Thanks very much for that Marshall, much appreciated.
On re-reading my comments I did notice two oversights on my part, I forgot
about the accuracy % factor in meters, and I overlooked the stupidly simple uS
and TDS equivalent or conversion, sorry about that. My constant oversights of
the simple and obvious are quite frustrating at times.
A final comment if you will, as your closing comment was significant to a
thought which has been rattling around in my head for some time...endothermics.
I've considered for some time that the action of ions colliding in an aqueous
solution must generate some form of energy as they break through that energy
barrier or Nernst or double layer surrounding the ion, and the result of those
impacts could only generate one form of energy...heat. It would not be the
actual impact of those ions or particles necessarily which generates energy as
positive and negative simply attract as a natural law of unlike poles
attracting, but rather it would be the friction created via the *breaking
through of that energy barrier* which surrounds the ion. Would that assumption
be correct?
N.
> Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 13:11:00 -0400
> From: mdud...@king-cart.com
> To: silver-list@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: CS> Distilled Water of .000
>
> On 10/2/2010 2:57 AM, Neville Munn wrote:
> > Oh, I think I see. I would have thought that if one meter which has
> > resolution increments of '.1' shows a reading *higher* than '1.', then
> > the meter which reads in increments of 1 would display 1 instead of
> > 000 when the first meter registers higher than 1 initially?
> That is true generally. But when you add in accuracy it might still give
> a zero, if for instance it has an accuracy of .5 and thinks the water is
> reading .4 because it is off .5 on the accuracy.
> > If that's your "...water which is 0.4..." thing then I'll have to do
> > some reading up.
> >
> > Example: My records show the Com100uS reading has to exceed 2.6
> > before the ComTDS3 reading moves from 000 to 001ppm
> That makes sense. 2.6 on uS will be equivalent to 1.3 on the TDS, and
> if the accuracy is no better than .3, than that is quite possible.
> > .
> >
> > As most meters are set up or calibrated taking a water temperature
> > compensating factor into account, would this also have a bearing on
> > the apparant different readings from one manufacturers meter to another?
> It can, that would reflect in the accuracy or precision/repeatability.
> > Meaning, not only the calibration fluid used, but also the built in
> > temperature compensation may have an influence on the reading of a uS
> > meter compared to a ppm or TDS meter as stated above?
> Yes, the calibration fluid and water being tested need to be at the same
> temperature.
> >
> > Example: My records show the ComTDS3 *always* shows a higher water
> > temperature of DW straight from the bottle anywhere between
> > 1 to 1.8 degrees compared to the Com100uS meter, is the aforesaid an
> > explanation for that?
> A constant offset should not be that significant in being a problem as
> long as both are calibrated and used at the same temperature.
> >
> > Curiously, after EIS/CS production that temperature difference in the
> > majority of cases seems to reduce after the solution has been in
> > storage for a while, like down to 1 degree or lower, I find it rather
> > strange that it doesn't remain the same difference as it was straight
> > from the bottle.
> It is quite possible that aggregation is endothermic (in fact if you
> have two particles colliding that stick together, then you will have
> less kinetic motion, and thus possibly a reduction in temperature).
>
> Marshall
> >
