Malcolm, Marshall, Mike. M., Everybody, Now I've made another effort making the concentrated CS for ceramic filter saturation, and I'm getting better results, not experiencing the instability associated with agglomeration of particles. Yesterday I went twelve hours, quite an easy exercise when using automated switching. It seems that an important factor here is in not using the tiny drop of honey, earlier used as starter. In effect all that did was to make the water impure. I think the use of honey was a step that would have been okay, had the system designer's intent been pursued: to make no more than about 100 to 200ppm. But let's do see what result I get when I weigh the electrodes, within a couple of days. What I do know is that the denisty of particles is greater than it's ever been with this generator.
I believe another factor here is that, by contrast to the earlier device the one I'm now using has equal time intervals for both electrodes, as opposed to 23 seconds for one and 28 for the other. Somebody here said this would not be a problem, but somehow I'm imagining that an equal 120 seconds for each electrode has helped. This gut feeling of mine, that equal intervals is important, may be all the intuition I'm allowed, when in reality I'm a mere artist, but it seems to me that a balanced system must be important. If current runaway is a definite issue, as it is, some kind of arc, going out of control, then it would appear to make sense that even little arcs (for want of a better word) would lend themselves to instability, particularly as number of particles increases greatly. Another big issue in this particular generator is that I'm no longer following specs, vis-a-vis the sizes of : the flask, the voltage and the wet surface area of electrodes. So it could be that if these were optimized I'd get a lot more silver in solution. I did mention that the original, 2.0 liter flask broke, the only available replacement at 2.4 liters. And contrary to the designers specification of 27 volts this time I used 24. But I'm about to throw in another wild card. Distance around the cross section of my original, round electrode is about 12.5 mms. Soon I'll be attempting generation with a local electrode, possibly no better than about 99.0% purity. This is a flat bar, the distance around it 20.0 mms. So the rate of liberating silver should be a factor of 20.0/ 12.6 = ~1.6 times that of the origonal electrode. Is it likely that a possible 0.3% (or so) to 1.0% impurity in the electrode could get me back into the business of excess impurity in the water? Then instability once again? What I'll bank on with a flat bar that's not three 9s is that the weight of material coming off of the electrodes is a lot smaller than what gave me the that 2.0 uS, resulting from that drop of honey. After all, if it's 0.2 grams of liberated silver that gives me ~500ppm, then: (0.2 grs.) x (~0.05% impure material) = 0.01 grs. impure material, ie. 10.0 mgs.. Now that I see this number it may be a lot, but this is likely to be copper? Maybe what I'll really be testing is the local silver merchant's assertion of three 9s. The moment he told me that I forgave him, my feeling that he really believes it. Bye for now. Reid, imagining that in science it's okay to be shocked, from time to time, but not okay to be surprised, too much like naiveté. -- 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]>
