Re: CS>Re : CS>best pppm of CS to make and use From: Ode Coyote Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 06:11:54 http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/m74936.html
[...] > When using constant stirring the overall diffusion stays pretty > much uniform and the diffusion layer is constantly disrupted. The Nernst diffusion layer may be very thin - perhaps a micrometer thick or less. This is probably well within the boundary layer where the velocity is zero, so it may be untouched by stirring. It's the same idea that a fan can have dust accumulate on the flat portion of the blade. However, stirring would definitely distribute the ions through the dw better than plain convection currents, and would make the cell voltage profile much more predictable with time. [...] > Another way is to predict how far past shut down conductivity you > need to go so conductivity and the desired PPM match up 'after' it > stabilizes. > Since running at a controlled current makes ion production very > close to linear with time and shut down conductivity references a > timing start point, it's not very hard to make a time prediction > for an end point to reach a desired PPM. Volume of water becomes a > timing factor. I've been thinking this would be an absolutely ideal application for a small cheap 8-bit micro. They have 8-bit A/D and D/A converters, a Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) output, various I/O ports, and as much memory as you could desire. They are extemely cheap and could eliminate most of the descrete components you have on the board now. You could monitor the voltage profile, and calculate a least squares fit to the curve (preferable a straight line) to determine when to shut off the current. This would allow the system to accommodate different volumes of dw automatically. You could calculate the ppm as a function of current and time, and detect the start of oxide production to tell when to shut down. There's all kinds of diagnostics you could add to the system. [...] >> Yes, there is a correlation between uS and ppm. I have posted it >> numerous times. Ivan Anderson measured the ppm using an Ion >> Selective Electrode and the conductance using a conductivity >> probe, and found 1uS = 1.08ppm: > This varies with particulate content which is a portion of the > total silver content not picked up by either instrument. > Generally, the higher the PPM, the higher the particle to ion > ratio. "If" all those particles really are silver oxides and > inert, then it doesn't matter to the 'ion only' effective PPM. Yes, the particles really are oxides, and they really are inert. > I would think that ionic PPM will never be lower than conductivity > as long as all that conductivity is a result of only silver ions > and not something else. [Are unstable hydroxls conductive?] The oxides do not contribute to the conductivity of the cs, and here's how we can tell. If you measure the cell voltage, it decreases with time as ions enter the solution. However, as soon as the ions reach the opposite electrodes, oxide formation begins in the Nernst diffusion layer. The cell voltage stops decreasing and flattens out. This shows all the current is going to making oxides. But, if the oxides contributed to the conductivity, the cell voltage would continue decreasing indefinitely. >> I combined his data with Frank Key's, and found it averaged to >> 1.0074, which is close enough to 1 uS = 1 ppm for our needs: > Yup. Close is good enough for a grenade. OK, Ken, just for you I'll use 1.0074 ppm = 1 uS, which is 0.74% different from the rest of us. How many decimal points do you want?:) [...] > I've found that using thermal updraft in a tall container poops out > near the top and conductivity builds up high up where the elctrodes > are sampling conductivity as evidenced by immediately manually > stirring a tall batch drops the overall conductivity some but Not > enough to account for all the conductivity drop over time. > Enhancing the velocity of the updraft with a funnel as a chimney > does very nicely but the very narrow tube in the funnels available > may be a bit small and concentrate ions within it...sometimes...a > little too much. > Top down mechnical stirring in a tall container has water velocity > related effects that I like even less. What happened to the simple thermal stirring you used to use? Actually, I tried it as well as the other methods, and found running without stirring worked best for me. Of course, I use about 1/10th the current density you do, so the brew takes longer. That's OK - I still make much more than I can use. With 22 ppm, I only need 1 oz every three or four days, where I used to need 8 oz of 10 ppm every day, and it still didn't kill the Shingles and cold sore viruses. [...] >> It really doesn't matter. As I mentioned before, as soon as oxide >> formation begins, the voltage across the cell stops changing. >> This means that any further ions added to the cs are converted to >> oxides. > Either oxides or pure silver particles would have the same effect > on cell voltage as neither are conductive when suspended in a > solution and both use up silver ions. > I can see where a yellow particle could be an oxide as the action > on them is the same as on the yellow coating on a container where > they have been allowed to encrust and the black coating on an > electrode when exposed to H2O2. > All silver oxides I know of display a color ranging from > yellow-brown to black. What if there is no color yet many > particles are apparent in a TE? How could they be an oxide? Yes, despite Marshall's claim, the oxides that coat the electrodes are not soluble, and they do contribute to Tyndall. > Could there be some silver hydroxides [also probably nearly > biologically inert..and white] in there and would H2O2 react in > some way with that? > Suspended silver carboanate particles are white till sunlight > greys them a little and looks exactly like the normal suspended > supposedly silver particles in spades, be those particles pure > silver or somehow colorless oxides of silver...similar to the > result of adding H2O2 to crystal clear IES and getting that milky > white explosion effect. That really bothers me. I got it once, but never again. And now you and several others are getting it. Strange. > Most of the silver carbonate eventually settles out and the water > becomes distinctly less milky as a grey or white deposit grows on > the bottom while the 'explosion' result doesn't settle at all, so > far as I can tell. > BTW I mixed a few drops of white distilled vineger in with a > sample of the 'milky explosion/ H2O2' stuff and set it next to an > untreated sample. After several days, the sample with the vinegar > was absolutely clear with zero TE and a few whitish flakes on the > bottom while the untreated sample changed not a bit. [but now has > some black specks floating on top] > Not sure if the flakes and specks were from a reaction or if it's > just crap that got in there. I didn't cover them up but since they > were sitting right next to each other, I'd assume they'd both get > the same crap in them. But they're different. > Another thing. I put H2O2 in a sample of several week old clear > colorless CS and it showed no trace of a milky explosion at all. > Nothing. Zero. Zilch. No change in TE. No change at all. while > new-clear colorless samples have. > Hummmm > I don't think a single answer is going to cover the range of > multiple and changing factors involved. > There's something going on here that makes my eyes meat. > Ode [ken] I agree. We are still only barely scratching the surface. But we are definitely making progress! Best Wishes, Mike Monett -- 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]>
