..But be aware that the correction factor may not hold for different generators and methods of CS making. Exact knowledge of PPM is not a requirement for CS to work anyhow...so, no huge big deal. Ode
At 09:04 AM 4/21/2004 -0700, you wrote: >Hi Pavel, > >It turns out the PWT does double purpose. It measures uS of the water and >in my opinion measurements to a tenth of a microsiemen are plenty good. >After all, this isn't rocket science. > >It then measures the ionic portion of the mix after the silver is put into >the water. It does not measure the metallic (colloidal) portion. We then >use a correction factor to estimate the total amount of silver. > >This is the best low cost instrument for our purpose. > >And yes, it will probably read differently in different solutions but that >will not make any difference if you know the correction factor to use. We >know the typical correction factor for silver is to add 10-20% to the >reading. You would have to send samples of whatever else you wanted to >establish a correction factor for to a laboratory for analysis. You would >then have the ability to determine that particular correction factor. > >We did it for silver at 2 different labs using atomic absorption >spectophotometry and accept the results. > >Best regards, > >Trem > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Pavel Hochmut" <[email protected]> >To: <[email protected]> >Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 2:30 AM >Subject: [silver_list] CS>The Hanna PWT meter, conductivity vs. ppm values > > >> Hi, >> I have looked for what the "PWT" means on the Hanna www.pages. >> Both devices mentioned below are from Hanna and are designated for >measuring >> the conductivity. Both of them can ONLY measure the conductivity as every >> other ordinary conductometer does. There is nothing more. >> The "PWT" only means "Purity Water Tester" and determinates the device >rank >> of accuracy in the spread of Hanna products. Nothing more. >> Now I understand the words "I have never seen the PWT meter showing more >> than one decimal place" (from Trem)... it´s correct, because it is it´s >main >> feature - the range of the Hannah HI98308 "PWT" meter is 99,9 - 0,1 >> micsoSiemens with the 0,1 microSiemens resolution. >> If you look on the Hanna pages more carefuly, you can also find the >HI98309 >> "UPW" meter (the UPW means Ultra Pure Water tester) with the range 1,000 - >> 0,020 microSiemens with the resolution of 0,001 microsiemens. >> So: who has the HI 98309 UPW model, he can measure the conductivity more >> precisely having dvo decimal places more than with the PWT model. But the >> UPW model is approx. 3 times more expensive than the PWT one. >> So, one who says: " I have measured my DW and it has 2,9 PWT tells it >wrong. >> Correctly should be said: 2,9 microSiemens (...measured with Hanna PWT >> meter). >> You can also see simple conductivity/resistance conversion charts on the >> Hanna site as I already wrote about. >> This reminds me that I saw posted some relation between the conductance >and >> ppm values. That seem to me incredible, because the substance (dissolved >or >> in the colloidal estate) may have different influence to conductance of >the >> (say) batch. For instance let´s put into the >> 1 cubic cm (1 ccm) of DW 2,000.000 atoms of silver. >> And put to another 1 cubic cm of DW 2.000.000 atoms of Si (silicium). I >bet >> my year´s income, that the resulting conductance measurements shall be >> absolutely different. I swear. >> Or can somebody mend my opinion? Where´s the mistake? >> Thanks Pavel H. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> The Silver List is a moderated forum for discussing Colloidal Silver. >> >> Instructions for unsubscribing are posted at: http://silverlist.org >> >> To post, address your message to: [email protected] >> Silver List archive: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html >> >> Address Off-Topic messages to: [email protected] >> OT Archive: http://escribe.com/health/silverofftopiclist/index.html >> >> List maintainer: Mike Devour <[email protected]> >> >> > >
