At 02:15 PM 10/5/2003 +0530, you wrote: >Dear Ole Bob, Jason, Tony, Marshall, Trem, Everybody > >Thanks for all the helpful points, and I'm still something of a novice >on the CS aspect of ceramic water purifiers. But I have a comment and >question on the need for stirring: my understanding is that sometimes >stirring is not needed, since the flask is kept at about 200oF. >Wouldn't this bring about a kind of thermal stirring, dispersing the >ions?
####Thermal stirring comes from a temperature 'differential'. The 'process' of Either heating or cooling will induce a thermal current. Just having a high or low temperature that stays constant won't. If the water is over about 120 deg F, excessive energetic motion [Brownian?] will cause the particles to collide and grow larger from the impacts. Stirring is not 'needed' but does help to overcome the effects of high current densities and , in 'effect', lowers a low current density as well. ..something about the hydration of ions in a solution..blah blah blah. [ archives..a long subject] > >Also, checking back in the literature, isn't it true that for CS that's >generated with DC the only accurate procedure in the lab comes from a >spectral analysis? And how does the Hanna PWT do when measuring the >very small particle sizes? #####Hanna meters do not measure particles...period. [ONLY ions..and indirectly at that] None of the meters do anything but measure conductivity. Much of what I've seen on list concerns the >way particles get bigger with additional ppm, but doesn't the frequent >polarity reversal keep the particle size down? ### Probably not. My idea is that the more particles and or ions that are packed in a space, the more likely they will collide and pack together especialy during and soon after production when everything is still a bit unstable. [The elements have not yet 'decided' what they will form and how. Various procedures help them make up their minds, so to speak] So in this method of >making concentrated CS I could have a huge percentage of small >particles, of a size that will not be indicated by the Hanna PWT. To >imagine that I'm getting only 2.4 ppm, for this 9:1 solution, with >bright orange color, pearly irredecence and strong TE, seems just >utterly absurd. #### If you are getting a green CS with a dense TE, you have many many huge particles...about as big as they can get and still be called colloidal...and very few conductive ions left in the dissolved state that a meter will register on. A meter isn't a good way to measure PPM to start with and we use a 'fudge factor' to compensate within a "range" of PPM between about 18 to 24PPM. But that fudge factor is not a constant. The higher the concentration, the higher the fudge factor..and no one knows 'how' high. If the CS is low PPM... 3-10 PPM? with no visible TE. The reading will be more direct. But it's still counting apples to see how many banannas you have. Ode > >Is it true that for DC generated CS the Hanna device would indicate only >about 10% of true ppm? ## Usually it's 90% of true PPM...but that depends on your CS. The greater the TE, the more 'off' it will be. So if my 9:1 dilute is indicating 2.4 ppm it's >really 24ppm. And my undiluted CS would be more like 240ppm? From what >I'm seeing this kind of concentrated CS is a very different animal by >comparison to the 10 to 20 ppm CS. ## You bet! I would be highly appreciative if >someone could suggest a different kind of regime for testing ppm, ionic, >particulate or whatever, CS of this very particular variety. This >regime would be especially necessary to small cities, where the lab >resources may be a bit limited. ## I think you are condemmed to a wild guess. I think that even the 'average' lab is only making a educated guess. Ode >As usual you guys are an indespensible lifeline. >Reid > >Ole Bob said: >Hi Reid, > >When I introduced polarity switching about 5 years ago I did a study on >swithing times but always with a 50% duty cycle. I started with 12 x 12 >sec >and advanced to 120 x 120 sec. I found that the 60 x 60 was the best >comprise. I did sell about a dozen EZCS2 units with motorized stirring. > >When I fist present ed the idae of polarity switching there was >resistance to >it with some saying that I was blowing the oxides or something back into >the >CS, it has become universally used. > >"Ole Bob" > > > > > > >-- >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]> > >
