Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.comp.software.firefox > #17932 > unrolled thread

Recently, did your Firefox stop using Microsoft Copilot in anonymous mode?

Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.software.firefox

Contents

  Recently, did your Firefox stop using Microsoft Copilot in anonymous mode? Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-07-26 14:00 -0700
    Re: Recently, did your Firefox stop using Microsoft Copilot in anonymous mode? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-07-27 05:33 +0000
      Re: Recently, did your Firefox stop using Microsoft Copilot in anonymous mode? David LaRue <huey.dll@tampabay.rr.com> - 2026-07-27 07:52 +0000
        Re: Recently, did your Firefox stop using Microsoft Copilot in anonymous mode? Professor Irritation <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-27 16:20 +0100
          Re: Recently, did your Firefox stop using Microsoft Copilot in anonymous mode? Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-07-27 10:46 -0700
            Re: Recently, did your Firefox stop using Microsoft Copilot in anonymous mode? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-07-27 20:15 +0200
              Re: Recently, did your Firefox stop using Microsoft Copilot in anonymous mode? Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-07-27 11:30 -0700
        Re: Recently, did your Firefox stop using Microsoft Copilot in anonymous mode? Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-07-27 11:33 -0700
      Re: Recently, did your Firefox stop using Microsoft Copilot in anonymous mode? Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-07-27 10:55 -0700
        Re: Recently, did your Firefox stop using Microsoft Copilot in anonymous mode? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-07-27 20:19 +0200
          Re: Recently, did your Firefox stop using Microsoft Copilot in anonymous mode? Nobody <jock@soccer.com> - 2026-07-27 11:43 -0700
            Re: Recently, did your Firefox stop using Microsoft Copilot in anonymous mode? Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-07-27 13:03 -0700
              Re: Recently, did your Firefox stop using Microsoft Copilot in anonymous mode? Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-07-27 13:33 -0700
                Re: Recently, did your Firefox stop using Microsoft Copilot in anonymous mode? Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-07-27 13:53 -0700
              Re: Recently, did your Firefox stop using Microsoft Copilot in anonymous mode? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-07-27 22:35 +0200
                Re: Recently, did your Firefox stop using Microsoft Copilot in anonymous mode? Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-07-27 14:23 -0700
                  Re: Recently, did your Firefox stop using Microsoft Copilot in anonymous mode? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-07-29 20:00 +0200
          Re: Recently, did your Firefox stop using Microsoft Copilot in anonymous mode? Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-07-27 12:09 -0700
    Re: Recently, did your Firefox stop using Microsoft Copilot in anonymous mode? Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-07-29 02:22 -0700

#17932 — Recently, did your Firefox stop using Microsoft Copilot in anonymous mode?

Q: Can you access Microsoft Copilot today in Firefox without logging in?
A: ???

I've been using Copilot in Firefox in anonymous mode (not logged into
anything) for about half a year, but recently, all attempts failed.

Now, no matter what I do in Firefox (see the batch script to be attached in
the next message by way of samples of the tricks I've tried on Windows 10),
Firefox now insists on no longer allowing me an anonymous login to Copilot.

It could be OS related, so I ask if others have experienced this.
It could be region related too.

As of recently (July 2026), can anyone out there work with Copilot in
Firefox without logging into the set of mothership accounts it allows?

Note: MS Edge, on Windows, still allows anonymous Copilot, but this
question isn't about MS v  Edge but about using Copilot anonymously in FF.

Q: Can you access Microsoft Copilot today in Firefox without logging in?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#17936

On Sun, 26 Jul 2026 14:00:07 -0700, Maria Sophia wrote:

> Q: Can you access Microsoft Copilot today in Firefox without logging in?
> A: ???

Is this a Windows thing?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17937

Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?= <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote in 
news:1146qji$2us8k$1@dont-email.me:

> On Sun, 26 Jul 2026 14:00:07 -0700, Maria Sophia wrote:
> 
>> Q: Can you access Microsoft Copilot today in Firefox without logging in?
>> A: ???
> 
> Is this a Windows thing?

Forgive my ignorance.  Why is Microsoft pushing Copilot and other AI 
extensions on their users?

Why are people seeking these unproven tools?  Yes, they are mostly just 
hype.  Consider for instance, if AI was very useful wouldn't a small group 
of people 

Even the USA government seems to have supported adding AI into cars, 
education, and of course the government itself?

As a long term developer of computer based technologies, I've not seen AI 
that has helped people think better or lead to better products. In fact the 
opposite has happened.

Education seems to be where AI has hurt societies the most, IMHO.

Please go back to educating our young and helping them grow as responsible 
members of society.  That includes giving our next generations the tools 
they need to solve problems they will not encounter in school, or even 
their jobs.  Values and general life goals are far more important to the 
young.

I realize most people have only heard the hype and not experienced real 
successes in their own lives.

I'm sorry for not providing examples of everything AI Tools have 
accomplished.

I should probably get off my soap box and let you do something else.

Thank you,

David

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17940

On 27/07/2026 08:52, David LaRue wrote:
> Forgive my ignorance.  Why is Microsoft pushing Copilot and other AI
> extensions on their users?


This is because Microsoft's business model is centred around selling 
products and services. By promoting Copilot and AI extensions, the 
company hopes to encourage users to subscribe. It's the same approach as 
offering 5GB of free OneDrive storage. Once people are accustomed to 
this, they are likely to purchase additional disk space for added 
convenience and to avoid the hassle of backing up their data.


Does this help to irritate you even more? Some people are using Linux 
and they don't have this irritation.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17941

Professor Irritation wrote:
> Does this help to irritate you even more? Some people are using Linux 
> and they don't have this irritation.

Has anyone tried it yet? 
For me? For the team? For Firefox?

a. I tried it on Windows (MS Edge, Chromium & Firefox).
b. What happens is there is a server-side change in July 2026
c. In all but one cornercase, it consistently requires a login to work

Here is the link: (just click on it)
 https://copilot.microsoft.com/
   
Has someone tried it for the team on Linux Firefox? 
Q: Does it force a login only recently (July 2026) or not?
A: ???

Has anyone tried it for the team outside my region (USA)?
Q: Does it force a login only recently (July 2026) or not?
A: ???

The philosophy is really neat and enlightening, but first, does it work?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17943

On 2026-07-27 19:46, Maria Sophia wrote:
> Professor Irritation wrote:
>> Does this help to irritate you even more? Some people are using Linux
>> and they don't have this irritation.
> 
> Has anyone tried it yet?
> For me? For the team? For Firefox?
> 
> a. I tried it on Windows (MS Edge, Chromium & Firefox).
> b. What happens is there is a server-side change in July 2026
> c. In all but one cornercase, it consistently requires a login to work
> 
> Here is the link: (just click on it)
>   https://copilot.microsoft.com/

Ok, I tried it. I have never used copilot. The page appears and asks me 
to login (Linux and Spain).



-- 
Cheers,
        Carlos E.R.
        ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17945

Carlos E. R. wrote:
>> Here is the link: (just click on it)
>>   https://copilot.microsoft.com/
> 
> Ok, I tried it. I have never used copilot. The page appears and asks me 
> to login (Linux and Spain).

Hi Carlos,

An LLM is no good as a search engine if it requires a user to log into it.

So thanks for clicking the link in FF on Linux to determine what happens.
  https://copilot.microsoft.com/

That it asks for a login implies it's a server-side recent change.
That you're in a different region also implies it's a server-side change.

I've been looking for tricks to overcome it, and, up until this latest
change, I was able to trick the browser but, I can't trick Firefox anymore.

This only started about a week or two ago on the desktop, as I recall.
I haven't tried it on Android or iOS because they're completely different.

I can still trick Edge by using the Edge sidebar integration, but not FF.
We may be able to trick Firefox into sidebars by using Sidebar+ extensions.

An LLM is no good as a search engine if it requires a user to log into it.
-- 
Privacy is a million little things, but most people only do 3 of them.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17946

David LaRue wrote:
> Forgive my ignorance.  Why is Microsoft pushing Copilot and other AI 
> extensions on their users?

If we're speaking philosophically, all of us came from the dogpile days, 
where it was a boon to not have to list on our home page all our links.

Then, at some point during the Netscape battles, Google search was born.
It was a boon, at the time, and it did not require us to log into it.

Since then, privacy search engines were born, which we all preferred.
Then came LLMs.

The beauty of an LLM for search is that the natural language is easy.
That's why I use LLMs now, almost exclusively, instead of search.

But... I start every message with:
 Don't bullshit me; look it up!

And then I run my search.
-- 
Privacy is a million little things, but most people only do 3 of them.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17942

Lawrence D¡¦Oliveiro wrote:
>> Q: Can you access Microsoft Copilot today in Firefox without logging in?
>> A: ???
> 
> Is this a Windows thing?

Hi Lawrence,

I know you to be understanding and helpful, where it "might" be a Windows 
thing, and where I use only free tools that do not require login accounts.

I use LLMs instead of Google Search nowadays, for better or for worse.

For LLM searches, so far, the number of free LLMs that don't require a 
mothership tracking account are dwindling down to only 4-1/2, and really
dwindling down to only 1-1/2 if we count limitations on usage per day.

0. https://copilot.microsoft.com/  (this used to work fine w/o limitation)
1. https://duck.ai/ (still works without limitation but not well on VPN)
2. https://plai.chat/ (has problems on VPN with verification challenges)

These have restrictive usage limits
3. https://www.perplexity.ai/ 
4. https://chatgpt.com/

But the advantage of the CoPilot is it works happily on VPN, while others 
make us jump through hoops to work on VPN, and there are no turn limits.

So mostly I've been using CoPilot for the past half year or so, but only 
recently (July 2026) CoPilot enforced server-side redirects I can't bypass.

If you, or anyone, knows of a trick I haven't tried, let me know.
Below is the latest (Windows) copilot.bat file showing what I've tried.

  :: copilot.bat
  :: Launches Windows copilot without the mothership login being forced.
  :: ----------------------------------------------------------------------
  :: v1p3 20260726 (Firefox new-tab launch method)
  ::  In July 2026, Copilot's server-side forced-login logic triggers whenever
  ::  Copilot is launched from a redirect, a local server, a shortcut URL, or
  ::  a fresh browser session that immediately navigates to Copilot. This causes
  ::  the two-panel forced-login screen (left: "sign in to copilot", right: green
  ::  blurry splash image). This is NOT the Edge sidebar; it is Copilot's own
  ::  forced-login web mode.
  ::  To bypass this, Firefox must already be running BEFORE Copilot is opened.
  ::  Copilot must be opened in a NEW TAB inside an existing Firefox session.
  ::  This produces a normal browsing context and avoids automation detection.
  ::  Anonymous Copilot still works reliably ONLY in this pattern as of July 2026.
  ::
  :: v1p2 20260725 (Edge Copilot Sidebar Mode)
  ::  In July 2026, Microsoft disabled most of the non-login copilot attempts.
  ::  The Edge rule as of July 2026 is "If the URL is copilot.microsoft.com, 
  ::  then Edge overrides the launch and opens the Copilot sidebar".
  ::  In July 2026, "Edge Copilot sidebar experience" overrides "use --app=", 
  ::   "use --new-window", "use --incognito", "use --guest", 
  ::   "use --disable-features" and "use --no-first-run".
  ::  Edge now forcibly redirects any Copilot URL into the 
  ::  "Edge Copilot sidebar experience", which attaches page metadata, 
  ::   injects the Copilot sidebar, forces sign-in, forbids anonymous mode, 
  ::   forbids standalone windows and does not allow pure web Copilot.
  ::  But Copilot can be used in an Edge sidebar session without logging 
  ::  into a mothership tracking account, but Edge metadata pollutes it.
  ::    IsCurrent=true -> Edge Copilot sidebar
  ::    IsCurrent=false -> copilot.microsoft.com
  ::     edge_all_open_tabs = [
  ::     { ... isCurrent=true },
  ::     { pageTitle:"Microsoft Copilot: Your AI companion",
  ::     pageUrl:"https://copilot.microsoft.com",
  ::     tabId:1009037958,
  ::     isCurrent:false } ]
  ::  Luckily Firefox & Chromium should still allow anonymous Copilot.
  ::  But Copilot's server-side redirect logic kicks in forcing the Edge 
  ::  Copilot sidebar mode, even though Copilot was launched inside Firefox.
  ::  not the Edge sidebar.
  ::  It's Copilot's forced-login web mode.
  :: 
  :: v1p1 20251006 (what is this method called?)
  ::  "C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft\Edge\Application\msedge.exe" ^
  ::    --profile-directory=Default ^
  ::    --app-id=aioglfahffbnednffnodjbiiojbochai ^
  ::    --app-url=https://copilot.microsoft.com/ ^
  ::    --app-run-on-os-login-mode=windowed ^
  ::    --app-launch-source=19 ^
  ::    --disable-features=msEdgeHubsSidebar,EdgeSidebar,SidePanel,EdgeSidePanel,SidePanelAutoExpand,SidePanelDragToOpen
  :: That sequences forces Edge into standalone app mode
  :: which disables the sidebar, disables the Copilot hub, 
  :: disables the side panel, disables auto-expand, disables drag-to-open,
  ::  and then launches Copilot as a PWA, bypassing login & metadata injection.
  :: 
  :: v1p0 20250816 (what is this method called?)
  ::  Launches Copilot w/o any login rquirements:
  ::  "C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft\Edge\Application\msedge.exe" --app=https://copilot.microsoft.com/
  :: ----------------------------------------------------------------------
  @echo off
  
  :: v1p3 change: Remove Mongoose redirect entirely.
  :: Copilot now blocks redirect-based launches (forced-login mode).
  :: Firefox must start FIRST, then Copilot must open in a NEW TAB.
  
  :: Step 1 ¡X Launch Firefox normally (no URL)
  start "" "C:\app\browser\firefox\firefox.exe"
  
  :: Step 2 ¡X Give Firefox time to start up (2 seconds is too short)
  timeout /t 10 >nul
  
  :: Step 3 ¡X Open Copilot in a NEW TAB inside the running Firefox session
  :: This avoids automation detection and preserves anonymous mode.
  start "" "C:\app\browser\firefox\firefox.exe" -new-tab "https://copilot.microsoft.com"
  
  :: end of copilot.bat
  
-- 
Sometimes you can find helpful people on Usenet who know more than you do.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17944

On 2026-07-27 19:55, Maria Sophia wrote:
> These have restrictive usage limits
> 3.https://www.perplexity.ai/ 
> 4.https://chatgpt.com/

I use chatgpt, and I have not found a limit. Must be big.
No, I do not use a VPN.

Just now I asked something, got a correct answer, said thanks, there was 
a hiccup:

No access token when trying to use AuthHeader.

When it gets stuck, I refresh the page or start another page (tab).



-- 
Cheers,
        Carlos E.R.
        ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17947

On 2026-07-27 11:19 a.m., Carlos E. R. wrote:
> On 2026-07-27 19:55, Maria Sophia wrote:
>> These have restrictive usage limits
>> 3.https://www.perplexity.ai/
>> 4.https://chatgpt.com/
> 
> I use chatgpt, and I have not found a limit. Must be big.
> No, I do not use a VPN.
> 
> Just now I asked something, got a correct answer

¿Y crees los detalles?

¡Ay, caramba!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17950

Carlos E. R. wrote:
> I use chatgpt, and I have not found a limit. Must be big.
> No, I do not use a VPN.
> 
> Just now I asked something, got a correct answer, said thanks, there was 
> a hiccup:
> 
> No access token when trying to use AuthHeader.
> 
> When it gets stuck, I refresh the page or start another page (tab).


I just tested on Windows sans VPN with Firefox on https://chatgpt.com/ 
1. It let me ask questions (see log below)
2. After x turns, it brought up a stop box
      Thanks for trying ChatGPT
      Log in or sign up to get smarter responses, 
      upload files and images, and more.
         [Log in] <-- button 
         [Sign up for free] <-- button 
         <Stay logged out> <-- link
3. The link for "Stay logged out" is https://chatgpt.com/#
5. On the right side of the Firefox window is a set of bars.
   There are five of them. These indicate five full turns.
6. Pressing the link, brings me back to chatgpt for more.

So that's 
 1st turn: my pool. ch 300, ph7.8, ta 80, cya 50, FC 5.0...
 2nd turn: That's bullshit. the amount of calcium is mea...
 3rd turn: what do you mean by kinetic and bulk in "Th...
 4th turn: a gallon of muriatic acide made the pool crysta...
 5th turn: TA is 70 (it was 85 before). pH is 7.2 (which t...

I'll keep asking questions during the day to see if/when it 
asks me to log in and if/when it no longer allows questions.
============================================================= 
FIRST TURN:
============================================================= 
my pool. ch 300, ph7.8, ta 80, cya 50, FC 5.0, temp 80, was fine with
bleach (HASA 12.5%) but then Costco had a sale on 58.44% cal hypo HTH
brand. Now my pool is milky white. Why? 
=============================================================  
The most likely explanation is that the **cal-hypo introduced calcium into
water that was already near its calcium saturation limit**, causing
**calcium carbonate to precipitate**. That precipitation looks exactly like
a milky white cloud.

Here's why your numbers point in that direction:

* **pH: 7.8** - on the high side.
* **TA: 80 ppm** - reasonable.
* **CYA: 50 ppm** - fine.
* **FC: 5 ppm** - fine.
* **Temp: 80degF** - warm water favors scaling.
* **CH: 300 ppm** - not excessive by itself, but it's high enough that
adding more calcium can push the water over the edge.

### Why bleach worked but cal-hypo didn't

Liquid chlorine (12.5% sodium hypochlorite) adds:

* Chlorine
* Salt

It **does not add calcium**.

Cal-hypo adds:

* Chlorine
* **Calcium hardness**

Every 10 ppm of free chlorine added with 58% cal-hypo also raises calcium
hardness by roughly **7 ppm**. If you shocked the pool or used several
doses, CH may have climbed from 300 toward 325-350+ ppm.

Even more important, **cal-hypo granules create a very high-pH zone as they
dissolve**. Right around the dissolving particles, the pH can exceed 10.
That localized high pH can instantly precipitate calcium carbonate, even if
the overall pool chemistry looks acceptable.

### Other clues

If the water:

* turned cloudy **within minutes or a few hours** of adding cal-hypo,
* feels normal,
* isn't green,

then calcium precipitation is much more likely than algae.

### How to tell

Test your **calcium hardness again**. If it's significantly above 300 now,
that's another clue.

Also inspect surfaces:

* White dust that brushes off easily = calcium precipitate.
* No slimy feel or green tint = probably not algae.

### What to do

1. Keep the pump running continuously for 24-48 hours.
2. Clean or backwash the filter as pressure rises.
3. Lower the pH to about **7.4-7.5** with muriatic acid. This helps
redissolve suspended calcium over time.
4. Don't add any more cal-hypo until the water clears.
5. Return to liquid chlorine if your calcium hardness is already adequate.

### One question

When you say **CH 300**, was that:

* **before** you switched to cal-hypo, or
* **after** the water turned cloudy?

Also, approximately **how many pounds of the HTH 58.44% cal-hypo** did you
add, and what is your pool volume (e.g. 15,000 gallons, 20,000 gallons)?
That will let me estimate how much calcium was added and whether the
cloudiness is almost certainly calcium precipitation.
============================================================= 	
SECOND TURN	
=============================================================  
That's bullshit. the amount of calcium is meaningless at 300 ppm (which is
low for a gunnite pool anyway). It's soemthing else. The pool is 40K
gallons. The amount of calcium is less than 2ppm. It's nothing. That's not
it. Try again. Look it up. Do not bullshit. This sentence is closer to the
mark "Right around the dissolving particles, the pH can exceed 10. That
localized high pH can instantly precipitate calcium carbonate, even if the
overall pool chemistry looks acceptable.". Explain it better please. And
the remedy. CH is 301 right now. Tha'ts low for a pool. I added 3 pounds	.
=============================================================  
You're right to push back on the **bulk calcium addition** argument. For
your numbers, it's not convincing.

A 40,000-gallon pool is about 151,000 L. Three pounds (1.36 kg) of 58.4%
cal-hypo contains roughly 0.79 kg of cal-hypo. The calcium contributed to
**bulk** CH is only on the order of **1-2 ppm**. Your measured CH of 301
ppm confirms that. That is not enough to move the whole pool from balanced
to scaling.

The more plausible mechanism is **localized supersaturation**, and it's a
kinetic effect, not a bulk water chemistry effect.

Here's what happens:

1. A cal-hypo granule hits the water.
2. As it dissolves, it creates a tiny plume where:

   * chlorine concentration is extremely high,
   * hydroxide concentration is extremely high (very high local pH),
   * calcium concentration is also extremely high because the granule is
literally dissolving there.
3. At high pH, part of the bicarbonate in the water converts to carbonate:
   [
   \mathrm{HCO_3^- + OH^- \rightarrow CO_3^{2-} + H_2O}
   ]
4. Now, inside that microscopic plume, you simultaneously have:

   * lots of Ca²⁺ from the dissolving granule,
   * lots of CO₃²⁻ created by the elevated pH.

That combination exceeds the solubility product of calcium carbonate, so
tiny CaCO₃ crystals nucleate almost instantly. This isn't because your
**pool** has high CH. It's because that tiny dissolving plume has an
enormous local ion concentration and pH. Once crystals nucleate, they can
persist as a colloidal suspension, giving the water a uniform milky
appearance. This phenomenon is well recognized with cal-hypo and also with
soda ash additions because both create very high local pH. ([Orenda Tech
Blog][1])

This is analogous to adding concentrated acid to water: the average pH of
the pool barely changes, but at the point of addition the chemistry is
completely different.

### Why it sometimes doesn't redissolve quickly

Calcium carbonate precipitation exhibits **hysteresis**.

Your water may have been slightly undersaturated before addition. The
cal-hypo plume creates nuclei. Once those nuclei exist, they don't
necessarily disappear immediately after dilution. They slowly dissolve if
the overall water is undersaturated, or they remain suspended until
filtered if the saturation index is near zero. The dissolution kinetics are
much slower than the precipitation kinetics. ([PubMed][2])

### The remedy

Since your CH is only 301 ppm and TA is 80, I would **not** drain or chase
calcium.

Instead:

* Lower the pH from **7.8 to about 7.2-7.4** with muriatic acid. Lowering
pH shifts carbonate back toward bicarbonate, increasing CaCO₃ solubility
and encouraging the particles to dissolve. ([Orenda Tech Blog][1])
* Run the pump continuously.
* Brush the pool to keep particles suspended so the filter can capture
them.
* Clean/backwash the filter as needed.
* Avoid adding more cal-hypo until the cloudiness is gone.
* If you continue using cal-hypo, either pre-dissolve it in a bucket or
broadcast it very slowly in front of strong return jets so the concentrated
dissolution plume is minimized. ([AQUA Magazine][3])

### One thing I'd want to know

Did the water become:

* **milky within minutes** of adding the cal-hypo, or
* **gradually over 6-24 hours**?

That timing matters. An immediate white cloud strongly supports localized
carbonate precipitation. A delayed cloud can point to oxidation of very
fine organics or incipient algae that was invisible before chlorination.

One other question: was this **HTH "Super Shock!"** from Costco (58.44%
calcium hypochlorite with "other ingredients"), or can you tell me what the
**"other ingredients" percentage** says on the label? HTH's lower-strength
products sometimes contain insoluble binders or anti-caking materials that
can also contribute to a transient haze, whereas the chemistry above is
independent of the brand.

[1]: https://blog.orendatech.com/cloudy-pool-water?utm_source=chatgpt.com
"What Causes Cloudy Pool Water?"
[2]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11827336/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
"Mechanisms of scale formation and carbon dioxide partial pressure
influence. Part I. Elaboration of an experimental method and a scaling
model - PubMed"
[3]:
https://www.aquamagazine.com/retail/article/15120781/cal-hypo-the-facts?utm_source=chatgpt.com
"Cal Hypo: The Facts | AQUA Magazine"
	
============================================================= 
THIRD TURN:
=============================================================  
what do you mean by kinetic and bulk in "The more plausible mechanism is
localized supersaturation, and it's a kinetic effect, not a bulk water
chemistry effect."... I agree "The more plausible mechanism is localized
supersaturation,", so epxlain that please. How do I add 3 p9unds of calhypo
WITHOUT that kinetic effect at the local level? How much muriatic acid
(HASA 32%) would you add? These particles seem way too small for the pump.
How big are the particles (look it up). I added it at night so I don't kow
how long it took but it was milk by the morning. There is no other
ingredient other than inert	.
============================================================= 
I think you're asking exactly the right question. The important issue isn't
"how much calcium did I add to the pool?" It's "what did the water look
like **within a few hundred microns of each dissolving granule?**"

That's a completely different problem.

### "Bulk" vs. "kinetic"

By **bulk water chemistry**, I mean the numbers you measure with a Taylor
kit:

* CH = 301 ppm
* pH = 7.8
* TA = 80
* etc.

Those describe the pool **after everything has mixed**.

By **kinetics**, I mean the chemistry that occurs **before mixing is
complete**. It asks, "How fast do reactions occur while the granule is
dissolving?"

Think of dropping a teaspoon of concentrated muriatic acid into the deep
end.

The pool does **not** become pH 0. But for a few milliseconds, within a
millimeter of the acid stream, the pH is extremely low. Chemistry happens
there that could never happen after mixing.

Cal-hypo is the opposite.

As a granule dissolves, the water immediately surrounding it contains:

* very high Ca²⁺
* very high OCl⁻
* very high OH⁻ (high pH)

That plume may only be a few millimeters across and may last only seconds,
but that's long enough for crystal nucleation.

Once the first CaCO₃ nuclei form, they don't magically disappear when the
plume disperses. They become suspended particles throughout the pool.
That's the kinetic effect: the **path** by which the water got to its final
chemistry matters, not just the final chemistry itself. Crystal nucleation
and growth depend strongly on supersaturation and mixing conditions.
([DOI][1])

### Why does bicarbonate matter?

Your TA of 80 means there's plenty of bicarbonate.

Near the granule:

* pH jumps dramatically.
* Bicarbonate converts to carbonate.
* Carbonate concentration increases by orders of magnitude locally.

Then

**Ca²⁺ x CO₃²⁻ > Ksp**

and precipitation starts.

The pool average never reaches those concentrations.

The tiny plume does.

### How do you prevent it?

This is the interesting part.

The goal is **not** to lower CH.

The goal is to **reduce the maximum supersaturation inside the dissolving
plume.**

Ways to do that:

1. **Broadcast over the largest possible area.** Don't dump 3 lb in one
spot. Throw handfuls while walking the perimeter.

2. **Add in front of return jets.** Immediate turbulent dilution is your
friend.

3. **Brush immediately afterward.** You're physically breaking up those
concentrated plumes.

4. **Never pour into the skimmer.** The pump basket and heater can see
extremely concentrated solution.

5. **Predissolve?**
   This one is controversial.

   Many manufacturers discourage predissolving cal-hypo because it can
create a very concentrated oxidizer solution and some formulations leave
insoluble residue. If you do it, use a clean plastic bucket with plenty of
water, add chemical to water (not the reverse), stir until dissolved, and
never mix with any stabilized chlorine product. From a chemistry standpoint
it absolutely reduces local supersaturation in the pool, but it introduces
handling risks.

Frankly, on a 40,000-gallon pool, I'd just go back to 12.5% HASA. It avoids
the issue entirely.

### Muriatic acid

Your pH is 7.8.

I'd lower it to about **7.4**.

For **40,000 gallons**, **TA ≈ 80**, that's approximately **½ gallon (about
64 fl oz)** of 31-32% muriatic acid. Exact demand depends on borates, TDS,
and measurement uncertainty, so I'd add about **48 oz**, circulate for
30-60 minutes, retest, and then finish the adjustment if needed.

The objective isn't to "neutralize the cal-hypo." It's to increase the
solubility of the suspended CaCO₃ particles.

### Particle size

This is actually fascinating.

Fresh precipitated calcium carbonate is **tiny**.

Primary particles can begin as nanometer-scale nuclei, then aggregate into
particles on the order of **1-3 µm** under many precipitation conditions.
([ScienceDirect][2])

For comparison:

* Sand filter: typically captures about **20-40 µm**
* Cartridge: roughly **10 µm**
* DE: roughly **2-5 µm** ([Superior Pool Routes][3])

So your intuition is probably correct.

If this is fresh CaCO₃ nucleation, **much of it is initially too small for
a sand filter**. Over time the particles collide, stick together
(flocculate), and grow. Once they're tens of microns across, the filter
removes them much more efficiently. That's why these events often clear
over a day or two rather than an hour. ([AIChE Journal][4])

### One thing still bothers me

You said it was **clear before**, and **milky the next morning** after
**only 3 lb** of 58% cal-hypo.

Three pounds in 40,000 gallons is only about **2.6 ppm FC**. That's not a
large chlorine dose.

If the cloudiness is **still completely uniform after a full day of
circulation**, I wonder whether the cal-hypo acted as a **seed** for
precipitation in water that was already very close to saturation, rather
than being solely the source of the calcium. That distinction is subtle,
but it's chemically plausible: the granules provide both a transient
supersaturated microenvironment and nucleation sites, and once nucleation
begins, additional CaCO₃ can come from the calcium and carbonate already
present in the pool water-not just from the calcium contained in the
granules themselves. That mechanism fits your observation much better than
"you added too much calcium."

[1]: https://doi.org/10.1029/2019WR025420?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Assessing
the Kinetics and Pore-Scale Characteristics of Biological Calcium Carbonate
Precipitation in Porous Media using a Microfluidic Chip Experiment - Kim -
2020 - Water Resources Research - Wiley Online Library"
[2]:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921509306019757?utm_source=chatgpt.com
"Effect of various factors on the particle size of calcium carbonate formed
in a precipitation process - ScienceDirect"
[3]:
https://superiorpoolroutes.com/pool-route-insights/the-science-behind-why-pool-water-turns-cloudy/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
"The Science Behind Why Pool Water Turns Cloudy - Superior Pool Routes"
[4]:
https://aiche.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aic.12566?utm_source=chatgpt.com
"Influence of crystallization conditions on crystal morphology and size of
CaCO3 and their effect on pressure filtration - Beck - 2012 - AIChE Journal
- Wiley Online Library"
	 
=============================================================  
FOURTH TURN:
============================================================= 
a gallon of muriatic acid made the pool crystal clear. So now we have more
data. What happened?	 
=============================================================  
That's a very useful data point, and it strongly narrows the possibilities.

The fact that **~1 gallon of 31-32% muriatic acid made the pool crystal
clear** is strong evidence that the cloudiness was **calcium carbonate (or
another carbonate scale) precipitate**, not inert filler, algae, or
undissolved cal-hypo.

Here's why.

### What the acid changed

The acid didn't remove particles by filtration. It changed the chemistry of
the particles themselves.

The key equilibrium is:

* At higher pH, more of your alkalinity exists as **carbonate (CO₃²⁻)**.
* At lower pH, that carbonate is converted back into **bicarbonate
(HCO₃⁻)**.

When you added acid, it effectively "consumed" carbonate ions:

* H⁺ + CO₃²⁻ -> HCO₃⁻

That lowers the carbonate concentration. Since calcium carbonate solubility
depends on both calcium and carbonate,

**Ca²⁺ + CO₃²⁻ ⇌ CaCO₃(s)**

removing carbonate shifts the equilibrium toward dissolution of the solid
particles. The suspended CaCO₃ gradually dissolved back into dissolved
calcium and bicarbonate, so the water became clear.

If the cloudiness had been:

* inert filler,
* dead algae,
* fine dust,
* or undissolved cal-hypo,

acid would not have made it disappear so effectively.

### Why only 3 lb of cal-hypo caused it

This is the interesting part.

I don't think the **calcium contained in the cal-hypo** was the main source
of the precipitate.

Instead, the cal-hypo likely **triggered nucleation**.

Your pool already contained:

* CH ≈ 300 ppm
* TA ≈ 80 ppm
* pH ≈ 7.8
* 80degF water

That's a combination that can be close to calcium carbonate saturation
depending on salt level, dissolved solids, and aeration. The pool can sit
there for weeks without visible scaling because nucleation is relatively
slow.

Then the dissolving cal-hypo granules created microscopic regions with:

* very high pH,
* locally high calcium,
* high carbonate.

Those microenvironments crossed the precipitation threshold and formed the
first crystals. Once those nuclei existed, **the calcium carbonate didn't
have to come only from the granules**. The bulk pool water already
contained plenty of dissolved calcium and bicarbonate. Those ions could
continue depositing onto the newly formed nuclei until the water reached a
new equilibrium.

So the cal-hypo acted more like a **spark** than the **fuel**.

### Why the acid fixed it

A gallon of 31-32% muriatic acid in 40,000 gallons is a meaningful dose.
Roughly speaking, it would be expected to lower the pH from around 7.8 into
the low-7s (the exact value depends on your pool's alkalinity and
buffering).

That reduces the water's **calcite saturation index (CSI)**. A CSI that was
slightly positive before the acid can become slightly negative afterward,
making existing CaCO₃ particles thermodynamically unstable. They dissolve,
and the water clears.

### What I think happened

Putting all the observations together:

* The pool was stable while using liquid chlorine because it never
experienced high-pH dissolution plumes.
* Switching to cal-hypo created localized, short-lived zones of extreme
supersaturation around dissolving granules.
* Those zones nucleated microscopic calcium carbonate crystals.
* The crystals remained suspended, making the water appear milky.
* The acid lowered the carbonate concentration enough that the crystals
dissolved back into solution.

That sequence is internally consistent with all of your measurements
**and** with the observation that acid alone restored crystal-clear water.

One thing I'd be curious about: after adding the gallon of acid, **what did
your pH and TA measure?** Those values would let us estimate how close your
pool was to the calcium carbonate saturation threshold before and after the
event.
	
============================================================= 
FIFTH TURN:
=============================================================  
TA is 70 (it was 85 before). pH is 7.2 (which the lowest it's ever been)
=============================================================  
Those measurements fit the hypothesis very well.

Before the cal-hypo:

* **pH:** 7.8
* **TA:** 85 ppm
* **CH:** ~300 ppm
* **Temp:** 80degF

After the acid:

* **pH:** 7.2
* **TA:** 70 ppm
* **CH:** ~300 ppm (essentially unchanged)

Notice what changed:

* **Calcium didn't change.**
* **Carbonate availability did.**

That's exactly what you'd expect if the suspended material was calcium
carbonate.

### Why the TA drop matters

Most of your TA is bicarbonate (HCO₃⁻). At pH 7.8, a small but important
fraction exists as carbonate (CO₃²⁻). Carbonate is what combines with
calcium to make solid CaCO₃.

When you added muriatic acid:

* pH dropped from 7.8 to 7.2.
* Some bicarbonate was converted to dissolved carbonic acid (which is in
equilibrium with dissolved CO₂).
* The carbonate concentration dropped **much more than the TA did** because
carbonate is very sensitive to pH.

That last point is easy to underestimate. A 0.6-unit drop in pH doesn't
just reduce carbonate by 20-30%; it reduces it by roughly a factor of
**four** because the bicarbonate/carbonate equilibrium is logarithmic. So
even though TA only fell from 85 to 70 ppm, the carbonate ion
concentration-the species that actually forms CaCO₃-fell dramatically.

That would move the water from "able to sustain CaCO₃ particles" to "able
to dissolve them."

### Why liquid chlorine never caused this

Liquid chlorine also raises pH initially, but it enters the pool as a
**fully dissolved solution**. It disperses rapidly into the surrounding
water.

Cal-hypo dissolves from a solid. Around each granule, there is a transient
boundary layer where:

* calcium concentration is very high,
* pH is very high,
* mixing is incomplete.

That boundary layer is the ideal place for CaCO₃ nuclei to form. Once those
nuclei exist, they can grow using calcium and carbonate already present in
the pool water. You don't need the cal-hypo to supply much calcium overall;
it only has to create the initial conditions for nucleation.

### A practical takeaway

Given your experience, I'd expect your pool is **right on the edge** of
where cal-hypo can trigger this effect. Liquid chlorine doesn't create
those same dissolving-plume conditions, so it doesn't push the system over
the edge.

If you wanted to continue using cal-hypo occasionally, one strategy would
be to **lower the pH to around 7.4 before adding it**, rather than adding
it when the pool is already at 7.8. That gives you more margin against
localized carbonate precipitation.

One question that would help complete the picture: **what is your pool's
salt level (if known), and are you at a high elevation?** Both affect the
calcium carbonate saturation balance, and they can explain why two pools
with the same pH, TA, and CH behave differently.
	
=============================================================  
      Thanks for trying ChatGPT
      Log in or sign up to get smarter responses, 
      upload files and images, and more.
         [Log in] <-- button 
         [Sign up for free] <-- button 
         <Stay logged out> <-- link
=============================================================  
-- 
Sometimes you just have to test things empirically to figure 'em out.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17951

Maria Sophia wrote:
> =============================================================  
>       Thanks for trying ChatGPT
>       Log in or sign up to get smarter responses, 
>       upload files and images, and more.
>          [Log in] <-- button 
>          [Sign up for free] <-- button 
>          <Stay logged out> <-- link
> =============================================================  
> Sometimes you just have to test things empirically to figure 'em out.

Testing the procedure with Firefox for chatgpt that was suggested... 

==============================================================
SIXTH QESTION TURN (after clicking "stay logged out")
==============================================================
I'm only at about 2500 feet elevation. Santa Cruz Mountains. It's not a
salt pool and the TDS is about 500 as I never use my pumps. I just keep the
water clean by vacuuming manually and skimming manually and always being
nekkid (no clothing detritus) and in the summer I worry about sanitation
(you have to sacrifice chlorine to the sun god) while in the winter I worry
about saturation (otherwise you sacrifice the pool surface to the calcium
god) so I set my CYA in the summer high (for me) at 50ppm (no shade - it's
the top of a mountain overlooking Silicon Valley) and in the winter I am
laissez faire and just keep the csi positive (about 1/3rd of a point above
the zero inflection point). The monsoon rains add about 1/4 of the pool
over the winter (which is 10,000 gallons out of 40,000 gallons) so I start
in the spring with a quater dilution since I pump the water out before the
monsons so it won't overflow on the deck. 	 
==============================================================
SIXTH ANSWER TURN 
==============================================================
Thanks-that context actually explains a lot. You're managing the pool more
like someone who understands the chemistry than someone following a
pool-store recipe.

A few observations jumped out.

First, your **TDS is unusually low** for a mature 40,000-gallon
plaster/gunite pool. Between rain dilution, vacuuming to waste, and using
liquid chlorine most of the time, your water is "clean" in the chemical
sense. That's good, but it also means your CSI calculations are probably
closer to textbook behavior than those of many pools with 1500-3000 ppm
TDS.

Second, your comment about **not running the pump much** may be more
important than anything else you've said.

When you broadcast cal-hypo into a pool with minimal circulation, those
dissolving plumes don't get ripped apart immediately. Instead of existing
for a fraction of a second, they may persist for several seconds. That
gives the precipitation reaction much more time to nucleate crystals.

Imagine two extremes:

* **High-flow commercial pool:** a granule is engulfed in turbulent water
almost immediately.
* **Still mountain pool:** the granule sits in a relatively quiescent
boundary layer while dissolving.

Same chemistry. Different mixing time. Different outcome.

That would make your pool *more* susceptible to exactly the localized
precipitation mechanism we discussed.

---

There's another subtle point that I think fits your observations.

You mentioned that in winter you intentionally keep the CSI around **+0.3**
to protect the plaster.

The CSI is an **equilibrium** calculation. It tells you whether calcium
carbonate *should* dissolve or precipitate **after the water has
equilibrated**.

It says almost nothing about **how easily crystals nucleate**.

That's a classic limitation of equilibrium models.

Water can remain supersaturated for a long time if there are no nucleation
sites. Then one event-a cal-hypo granule, a rough plaster spot, a bit of
dust-provides a place for crystals to start growing.

Once nucleation begins, the barrier has been crossed.

The acid you added essentially reversed that by making the equilibrium
unfavorable for the solid phase.

---

One thing I find interesting is your observation that **one gallon of acid
made it crystal clear**, not merely "better."

That suggests the particles were **extremely fine**.

If they had been 50-µm chunks, they would have settled or filtered.

Instead they dissolved.

That's much more consistent with freshly nucleated CaCO₃ than with
undissolved cal-hypo or inert filler.

---

One thing I would probably do differently from many pool owners, based on
how you operate, is **never let the pH get to 7.8 before using cal-hypo**.

Not because 7.8 is "bad"-it isn't.

But because you're already operating intentionally close to the saturation
boundary. If you want to use cal-hypo as an occasional oxidizer, I'd knock
the pH down to about **7.4** beforehand. That gives the dissolving plumes
much more room before they reach the nucleation threshold.

---

Your mention of the "chlorine sacrifice to the sun god" made me smile
because it's chemically apt. In summer, the dominant sink for chlorine is
UV photolysis, so CYA is your friend. In winter, the dominant long-term
concern for a plaster pool is often maintaining a slightly positive or
near-neutral CSI to avoid etching. You're essentially optimizing for
different failure modes in different seasons.

One thought I'd leave you with is a distinction that I think explains your
experience better than the usual "high CSI causes scaling" advice:

* **CSI predicts whether calcium carbonate is thermodynamically favored.**
* **Mixing controls whether you ever create the microscopic conditions
needed to nucleate it.**

Most pool chemistry discussions focus almost entirely on the first. Your
experiment with cal-hypo versus liquid chlorine highlights the second. In
your pool, the chemistry wasn't changed much by 3 lb of cal-hypo in 40,000
gallons-but the **route** by which the chemistry was introduced was enough
to create a transient microenvironment where precipitation could start.
Once those nuclei formed, they scattered light very efficiently, and
lowering the pH dissolved them again.

That's a much more satisfying explanation than "you added too much
calcium," because your own measurements (CH essentially unchanged) rule
that out. And the acid-clearing experiment is exactly the sort of
observation that helps distinguish between competing mechanisms.
==============================================================
Seventh Question TURN 
==============================================================
Just to be clear, I have three pumps, and I never run any of them ever. One
is for the spa, which I've got solar heated by throwing a foundain pump and
500 feet of black heavy sinking aeration hose on the deck, which raises the
spa 10 to 12 degrees above the pool, but it's not hot like a hot tub would
be (I never run the gas heater nor the solar heater that is plumbed into
the 2-inch lines). I add calcium salt (slow joe or whatever the common
brand is for melting ice) once a year in the spring, and cyanuric acid
flakes (which take forever to dissolve so I have buckets for that). Once I
set the base chemistry, the only thing I normally add is the (yellow HASA
cases of chlorine and (orange) muriatic acid. Most people add acid with
bleach but I know it's chemically neutral over night, so I don't bother. I
don't chagte pH so I use about one case of acid in a year, given I only use
it to drop when it gets near the pH cieling (Eric Knight and Richard Falk
are friends of mine)	.
==============================================================
Seventh ANSWER TURN 
==============================================================
That paints a much clearer picture, and it's an unusual operating regime-in
a good way.

A few things stand out.

Your pool is essentially operating as a **large, chemically stable
reservoir** rather than a continuously processed system. Most residential
pools are constantly filtered, aerated, heated, and dosed by automation.
Yours gets:

* annual CH adjustment,
* annual CYA adjustment,
* routine liquid chlorine,
* occasional acid,
* manual cleaning,
* very little hydraulic mixing.

That means your water chemistry is probably *more stable* than many pools
because you're not constantly driving CO₂ out of the water with waterfalls,
spas, spillovers, SWGs, or return turbulence. It's also why your acid
consumption is low.

### You're also right about liquid chlorine

People often say, "Liquid chlorine raises pH," which is true
**immediately**.

But if the chlorine is consumed oxidizing organics or by sunlight, the net
reaction is essentially pH-neutral. The temporary OH⁻ generated when sodium
hypochlorite is added is balanced by H⁺ generated when the hypochlorous
acid is ultimately reduced. Over the full cycle, the effect is close to
neutral unless you're accounting for secondary processes like CO₂
outgassing.

So your strategy of **not chasing every temporary pH rise** is chemically
sound.

### Why the cal-hypo was different

Given everything you've described, I think your experience is actually a
nice real-world demonstration of something that doesn't get emphasized
enough.

Your pool spends most of its life **without strong circulation**. That
means diffusion-not turbulence-is doing most of the mixing.

The characteristic diffusion distance is proportional to the square root of
time. A molecule diffuses only about a millimeter in a second. Turbulent
mixing is orders of magnitude faster.

So when a cal-hypo granule lands, the surrounding "reaction zone" persists
much longer than it would in a pool with 80 GPM flowing past it. During
that time, the local chemistry is governed by the dissolving solid, not by
the average pool chemistry.

That's why I think your observation is a particularly clean example of
localized supersaturation.

### The experiment I'd do

If you ever decide to revisit this (purely as an experiment), I'd change
only **one variable**.

On one evening:

* lower the pH to about **7.3-7.4**,
* take the same **3 lb** of the same cal-hypo,
* divide it into perhaps a dozen small portions,
* broadcast them over the entire pool with at least 20-30 seconds between
handfuls.

Everything else stays the same.

If the cloudiness doesn't occur, that would strongly support the idea that
the threshold is controlled by **peak local supersaturation**, not the
total amount of calcium or chlorine added.

### One thing I wonder about

Since you know Eric Knight and Richard Falk, here's something I'd genuinely
be curious to hear their opinion on.

The **Calcite Saturation Index (CSI)** assumes equilibrium. But your pool
is operating in a regime where **mass transport** (diffusion versus
turbulent mixing) may be the dominant variable. In other words, two pools
with identical CSI could behave differently because one allows persistent
dissolution plumes around solid chemicals while the other destroys those
plumes almost instantly through mixing.

That's not a criticism of CSI-it wasn't designed to model transient
microenvironments. It's just a reminder that equilibrium thermodynamics and
reaction kinetics answer different questions.

And your acid experiment is the key observation that makes this
interesting. If someone had only told me "my pool got cloudy after
cal-hypo," there would be several plausible explanations. The fact that **a
single acid addition restored complete clarity without changing CH** is a
strong indicator that you were dealing with a reversible carbonate
precipitation event rather than contamination or insoluble residue.

I also have to admit I like your operating philosophy. It's refreshingly
empirical: you adjust the chemistry a few times a year, understand what
each chemical is actually doing, and avoid adding products that solve one
problem by creating another. That approach tends to produce fewer surprises
than the "weekly cocktail" many pool owners are sold.
==============================================================
Eighth Question TURN 
==============================================================
I have zero aeration other than placid octogenairan swimmers (two) in a 40K
gallon pool so there's not much two nekkid people (who don't pee in the
pool - I pee into the fertilizer bucket like any good Democrat would gven
it lowers the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere due to the lack of the
bessler process need). It's a self-cleaning pool but that only means there
are two pumps that I don't use. One is for the popup valves (which,
strangely, is not filtered even though it's input is the skimmers). and the
other is for the filter which is a humongous filter the size of a mars
lunar lander. But I never run them. Every couple of years I replace the
water especially if the monsoons are light that year. I dump the water
right over my well. It soaks in but the well is 400 feet down so it's no
longer chemical after about the first foot (although there can be cracks)
so it's clean by the 100 years it takes to get to depth.
==============================================================
Eighth ANSWER TURN 
Connection interrupted. Waiting for the complete answer
==============================================================

I took screenshots if people need 'em, but 8 turns (really
7 turns, 'cuz it never answered the eighth turn.

On the bottom left of Firefox is a round black dot.
On the bottom right of Firefox is a black circle.

That black circle doesn't have an arrow indicator.
It has only a white box.

No amount of clicking will get it past that point.
So I will try Carlos' trick of opening another tab.

But, if it opens another tab, I lose the context.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17953

Maria Sophia wrote:
> No amount of clicking will get it past that point.
> So I will try Carlos' trick of opening another tab.

Well, I tried the trick, and posted the last turn and it didn't know
anything about the context, so the most I can get out of Firefox and
chatgpt is 7 turns. You get five and then two more. That's it.

I can still talk to the LLM, but it completely forgot all the context.

==============================================================
8th Question TURN 
==============================================================
I have zero aeration other than placid octogenairan swimmers (two) in a 40K
gallon pool so there's not much two nekkid people (who don't pee in the
pool - I pee into the fertilizer bucket like any good Democrat would gven
it lowers the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere due to the lack of the
bessler process need). It's a self-cleaning pool but that only means there
are two pumps that I don't use. One is for the popup valves (which,
strangely, is not filtered even though it's input is the skimmers). and the
other is for the filter which is a humongous filter the size of a mars
lunar lander. But I never run them. Every couple of years I replace the
water especially if the monsoons are light that year. I dump the water
right over my well. It soaks in but the well is 400 feet down so it's no
longer chemical after about the first foot (although there can be cracks)
so it's clean by the 100 years it takes to get to depth.
==============================================================
8th ANSWER TURN 
Connection interrupted. So this is in a different tab.
Note that all the prior context is lost. So it's useless.
==============================================================
You've described a very unusual way of operating a pool, and a few parts
are worth separating.

If you're literally **never running the circulation or filter pump**, then:

* The filter isn't doing anything, regardless of its size.
* The "self-cleaning" pop-up system also isn't doing anything if its pump
is off.
* The pool is relying almost entirely on:

  * natural settling,
  * whatever sanitizer is present,
  * sunlight,
  * dilution from occasional water replacement.

If there are only two people using a 40,000-gallon pool, the organic load
is indeed very small compared with a heavily used residential pool. That
reduces chlorine demand, but it doesn't eliminate the need for circulation
if you want uniform water chemistry and filtration.

Regarding dumping the water over your well:

* A 400-foot-deep well does **not** mean water poured on the surface takes
100 years to reach it. Travel time depends on the local geology. In
fractured rock, water can sometimes move much faster than through fine
soils.
* Chlorine in pool water usually dissipates fairly quickly after discharge
because it reacts with soil and organic matter, but dissolved salts (from
chlorine products), cyanuric acid, calcium, and other dissolved chemicals
don't simply disappear in the first foot of soil.
* For that reason, many well owners avoid discharging large volumes of pool
water directly near the wellhead. It's generally safer to discharge well
away from the well, where local regulations allow, so the soil has more
opportunity to attenuate contaminants before they could reach groundwater.

As for aeration, you're correct that with only two calm swimmers there's
essentially very little. Aeration mainly matters for:

* driving carbon dioxide out of the water,
* raising pH (without changing total alkalinity),
* mixing chemicals.

Without waterfalls, fountains, returns pointed upward, or vigorous
swimming, there won't be much gas exchange from aeration alone.

One thing I'm curious about is what prompted your description. Are you
asking about:

* whether the pool can remain sanitary without running the pumps,
* carbon dioxide and pH chemistry,
* the effect on your well,
* or something else?

==============================================================
9th Question TURN 
==============================================================	
I'm well aware of Franciscan chert geology on the ocean side of the San
Andreas fault (I can spit into the fault line) so I'm aware water doesn't
pop out of the mountain (even in winter) 'till about 1600 feet (which I'm
above even at the depth of the wellhead) and it's 1300 feet in the summer
as the table lowers (it's not an aquifer but more like a cracked sponge of
mafic ocean sediments, chert and some graywacke & a bit of serpentinite all
jumbled up with terranes scraped up 30 million years ago at the destruction
of the Pacific Plate). But back to my chemistry question. Do you think the
acid solved the problem or not?
==============================================================
8th ANSWER TURN 
==============================================================
Given what you've described about the local geology, I'll stick to the
chemistry.

I'm not sure what "the problem" refers to because this message doesn't
mention what acid you added or what you were trying to fix. If you're
referring to a previous part of the conversation that isn't visible to me,
I don't want to guess.

If the issue was **high pH due to CO₂ loss**, then yes, adding acid would
lower the pH. It would also reduce total alkalinity somewhat, depending on
how much acid was added.

If the issue was **high total alkalinity**, acid can lower it, but in a
pool with essentially no aeration, the process is different from the
standard "acid + aeration" method. Normally:

1. Add acid to lower pH.
2. Aerate to drive off CO₂.
3. pH rises while total alkalinity stays lower.
4. Repeat as needed.

Without significant aeration, the pH tends to stay low longer because CO₂
isn't being stripped from the water very quickly. So acid alone can reduce
alkalinity, but the chemistry re-equilibrates much more slowly.

If the issue was something else-such as calcium scaling, metal
precipitation, cloudy water, or chlorine effectiveness-the answer depends
on exactly what was happening.

Could you tell me:

* What problem were you trying to solve?
* What acid did you use (typically muriatic acid or dry acid)?
* What were your before-and-after measurements (pH, total alkalinity, and
if available, calcium hardness and cyanuric acid)?

Those numbers would make it possible to tell whether the acid likely
accomplished what you intended.
==============================================================
9th question TURN 
==============================================================
I see you added an advertisement. WHy? I don't want them. And I never see
them when I use copilot. WHy does chatgpt infest the chat with an ad for
"mid atlantic water where A real expert reads your water test". I'm already
an expert. That's why I'm asking you about the chemistry issue we just
spent 8 turns on before you locked up and I had to go to another tab.
==============================================================
9th ANSWER TURN 
==============================================================
I understand why that was frustrating, especially after a long technical
discussion where you were asking a chemistry question rather than looking
for a water-testing service.

I don't control or insert advertisements into the ChatGPT interface, and I
can't see what appears in your app or browser UI. If you saw a separately
labeled sponsored item such as "Mid Atlantic Water" or "A real expert reads
your water test," that was a platform ad placement, separate from my
response. Ads (when shown) don't influence my answers or what I say. If you
want to give feedback about that ad, you can usually use the ad's ... menu
and choose options like Hide this ad, Not relevant to me, or Report this ad
(wording can vary by app).

On the chemistry thread: I'm sorry the continuity broke. I don't actually
have access to the missing eight turns from the previous tab/session, so I
can't see the acid event you were referring to. I should have said that
more explicitly rather than making it sound like I was missing only a small
detail.

If you give me the short version of the experiment-what acid you added, how
much, what the pool readings were before and after, and what symptom you
were trying to correct-I can pick it back up from there. Given your setup
(40K gallons, almost no aeration, very low bather load), the key question
is likely whether the acid changed total alkalinity, merely adjusted pH
temporarily, or actually solved the underlying imbalance.   	 
==============================================================
10th question TURN 
==============================================================
Why did https://chatgpt.com/ lock up after five turns, asking me Thanks for
trying ChatGPT Log in or sign up to get smarter responses, upload files and
images, and more. [Log in] <-- button [Sign up for free] <-- button <Stay
logged out> <-- link And then, when I clicked to stay logged out, it gave
me only two more turns before locking up.
==============================================================
10th answer TURN 
==============================================================
What you ran into sounds like a usage limit or session restriction for
logged-out ChatGPT use, not the chat itself "locking up" because of the
chemistry topic.

When you use ChatGPT

while not signed in, access is more limited than when you're logged into an
account. The exact limits can vary depending on things like:

current demand on the service,
which model is being used,
whether you are logged out or on a free account,
browser/session state,
regional availability and experiments being run.

The "Thanks for trying ChatGPT - Log in or sign up..." message is the
normal prompt shown when the anonymous session has reached its allowed
usage. Clicking "Stay logged out" can sometimes let you continue with a
smaller allowance, which likely explains why you got a couple more turns
and then hit the limit again.

A few practical points:

Creating a free account generally gives you a more stable experience and
preserves chats/history.
If you were in a long technical conversation, being logged in is much less
likely to interrupt it.
If a chat is important, copying the key details into a saved note is a good
precaution, since anonymous sessions are more fragile.

It also explains why I didn't have the previous eight turns available here:
a logged-out or interrupted session may not carry the conversation context
into a new tab/session.

For what it's worth, your pool chemistry question is exactly the kind of
thing where continuity matters-because the answer depends on the sequence
of measurements and treatments, not just the final pH. If you paste the
relevant measurements from the earlier exchange, I can continue from there.	 
==============================================================
11th question TURN 
==============================================================
There's that idiotic ad for water testing again. 
Where is it docmented that you only allow about 7 turns?
This is <expletive> absurd.
==============================================================
11th answer TURN 
==============================================================
I understand why you're angry about this. A few separate things are getting
mixed together:

The "Mid Atlantic Water" item

I can't remove it, suppress it, or control what appears in the ChatGPT
interface. I also can't see your screen. If that item is a separately
labeled sponsored placement, it is coming from the ChatGPT product UI, not
from me generating a recommendation. You can use the ad's ... menu (if
available) to hide/report it or indicate it isn't relevant. If you want an
ad-free experience, the available options depend on your plan and region.

The "5 turns + 2 more turns" claim

You are right to challenge my wording. I do not have documentation saying
"logged-out users get exactly five turns, then two more after clicking Stay
logged out." I should not have implied that there was a published fixed
rule matching your exact experience.

The more accurate statement is: logged-out ChatGPT sessions can have
stricter and variable usage limits, and the product may ask users to sign
in when those limits are reached. The exact thresholds can change and are
not necessarily published as a fixed number of turns.

Your observed sequence-five turns, then a couple more after choosing "Stay
logged out"-is a real observation, but I cannot verify that it is the
universal limit or a documented policy.

Why it may have happened

Possible reasons include:

anonymous session limits,
temporary capacity controls,
model availability restrictions,
browser/session tracking behavior,
an experiment or product change.

Without access to internal service logs, I can't tell which one triggered
your specific session.

You were right to call out the unsupported specificity. The better answer
would have been: "I don't know the exact threshold; logged-out sessions are
limited and the limit can vary." I should have said that the first time.  

==============================================================
12th question TURN 
==============================================================	 
At this point, it hung the chat, but differently than before.
There is no gui left to click. The previous dot & square are not there.
There's just no way to add another turn.

So, even if we change subjects and lose all context, it is 
next to worthless for any search that is complex in detail.

It may have been the swearing though. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17952

On 2026-07-27 22:03, Maria Sophia wrote:
> Carlos E. R. wrote:
>> I use chatgpt, and I have not found a limit. Must be big.
>> No, I do not use a VPN.
>>
>> Just now I asked something, got a correct answer, said thanks, there was
>> a hiccup:
>>
>> No access token when trying to use AuthHeader.
>>
>> When it gets stuck, I refresh the page or start another page (tab).
> 
> 
> I just tested on Windows sans VPN with Firefox on https://chatgpt.com/
> 1. It let me ask questions (see log below)
> 2. After x turns, it brought up a stop box
>        Thanks for trying ChatGPT
>        Log in or sign up to get smarter responses,
>        upload files and images, and more.
>           [Log in] <-- button
>           [Sign up for free] <-- button
>           <Stay logged out> <-- link
> 3. The link for "Stay logged out" is https://chatgpt.com/#
> 5. On the right side of the Firefox window is a set of bars.
>     There are five of them. These indicate five full turns.
> 6. Pressing the link, brings me back to chatgpt for more.

I do not get that set of bars.

I have not counted how many questions I pose per tab.

I have never got that end paragraph you get.

Also, I am polite to it, saying thanks.

-- 
Cheers,
        Carlos E.R.
        ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17954

Carlos E. R. wrote:
> I do not get that set of bars.
> I have not counted how many questions I pose per tab.
> I have never got that end paragraph you get.
> Also, I am polite to it, saying thanks.

Hi Carlos,

Thanks for helping out as we can find out stuff that everyone will benefit
from that they wouldn't even think of since we're experts at this stuff.

With Copilot, you don't get the bars, but with ChatGPT I get them. 
I'll post a set of screenshots of the session for you to see them.
 <https://i.postimg.cc/3JrRGbP2/chatgpt-01.jpg> chat works up until 5
 <https://i.postimg.cc/gjzYvntB/chatgpt-02.jpg> these are the bars
 <https://i.postimg.cc/CxXLWMd4/chatgpt-03.jpg> they're kind of neat

They're kind of neat. Each bar can be clicked to show that turn.
Copilot doesn't have that mechanism that ChatGPT does for the bars.

What I found is you get five and then two and that's it for context.
As is my wont, I add a ton of context, but it's all lost after that.

Which means chatgpt really sucks in terms of handling complex queries.
At least it sucks without logging into it with an account.

CoPilot never turns out on us when in the Windows Edge browser.
But I only have one trick left, which is to use it in a sidebar.

Sigh.

If only we could get FF to work with Copilot, that would solve the problem.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17966

On 2026-07-27 23:23, Maria Sophia wrote:
> Carlos E. R. wrote:
>> I do not get that set of bars.
>> I have not counted how many questions I pose per tab.
>> I have never got that end paragraph you get.
>> Also, I am polite to it, saying thanks.
> 
> Hi Carlos,
> 
> Thanks for helping out as we can find out stuff that everyone will benefit
> from that they wouldn't even think of since we're experts at this stuff.
> 
> With Copilot, you don't get the bars, but with ChatGPT I get them.
> I'll post a set of screenshots of the session for you to see them.
>   <https://i.postimg.cc/3JrRGbP2/chatgpt-01.jpg> chat works up until 5
>   <https://i.postimg.cc/gjzYvntB/chatgpt-02.jpg> these are the bars
>   <https://i.postimg.cc/CxXLWMd4/chatgpt-03.jpg> they're kind of neat

Those photos do not load for me. The pages stay running for minutes, 
then nothing. Possibly something going on today.

> 
> They're kind of neat. Each bar can be clicked to show that turn.
> Copilot doesn't have that mechanism that ChatGPT does for the bars.
> 
> What I found is you get five and then two and that's it for context.
> As is my wont, I add a ton of context, but it's all lost after that.
> 
> Which means chatgpt really sucks in terms of handling complex queries.
> At least it sucks without logging into it with an account.

It solves for me how to restart a failed 8 disk raid 6 assembly. Asks 
for the output of commands and interprets them. It instructed me on how 
to start creating a family tree using gramps, from zero. Instead of 
reading the manual, I started typing, then asked questions. It has a lot 
of patience.

But the text I personally write is just a paragraph, 4..8 lines top.


Ah, finally, the photos loaded. Oh, I see what you call the bars. Yes, I 
see them sometimes. I've never used them, I'll try next time.

> 
> CoPilot never turns out on us when in the Windows Edge browser.
> But I only have one trick left, which is to use it in a sidebar.
> 
> Sigh.
> 
> If only we could get FF to work with Copilot, that would solve the problem.


-- 
Cheers,
        Carlos E.R.
        ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17949

Carlos E. R. wrote:
> On 2026-07-27 19:55, Maria Sophia wrote:
>> These have restrictive usage limits
>> 3.https://www.perplexity.ai/ 
>> 4.https://chatgpt.com/
> 
> I use chatgpt, and I have not found a limit. Must be big.
> No, I do not use a VPN.
> 
> Just now I asked something, got a correct answer, said thanks, there was 
> a hiccup:
> 
> No access token when trying to use AuthHeader.
> 
> When it gets stuck, I refresh the page or start another page (tab).

Hi Carlos,

For me, LLMs have replaced search, but the problem, for me, is finding an
LLM that doesn't require an account, allows many turns & works on VPN.

That's interesting that you use ChatGPT on a desktop sans limits and
without logging into an account (which defeats the purpose of VPN).

I noticed you said "when it gets stuck", which I presume to mean it hangs
(for whatever reason), which happens to me also, on all chat interfaces.

I use LLM instead of search, simply because of the natural language.
I start off with "Don't bullshit me; look it up", and then I search.

On Windows Firefox, not on VPN, I just now went to https://chatgpt.com/ 
And it says "Ready when you are", but it's more problematic with VPN.

And, it seems to have a turn limitation, which I'll test for the team.
I'll test it throughout today on all my searches to see how it behaves.
-- 
Learning from those who know more than I ever will, is my favorite skill.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17964

UPDATE:

As of July 2026, Microsoft seems to have secretly enforced server-side 
redirects such that there is no way to use it sans login except via a 
special Microsoft-supplied Edge-only mechanism called a "sidebar chat".

On the Windows newsgroup, we tried using Copilot with MS Edge sans login.
 1. Regular mode (requires MSA, Google, or Apple account, or PIN, EntraID)
 2. Guest mode (requires MSA, Google, or Apple account, or PIN, EntraID)
 3. InPrivate mode (requires MSA, Google, or Apple account, or PIN, EntraID)
 4. Sidebar mode (uses a lightweight token tied to the browser session)
 5. 365 mode in apps (requires EntraID, formerly called Azure AD) 
 6. Built-in mode (Win11 only, requires MSA, Google, or Apple account, or PIN, EntraID)

 Newsgroups: alt.comp.microsoft.windows,alt.comp.os.windows-11,alt.comp.os.windows-10
 Subject: Can anyone get Edge Copilot to work without logging in after July 2026?
 Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2026 18:20:53 -0700
 Message-ID: <114905j$7bm$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>

The tentative conclusion, as of July 2026:
 a. Microsoft has quietly enforced server-side identity requirements for Copilot.
 b. Anonymous Copilot access is now blocked everywhere except the Edge sidebar.
 c. The Edge sidebar uses a special token mechanism that is not the same as normal login.
 d. All other Copilot entry points now require MSA, Google, Apple, PIN, or Entra ID.
 e. Microsoft did not document this change.

Regular mode refers to a normal Edge/Chrome/Firefox window.
 A. Anonymous access is blocked as of July 2026
 B. You must sign in with:
    a. Microsoft Account (MSA)
    b. Google account (OAuth token passed to Microsoft)
    c. Apple account (OAuth token passed to Microsoft)
    d. Entra ID (enterprise)
    e. Windows Hello PIN (only if tied to an MSA/Entra ID)
 C. This is the same for all browsers, including Mozilla Firefox.

Guest mode refers to a special non-signed-in Edge-browser profile 
 a. Guest mode used to bypass identity prompts prior to July 2026
 b. But as of July 2026, Microsoft now enforces identity even in Guest mode.
 c. Now requires MSA / Google / Apple / Entra ID / PIN

InPrivate mode refers to Edge's private browsing window (Ctrl+Shift+N).
 a. Now requires MSA / Google / Apple / Entra ID / PIN

Sidebar mode refers to a panel built into Edge's sidebar
 a. Uses a lightweight Edge token (i.e., no explicit login)
 b. Does not use MSA, Google or Apple login

365 mode refers to Copilot for Microsoft 365 inside Office apps  
 a. Uses Entra ID only
 b. Personal Microsoft accounts are not supported.
 c. Does not use Google or Apple login

Built-in mode refers to the Win 11 system-integrated Copilot
 a. Silently uses Windows sign-in identity (accepts MSA or Entra ID)
 b. Local accounts inherit identity if an MSA is linked
 b. Windows Copilot does not use Google or Apple login

As always, please correct where/if I err or omit critical detail.
-- 
Sometimes you just have to test things empirically to figure 'em out.
		

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.software.firefox

csiph-web