A meter measures conductivity [uS].
It does NOT measure PPM.
It takes some sophisticated and expensive lab stuff to measure PPM.
If the uS drops, it only means it's less conductive than it was, not that
is has less PPM.
What we are attempting is to correlate the uS "number" to a PPM "number"
This is like counting oranges in a basket to see how many apples we have.
It "sort of" works because apples and oranges are about the same size,
but the oranges are bigger at first, then shrink to apple size later.
The meter reads the *level* of oranges, not the *number* of
oranges...like using a ruler to see how many gallons of water you have in a
bucket...but water changes size with temperature.
If you have a BIG basket of oranges, the over all shrinkage is greater and
the orange level drops more.
If the oranges were sprinkled with Alum [water contaminants] they can
each shrink even more.
If,say, you made some silver nitrate, the oranges grow into grapefruit size.
You still have the same number of oranges but counting them by measuring
their depth in a basket goes wildly inaccurate.
So, measuring orange levels with meters is not a good way to count apples,
but a *good* way to count apples costs a fortune to both buy and
operate..and it takes a good education... and is a lot bigger than a bread
basket.
Many LABS can't count apples any more accurately with their fancy
counting machines that we can measure shrinking oranges with a ruler.
Most professional CS makers don't do any better than we do as evidenced
by the spread of actual PPM as counted by a lab that can count, compared to
the labels on bottles.
My correlation of levels to numbers is specifically this:
Two batches of CS made in a pint jar to 20 uS were allowed to sit for 8 weeks.
They then both read 12 uS on a meter.
Everything was shaken up and sent in for Atomic Absorption
Spectrophotometer [a $100,000+ machine ] and Malvern particle analyzer
testing [ a $40,000 machine] operated by Frank Key at Colloidal Sciences
Laboratory.
Particles, ions, sludge, sparklies and floaties and everything came out to
85% conductive ionic and 15% nonconductive particulate @ 12 PPM total silver.
Therefore, 1 uS = 1 PPM...in THOSE batches...about as "bad" as a batch
can be made with a good generator and still look like something drinkable.
I was looking for "worst case" just short of drain filler to compare really
nice to. Other people submitted their BEST at around the same PPM for the
other end of the comparison and it all confirms the overall picture when
put together.
Other batches...assuming nothing BUT silver and water.... if there is
little or no TE, [the samples had a heavy TE] fudge the rulers number down
a little..as much as 15% and don't bother sticking the ruler into the
basket till after the oranges have shrunk.
If the basket of apples is of a given size, predicting how much they'll
shrink to give whatever orange level..in that size of a basket.. can be
done with a fair amount of repeatability, IF the water is pure.
Ruler of all thumbs: [We don't have *fingers* to count digits to decimals
with, so we have to count the thumb 10 times and add or subtract some
chocolate on a knuckle when making fudge factors]
10 uS with no TE would be around 8.5 PPM.
10 US with pleasantly faint to distinct TE, around 9.3 PPM.
10 uS with mega dense TE, around 10 PPM.
Plus or minus 15% is not a HUGE difference and there is that upper PPM
limit of drinkable looking CS to limit the possible difference range.
In the "real" world:
Since no-one-at-all can say how much silver it's going to take to do any
given job for any given person, with all *people* being WAAAYYY different
AND all *jobs* being different..... that minor PPM difference is just about
as irrelevant as it gets.
If the CS is under around 25 PPM, you can pretty much chug it till you
choke without negative consequences and it's difficult to consistently make
CS over 25 PPM that looks good. [Now and then doesn't matter in the short
OR long run because by it's nature, it doesn't run that far very often
without tripping over the appearance curb.]
So, if you have something scary happening...chug it till you choke and it
goes away.
With no symptoms, you have no reminders to chug.
If the *CS* looks scary...duck a little and go look for some that's not so
scary looking.
A starving vegetarian will eat the occasional piece'o possum to stay
alive long enough, with enough energy, to find a carrot patch...good
plan. [you think?]
Absentmindedness and aversion takes care of it. [Ohhh, Dats a BAD lookin
version of CS..methinks "sip" and try again.]
You In-to-it yourself out of it.
*Using* CS is all Intuit-Ion and round tuits are the automatic regulation
by aversion, memory and reminder default.
If you forgot the illness, you probably aren't sick any more.
If CS looks good, it is good and a meter or an *auto off* or ammeter or
voltmeter...any meter.. that works on the same principles of conductivity
"helps" determine how much good.
What could be better than that?
BTW, That amber coating on your containers will probably dissolve instantly
with an H2O2 rinse.
Ode
At 09:44 AM 5/31/2007 -0400, you wrote:
Good morning, Wayne,
I am all confused about the uS/ppm issue.
With the help of many in the list, including you, I have learned very much
and I have managed to make what I consider very good quality EIS. From
what I have read before, well made EIS is very stable after a couple of
days, and it will last a long time, some of the more knowledgeable ones in
the list even said it will last "for years".
I meticulously have registered the V/mA readings every 15 minutes or every
30 minutes, depending on the length of the process in any case, in every
batch I have made since I started many months ago. After I finish, I
introduce the data in the Faraday Equation sheet you guys gave me at the
beginning, in order to get an estimate on the ppm concentration for every
batch, which I try to maintain around 15 ppm allowing for some slight loss
later.
I proceed to bottle it, label it with the date and ppm info, and store it
and share it with family and many friends. I am making an average of 1.5
liters/day. A couple of months later there has been no visible change in
the cristal clear color, no sediments, no apparent changes in flavour.
After recycling many times, some containers (transparent, no color, soda
pop bottles) start getting a slight amberish hue, which I assume it means
a little of the silver depositing on the walls and bottoms of them, which
I assumed meant a very slight, negligible loss of the silver contents.
The only sophisticated method I have in order to guess what I made is to
maintain a very low mA all along the process, which allows for only a
little cathode cleaning during the last third of the process, and gives me
cristal clear EIS, no amber color hue and practically no Tyndall effect
(both of which I assume mean very small colloidal particles), no residues,
and the conductivity mA readings which are later fed into the Faraday
equation sheet.
Now I am all confused. Even Ode said that the larger the batch, the
greater the changes. What am I getting and how can I give my EIS to others
not knowing if will be of any effect after some time?
Thank you very much.
Carlos
From: CWFugitt <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: CS>Declines in uS ( uS not ppm )
Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 14:59:15 -0500
Evening Julius,
>> At 03:49 AM 5/27/2007, you wrote:
Everyone is familiar with the decline in ppm/uS over time but I There is
no discernible reason why there are variations as storage is the same ,
the distilled water comes from the same source & the same machine makes
it. Has anybody found a reason or a way to preclude this ??
You are going on the idea that uS is true ppm.
You have taken water and silver, added them together, and bottled it, put
a lid on it, ......... how do you think it got out?
I have used an EC meter but still depended on calculated ppm.
I have also worked with reasonably expensive EC sensors with an analog
output.
The more money you spend, the better the instrument.
Don't bet your life on a low cost EC meter.
After all, ppm is a weight, not a charge. EC meters are not true weight
devices. They are reading ions that tend to change, interactions between
elements, and lots of other things enter into the picture.
When I weigh a specific amount of chemical, add that to a specific amount
of water, I know the ppm. I never look back and never worry about it again.
I would be interested in what point you are trying to understand or to prove?
You are getting into laboratory techniques and without proper
instruments, you are doomed to failure, or confusion, or lost sleep, or
plain old worry.
Wayne
=================
--
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: [email protected]
Address Off-Topic messages to: [email protected]
The Silver List and Off Topic List archives are currently down...
List maintainer: Mike Devour <[email protected]>
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database:
269.8.5/826 - Release Date: 5/31/2007 4:51 PM
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database:
269.8.5/826 - Release Date: 5/31/2007 4:51 PM
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.5/826 - Release Date: 5/31/2007 4:51 PM
