Because they have a loop for a string doesn't mean you're required to use it. There is no harm in having it at one end constantly. Mine used to float all around but if the water level was just wrong, it would get hung up in the skimmer, blocking it and causing the pump to suck air - not good. I tied it to one of he ladders with a shoelace. It would get ratty a couple of times a summer and I'd just use the other one.
So what?
I'm still using the same original aluminum pool pole from when my pool was built over 20 years ago. You must be abusing yours. How in the world would you get dents in it? It's not a hammer.
e.- Hide quoted text -
+1
No, it wouldn't.
That junction would be tremendously weak, and would likely break the first time you used it. It is not intended to be a structural connection.
In order to have any strength at all, the smaller tube needs to telescope INSIDE the bigger tube for some distance. It needs to be a snug slip fit or it will flop around either kink the inner tube or split the outer tube.
Try telescoping the 3/4" and 1/2" together. It's too sloppy of a fit. It will never work as-is.
If you're a machinist you could turn some bushings out of brass or steel to take up the slack, but if you were a machinist you'd have thought of that solution already.
Redneck solution involves wrapping the smaller tube with electrical or duct tape to take up the slack. Drill for a cross pin to hold the pole at a predetermined length. Multiple holes in the smaller tube to make it adjustable.
It's night now, but I can snap a photo of the floaters in the morning. Clearly the holes are put there for strings. No doubt about it. Plus, the strings serve a useful purpose by keeping the floaters where you want them to stay, especially when it's windy.
Googling, I tried to find mention of the string tying feature, but it seems to be either so obvious they don't mention it - or - so unusual.
None of these mention the tie down holes:
Thanks for that suggestion. That's what will try, if no coupling works.
I'll post pictures when I'm done.
I thought about wood but couldn't find a wooden dowel long enough. 14 feet seems just about right.
I had trouble finding the price for them at that web page, so I'll call 'em in the morning: 866-663-6935
I hadn't even noticed the dents until you said that, simply because the bends which break eventually caused more problems, as did the cracks in the adjusting plastic.
I suspect the dents are from being brushed against the sharp side of the pool edge, which has an overhang of stone. But I'm not sure.
I've bought floating thermometers that came with string. I would agree, that's what the holes are for. A lot of people want the thermometer to be in one convenient place. On the house side, for example, so that you can walk out, read the temp, without having to figure out where it is, walk all the way around to the other side, etc.
Dowel won't be strong enough. I think wood is completely impractical, but if I was determined, I'd think about bamboo. My guess is that you'd need a diameter of at least 2 inches to get the necessary stiffness.
That's a good idea, because the thermometers I have always seem to be unreadable after a year in the sun (and the blue torpedo type sinks to the bottom of the pool so it can't easily be retrieved).
I like the clever idea of putting the thermometer in the skimmer baskets (out of the sun but still in the water).
I have no idea what telescoping tubing or pipe might cost. Aluminum irrigation pipe is typically cut to 30 foot lengths. One man can pick up an eight inch diameter pipe with reasonable effort. Suppose you went with a 3" or so diameter pipe or square tube? Is there such a thing as a telescoping mast for watercraft? Flagpole?
I like the idea of telescoping square tubes of aluminum. They will be stronger than circular tubes & just as light. And, the clamping mechanism will be simpler.
Googling for a source for 10 foot or longer lengths, I find Grainger a bit pricy for the 6'foot lengths at $18:
At Lowes, 8 feet of aluminum 1" square tubing Item #: 215640 Model #: 11392, is also pricy at $31.33.
Yet 1/2" SCH 40 (.840 OD X .109W) 6061-T6 Aluminum Structural Pipe is about $26.40 for a twenty foot length:
Square aluminum pipe 1/2 SCH 40 (.840 OD X .109W) 6061-T6 Aluminum Structural Pipe at that same place is $26 for 20 feet:
There is a nice weight table for various sizes here:
So, maybe the square aluminum is the best choice, since it will withstand the corrosion better, and, it will be lighter, and, if square, just as strong or stronger than the steel.
Pretty sure, for equal weight, round tube is stronger than square.
round PVC pipe.....
-snip-
And now, to go full circle--- I'm pretty sure that if Danny D spent a few bucks on a decent telescoping pole, he'd do it once, spend no time on Usenet trying to build a better mousetrap-- and it would be the lightest, strongest, cheapest pole [in the long run] possible.
I'm not kind to my tools. My $40 pole from 12 years ago did pool service for 4-5 years and now knocks apples and peaches out of trees in the summer-- and pours rock salt on my gutters in the winter.
Jim
Hmmm... can that be true?
Assuming the same material, round or square, I thought the four corners on the square reinforced against the inevitable bending forces that occur in pool cleaning better than would the round rod?
Googling, I see that an apples-to-apples comparison matters greatly, as we don't care about compression or torsion strength, for example, in a pool pole.
Also, the comparison, for home use, would not really be pound-for-pound or even inch-for-inch, but dollars-per-fifteen-feet comparison, since we're looking to compare bending strength for a cheap pole of round-steel versus square steel (or, if the square steel is too heavy, square aluminum).
PVC appears to be too flexible in the widths we're contemplating...
I think the squared material _might_ be stronger at the corner. But a millimeter away at the flat part, it's going to be less strong. Since a square tube is mostly flat, I think we're talking mostly less strong.
Right, mostly resistance to bending.
No opinion on cost. I think square comes up short in strength.
I googled a lot more, and almost all said the round cross section was stronger "pound for pound"; and, particularly, we're talking bending forces.
So, I think you're correct; the round tube (pound for pound) would be stronger considering the bending force against the flat edges of the square cross section.
Plus, round just seems "more comfortable" in human hands...
In summary, after googling s'more: Round seems to win hands down. a) It's cheaper b) It's (probably) stronger c) It's (probably) more comfortable
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.