snip > > A second solution is to use a constant current to supply current to > the cell. This makes the current independent of variables such as > initial conductance, bubbles at the cathode, variations in the shape > of the rods, etc. > > The problem with constant current ic's is they are limited to a > maximum input voltage of about 37V. This means most conventional cs > generators that use current limiting will be saturated at the > beginning of the brew, and still act as constant voltage systems > with all the problems described above.
With current density as the 'key', 27 volts through good distilled water gives you a lower current density than the max when it becomes controlled. Lower current density is OK but does upset ion production rate curves until the current levels off and voltage begins to drop. This is also why it is impossible to accurately time the CS making process before current levels out when using a current controlled generator. A very slight difference in temperature or initial conductivity of the water throws all attempts out the window. With a non current controlled generator [constant voltage], it's never possible to accurately time the process as the current never levels off to a constant. Using a higher starting voltage just speeds things up at the start, that's all. except Somewhere around 50 volts? HVAC or HVDC effects may start to be noticed that I don't know anything about as I have always used the 36 volt limited IC chips and 40 volt transistors. Ode > > I have developed a solution that operates at much higher voltage and > avoids the saturation problem. A description and test data is > available at > > http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/m61896.html > > These two solutions help remove some of the variables that cause > non-repeatability in the cs process. There is still the problem of > contamination, variations in the quality of the dw, and so on. > > In the eclipse experiment, they measured a change of 1900 ppb: > > "The results shown in Figure 1 indicate that the amount of silver > began to decrease nearing the eclipse, with a reduction to 1900 > ppb during the eclipse." > > But they state the normal variation of the process is greater than > that: > > "Normal batches of colloidal silver produced in this way yield a > count of about 6000 to 8000 ppb (parts per billion) of silver." > > You really can't make any conclusions on a single sample when the > process variability is greater than the change you measured during > the experiment! > > There are many other issues involved, but my conclusion is this > experiment is not very well designed, and it really doesn't say much > about the effect they are trying to prove. > > It is true the moon has an effect on biological systems. The > increased illumination allows hunters to hunt better, crabs to find > their mates, and so on. > > But consider the implications if their hypothesis were true. If the > moon affected the electrolysis process, we would find significant > effects throughout industry. > > Aluminum refining operations might have to shut down during part of > the month. Battery powered watches might run slower. Your car might > be harder to start. > > All these effects depend on electrolysis. If the moon had any > influence on the electrolysis process, our whole lives would be > different. > > Since none of these effects occur, I think it's safe to say the moon > really has no effect on electrolysis, and any changes in the > production of cs are due to variables that can be controlled. > > If you know how:) > >Best Regards, > >Mike Monett > > >-- >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: [email protected] > >Silver-list archive: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html > >List maintainer: Mike Devour <[email protected]> > >
