I think 200 microamps is 0.2 milliamps (micro=millionths milli=thousandths), 2 milliamps would be 2000 microamps.
Paul H ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ode Coyote" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 1:02 PM Subject: RE: CS> Home brewing problems > > ### 200 microamps is 2 milliamps, right? > Some people stop at 20 milliamps..I prefer to keep the current down to 1 > millamp per square inch of exposed electrode and stop at some voltage. [At > the very least, a graph made that way levels off so you can read it and > predict something with reaonable accuracy VS trying to get meaningful > resolution off a ski jump curve] > It takes a lot longer to do it that way though. [hours, not a just few > minutes] > > One simple way to handle current and calibration is to make the electrodes > movable along a ruler. > Keeping the current constant by moving the electrodes apart will > automatically give you a linear readout on the ruler where 'X' inches = 'Y' > conductivity. > > >Anyway, with an ammeter in line with the electrodes, I can see a current of > >150 micro amps which has risen to about 200 micro amps in 10 minutes. > >There are no bubbles or white, grey wisps coming off the other. > > > >Is there any way of finding the PPM with the starting and ending current? (a > >formula) > ### You can do that, in essence, making a conductivity meter out of the > generator setup which has it's own weirdnesses and inaacuracies but is > better than nothing. > It will be entirely dependent on water temperature, electrode spacing, > electrode size and voltage [or current] held constant, so ANY little change > in the setup will throw it off. > Electrode deposits can significantly change readings and simply moving the > electrodes a little will make a reading rise or fall [spike], then stabilize. > If no or insufficient stirring is being used, a reading will only apply to > a localized area in the water...not all of the water. > Since no two individual setups are exactly the same, there cannot be an > easy formula. > Change one thing, even a little, and EVERYTHING else changes with it. > Nail every variable element down, plot a current rise per time period > graph and compare readings with a good meter to make a chart. > Then send samples to a good lab to determine if the graph and chart is > somewhere in the ballpark for your setup. > The graph will look like a ski jump after a while using constant > voltage...now what part of this nearly vertical line is what PPM? > > Meters don't read PPM..nor do generators being used 'as' a meter. There is > no specific direct correlation between PPM and water conductivity [which > 'is' related to current draw at a set voltage] that always holds true even > when using the same generator setup. You can get "close" ,as in, educated > guess, within a given range. > That means that every sample must come from it's own seperate batch run > exactly the same way.. in every way.. because taking the sample will change > the batch. > > The stronger you make it, the more particles will form faster and > faster..the 'whisps' [you can't see ions and ions are what do the > conducting of electricity, not particles]..and PPM/conductivity/ammeters > don't register particles at all. > On top of that, particles form later on, so readings change too...and > those changes are volume related as well. A small batch won't change the > same as a larger one. > > > If you are very careful, you can get a good idea. > If you don't take everything into consideration, you'll get a bad idea and > won't know it. > > The saving grace, however, is that exact PPM really doesn't matter much. > Your taste buds and eyeballs alone give you a pretty good idea of how much > to use in an environment where no one person "really" knows how much to use > for what and how, even if they DID have the exact PPM figures. > > There simply are no dosing standards that I've heard of that make any > sense at all. > Without exception,[so far] recommendations totally leave out critical > elementary factors such as application technique, purpose, location and > body weight. > > "Enough" works just fine. > If it worked, it was enough. > Several small doses a day are probably much better than one big one. > > "Too much" is the hardest part to accomplish. It might even be impossible > [up to a point] with water being as toxic as it is along with the > difficulties involved with making CS very strong AND 'not sludge'. > > You 'can' get into trouble using a lot of sludge for a long period of > time...even then, unlikely. > > If it looks like crap, it probably is. If it doesn't look like crap, it's > probably under 30 PPM..most likely under 15 PPM ..even 5 PPM > sometimes...using constant voltage. > > Making nice looking stable CS at over 20 PPM is usually an 'iffy' affair. > > Ode > > > >Thanks, > >Brian. > > > > > >-- > >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]> > > > > >
