CSTest results
Morning List, It has been explained to me that a sizable quanitity of solution is required to perform all relevant testing as the testing should be done on an individual basis to achieve optimum accuracy. To perform such tests an adequate quantity is required for *each* test done which would mean a litre or more may be required, (that's just an example figure), and obviously it would need to be of the same 'batch' and not seperate batches to achieve the most accurate results for any required testing and for any given solution. For example, if one wants to know the ionic content a test is done for that, if one wants to know the particle content a seperate test is done for that, if one wants to know the size of the particles a seperate test is done for that and so on. That's how it has been explained to me to achieve optimum accuracy. Neville.
Re: CSTest Results
It was done with a gen that has B or B1 hand written on the label. I don't think yours is one of those. I'll make one like yours and run some batches to check it out and send a sample to Frank. PS All the Ole Bob gens were mechanical stir. I no longer make those. I did make a few Ole Bobs with looped electrodes. Here's the progression and differences in the Series 2 models [Looped electrodes/ thermal stir] GTS2 original...used 2 pole phono plug input type transformer. [6.2 volts at off trigger]. GTS2A .changed to barrel type plug on transformer [that's all] GTS2B and B1current model...feedback circuit changed to virtually eliminate semiconductor leakage after auto off triggers. [It was very low before, now so close to nil it's almost unmeasurable] Effective voltage reference is .06 volts lower than previous giving a slightly higher conductance reading at shutdown. [about 4 uS?..that is a guess as PWT calibration nightmares have been going on too] Test bench shows a change of -55 to -100 ohms resistance [the inverse of conductance] from previous version with typical variences in current output at .98 ma to 1.05 ma making the differences between generators using componants rated at 1%. [volts, ohms and amps are all interrelated]. Ode At 04:12 PM 12/1/2003 -0700, you wrote: Ken, Sorry, but I can't make heads or tails of Frank's test results--can you translate them into plain english? I'd like to know, not sure if my Ole Bob thermal stir series 2 is the same version you made your test batches with, but I am having the same large (almost half of the PWT reading at auto shut off) drop in uS after a few days storage. I had been kinda surprised a the large drop in conductance. But given my idiosyncratic problems making clear CS, I just had figured it was something unique to here. TIA, paula - Original Message - From: Ode Coyote coyote...@earthlink.net At 03:57 PM 11/30/2003 -0500, you wrote: Ode, Here are the test results for your samples from the ICP/AES. These batches [#1+#2] were run totally plug n play / absolute neglect in a beaker and added together to form an average, . SampleTotal SilverIonic Silver% Ionic Conductivity #ppmppm (uS/cm) 1-2 11.29 9.6885.7 12.6 This batch was totally plug n play/ absolute neglect in a pint canning jar allowed to sit for 8 days in clear glass. It could have used a stir/reset sequence. My record: Off at 17 uS @92.2 deg F dropping to 8.5 uS in 8 days. The result: 3 9.25 9.12 98.6 8.5 ICP/AES Measurements: 1. Each measured value was an average of three individual measurements. Each individual measurement was taken from three replicates of 10 seconds each. Total integration time per measured value (3 x 3 x 10 seconds) is 90 seconds. 2. Measured made using the silver emission spectral line at 328.068 nm 3. Calibration: blank ( 0.00 ppm) and 10.00 ppm - linear from 0 - 30.00 ppm (minimum) 3A. Measurement error (95% confidence) is less than: 0.05 ppm 4. Particles were removed from samples by application of 365,000 G-forces for 15 minutes. Particles size distribution plots will be done in the next few days and the .pdf files will be emailed to you. Francis Key, Principal Scientist Colloidal Science Lab. Inc. Westampton, NJ 08060 609.267.2065 -- The silver-list is a moderated forum for discussion of colloidal silver. Instructions for unsubscribing may be found at: http://silverlist.org To post, address your message to: silver-list@eskimo.com Silver-list archive: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html List maintainer: Mike Devour mdev...@eskimo.com
CSTest Results
OK Folks Here it is from Frank Key, unabridged in bold [ouch] print as promised in the light of operating truthfully to the best of my knowlege [That's the kicker] These results were obtained using the lastest version of the series 2 silverpuppy generator [gtsb1] to run batches. I have no idea how they apply to previous versions except that they are set to shut down at nearly the same conductivity and voltage references within .06 volts and 100 ohms. Other phenomenen I've never seen before seem to be happening with the B1 having to do with abnormally high [but repeatable] conductivity drops in storage along with the lack of a corresponding visible TE development. Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 11:16:27 -0500 To: Frank Key fr...@colloidalsciencelab.com From: Ode Coyote coyote...@earthlink.net Subject: Re: Test Results In-Reply-To: 001501c3b784$84740d30$1001a...@pent424k My reply to Frank Key: Your uS readings are very close to my re-calibrated PWT [ie, PWT is working properly] Here's what I recorded. [Experiment run to show heat effects on PWT readings showed about +1 uS change per +10 deg F. as 'worst case average'] Batch #122uS at finish @ 91.1 deg F 11.1 uS in 8 days Very faint TE with little change during stabilization period [an unexpected occurance seeing the amount of conductivity drop...possiblymostly very very small particles not into red laser range of visibility? Super-conductive unstable ions] [This is an unusually high drop in conductivity leading to some speculation that the B1 version is doing something different than previous versions..the usual is about 4 uS not 11 and with the development of a pretty strong TE which didn't happen with the B1] What I figured using Trems uS x 1.2 fudge factor...[silver making process is virtually identical except for temperature] At first, [I supposed] virtually all content is ionic, later, forming most of the non conductive particles which accounts for conductivity drop over time. So, I used the initial conductivity at finish to do the calculations. 22uS - .8 uS [initial water conductivity] - 3 uS [for 30 deg max heat soak effect]= 18.2 uS x 1.2 [fudge factor] = 21.84 PPM Apparently this is in error even though ion to particle 'ratios' look about right. Any idea why? Batch #2 20.5 uS [at finish @ 94.9 deg F] - .8uS [water] -3 uS [heat] = 16.7 uS x 1.2 [fudge factor]= 20.04 PPM Stabilized for 8 days at 12.8 uS Batches #1 + #2 averaged; 21.5 uS - .8 uS - 3 uS = 17.45 uS x 1.2 = 20.94 PPM But I see that the average 'stabilized' PWT reading is the more accurate. Average = 11.95 uS [x 1.2 should be 14.34 PPM] But it's not. Any idea why? You say: 12.6 uS If I subtract .8 uS for the water, I get 11.8 uS...pretty close to the 11.29 total PPM you came up with and accounts for why PPM is a little lower than conductivity. [That which was adding to the conductivity of the water wasn't silver] There's something going on that I don't understand...like maybe relationships of conductivity to PPM aren't the least bit reliable? I've got the sinking feeling that every batch is going to be different [except that these were virtually the same]...or a PWT is totally useless where PPM is concerned. So much for standard fudge factors too. [No reflection on you, Trem..it just didn't work for me.] I'm getting a distinct taste of crow pie...and even the feathers aren't black like would be expected. So be it. ..now to get busy. PS Thanks a bunch in advance for the particle size distribution plots. Ode At 03:57 PM 11/30/2003 -0500, you wrote: Ode, Here are the test results for your samples from the ICP/AES. These batches [#1+#2] were run totally plug n play / absolute neglect in a beaker and added together to form an average, . SampleTotal SilverIonic Silver% Ionic Conductivity #ppmppm (uS/cm) 1-2 11.29 9.6885.7 12.6 This batch was totally plug n play/ absolute neglect in a pint canning jar allowed to sit for 8 days in clear glass. It could have used a stir/reset sequence. My record: Off at 17 uS @92.2 deg F dropping to 8.5 uS in 8 days. The result: 3 9.25 9.1298.6 8.5 ICP/AES Measurements: 1. Each measured value was an average of three individual measurements. Each individual measurement was taken from three replicates of 10 seconds each. Total integration time per measured value (3 x 3 x 10 seconds) is 90 seconds. 2. Measured made using the silver emission spectral line at 328.068 nm 3. Calibration: blank ( 0.00 ppm) and 10.00 ppm - linear from 0 - 30.00 ppm (minimum) 3A. Measurement error (95% confidence) is less than: 0.05 ppm 4. Particles were removed from samples by application of 365,000 G-forces for 15 minutes. Particles size distribution plots will be done in the next few days and the .pdf files will be emailed to you.
Re: CSTest Results
Ken, Sorry, but I can't make heads or tails of Frank's test results--can you translate them into plain english? I'd like to know, not sure if my Ole Bob thermal stir series 2 is the same version you made your test batches with, but I am having the same large (almost half of the PWT reading at auto shut off) drop in uS after a few days storage. I had been kinda surprised a the large drop in conductance. But given my idiosyncratic problems making clear CS, I just had figured it was something unique to here. TIA, paula - Original Message - From: Ode Coyote coyote...@earthlink.net At 03:57 PM 11/30/2003 -0500, you wrote: Ode, Here are the test results for your samples from the ICP/AES. These batches [#1+#2] were run totally plug n play / absolute neglect in a beaker and added together to form an average, . SampleTotal SilverIonic Silver% Ionic Conductivity #ppmppm (uS/cm) 1-2 11.29 9.6885.7 12.6 This batch was totally plug n play/ absolute neglect in a pint canning jar allowed to sit for 8 days in clear glass. It could have used a stir/reset sequence. My record: Off at 17 uS @92.2 deg F dropping to 8.5 uS in 8 days. The result: 3 9.25 9.12 98.6 8.5 ICP/AES Measurements: 1. Each measured value was an average of three individual measurements. Each individual measurement was taken from three replicates of 10 seconds each. Total integration time per measured value (3 x 3 x 10 seconds) is 90 seconds. 2. Measured made using the silver emission spectral line at 328.068 nm 3. Calibration: blank ( 0.00 ppm) and 10.00 ppm - linear from 0 - 30.00 ppm (minimum) 3A. Measurement error (95% confidence) is less than: 0.05 ppm 4. Particles were removed from samples by application of 365,000 G-forces for 15 minutes. Particles size distribution plots will be done in the next few days and the .pdf files will be emailed to you. Francis Key, Principal Scientist Colloidal Science Lab. Inc. Westampton, NJ 08060 609.267.2065 -- The silver-list is a moderated forum for discussion of colloidal silver. Instructions for unsubscribing may be found at: http://silverlist.org To post, address your message to: silver-list@eskimo.com Silver-list archive: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html List maintainer: Mike Devour mdev...@eskimo.com
CSTest Results
Mike wrote: ... I am very concerned that your machine is producing such a low ppm. Have you tried different brands of dw? Please post any news you have to the list I think the reason I had such a low ppm in that first batch (approx 6ppm) was that I had too large a resistor and not enough time for that setup. The max current was .444 milliamps and average current was about half that. Another problem was that, with no stirring and the current at .4 milliamps, I got whiskering on the cathode which implied to me that it was done. (12 oz distilled water) The second batch with very low current (.042 to .064 ma) averaging about .046 ma and running for 25 hours gave a calculation of 13.2 ppm. This was also with no stirring. I redid the salt tests and perhaps I understated the appearance of that. I think that I didn't put enough salt in. The salt test is only an indication. (Close = Horseshoes, Hand grenades, and Salt Test) I did a third one last night, 12 oz water, electrodes about 7 inches wetted shaped into a U. I had a 1K ohm resistor (to measure current) and a 10K ohm pot in series. I kept the pot at 0 ohms until just over 3/4 hour when the current reached 1ma. Then I increased the pot to keep the current the same. After about ½ hour the pot was maxed out and I left it at 10K ohms. The current crept up to 1.142 ma after a total time of 2.5 hours. Average current was about .825ma. Also I had bought a small night light and stuck it in a tin can with a hole in the top for thermal stirring. Let me tell you, this is the way to go for watching what is going on in the cell! Just keep the room lights off.Anyway, the calculated ppm is 23.4 and I did get grey and black electrodes and a black residue when they were wiped off on a paper towel. But no whiskers. Very strong metallic taste. Clear in room light. Conclusions are that stirring is a must! unless you go for the super low current setup. 10K ohm resistor in this setup should be OK, even a fixed resistor although it would take a bit longer to get up to the 1ma level. I really want to get that current regulating diode (1ma) that was talked about a while back. (All things considered, the Silver Puppy is looking very good right now...) Dan -- The silver-list is a moderated forum for discussion of colloidal silver. Instructions for unsubscribing may be found at: http://silverlist.org To post, address your message to: silver-list@eskimo.com Silver-list archive: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html List maintainer: Mike Devour mdev...@eskimo.com
Re: CSTest Results
url: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/m61623.html CSTest Results From: Dan Nave Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 07:04:52 Hi Dan, electrodes about 7 inches wetted shaped into a U. Maybe this is part of the problem. It's pretty hard to work with the high cell resistance this gives. You end up with long brew times and it's difficult to maintain a reasonably constant current with a low voltage supply. Trying to speed things up just increases the current density and makes oxide that may show up as visible particles if the concentration gets high enough. Oxide won't kill viruses, and I'm not sure what it would do to bacteria. Maybe entertain them for the afternoon. Maybe try putting more silver under water and get more wetted length. I'm using 3.8 square inches - over double what you are using. I'm working on a Godzilla machine. 12 square inches wetted, or as close as I can get. 2 litre capacity. Should be ready later today and ready for testing. I find the cs and H2O2 is the only thing that kills the mold virus, and I need a lot more cs to treat all my clothes. I have had bad luck with stirring. Maybe you might try the H2O2 test I just posted: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/m61621.html If you compare the salt test side by side with the cs + H2O2, it will tell you if there is any oxide in the cs from the stirring. I just ran a sample of dw that did produce oxide. It was clear but had a very weak dispersion. When I added it to a jar of reasonably good cs from a previous sample, everything turned yellow instantly. I think the oxide provided a nucleus for particles to grow, and the high ppm cs just went to town making particles that turned everything yellow. A bit of H2O2 cleared it up again, but it took too much to use the cs internally. Maybe the hard black coat left by the WallMart had something to do with the oxide formation. The dw in the post above seems to be cleaning it off as it should, so I will go back and try the funny dw again to make sure. All kinds of things can go wrong, but Faraday and the salt test are very good ways to diagnose the problems and tell when things are running properly again. Best Regards, Mike Monett -- The silver-list is a moderated forum for discussion of colloidal silver. Instructions for unsubscribing may be found at: http://silverlist.org To post, address your message to: silver-list@eskimo.com Silver-list archive: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html List maintainer: Mike Devour mdev...@eskimo.com
