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 go with a > single type of light bulb and just line up a few sources for it?
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 remaining battery strength, and to limit battery drain in case of an electrode short circuit.) Reports indicate that the desired smaller sized CS particles are produced when using lower currents. So far, 8 milliamps seems to be approximately the maximum desired current. I'm inferring this from the following: Please note this was done using 36 vdc: 7-13-98, George wrote: > > When the current reached approx. 3.0 ma the wispy discharge > would become apparent. From this point on the current would > increase at a quicker rate due of course to the increased > conductivity of the CS solution. When the current read > 8.0 - 10.0 ma I noticed something different occur. In > addition to the CS 'floating' around in the vicinity of the > electrodes there was also a rather thick 'stream' of CS that > was sinking to the bottom of the container. I've thought of a simple current limiting design. It uses 2 or 3 pairs of electrodes configured with one center anode, surrounded by a circle of 3, 4, or 5 cathodes wired in parallel to the anode. The battery output will be limited to 25 milliamps, by feeding it through 2 or 3 of the 12v x 25 ma bulbs wired in series, to handle either 24-27 or 36 vdc. (Radio Shack bulbs, part number 272-1141A) The parallel circuit, per-cathode current will thus be limited to a maximum of 1/3, 1/4, or 1/5 of the bulb's 25 ma -- that is: 8.33, 6.25, or 5.0 milliamps. The smallest CS particle size would then be obtained by using the 6-electrode (5-cathode) design with only 5 ma per cathode. Note: With multiple cathodes, increasing the center anode surface area may additionally improve the production of the smaller sized CS particles. This is a reason to test the results of using larger sized .999+ silver coins and ingots, or a longer length of silver wire(s) for a center anode. For that matter, why not try a (nickel free) stainless steel sleeve about 3 inches in diameter by 5 inches long (submerged length) for a cathode, with a large silver (several coins in a row?) anode positioned along the vertical center line of the cylinder. This would distribute the current flow over a relatively huge area, and perhaps rapidly produce the smallest of CS particles..... > ---------- > We *still* have to detail procedures for using a TDS-1 or other > meter, other ppm testing methods, how to ship samples, and so on. Question: Can the range of effects of the shipping of samples be predicted ? To answer that might require extensive testing in and of itself. What are the effects of moving at various speeds thru various geomagnetic (and geopathic) flux lines, and the simultaneous, unpredictable temperature and vibration parameters -- not to mention cell phones, truck phones, police radar, and the high- voltage, RF emitting ignition systems of internal combustion engines, etc. Can they simply be ignored ? Personally, I wouldn't place any bets without at least several well designed and closely monitored tests. Could all of our experimental results become skewed or compromised by introducing so many unknowns and variables ?? > ---------- > Vessel: 16 ounces (500 ml). Canning jars, jelly or pickle jars, > or stout glass tumblers could be used. Does overall shape make a > difference? 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. 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. ? The electrode holder design affects the required bottle height. A 'recommended' electrode holder design could be established (suggestions below). > ---------- > Electrodes: 2 pieces of 14 ga silver wire, 6" long, 4" wetted > length, straight and parallel, 3/4" apart. (15.5cm long, 10.5cm > wetted length, 19mm apart.) At least .999 purity. Mount them in > a block of wood or other rigid holder that can be placed atop the > vessel. Adjust the electrode position so they will be 4" deep in > 16 oz of water. To allow for the effects of heating the CS during production, with accelerated evaporation, and the subsequent vapor condensation on the nearby electrode holders, I can imagine using a small sheet of high temperature, 'food grade' silicone rubber -- or a similar, relatively inert material. This sheet would be 4 to 6 inches (100 - 150 mm) square -- and 1/8 or 1/4 inch (3 - 6 mm) thick. By piercing this sheet, or drilling 1/32 inch [1.5 mm] holes, the silver electrodes can be 'held fast' by pushing them through the holes, with about 3/8 inches (9 mm) sticking out top. 'Alligator clips' can then clip onto the electrode ends -- yet not become covered with condensing water vapor, when using the heated CS process. Condensate on the alligator clips should be avoided, as it could cause electrolysis and corrosion of the electrically charged clips, and/or collect, and drip back into the CS, thus introducing contaminates. This design could allow for 5 inches (125 mm) of electrode wetted length, when using 6 inch (150 mm) electrodes. This small sheet of silicone rubber would insulate, help to keep the heat in, and keep dust out, thus providing for long term CS processing. If this electrode holder sheet was mounted slightly raised, at a slight angle, any vapor condensation on the underside would run off at the lower edge, rather than collect to drip back into the CS. This positioning could be accomplished with a wire yoke resting on the neck of the bottle. Two arms from the yoke would point up and pass thru holes on opposite edges of the sheet, half way up the sheet's incline. (Electrode holes and yoke holes could be drilled at a slight angle to provide for a final 'true vertical' electrode orientation.) > ---------- > Other Equipment: Digital multimeter for measuring voltage and > current. Clip leads to connect it all together. TDS-1 (or DIST-1?) > from Hanna Instruments. Thermometer(s) to measure from below room > temp to boiling. Penlight or small flashlight. Re: Meter: There must be a small, low cost, snap-in, analog or digital 'meter component' that could be built into the battery case, for measuring battery voltage and electrode current when pressing either of two small switches. This meter needs a 'readout' of approximately 100 mA and 50 vdc, and a suitable (Radio Shack?) 'standard' case. > ---------- > PROCEDURE: > > Wash and rinse vessel and electrodes, triple rinse with several > ml of distilled water. (How to wash? What cleaning agent?) I always soak the bottle with a 25% vinegar solution, between batches, to remove the silver residue. Then rinse three times with distilled water, shaken vigorously, with the top on the bottle. > ---------- > Fill with distilled water, 16 oz (500ml) at room temperature. With the above- proposed 'multi- electrode' design, with a 'circle' of 6 inch long electrodes, approximately a 32 ounce (1 litre) container would be required, minimum. The ideal bottle dimensions are about 3-1/2 or 4 inches (90 - 100 mm) diameter, and 6 to 6-1/2 inches (150 - 160 mm) high, when using the above configuration. > ---------- > Record time and current reading every few minutes or whenever > significantly changed. Observe electrodes until first wisps of > silver emerge from positive electrode and tiny hydrogen bubbles > evolve at the negative terminal. Note time and current. Multiple experimenters may be doing this 'observing' under various ambient light levels -- while exposing their CS process to these various light levels for various lengths of time. The results of lighting during CS production could be some progressive diminishment of final CS density (ppm), a progressive conversion of CS to 'inactive silver', and a shorter effective CS 'life time'. In our case, with multiple experimenters desiring meaningful (repeatable) results, lighting will at some (unknown) point become a significant variable. > ---------- > Timing from the first observation of particles and bubbles, allow > the process to proceed undisturbed for the processing time. > (We need to try a number of durations and see what's going on > with particle size and concentration vs. time and current.) > > Continue recording time and current every few minutes. This has me wondering what DOS or Windows freeware, and low cost circuit boards (or plans), are available for 'process monitoring' and logging (to file) of milliamps, dc voltage, temperature and pH sensors, etc. 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. > ---------- > Stir gently (again, with what?) and record TDS and temperature > readings again. Manual stirring is not a 'repeatable' process that can be used 'blind' by multiple experimenters. It would be complicated to 'standardize' an automated stirrer, while taking care to not expose the CS to e/m fields from motors and unwanted effects from 'the stirrer' itself. A miniature (dc?) motor with a cycling timer (positioned not 'too' close to the CS) might work for ordinary (non-repeatable) use. For example, it could power an inert 'stirrer' for a few seconds every 30 seconds. But what material would a true 'inert stirrer' actually be made from, in this case ? 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. Unless, of course, we're testing the effects of 'some' stirring (with a given 'stirrer') versus no stirring. But we need to work out our sample testing before we get to that. > ---------- > Store in appropriate closed jar (here's a good reason to use > canning jars) in a dark box or cupboard at room temperature. Also, don't store the CS near electrical wiring, fuse boxes, electric meters, motors, refrigerators, air conditioners, electric stoves, electric heaters, speakers, magnets, fluorescent light transformers, in-wall power cables, etc. If you have an e/m field meter or detector, you could use it to locate a 'quiet' CS storage place. (Geomagnetic and geopathic fields may affect CS storage, also, but callibrated field meters for measuring these are probably very expensive....) --Bill > ---------- > Let's hear your input on any or all of the above and see what > kind of consensus we can reach. Thanks everyone! > > Be well, > > Mike D. > -- 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]>
