Reid Harvey 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? >
The tempeature alone will make little difference, except for the browning movement, but a temperature gradient can cause thermal stirring. The trick is that the liquid must be warmer toward the bottom and cooler near the toop. > > 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? 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? 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. > > Is it true that for DC generated CS the Hanna device would indicate only > about 10% of true ppm? 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. 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. > 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]>
