At 10:23 PM 10/16/2004 -0500, you wrote: >Evening Ode, > >You made a lot of interesting points about instrumentation. > > >>But using conductivity to get PPM isn't exactly a valid way to do these >>things anyhow. > > Seems this point has been made before, by you and others. > >> It's just better than not being able to afford to do it right. > > Without a federal grant, it is not economically feasible for most of us >to implement this instrumentation, is that what you are saying?
## A colorometer aka colorphotospectrometer is probably the next best thing to an Atomic Absorption spectrometer starting at around $5,000. Used obsolete ones can be had for a lot less. I bought a used AA spec for $100 + $100 shipping and another couple of hundred for missing and silver specific parts and still don't know how to operate it. It's about the size of a small steamer trunk and some of them are as big as a refrigerator...a big refrigerator. It ain't a matter of 'dip and read' by any means. Some labs use a titration method and the results are all over the place...even worse than a PWT. [much worse?] > >> It's better to do the job relatively badly than not at all, I suppose. > > Only one small question. > > Are there any steps between this low cost, ineffective attempt and the >high dollar lab methods? > > No matter how hard anyone tries, EC and ppm are not the same, and it is >only a simulation. In some cases, it is not even that when dealing with >nutrients. > > We have had this same discussion thousands of time relative to plant >nutrients. ## In CS, a PPM meter reading should be doubled [more or less] and taken 'as is' in a saline solution. Tell ya something? > > Some people bet the crop on EC. While EC is important, I prefer to >calculate the ppm based on weight of nutrients added to a specific volume >of water. With recirculating systems, it will be changed in 24 hours anyway. > > With a drip and drain to waste, a constant ppm can be >maintained. Seems the environment people think we will destroy the earth >by wasting a nutrient solution so weak that my dog drinks it. >And I have too. It tastes lightly salty. Dogs seem to like salty foods >almost as much as humans. > > Possibly the rain is as bad on the earth as a well balanced nutrient >solution. When every grass, weed, and tree, grows like crazy from the >waste solution, how can it be so bad? ### Depending on how much lightning was in that rain cloud, the amounts of nitric acid varies...along with whatever the acid reacts with on it's way out of the sky? I woudn't worry about weak nutrients too much. I hear that weed killers decompose into female hormone analogs and there are an awful lot of sterile hermaphroditic alligators in the Everglades now-a-days. Ode > > Wayne > > > >--- >Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >Version: 6.0.776 / Virus Database: 523 - Release Date: 10/12/2004 > -- The Silver List is a moderated forum for discussing Colloidal Silver. Instructions for unsubscribing are posted at: http://silverlist.org To post, address your message to: silver-list@eskimo.com Silver List archive: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html Address Off-Topic messages to: silver-off-topic-l...@eskimo.com OT Archive: http://escribe.com/health/silverofftopiclist/index.html List maintainer: Mike Devour <mdev...@eskimo.com>
