Yep, that is what I do now. I have found that if I read the solution as
soon as I turn it off, the reading agrees with my Faraday calcs, so I
happily use the uS reading for the ppm. It is much faster, and as
accurate as I want to get. It doesn't matter a whole lot anyway as long
as there is some silver in there, it still works. I just like to
understand in detail once in a while.
Kathryn
On Aug 18, 2008, at 3:55 AM, Ode Coyote wrote:
Yup, just like a good meter that doesn't detect everything is
*pretty good* and the two methods come out close to each
other...pretty much....in line with an actual test.
..like two 4 foot tall doors into the same dimly lit room . You can
get in, but ya gotta duck a little and once in, you can see well
enough to not fall over something.
Crushing a decimal or nudging a numeral in the carpet is a given.
Not putting Faraday down for what it actually does, but dip and read
is just a touch faster?
Ode
At 10:15 AM 8/17/2008 -0500, you wrote:
On Aug 16, 2008, at 12:20 PM, Ode Coyote wrote:
Farady doesn't account for where the silver is or what form it's
in, so it's no better than a meter.
Faraday's Law is the upper limit of how much silver will go into
solution, whether it is silver oxide, silver ions, or what have you.
The potential of ionization is the same. So, unless the set up has no
current control and it is Mr Toad's Wild Ride, the Faraday calcs
ought to be pretty good.
Kathryn
I'm happy with the meter and knowing what it does so i can fudge the
numbers closer to reality.
ode
--
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]>
