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 talking about. Using only distilled water, the bulb doesn't glow unless I'm running way longer than I'm comfortable with. I bet that most of what get's made at those higher currents is what settles out on the bottom of the jar a day or two later. We're measuring current and voltage while making these test batches. There is no reason not to use the current to decide when to stop the run, since, with a given electrode surface area, it is directly related to the concentration of silver particles/ions. > I've thought of a simple current limiting design ... 2 or 3 pairs > of electrodes ... increasing the center anode surface area ... > using larger sized .999+ silver coins and ingots, or a longer > length of silver wire(s) for a center anode. ... try a (nickel > free) stainless steel sleeve ... for a cathode, with a large silver > (several coins in a row?) anode positioned along the vertical > center line of the cylinder. Good, sensible suggestions. For that matter, just use a good stainless beaker for the container and connect it to serve as the cathode, just like some of the high voltage DC designs use. The important thing is we're beginning to think in terms of current per unit of surface area. This will probably be the best way we'll find to predict performance. Experiments with different electrode spacings, wetted lengths, and wire gauges will tell us a lot. HOWEVER! This first protocol needs to be as simple as possible. We need to start out trying to understand the behavior of a low end system before we'll know if we're improving things or not. > Question: Can the range of effects of the shipping of samples be > predicted? ... I wouldn't place any bets without at least several > ... tests. Could all of our experimental results become skewed or > compromised by introducing so many unknowns and variables ?? Brrrr! 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 apparatus, make the same runs, and compare the behaviors in detail, I'll bet we'll see a lot less variation than people *think* we'd see. The key will be making sure all the variables of the setup are identified and controlled. > I use a one quart (1 litre) bottle that can hold electrodes with 5 > inches (125 mm) of wetted length, leaving a 1/2 inch (12 mm) gap to > the bottom of the bottle. These are the variables that nobody has ever tried to standardize. You can use just about anything to generate good CS, but for two of us to do the same thing requires that we agree on the details of the electrode length, size, and spacing, and the volume and shape of the container. The choice is arbitrary over a wide range! > Perhaps a larger gap between the electrode and the bottle might be > desirable -- to minimize any tendency to conductive silver and/or > silver compound plating on the bottle, etc. ? I've seen that, and I agree. You might want to shorten them a bit. > ... heating the CS during production ... condensation ... using a > small sheet of high temperature ... relatively inert material. ... > By piercing this sheet, or drilling ... electrodes can be 'held > fast' by pushing them through the holes ... 'Alligator clips .. > onto the electrode ends ... Good design. I have one holder that is the lid to the canning jars I'm using. The electrodes go up through a couple of small rubber grommets in the lid, which keeps the moister inside, and are held rigidly on top by a thin block of wood with holes drilled in it. I would like to identify a *really common* easy to find and make electrode holder design, or several such designs. However, since this first test will be at room temperature, I don't think condensation will hurt us just yet. > There must be a small, low cost, snap-in, analog or digital > 'meter component' ... Digital panel meters you can buy from most of the electronic supply catalogs. Radio Shack doesn't carry one any more, unfortunately, but they're easy to mail order. Cost $10-15. If everything works out like we hope, anyone doing this procedure carefully will get the same results without having to measure anything but the length of time. If they can follow a well documented and thoroughly tested procedure, they'll get predictable results. > ... 'observing' under various ambient light levels ... with > multiple experimenters desiring meaningful ... results, lighting > will at some ... point become a significant variable. OUCH! That's another very good thought. We'll have to see just how bad things are after our first attempts. We know better than to work in direct sun, but having to work in darkroom conditions would be a bit of a hardship. For now, let's hope it won't be that crucial. > ... what DOS or Windows freeware, and low cost circuit boards (or > plans), are available for 'process monitoring' and logging There are any number of single board computers and data acquisition boards that can be connected up to your PC to do process monitoring. Good for the researchers among us, but... > Of course our 'standard protocol' should not require these > gadgets, that would only be a 'necessity' in a manufacturing > engineering situation. However, this type of monitoring could be > extremely useful to those wanting to pursue it. Exactly. > Manual stirring is not a 'repeatable' process that can be used > 'blind' by multiple experimenters. The only stirring I talked about was at the *end* of the process, to disperse the concentrated "cloud" of cs particles that was near the electrodes. So there would be no need to standardise procedures. > It would be complicated to 'standardize' an automated stirrer ... or stirring protocol for *during* the run. Thus I advocate just leaving it alone for now, while we learn what's going on. Maybe later, when we understand more, we can lift this restraint. > I think 'no stirring at all' is the only simple and repeatable > protocol that can be easily done by multiple experimenters -- if > they'll all agree not to stir, thereby to provide meaningful > (totally 'repeatable') results. We agree. >> Let's hear your input on any or all of the above and see what >> kind of consensus we can reach. Thanks everyone! Indeed! Thanks Bill. I think we can get started soon. I'll put forth "Proposed CS protocol version 1.2" shortly. Be well, Mike [Mike Devour, Citizen, Patriot, Libertarian] [[email protected] ] [Speaking only for myself... ] -- The silver-list is a moderated forum for discussion of colloidal silver. To join or quit silver-list or silver-digest send an e-mail message to: [email protected] -or- [email protected] with the word subscribe or unsubscribe in the subject: line. To post, address your message to: [email protected] List maintainer: Mike Devour <[email protected]>
