Hello All, I'm not sure what this means yet and I only have two data points at the moment, but this is interesting (at least to me :).
My original "standard 1" electrode configuration is four 18 gauge (.0403 inch diameter) electrodes in a 1 inch square configuration with two driven electrodes (one set on a side) with a wetted length of 3 inches per electrode (12 wetted inches total). This gave me a wetted area of 0.812 square inches. My new "Standard 2" electrode configuration is two 14 gauge (.0641 inch diameter) electrodes spaced 1 inch. This gives a wetted length of 4 inches per electrode (8 wetted inches total). This gives a wetted area of 0.509 square inches. (Yes, I realize this is the area of a cylinder, it includes an extra end that isn't there, but it should be close enough for what I am trying to communicate here :). According to my calcs the new (14 ga) configuration is 62 percent of the surface area of the old (18 ga) configuration. I ran two batches with my "standard generator" last night. Observations of interest are that the run now takes twice as long to reach the 4 mA current flow which should (it seems) only take 1.6 times as long (config 1 has 1.6 times the surface area of config 2). Not a major biggie, but the point of note is that it doesn't match up with Ole Bobs data where the old configuration did !? With the new (2 electrode) configuration which is, in theory the same configuration that Ole Bob is using, I do not seem to be getting the same results. The other observation (and the one I really am not happy with) is that using the two 14 ga electrodes I seem to be getting a MUCH larger build up of "crap" on the electrodes and more falloff. With the 18 ga electrode configuration I get no serious crud buildup and falloff, if I get any (with the "standard" run to 4 mA) at all it is a *few* tanish particles that dislodge when I remove the electrode assembly that usually float to the top. I plan on running another couple of batches with the 14 ga assembly today on the chance that the 14 ga assembly is new and that there may well be surface deposits still on them that do not wipe off with a paper towel and may be the cause of the "excessive crud and falloff". BTW: I do have the data for the first of these batches on the web site - see "Batch 92201" and I will try to get "Batch 92202" up today. The only thing that seems out of line here is the time to 4 mA. If this turns out to be valid with further testing, then perhaps the 4 electrode configuration may have some advantages - more data to follow. Comments welcome! Thanks & take care, Vikki. -- Victoria Welch, WV9K, DoD#-13, Net/Sys/WebAdmin SeaStar.org, vikki.oz.net #include <coffee.h> My web site: http://vikki.oz.net/~vikki/ "Walking on water and developing software to specification are easy as long as both are frozen" - Edward V. Berard. Do not unto others, that which you would not have others do unto you. -- 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]>
