Yes that's a subject all of it's own. Who and why are the turnover rates we have set as they are? Are they actually any good? What is the point of a high turnover rate if it fails to achieve an excellent level of filtration? Is it more important to remove more from the water by filtration or to have an unrealistic turnover rate that simply re circulates the fine particles straight back through the pool, isn't that just a waste of electricity?
If a Chef wants a clear consomme, they don't push the liquid through the sieve, the same principle applies with filtration. Unfortunately the industry only has itself to blame as the filter manufacturers try to out do each other with ridiculous stated turnover rates for their filters which would result if they were actually achievable in terrible water quality but of course someone somewhere would be able to tick a box on their civil servant form.
Because of the DDASS or ARS regs, I must be able to hit the given target turnover and do, in the case of the 12m x 6m it takes 464 watts to reach the target turnover, still a long way from the 2,200 watts used previously which by the way couldn't hit the regulation turnover as measured in pipe flow Not pump stated rate of flow. The really stupid part of the regulations is although they state turnover, they don't state the maximum flow per m2 of the filter, thus meaningless as the quality will hit the floor and dirt, bacteria will just be pushed through the sand and out into the pool.