Humm, good point.
So, keep track of conductivity drop at first and when it starts to rise
again, then start counting silver?
Making CS in my well water makes a lot of settling crud.
If anything, [with PPM meter] use the initial DW reading as is, subtract
that and double the end result.
With uS meter, halve the initial and use the end result as is?
But in decent distilled, the initial reading is low enough to basically
ignore as the build up of meter errors and counting apples to get oranges
variable ion to particle ratio fudge factors makes that low initial reading
more and more irrelevant.
Ode
At 04:05 PM 3/10/2006 +1030, you wrote:
Firstly, in case theres no subject title here, it should say
'Subtracting initial ppm is Wrong'. (For some reason my subject
titles often don't appear.)
Anyway heres my theory.
Its often recommended that to calculate the actual IONIC PPM of a
batch of CS the initial PPM of the water is subtracted from the final
PPM. For example, if the initial IONIC PPM is 3 and the final is 20
then the 'actual' IONIC PPM is 17.
My theory is that the above recommendation is wrong and that the
actual PPM should be just whatever it finally says on the meter. My
reasoning for this is that I believe that the first silver ions off
the electrodes combine with the ions already in the water to form non-
conductive silver compounds, effectively taking the ionic ppm back to
a zero starting point. From then on the IONIC PPM rises to whatever
is finally revealed on the meter.
(You can substitute uS for PPM in the above theory if you wish. The
logic is the same.)
The background to this theory is that I have observed on a few
ocassions that running a silverpuppy in a jar of ordinary tap water
does not measurably increase the ppm (or uS). At first i thought this
was just meter error or a temperature effect but I finally realised
that it happened consistently. For example the initial ppm was about
200 but after running the silverpuppy for about 2 hours the ppm was
slightly less. Theoretically about 40 ppm has been added to the water
but I assume it has all combined with other ions to form particles.
I assume this process would continue until there is such an
unavoidable mass of particles in the water that new silver ions are
instantly gobbled up. (The end result being a jar of water containing
conductive non-silver ions and non-conductive silver compounds, but
almost no ionic silver.)
Using ordinary tap water may be an extreme example but i think the
principle may still apply in near pure water. Why should we assume
that the initial ionic content, of say 3 uS (of impurities) would
stay untouched by the incoming silver ions?
My conclusion then is that when using a meter to measure CS that has
been made with NEAR PURE WATER you simply accept whatever it says on
the meter as the actual IONIC Silver PPM. (Allowing for the usual
error and fudge factors of course). On top of that there will be an
extra weight of silver compounds/particles that we can guesstimate at
being about 15% extra.
David
--
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]
Address Off-Topic messages to: [email protected]
The Silver List and Off Topic List archives are currently down...
List maintainer: Mike Devour <[email protected]>
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.2.1/277 - Release Date: 3/8/2006
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.2.1 - Release Date: 3/8/2006
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.2.1 - Release Date: 3/8/2006
