't forget the cost of the reel.
But then you don't have to do it all summer just early and late in the
season. I never used the "pill" but if it's like the liquid thats supposed
to do the same thing I found it to be useless. I stick with the blanket.
> The wind is howling outside like a winter storm, but some day it's
> going to warm up and I'll want to open my in-ground swimming pool. In
> order to extend the season (I live in Maryland), I'm thinking about
> either a solar blanket or a "pill". The former appear to be made out
> of the same bubble wrap you see in packing, and require a reel to take
> them off the pool. The latter is apparently a substance that slows
> down evaporation, which presumably is the main form of head loss.
>
> The pills are not supposed to be as efficient as the blankets (perhaps
> the blankets have a slight insulating value, and at a guess they're
> better at retarding evaporation); the ad claims 60% of a blanket's
> efficiency. On the other hand, a blanket plus reel for my size pool
> (22x44) costs a minimum of $700 and are warranted for 6-8 years, while
> the "pills" cost maybe $30 for a four-pack and last "up to" 30 days
> (I'd need two at a time for my size pool). So figure four to six per
> season (a month or so at beginning and end of season). And the
> blanket looks like a lot of hassle to put on and take off, and to
> store when it gets hot out, and in the winter.
>
> Presumably the chemical from pill doesn't feel oily when you're
> swimming.
>
> Thoughts? Given the difference, I'm leaning towards the pill, but I'm
> skeptical about how well they work. And it's hard for me to do a
> scientific comparison, since I only have one pool :-).
>
> Mike Maxwell
>
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap