Hi Mike: Great Post!
Unfortunately, Faraday's Equation doesn't always equate properly with modern CS production... I believe with low current devices, Faraday's equation is close to accurate. There are fundamentally two problems with using Faraday's equation to calculate PPM: 1. A controlled-potential coulometric analysis is required in order to obtain accurate readings.... The current must be absolutely controlled. This can be done, I discovered quite a few months ago, with a potentiostat... But then again, you and Bob are the engineers, so: Engineer. According to the information below, 100% efficiency is required with the current. http://chem.ch.huji.ac.il/~eugeniik/instruments/electrochemical/coulometric_ titrators.htm The above link provides reference, and also the very interesting paragraph: "Constant current sources for coulometric applications. Small constant currents (< 10 mA) may be obtained from a high-resistance source (e.g. a battery) through a high series resistance. For many applications, a 45-volt battery with a relatively large series resistance will be perfectly adequate as a source of constant current. The actual current applied to the generator electrodes is determined by measuring the potential drop across a standard resistance with a potentiometer [10]. For large currents electronic stabilization is more attractive. This can be realized with a potentiostat in a circuit shown in Figure 2. Lingane has designed [11] a constant current sources which can maintain a constant current ranging from microamperes to hundred milliamperes within 0.01%. In addition a number of electronic constant current sources have been described [12-15]. Several commercial current sources were available as well. 2. I had a similiar reference which I cannot at the moment find that indicated higher currents with silver could not be measured accurately using faraday's equation... Not that faraday's law is innacurate, it's just that Faraday didn't say that the silver would stay in the distilled water. Even a small film on the surface of the one of the electrodes, undetectable by the eye, can throw the equation off by a level not acceptable... Also, readings correlated between faraday's equation and photospectronomy showed unexplainable anomalies in the end readings which I certainly couldn't account for without both TEM and AAS analysis. Never-the-less, I believe the law is a great tool, especially with highly controlled setups and low current. As far as the relationship between voltage and current, perhaps someone more versed could explain how increased voltage, even with the same current, produces a different result. http://www.silvermedicine.org/robertobecker.html However, if you notice the diagram referencing the lines of voltage and lines of current, you'll note that a FIELD is actually established. Voltage is still present between the anode and cathode. The summary document is worth reading anyway... Dr. Becker's research has been amazing all the way around. Unfortunately, his research, while it continues to this present day, is rapidly coming to an end. I think Dr. Bart Flick and Gregg Silver ought to get together with him and find a way to acquire all of his notes and complete his work with organ regeneration. You state that particles don't begin to form with most generators until about 10 PPM. I don't agree with this assessment. Silver particles begin to form very early on in the CS production processes I've observed... I suppose if the current is extremely low, this might be different. If you look at any of the EIS AAS measurements out there for products below 10 PPM, you'll see that most have at least 1% particles, but usually higher. I can see the particles with a laser pen early on in most processes. Remember, just because the "ion cloud" or stream is not visible to the eye, does not mean that it does not exist. Thermal stirring, mechanical stirring, and/or water circulation assists in reducing early agglomeration. In fact, if we want to get into advanced CS production, my opinion based on speaking with every top CS producer that I have been able to find in the world: We'll never be able to accomplish it with batch processing. There are too many variables involved, and the environment cannot be completely controlled. Lab quality water purifiers must be hooked up in-line; Argon gas pumped is used to prevent contamination with air. I believe Ivan is currently using Argon with his setup. We need a way to get the ions and minute particles away from the current, and I'm not certain if it is enough to use a large brewing container with slow water circulation, or if the desired concentration needs to be acheived rapidly with the EIS then pumped out immediately into a sealed container. If I could build the perfect generator the rods would not be rods nor plates. Both are problematic ( and yes I like Ken's new silverpuppy solution as well ). Both the anode and cathode would be spherical: A ball within a ball. This is the only possible way to completely control the current draw. Water circulation would be used, counterclockwise in North America, but preferrably outside the Earth's Magnetic field using reverse flow forms-- and certainly with gravity nullified. I would prefer to use phase lasers, when they are eventually invented, in-line, to prevent agglomeration. Unfortunately, it seems, I read too much Isaac Asimov growing up! My end dream product would look like 'Ole Bob's crystalline formations, only with the web formed quite a bit more intricately and distributed throughout the solution. This would be EIS stabilized only by virtue of its own crystalline properties. To my knowledge, nobody has determined the ideal ratio between ions and particles. Perhaps there is a "golden ratio" that exists where the size of particles are as minute as possible, at X%, with ionic content at Y%.... A three dimensional 'pi' for EIS. The H2O2 is endlessly fascinating. Provided the CS is highly ionic, without any flaking, it is quite easy to stabilize H2O2 in the solution. When flaking or agglomerated particles are involved, there is yet another reaction that causes the silver to precipitate out. I've stabilized 50 PPM H2O2 in ( what must be extremely close to ) 100% ionic silver for ( at least ) two months; I use peroxide testing strips as a gauge. However, I know a few co-researchers who prefer to utilize the CS H2O2 while the oxidation reaction is taking place... Within a few minutes of combining 3 drops of 35% H2O2 to about 4 ounces of quality isolated silver. PPM meters appear quite useless when H2O2 is added to the equation. My favorite H2O2 silver combination is made by taking one of the old silver puppy units, with mechanical stirring and a potentiometer wired in... I first plate some silver on the bottom of the glass. I then start a slow brew, and as time progresses I continually reduce the current and increase the temperature of the water, to near boiling over about a four hour period of time ( the temperature is not increased until I notice that the process is degrading ). The end product is crystal clear, but would not remain so as agglomeration would rapidly set in. However, I immediately add the H2O2 @ 35%, two to five drops per four ounces, and enjoy watching the brief "rolling boil" of the H2O2 / Silver reaction. I let this sit for a few moments before use. I've used this combination time and time again for extremely tough mouth infections and throat infections ( Strep ). I estimate it is at least twice as effective as silver used alone, with at least these two conditions. However, the trick is: You must keep the silver in the mouth for at least 3-5 minutes, or you risk the uncomfort associated with H2O2 reacting in the stomach. Keeping the sol in the mouth for 5 minutes prevents this reaction. With direct tissue contact in the mouth and throat, it appears that the reaction itself effects the bioavailability of the silver, as the result is not the same with the just silver nor just H2O2. This process is repeated every seven to fifteen minutes ( ingesting it by consuming between a tablespoonful and an ounce, depending on preference ). In one case ( out of about four ) that I've been involved with, the infection in the mouth was severe enough that the surgeon did not want to operate to excise the problem tooth, which was probably just as well, as the individual would not have been able to afford the surgery. This formulation, in conjunction with the H2O2 silver solution used in the ears, nailed the infection ( which had cause the whole side of the face to swell ), and the problem wisdom tooth was eventually naturally extracted using clay packs.... After about a total of six months of non-diligent applications of the silver/clay. I wouldn't recommend this exact scenario without some experience, however; it probably would have been better just to have the tooth pulled if the means were available. The problem occurs when the MD prescribes antibiotics, and they don't work; this individual was in too much pain to wait for a regime of antibiotics to try to knock the infection out. The problem also occurs when normal CS works too good and too quickly, and the user doesn't experience any further pain, and doesn't take the CS long enough to lick the infection, or is not able to have the cause taken care of.... resulting in second and more severe occurence, even a third... Tissue takes time to heal, and if it doesn't, each recurrence of the infection can certainly easily be worse -- and deeper. Best Regards, Jason > Re: CS> Requests For Lab Test on ULVDC CS > > Hi Jason, > > Thanks for the really great comments. In a lot of things, I couldn't > agree with you more. > > I love your comments on Frank's Mesosilver on your forum page. It's > so good, it's worth repeating here: > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Welcome! > > There's nothing wrong with Mesosilver. There is, however, quite a > bit wrong with their unsubstantiated philosophy that silver ions are > not effective in the body. > > They tend to over-simplify the biological processes to a few simple > chemical reactions. I've spoken with numerous chemists who disagree > with their base idea that silver chloride always remains silver > chloride in the body. They ignore metalloproteins, and a whole host > of other possible chemical reactions that could take place. > Experience, while certainly not scientific proof, indicates that > ionic silver is greatly effective. > > Based on their claims, their product should be at least 9 times more > effective, when compared with the other top electrically isolated > silvers out there. I have yet to see evidence that this is the case. > With less refined isolated "colloidal silver" products, it should be > over 100X more effective. > > As an example, I just recently spent quite a bit of time on the > phone speaking with someone who cured a case of neurosyphilis by > drinking silver chloride. If the makers of Mesosilver were correct, > then this individual should be six feet under about now. If he had > listened to them, he would also be six feet under about now, as he > would likely have abandoned his usage, and would not have been able > to afford to purchase their product. > > I've viewed numerous testimonials from those using Mesosilver, and > have spoken with quite a few users. I've also had numerous > conversations with the founder of silvercolloids.com. The staff has > a great deal of knowledge and is very committed to their product. > > However, they are completely biased. Furthermore, I have been told > there is no interest in actually PROVING their claims. They are > willing to rest on their beliefs, which is of course their right. > > While their product is certainly a quality colloidal silver, I > haven't seen anything to indicate that it works better than the best > ionic silver's out there. > > There is, however, plenty of clinical and scientific proof > concerning the effect of silver ions. The works of Dr. Robert O. > Becker, Dr. Bart Flick, among others clearly show the potential > benefit of silver ions in the human body, provided they of course > ARE in a usable form. > > Silver ions from silver-coated catheders work just fine as well: > > http://www.silverinstitute.org/silvnews/2001/4b01.html > > You may also want to read the following mini-articles carefully: > > http://www.somaticsplus.com/health_hints/hhls7a.html > > Best Regards, > > - Jason > > Last edited by AVRA on Thu May 15, 2003 7:56 pm; edited 1 time in total > > http://www.silvermedicine.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12&sid=5ee9f6e687277e5da 0f16fb1d7e9165e > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Yes, I think you will find many people who agree with your > assessment of Frank's claims. I don't know about the guy who cured > neurosyphilis with silver chloride. If silver chloride worked that > well, we'd all be adding salt as a starter to make cs. Most people > stopped doing that a long time ago. > > I think you'll find that many people here agree with you that ionic > silver is the true workhorse in colloidal silver. Robert and > Marshall certainly do, and I definitely agree. My experience with > high ionic silver and the Shingles and cold virus came as a complete > surprise, and convinced me of this fact. > > Low ionic silver is great for bacteria, and when you are young and > have a vigorous immune system. But as you age, the immune system > starts to degrade, and the 10 ppm or so you get from the 3 nines is > no longer adequate. Nearly all cs generators will work against > bacteria, but many viruses are a lot harder to kill. > > The SARS virus terrified the world and killed a high percentage of > the people it infected, even with the best medical care possible. > Most doctors seem convinced the next one is only a matter of time. > > The West Nile virus is now in the US, and it is spreading. It has a > low death rate, but it can cause serious damage. Other terrible > viruses can spread from their source, and there is nothing medical > science can do to stop them. > > So I think we should pay a great deal of attention on how the cs > process works and what it takes to produce high ionic silver > reliably. > > One of the best ways to see if a particular electrode arrangement or > current density works better is to have a quick and reliable way to > measure the ion content. The salt test is an excellent method. > Here's the equation: > > Ag(+) + Cl(-) --> AgCl > > Since the salt test only works on silver ions, it can never go out > of calibration. You can even use it after adding H2O2 to clean up cs > that has turned yellow. The dispersion shows the solution gets > stronger, which means the H2O2 has converted the silver particles > back to Ag+ ions. Some people have observed the Hanna PWT may not > give reliable readings when H2O2 is added, but the salt test clearly > shows the improvement. > > One possible reaction may be > > 2Ag2O + H2O2 --> 4Ag(+) + O2(g) + H2O2 > > In this reaction, the H2O2 acts as a catalyst and is not consumed. > So it takes only a very small amount - perhaps 0.1ppm, to keep the > solution clear indefinitely. I'm not a chemist, and the equation > only a guess, but it seems to work quite well, as you have mentioned > on your site. > > There is one statement you made on your forum that I'd like to > discuss. You said > > "Yes -- increased voltage with the same current only increases the > speed of the process." > > http://www.silvermedicine.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10&sid=5ee9f6e687277e5da 0f16fb1d7e9165e > > Now I don't see how that can be true. At any point in the cs > process, the solution has a definite resistance. It follows Ohm's > law, which states > > E = I * R > > So if you increase the voltage across the cell, the current has to > increase, don't you think? And if you increase the current, the > process indeed speeds up. Sometimes it speeds up too much, and you > get misting, or the solution turns black and has to be discarded. > > Each process and electrode configuration has a limit to the maximum > ppm it can produce, and we need to find the reasons for the limits > and ways to increase it. > > Now, I've found is there is a definite correlation between the > amount of silver oxide produced and the current used to make the cs. > > At the high current density typical of most cs generators, the > process starts making particles at about 10 ppm. This is confirmed > by the Faraday equation and the salt test, which gives a weak, pale > blue dispersion. The silver oxide coats the electrodes with a black > film, and black deposits are formed on the sides of the glass and > appear on the bottom under the rods. So we know where the ions went. > > When the current density is reduced, the process can go to a higher > ppm before it starts turning color. This is confirmed by the Faraday > equation and the salt test. For example, at 87 uA/sq.in., I can > easily make 19 ppm cs that stays clear indefinitely, even after > freezing. The salt test shows a milky white dispersion. > > Now, you don't have to understand the math to be able to use the > Faraday equation. Just download Mercury here: > > http://archives.math.utk.edu/software/msdos/calculus/mrcry209/.html > > Mercury does all the hard work for you, and you only need to give it > the unit conversions. Here's a bunch related to colloidal silver: > > C = I * sec ; total number of Coulombs > den = I / sqin ; current density Amperes per sq in > ele = I / 1.60217733e-19; electrons per second > gm = k * I * sec ; Faraday's equation > isn = isq / 6.45e14 ; ions per square nanometer per sec > isq = ele / sqin ; ions per second per sq. in. per sec > k = 107.868 / 96485 ; Coulombs required per gram of silver > lt = 3.785 * gal ; convert gallons to litres > lt = ml / 1000 ; convert millilitres to litres > mg = gm * 1000 ; convert grams to milligrams > ml = 29.57 * oz ; convert ounce to milliliters > phr = ppm / hrs ; ppm per hour > ppm = mg / lt ; 1 ppm is 1 milligram per litre > sec = hrs * 3600 ; convert hours to seconds > > Now all we need to do is enter the parameters and Mercury solves for > the unknowns: > > gal = 2 > I = 6.2211842e-3 ; current in Amperes > sqin = 0.59 ; wetted area > hrs = 3.8 > > So you can see how easy it is to understand a particular cs process > when you can compare the theoretical ppm and the actual result. In > this case, the calculated ppm is 12.56. > > When you do this kind of analysis, you quickly find the electrode > shape is also very important to the process. For example, I'm very > glad you put the Silverpuppy at the very top of your Product page at > > http://www.silvermedicine.org/products.html > > I find the round 12 ga wire used in the Silverpuppy gives a very > good correlation between the Faraday equation and the actual ppm > measured with the salt test, up to the point where silver oxide > starts being produced. This is determined by the current density at > the electrodes. > > However, the correlation using flat plates is not as good. In fact, > it's terrible. Robert did a study recently using low current > density. He was going to use 12 ga wire, but ended up using flat > plates instead. > > I told him I was concerned about problems with edge effect reducing > the max ppm, and it seems I was right. I also mentioned in previous > posts that the current density at the cathode of his normal setup > was too high, and would produce lots of oxide and low ppm. He did > three runs and happened to use his cathode in the third run, and my > prediction came true. > > Somehow, Bob forgot to post the data and my reply to the group. It's > highly illuminating, so here it is. Note his ppm measurements > correlate very well with the salt test, except in the very first > run. I used a double line to enclose the entire email -- The silver-list is a moderated forum for discussion of colloidal silver. Instructions for unsubscribing may be found at: http://silverlist.org To post, address your message to: silver-list@eskimo.com Silver-list archive: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html List maintainer: Mike Devour <mdev...@eskimo.com>
