Re: Proposed CS protocol version 1.1

1998-08-04 Thread Brooks Bradley
Referring to the "stirring" question. Our resident "experimenter" evaluating colloidal silver generation techniques, informs me he has encountered an acceptable substitute yielding repeatable results. He has procured a very small, low output, aquarium pump which he employs to keep the parent s

Re: Proposed CS protocol version 1.1

1998-08-04 Thread George Martin
On Tue, 4 Aug 1998 08:33:05 -5, M. G. Devour wrote: => =>B! I wouldn't bet either. That's why I hope our microscopists =>will duplicate our experiments so they can compare what we send them =>to the behavior they're seeing and we are describing in e-mail. => =>If 4 or 5 of us set up the same a

Re: Proposed CS protocol version 1.1

1998-08-04 Thread George Martin
A somewhat simpler solution is to just lower the voltage. There doesn't seem to be anything magical about the value of 27 volts. I think it was originally just a convenient voltage to generate that gave rapid results. I suspect that the smallest particles are generated when 'n

Re: Proposed CS protocol version 1.1

1998-08-04 Thread M. G. Devour
Bill Kingsbury wrote: > ... the bulb actually does not function as a current limiter, > because 25 or 40 milliamps ... is too high ... That paralells my thinking, Bill. The bulb is part of Becker's original design. He used salt to speed things up, so he probably ran higher currents than we are

Re: Proposed CS protocol version 1.1

1998-08-03 Thread Reid Smith
> Mike, > From the recent discussions, I've gathered that the bulb actually > does not function as a current limiter, because 25 or 40 milliamps > (allowed by the commonly available small bulbs) is too high of a > current to produce 'desirable' CS production. (The bulb does > serve to indicate re

Re: Proposed CS protocol version 1.1

1998-08-02 Thread Bill Kingsbury
7-23-98, Mike Devour wrote: > [] > I believe we can test the results with no light bulb and see just > what goes wrong as current gets too high. That will be useful > information. Then we can back off on run-time or add the bulb > later to fix it. Is this a good way to go, or should we

Proposed CS protocol version 1.1

1998-07-23 Thread M. G. Devour
Okay. Questions were raised about silver source, the light bulb (or lack thereof), and using 4 batteries instead of 3. I explained my reasons for not being concerned about the minor impurities in the silver. I don't know if what I said made enough sense. I believe we can test the results with