>
> 30uS? That is rocket fuel! How do you reach that without having it
> turn yellow before the brew is done? I can't get much above 24 ppm
> before it starts showing a yellow tint.
## That particular batch did go yellow by the next day, however, I have
made batches up to 78 uS that never did. Not many..it's really iffy past
around 20- 24 uS. Some anomoly in the water may account for being able to
make really high concentrations that don't yellow 'sometimes'.
I brought up the effect of dropping a piece of copper into the brew to
point out that some water contaminant traces can change everything. The
copper isn't "connected or charged" yet pulls every bit of silver out of
the water eventually. First sparklies drop out, then TE vanishes, then all
conductivity. The copper sits there shiny as a new 'old' penny unless some
of the black crud dries on it...then it's silver plated.
Incidently, I've been making colloidal copper with the latest evolution of
the silverpup and found that it does something similar. Very Nice TE for a
few days, then a few sparklies, then nothing but some blue grey crud on
the bottom.
If CC is made without stirring of any sort, black tendrils extend outward
for quite a distance. With even thermal stirring, they don't..looks like
they wrap around the electrode making it very black and a little fuzzy.
Isn't copper oxide green or blue?
>
> We really need to plot the voltage curve and verify it is linear.
## I did..wanna see it? It's not absolutely linear but close, then
flattens out
>
> I just spotted a nice dvm at Radio Shack for about US$60 that has a
> 300 baud RS-232 interface. We should both get one and I could write
> some data collection software we could share. I plan to include the
> Faraday calculations and plot the reciprocal of conductance and
> calculated ppm in WPlot. That should tell us a great deal about what
> is happening, and of course, generate a slew of new questions:)
## That sounds cool. Then of course, I couldn't figure out how to make
data plotting software do what I wanted and wound up with a pencil and
graph paper. Dammit. LOL
> > In the Canadian study that James Allison re-found, there is
> > mention of copper being antagonistic to silver ions. Could be a
> > correlation there?
>
> I don't know. But why do you mention this? Most cs generators are
> all silver, or should be:)
## See above
>
> >> But, if the oxides contributed to the conductivity, the cell
> >> voltage would continue decreasing indefinitely.
>
> > I'll buy that beyond a point over 20 uS, but also look at where
> > most of the oxides are..on the electrode surface...not doing much
> > in the way of conducting electricity.
>
> Yes, Ken, silver oxide is conductive. Look at the silver oxide
> batteries keeping time in your computer or in hearing aids.
## I should have stated that better.
If it's on the electrodes, it's not in the water doing the conducting.
Which brings up another point:
If the cell is left connected but not powered..a battery effect that
reverses things?
Vauge suspicion of a memory of having read something about that on some EDU
gobbledygook website.
I'll run a batch, disconnect power and attach a voltmeter and see what
happens one day soon. Could be interesting if not very relevent.
>
> The silver oxide would help form hydrogen gas at the cathode, but
> probably doesn't contribute to silver ion release at the anode.
> Otherwise it would shrink instead of growing thicker.
>
> I don't think we can say most of the oxides stick to the electrodes.
> Probably more goes into the cs.
## I have seen black oxides go into the water at higher current densities
and concentrations...about 6 ma on 14 inch x 12 ga electrodes did the job.
Don't recall the concentration as I don't keep data on things that don't
work to my liking and am pretty bad about keeping it on stuff I do
like...maybe 30 or 40 uS? That gallon batch took on a black cast that
cleared up in a week with black deposits on the bottom, never went yellow.
>
> >> [...]
>
> >> 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.
## At that current density, Brownian motion probably does a pretty good
job of stirring.
All the batches I tried at those densities went yellow at 20 uS and up
before they were done.
14 microamps with 6" exposure on the electrodes if I recall.
>
> >> Yes, despite Marshall's claim, the oxides that coat the
> >> electrodes are not soluble, and they do contribute to Tyndall.
>
>
> So the absense of Tyndall really doesn't tell much about the
> formation of oxides, and probably the visible oxide on the
> electrodes is only a fraction of the amount in solution.
>
> > There's more than one oxide of silver. [4, I believe]
>
> > Ag2O colour: dark brown to black. solubility/water @25C: 22 mg/L
> > AgO colour: charcoal gray powder, black crystal solubility/water
> > @20C: decomposes in water...which means? If you see any, the water
> > is already saturated with it?????..
>
> I generally brew 22 ppm cs. The oxide collects on the anode in the
> last 1/2 hr or so, which is about the same time the cell voltage
> starts to plateau.
>
> In my system, silver is entering the solution at a rate of 1.55 ppm
> per hour, so the final phase accounts for a total of about 0.75 ppm.
> The visible oxide on the anode may account for half or less, with
> the rest wandering around in the solution as described above.
### makes sense. How much does it take for it to be visible?
>
> So it is apparent the oxide that forms on the anode is far below the
> solubility figures stated in the chemistry books, and it is still
> not in solution.
## Wouldn't the concentration be much higher near the anode?
>
> You also did a test recently that gave Hanna readings that were
> identical to the Faraday calculation at about 22 ppm. This shows
> very little oxide was formed. But it would be interesting to examine
> this test in more detail, since you mentioned the baking soda caused
> a reaction starting about an hour later.
>
> > backing up what you say but going a bit beyond to say that both
> > views are correct depending on concentrations but neither saying
> > anything about pure silver particles also being there in the water
> > or what actually happens when H2O2 hits those dissolved oxides and
> > why it sometimes does nothing apparent at all.
>
> There can be no pure silver particles in solution since electrons do
> not flow in water. Once a silver atom gives up an electron and
> becomes an ion, it can't get it back.
## H2O2 being a free radical could both add an atom of oxygen to a silver
ion and oxidize it or scavange an atom of oxygen off an oxide and make it
pure silver releasing an O2 molecule???
The "explosion" does clear up to some extent with time and no indication
of anything dropping out. Could that be an emulsion like effect? [I'm
obviously not a chemist here..but something to consider perhaps]
Going beyond theory, how does one test the difference between silver oxide
in solution and a silver particles in suspension when [assuming it's
possible] that both are present?
BTW I do get your point about there being no free electrons just floating
about in the water.
Just to be "difficult", could stray electromagnetic radiation supply
something? We do live in a sea of it.
>
> The only way a silver ion can find a negative charge is when it
> meets a hydroxyl ion and combines to form silver oxide, which is
> inert.
>
> The only other way is for it to reach the cathode and form Spanish
> moss, but this only happens at low current density. At the current
> densities used in the 3 nines, both anode and cathode get covered
> with black silver oxide. The situation is even worse in Jason's 4
> nines generator, since the higher voltage increases the current rise
> at the end of the brew.
>
> >> That really bothers me. I got it once, but never again. And now
> >> you and several others are getting it. Strange.
>
> > The "explosion of milkyness". I didn't get it at first either, but
> > I was using off the shelf batches, not very fresh batches.
>
> > Perhaps when you make yours at very low current densities and a
> > lot of time, whatever happens to stored batches happens to yours
> > as it's being made...most of the time.
>
> I'll have to take another look and see if I can get it to appear.
>
> > I tried running at 14 microamps per square inch [if I recollect
> > that figure right] as per your suggestion a while back and the CS
> > was deep yellow before I got to 20 uS. I've never seen yellow CS
> > "explode"..just clear up eventaully and increase TE [not lose TE
> > as some find]
>
> We should check the data in the archives - I seem to recall you were
> running at somewhat higher current density, maybe 140uA/sq.in. I
> don't remember any mention of yellow tint, but I do recall you
> mentioning the Spanish moss on the cathode.
## Yea. 14 uA on 6" x 12 gauge wire exposed. Specs mis stated.
>
> > I never use more than 1 drop of H2O2 per fl oz as I hate the taste
> > after that. [yuk]
>
> I stopped using H2O2 for the same reason. Plus, it is not needed if
> there are no oxides.
## If oxides are inert, silver particles are impossible and ions are all
that do anything, the oxides would be irrelevent.
So, high PPM ionic...lots of conductivity would be the key and never mind
whatever else.
But even though oxides might be inert in the glass of water, are they
inert when exposed to all that body chemistry? No clue here.
>
> > I guess I'll just have to go with whatever works without knowing
> > what it is. [Given a mountain of ammo, I don't really care how
> > much shot doesn't hit the duck so long as I get dinner.]
>
> Yeah, but what if you just shot a decoy. Wouldn't all those wood
> slivers get stuck in your teeth?
## Well, I would have to cook it a lot longer and add some bullion.
But that wood be the day that decoys fly. :-)
>
> Despite Jason's comments on using low-ppm cs, I definitely find high
> ppm ionic cs much more effective than the 5 to 10 ppm stuff from the
> typical 3 nines. It only makes sense that a stronger cs will have
> greater effect.
## Makes sense to me. But oft times, various 'people' don't make sense
while others do.
Establishment medicine would work a lot better if everyone made sense but
it's obvious that nothing works the same for everyone. Both views have
merit if both get results and one persons success doesn't cancel out
anothers failure.
"ALL" of it..all of both disease and cure ... and life itself, could well
be very much like magic. There just don't seem to be any absolutes either
way when merely the statement of rule implies there can be exceptions.
Stating a rule would be superfluous without the exceptions.
I'll even consider that we each live in similar but completely distinct
universes...that you can fly, just not in 'my' universe.
The sensory input I see 'as you' in no way proves that you even exist.
But that sensory input I 'see as' your fist smacking my face is a very
convincing arguement 'to me' for my own existance [but not "proof"]....
even if you don't exist.
Once upon a time I was beaten with feathers that looked like tire irons in
the projects by a gang of wraiths that looked like thugs. I didn't form an
opinion about it when it was happening for some reason or other and came to
no harm in a non event.
Two others with me apparently experienced something like that. The fourth
freaked out and wanted to call the cops. [She was surrounded by us and
never took a blow]
WE just couldn't understand 'why' to the degree that none of us three ever
even talked about it. There wasn't anything to discuss. We just looked at
each other with blank expressions wondering why she was freaking out.
I often wonder what the thugs experienced. Fountains of blood, screams and
well beaten bodies maybe?
That wasn't the first or last time that totally wild and impossible
exceptions to established rules occurred.
So, I have some doubts about anything that's completely nailed down.
Could it be that science is a consensual psy-ence?
Us CS'ers agree that CS works...regardless of why and how, how much and
what form works for who. Others apparently don't.
But then, there is a growing establishment of rule in the mainstream
concerning silver which may well develop into a common reality complete
with validations and established parameters.
Why is it that no subatomic particle that has ever been predicted has not
been found? {I'd call it the science of exceptions}
Point is: Some people may figure out what is going on, THEN... 'that'
will be what's going on with the effect being validated by establishing
agreed upon rules..and fewer exceptions.
..which is a accurate desciption of mainstream medicine.
"Free energy" could be developing "into reality" along similar lines.
I await the future with baited breath..smells just like brain farts.
Ode
--
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]>
