If you're not concerned with particle size at high concentrations, and apparently you're not as you seem happy with a red result, going with constant voltage along with the run away problem will definitely be a lot faster than using current controls.
However, it's not a long shot to wind up with a brown muddy emulsified mix that turns black the next day when the current gets really high. If you're just going to sinter all that into clay at high temperatures, black might not be a problem. Ode At 05:48 AM 10/14/2003 +0530, you wrote: >Malcolm, Mike M., Everybody, >My latest theory is that there are a couple of very different things >happening in the flask. As I already mentioned it seems that the -very >tiny- drop of honey just about doubled the reaction rate. I did check >conductivity, both for the distilled water alone, and then for the >solution with the honey, and got 0.2 uS and 4.4uS respectively, for the >2.4 liter container. (Note 4.4 uS was the hot solution, maybe 60 or >70C. Once cooled to room temperature the honey solution was 2.8 uS.) > >My guess is that the very slow rate of reaction without the honey is due >to the poor conductivity of the silver oxide and silver hydroxide >particles, while some secondary reaction starting with the honey is >driving the production of the silver compound. To appearance, though to >a flashlight the transparent, deep red was always there, with or without >honey. But whereas without the honey I get a brown color, with the >honey I believe some white is added to the brown, resulting in a kind of >gray. > >Unlike previous production, wherein I used manual switching, this time, >about five hours into it I lost the transparent red. I'm guessing this >happened around 200 ppm, but I'll know for sure when I weigh the >electrodes. My hope had been that the reaction would have gone on and >on, then I would have a really concentrated CS, that could be greatly >diluted for saturation of ceramic filters. This is a question of >economic viability. At 200 ppm producing CS in this way just might be >viable, whereas at 1000 ppm it would certainly be viable. Ideas anyone? > >On the other hand it seems that some type and amount of starter is >necessary, that without this, at about seven hours there's no >discernable increase in color or density of particles in solution. I >had thought that some kind of constant current device would help in >this, rather than using a starter, but now I'm not so sure. > >Somehow I've always muddled through when confronted with inexplicable >results, new directions revealing themselves within a few days, maybe >weeks. And it's likely that'll happen this time as well. Maybe it's >just that the honey at 2.8uS gives too much conductivity. Could I start >with half that amount, then perhaps expect maybe 3/4 the rate of >reaction (rather than double), allowing ten or fifteen hours, rather >than five? Or for saturation of ceramic filters should I go for a >parallel production of silver nitrate? That's really simple, and when >mixed with the clay could be formed, dried and fired, the nitrate >burning off. It's just that use of AgNO3 may take a couple of months to >prove out, while CS saturation is practically a given. > >Any ideas? >Reid > >Malcolm Stebbins wrote: >Hi Reid, I believe honey does not ionise, just dissolves. You could try >a little experiment by measuring your initial conductivity without >running the generator - if the two functions are separate - them add a >small dollop of honey and see if you get a, change in conductivity. >There's probably enough crud in the honey to produce some change but >nothing like what you'll see when you add the same (small, remember!) >amount of salt or baking soda. >Take care, Malcolm > > > >-- >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]> > >
