Hi David, Here's an email from me to the list on 9/20/2011. It mentions vigorous stirring, nernst and spacing. I haven't established a high. Just stopped around 50.
Trem Trem <[email protected]> wrote: >Hello Mike, > I knew you'd have criticisms. I use 2 mils of current because I've > determined empirically that 1-2 mils per square inch is just fine > with rapid water movement. I can even go higher with that unit but > decided to stick with the highest value that produces the fastest > production rate without problems > I use VIGOROUS stirring to avoid what you call the Nernst layer. The Nernst layer is extremely thin, perhaps only hundreds of nanometers thick. It is within the boundary layer and is not affected by stirring. > Apparently it allows me to get very high uS measurements which as > far as I'm concerned is NOT contamination. How do you know that? You have done nothing to prove your system is free of contamination. > Frank has tested a sample of the product but not at the HIGH uS I > occasionally make. He measured 14uS, and one other member also got the same value. You claim your unit makes 20. Why the difference? > He tested a sample from one of our customers. It measured 98.6% > ionic so that would explain weak/no Tyndall. There is some loss of > conductivity over a short period of time but once stabilized it > usually stays stable. The loss in conductivity may be due to silver sulfide on the electrodes. When was the last time you desulfurized the electrodes? > And I don't need to use salt to tell there's silver in the water > if the water has no conductivity at start-up and high conductivity > at the end of the cycle. I trust the meter. Cloudy water > comparisons to determine strength don't cut it for me. The fact the conductance changes would also occur with leaching from the plumbing, contamination from the jug, leakage from the pump, and many other sources. The salt test is immune to contamination, and is a reliable indication of the amount of silver in the solution. You also have never performed a Faraday calculation, so you cannot compare the readings you get from the Hanna with the amount of silver released from the anodes. You have no idea what you are really producing. If you are really producing 45+Us, why is no other vendor using the same process? Why does Frank not show any product reports with values as high as you claim? > And as you say, the PWT meter cannot tell the difference between > minerals (contamination) and silver ions so the measurement MUST > be silver ions. That is a false assumption. You can put salt in the dw and get the same reading. There is no silver in salt, so you cannot claim the reading shows how much silver is in the solution. You need to take very careful steps to show your system is free of contamination. You have not done so. > Now, please leave me alone. I do not have the time for this. You are the one who made the claim and posted it. You have time to make claims of the performance of your system, but not enough time to prove they are correct? That is a rather risky business model, don't you think? >Trem Mike ----- Original Message ----- From: David AuBuchon To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 8:14 PM Subject: Re: CS>The Silvercell process? Trem, Tel, and Others, When you made your higher PPM brews, did you stop just because you felt like it, or because you actually hit a limit in PPM? I have a batch at 50PPM right now, and am going to work it up til it wont go no more. It is however very slow, as I run off 2 AA's. It seems to me that this incremental upping of PPM could be possible indefinitely. I notice that transferring the brew to another jar, then right back to the first jar actually increases PPM by about 1 or so. Then I clean the electrodes and continue the brew. I think that perhaps if you have a uniformly dispersed brew, that there is a time window when you first turn on the power when very little silver hydroxide is forming, as the denser regions of ions just coming off the electrodes have not had time to migrate to the other electrodes yet. During this time window is when the conductance will increase. When boatloads of pilgrims reach the other electrodes however, conductance may peak. This might suggest that vigorous stirring is definitely a help in lengthening that time frame. It might also suggest that increased distance between electrodes could help. This would not "get rid of" the "nernst" layer, but simply make it a non-issue for a time frame. Then the unit can be turned off for a while, and maybe continue to be stirred. Then do it again and again. Ultra low current would get rid of a theoretical nernst layer, but perhaps still in that case, eventually when boatloads of pilgrims start plating out - arriving from the other electrode in dense amounts - , this would be a second reason of a peaking conductance. Again solvable by turning off the power for a while. Just guessing! Anyone wanna have a PPM-off?
