Colloidal Copper is said to be more effective on molds and fungi. Copper sulphates have been used for that for ages, I believe. How did you make your collidal copper? I've copper electrodes for hours on end and never got a TE or conductivity rise to go over 3 uS [But I did get a blue grey precipitate] Same with zinc ... without the precipitate.
No essentail disagreement but the problem with PWTs [that read right] and PPM is this. Conductivity and 'ionic' content are essentailly at 1 to 1 unity. At under 15 PPM with a very slight to no TE, the PWT will read PPM about right.."if" it reads right to start with. [The factory settings seem to be consistant...accurate or not. I've had major problems with calibration solutions NOT being consistant which causes me to wonder about the consistancy and accuracy of any instrument that relies on any solutions for calibration.] However, predicting/measuring the silver content [suspended 'in' the water] that is NOT ionic can get really crazy. [Never mind sludges on electrodes, deposits on containers, fallout and plate out.] This is what produces the TE and a number of factors can change its intensity at the same conductivity.[and change it a LOT at times] If there were some way to quantify the TE, we'd be in business. [Laser and photo cell? ...and another calibration nightmare.] Still. We can get an 'idea' of TE intensity by observing turbidity or murkyness and color for a range of particle sizes and adjust fudge factors by observational comparative intuition. [akin to the salt test] Referring to Reids problem, Ionic content can probably be 10% of the total rather than 90% Deviating: BTW I'm having a bit of problem with the terminology of "oxides" suspended in the water, or production of oxides etc. Perhaps it has to do with including unstable silver hydroxides or hydrated silver metal particles..the white stuff [is it?] in with the catagory of stable silver dioxides and trioxides. [the black and brown stuff] I get the picture of black stuff being suspended in the water...which CAN HAPPEN, [done that] but you get black CS. Wrong movie, ey? DE-deviating: Place all that in the context of "No dosing standards available that make any sense at all" and intuition is sufficient for all 'practical' purposes. I'm more prone to adjusting dosage by taste and visual observation of the CS rather than instruments. I don't even bother to measure the dosage. It's one swig or three..or a quart, depending on what I'm trying to do. I use three ranges given that the generator turned itself off at 'around' 20 PPM 'more or less' calculated from conductivity and TE observation. Humm, good flavor, slight to no TE...glug glug glug Makes a face, looks sorta milky in direct sunlight but clear in room light... glug Rocket fuel!!!...sip Incidently, your salt test may be OK to accompany intuition with some sort of idea of PPM but it still only reacts with the ionic portion. I think that one way that some labs do [did?] the job was to reduce? the ions with a measured amount of acid, evaporate the liquid and weigh the junk left over. I think in the end it comes down to: 1] Instrument aided, pretty good guess. 2] Educated guess based on calculations. 3] Wild guess tempered with caution. as in Enough is enough and too much is hard to find. ..and the lines between them are another 'anybodies' guess. Wavy suckers! All the theories, calculations and machines are interesting and useful, but none of them seem to get the same results between them, consistantly, in real life. Fortunately, real life...not reliant on consistancy... compensates quite well. Shucks, I'd like to get it nailed down as much as anyone but all I can find are rubber nails that vary in hardness with practical limits while each and every hammer claims to be high tensile steel. [and we're trying to nail down water] It seems the more expensive the machine, the less you can find out about what it won't do. [How many PHDs can say "I dunno"? Not many. That's not what they're trained or paid for, so, often, theory stands for fact.] OK Close enough. After all, CS is like a nuke to bacterium and it doesn't take much of a marksman to hit something with a nuke. Let's just do it. Finding out what we did is just fer fun and info after 'whatever it was', did the job. So, looping back around.. Making CC is something I didn't do. I made bottom crud instead. How did you do it? CC..Might be a very good supplement to strenghten veins and such. I got my very first bruise the other day. It took two 8ft long angle irons sissoring together on my arm to do it..but it did get done and never did before now. I've been hit so hard that the skin split open, but no bruises. Humm, a thought. Perhaps the CC has made your nose and sinus veins stronger, thus, your resistance to molds has become stronger... as well as killing the molds off. Double whammy!?? Humm, a double thought. I have had more sinus headaches in the past year or so...along with the bruising. A connection? Ode At 07:13 AM 10/7/2003 -0400, you wrote: >url: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/m63086.html >Re: CS>Measuring very high ppms >From: Ode Coyote >Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 05:43:48 > > > If the PWT ignores oxides and there are a lot of oxides [or > > metallic silver micro particles] then the PWT reading equating uS > > to PPM will not be at unity. > > > Hence, the fudge factors. > > > At 3 uS, it's almost certain that the CS is 99+% ionic and the PWT > > will be very close to unity. > > > At 27 uS, it's unlikely that the CS is more than 90% ionic and > > could be less than 80% ionic. > > > In some cases the PWT can read 13 uS and the suspension can exceed > > 60% [even 80%?] non ionic silver content as an extremely heavy TE > > or display a lot of crud in the bottom or both. > > > Ode > > Hi Ken, > > I'm sorry I have not been able to respond to your posts recently. > They force me to think, and the headaches from the mold spores made > that impossible. So I tackled the easy ones, like solar flares:) > > I have been working with colloidal copper. It is tough to make, but > it is the only thing that has any effect on the spores. I have been > applying it to all the clothing, and the spore levels are finally > starting to decline. > > I just spent four glorious hours with no headache, and I know how to > get rid of them when they do return. I also took Marshall's > suggestion and applied the cc to the floors. I didn't think it would > work, but it worked GREAT! I can go into the bathroom and kitchen > without collapsing from the headaches. It also works on my lab > floor. > > Thanks, Marshall! You are the man. > > Ken, you are right about the oxides messing things up. The goal is > to minimize them, which is why your silverpuppy design is so good. I > love your U-shaped electrodes. > > That solved the problem of hot spots at the cut end of straight > rods, increased the rigidity and stability of the alignment, and > doubled the wetted area all at once. Such a simple idea, and so > elegant. I don't mind telling everyone I copied it for my mini-W > generator. > > These advances allow pretty good ppm, and minimize the production of > oxides. > > We are now left with the ions, and how to measure them. > > There really should be a correlation between ppm and uS. Conductance > measures the number of ions, and ppm measures the mass of the ions. > > Since all silver ions have the same mass, measuring one parameter > should give the other. (Unless there's something really wrong with > the process, but nobody adds salt to start their cs anymore:) > > The only question left is what is the conversion factor between uS > and ppm? > > Trem had his cs analyzed and found the correlation factor was unity > for the ionic portion. > > Frank Key measured the uS and ppm on some commercial products and > posted the results at > > http://www.silver-colloids.com/Reports/reports.html > > He separated the ionic and particulate portions and gave their value > separately. I ignored the particulate data. > > I selected five products that seem to correlate well. Here is the > list: > > Product Name Conductivity Ionic PPM Ratio > ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ > Silver Lightning 3.3 uS/cm 3.71 ppm 0.889 > Mesosilver 3.9 uS/cm 3.9 ppm 1.0 > Sovereign Silver 9.7 uS/cm 9.22 ppm 1.052 > ASAP Solution 11.4 uS/cm 10.65 ppm 1.070 > ASAP Solution 20.1 uS/cm 19.59 ppm 1.026 > > The average is > > 0.889 + 1.0 + 1.052 + 1.070 + 1.026 = 5.037 / 5 = 1.0074 > > Ivan posted a table comparing uS and ppm. Note it tracks above 20 > ppm within 1 ppm of measurement error: > > 20uS - 20ppm > 21uS - 21ppm > 25uS - 26ppm > 26uS - 27ppm > > http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/m14498.html > > I didn't find any information on how Ivan measured the ppm, but > since his data confirms and extends Frank's data, I assume Ivan also > separated the ionic and particulate portions. > > The work by Trem, Frank, and Ivan firmly establishes the conversion > factor at 1 uS = 1 ppm. This is valid over a very wide range, using > many different cs processes from HVAC to LVDC. So that problem is > solved. > > Now for your second topic. You said: > > > Using Faradays equation should tell how much silver was liberated > > but won't say what happened to it. > > > "IF" nothing has settled or plated out, it should still be in the > > water in whatever form and should be accurate but any visible > > fallout/plate out at all will amount to a highly significant > > percentage of the total that won't be contributing to the PPM in > > the water. > > Yes, you are right. Faraday's equation only tells us how much silver > was liberated. We assume the current density is low enough to keep > the production of oxygen at the anode minimal, and the dw doesn't > have contaminants that plate out at the anode. I had that problem > recently, and it required changing suppliers. > > The Faraday equation doesn't say what happens to the silver after it > leaves the anode. Our job is to keep most of it intact and in > solution where it does the most good. > > > Darn it. It just ain't easy. > > Sure it is. > > The Hanna measures uS. We now know it correlates directly to ppm. > > The Faraday equations give the ppm liberated. > > The difference between them tells us how much was lost in the > process. This give us a target to improve, and troubleshooting > information when something goes wrong. > > If something goes wrong with the Hanna, the salt test will show > it. > > We can weigh the electrodes to confirm how much silver was > liberated. Mercury makes this calculation trivial. All we need is > a good scale. > > We now have four simple ways that help determine the concentration > of silver ions in solution. > > They are cheap, quick, available to anyone, reliable, self-checking, > and certainly accurate enough for our needs. > > What could be easier:) > > I'm also working on a fifth way to measure the ppm directly. I hope > to be able to start working on it soon, as long as the progress in > killing spores continues. > >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]> > >
