Meters don't measure the amount of silver. They measure conductivity and
'try' to co-relate that to the number of ions in solution that contribute
to conductivity. That's pretty "iffy", but not -completely-
useless. Certain things can happen to throw the result out of town and
it's ballpark at best. [The best wrong tool we can afford ]
A Spectrophotometer will, but only one that operates within the parameters
needed.
UV and IR Spectrophotometers are cheap, [only several thousand dollars
new, dirt cheap used] but I don't think they'll detect silver. It's takes
a "flame" Spectrophotometer...something that makes the silver into a
plasma. [big bucks new, lots of cheap surplus, most needing some repairs,
but takes skill and knowledge to use..and some of them are HUGE]
There are "colorometers" that do a decent job by measuring color from
chemical reactions with silver you can get for under 5 or 6k $ new and dirt
cheap used. [Hach]
Some labs use a titration process, but so far the results haven't been
nearly accurate at these low PPM ranges. [IMO worse than a meter]
Spectrophotometers don't do particle size, only content.
Most devices that do particles won't go small enough, or only do dry
samples..
There are calibrated laser refraction devices that will go small enough and
do liquid samples. [around $40k and no surplus 'used' ones to be found]
Dark field microscopes might work. [no clue. I've seen some very
interesting photos that might have been done that way]
Since CS changes when dried and a TEM requires a dry sample, a Tunneling
Electron Microscope won't do the job properly even though it's detection
range is more than adequate. [Lots of cheap surplus TEMs around and lots of
people use them to size silver particles, but the results are absolutely
bogus.]
Ode
At 09:04 AM 5/11/2006 -0400, you wrote:
Thank you Ode
Now what about Spectrophotometer, does that measure particle size?
Jacques
>
> From: Ode Coyote <[email protected]>
> Date: 2006/05/11 Thu AM 05:47:47 EDT
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: CS>Re: Re: CS>Dangers of Colloidal Silver
>
> uS is the abbreviation for Microsiemens per cubic centimeter.
> It's a unit of electrical conductivity as measured with a conductivity
> meter such as the Hanna PWT and the HM Digital COM-100
>
> ode
>
> At 12:29 PM 5/10/2006 -0400, you wrote:
>
> >Ode
> >am i right in assuming "us" means "ma" for milli amp? I am new to this
list
> >God Bless
> >Jacques
> > >
> > > From: Ode Coyote <[email protected]>
> > > Date: 2006/05/10 Wed AM 10:21:23 EDT
> > > To: [email protected]
> > > Subject: Re: CS>Dangers of Colloidal Silver
> > >
> > > Good DW would be between .2 and .8 uS.
> > > 1 to 5 uS can be useable.
> > > "What" is in the water counts for more than 'how much'
> > >
> > > Ode
> > >
> > > At 12:16 PM 5/9/2006 -0500, you wrote:
> > >
> > > >I believe that Bob (this Bob) lives in my area, so that's why I'm
asking
> > > >him.
> > > >
> > > >The best DW I have found here is Glenwood Inglewood brand at about
> > > >1.3uS.
> > > >That makes pretty good CS but using a SilverPuppy I still get a
product
> > > >that has a slight tint, just off colorless. Cub Foods brand is OK at
> > > >about 1.5uS.
> > > >
> > > >Dan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >>> sol <[email protected]> 5/9/2006 10:03:23 AM >>>
> > > >My two cents is it doesn't matter what brand someone else is using to
> > > >reliably make clear CS with unless you live in the same area, and can
> > > >buy DW that is bottled at the same plant their DW came from. Reason
> > > >is,
> > > >distilled water is bottled as *locally* as possible.
> > > >sol
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Dan Nave wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Bob,
> > > > >
> > > > >What brands of Distilled Water are you using?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >--
> > > >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: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.5.5/334 - Release Date:
5/8/2006
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >--
> > > >No virus found in this incoming message.
> > > >Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> > > >Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.5.5 - Release Date: 5/8/2006
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > No virus found in this outgoing message.
> > > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> > > Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.5.5 - Release Date: 5/9/2006
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >No virus found in this incoming message.
> >Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> >Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.5.5/335 - Release Date: 5/9/2006
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >No virus found in this incoming message.
> >Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> >Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.5.5 - Release Date: 5/9/2006
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.5.5 - Release Date: 5/9/2006
>
>
>
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.5.6/336 - Release Date: 5/10/2006
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.5.6 - Release Date: 5/10/2006
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.5.6 - Release Date: 5/10/2006
