A lurker here. First time to post. Have been following the various posts
concerning Standardization, TE, etc. an need clarification on several
points.
My CS generator, (own design) is of the constant current variety, (1ma. max)
with a 30V source. When I make 16oz of CS I normally get a weak TE
Hello Carol;
I did not send the Flemming story it probaby was the just plain "Bob". That
is why I use "Ole Bob".
As for T.E., the presence of a T.E. is the assurance of a colloid for the
beginner in the art of CS brewing. When one knows what ppm is being made
then the job is to refine the proce
Dear Bob,
Thanks for that information.
I'm not quite sure what you are saying though.
I had been told that CS 'had' to display TE, or
you didn't have a colloid.
I need help with this one.
Did you send Flemming story?
Blessings
Carol
--
The silver-list is a moderated forum for discussion of coll
Hi Bob,
On Tue, 08 Aug 2000 19:58:59 -0500, "Robert L. Berger"
wrote:
>Before you jump off the deep end without a life preserver, have an analysis
>made of your CS to determine the PPM.
Always a good idea, if you're unsure.
>If your process is 15 to 20 minutes you will be kidding yourself by n
ust 09, 2000 2:58 AM
Subject: Re: CS>Standardization
> Hi Ya'all;
>
> Before you jump off the deep end without a life preserver, have an
analysis
> made of your CS to determine the PPM.
>
> If your process is 15 to 20 minutes you will be kidding yourself by not
&g
Hi Ya'all;
Before you jump off the deep end without a life preserver, have an analysis
made of your CS to determine the PPM.
If your process is 15 to 20 minutes you will be kidding yourself by not
seeing a T.E. as you probably haven't made any!
Many think I am off my rocker about meters (pro
Dear Carol and Gaston;
Since pure distilled water also displays the same- no- Tyndal
effect symptoms it can also now be sold for Colloidal Silver at will .
Moral, is make your own . Always !
Cheers
Bob
Carol Webb wrote:
> Hello
Hello Gaston,
I'm happy to read this, and I hope that it is true.
On 8 Aug 2000, at 16:24, Gaston wrote:
> I presume now that we can have good CS
> without being able to detect Tyndall effect
> with a laser pointer
Kind Regards
Carol
--
The silver-list is a moderated forum for discussion of
To: "silver-list"
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2000 5:10 AM
Subject: CS>Standardization
> Hi Ya'all,
>
> There are two general types of CS generators; constant voltage and
> constant current.
>
> 1.) with either method constant stirring reduces the agglomeration of
ffect'
(which is slightly different to the beam effect) and can give some
information as to particle size and/or concentration of CS.
Ivan.
- Original Message -
From: "Robert L. Berger"
To: "silver-list"
Sent: Tuesday, 8 August 2000 15:10
Subject: CS>Standardiza
Dear "Ole Bob"
Since I am still in the learning stage, your 6 step outline is most helpful,
in more ways than one. I can
honestly say, I understand the whole process better now
No harangue here. Thank you.
Brita
Freedom...Independence
So having a reasonable knowledge of your product may
Hi Ya'all,
There are two general types of CS generators; constant voltage and
constant current.
1.) with either method constant stirring reduces the agglomeration of
silver ions, and should result in a weaker T.E. for a given PPM. (first
step)
In any manufacturing operation the product made wil
It seems that the more information that is given out on the list the more
variations on how to make good CS, there are so many genators on the market
and each one claim to do the best job, a person has to start somewhere, so
just start and see where it leads you, there is no one best answer. I
mai
Hi Tim,
I have found it amazing. For every person who
produced CS they have a special way, which
produces the best CS. I have used a cold start
in a hot bath, a hot start, a luke-warm start and a
colloid start. The hot bath means that you don't
need to stir so frequently, but I can't see any
For us newbies I think standardization would be a great help. But then we
get into what type of generator is used, how far apart the rods are,
beginning temperature of the water.
Or are we just talking ppm and size as a final result?
tim
-Original Message-
From: Gaston [mailto:obouc...@c
Marsha Hallett wrote:
>
> >Ignore THIS, Marsha.
> > har har har...
> >James Osbourne Holmes
>
> I did! heehee...
> Marsha, the proponent of utter simplification and the eschewal of
> unnecessary obfuscation...
>
Very interesting said the cow as she contemplated jumping over the
moon.
We have
>Ignore THIS, Marsha.
> har har har...
>James Osbourne Holmes
I did! heehee...
Marsha, the proponent of utter simplification and the eschewal of
unnecessary obfuscation...
--
The silver-list is a moderated forum for discussion of colloidal silver.
To join or quit silver-list or silver-diges
Ignore THIS, Marsha.
har har har...
James Osbourne Holmes
a...@trail.com
-Original Message-
From: Marsha Hallett [SMTP:liah...@pacbell.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 1999 1:09 PM
To: silver-list@eskimo.com
Subject:Re: CS>Standardization - A Call for Standards!
&g
]
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 1999 6:33 AM
To: silver-list@eskimo.com
Subject:CS>Conductivity was CS>Standardization - A Call for Standards!
- Original Message -
From: James Osbourne, Holmes
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 28 September 1999 03:29
Subject: RE: CS>Standardization
>As a newbie, I can see that having some sort of even loose standards
viewable
>on one site would be most helpful.
>I picked the above excerpt because, after reading it, I wondered what was
the
>effect of using ingots as opposed to smaller and/or thinner electrodes.
Does
>more exposed silver surfac
- Original Message -
From: James Osbourne, Holmes
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 28 September 1999 03:29
Subject: RE: CS>Standardization - A Call for Standards!
> What is the mechanism of increased conductivity of more Ag particles
in the
> water if they are all positively charged?
- Original Message -
From: Marshall Dudley
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 28 September 1999 03:47
Subject: Re: CS>Fw: Cond. meter pt 1 was CS>Standardization - A Call for
Standards!
> Ivan Anderson wrote:
>
> > > It seems to depend upon what the particles are composed. I
dd...@aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 9/26/99 10:29:00 PM Central Daylight Time, i...@win.co.nz
> writes:
>
> << I think that locking down a configuration is good, but that all
> possible combinations should be looked at, especially those that
> require no testing apparatus by the user. A
In a message dated 9/26/99 10:29:00 PM Central Daylight Time, i...@win.co.nz
writes:
<< I think that locking down a configuration is good, but that all
possible combinations should be looked at, especially those that
require no testing apparatus by the user. Agreed that the basic
8oz tumbler a
.net]
Sent: Monday, September 27, 1999 12:47 AM
To: silver-list@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: CS>Standardization - A Call for Standards!
> [hanna's PWT] looks like the one.
Ahh, good! Glad you think so. Saves you some money, too.
> 0 - 99.9uS = 0 - 100 ppm as silver.
> It
: Monday, September 27, 1999 12:45 AM
To: silver-list@eskimo.com
Subject:Re: CS>Standardization - A Call for Standards!
Yes Mike,
That looks like the one. 0 - 99.9uS = 0 - 100 ppm as silver.
It turns out (as far as I can determine) that ppm as silver is almost
equal to the reading
Ivan Anderson wrote:
> > It seems to depend upon what the particles are composed. If the
> > particles contain a number of uncharged atoms along with charged
> atoms,
> > then the conductivity is the sum of the charges, but the concentration
> > of recoverable metal is the sum of both. (This is th
Try again.
> - Original Message -
> From: M. G. Devour
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 27 September 1999 18:47
> Subject: Re: CS>Standardization - A Call for Standards!
>
>
> > > [hanna's PWT] looks like the one.
> >
> > Ahh, good! Glad yo
> [hanna's PWT] looks like the one.
Ahh, good! Glad you think so. Saves you some money, too.
> 0 - 99.9uS = 0 - 100 ppm as silver.
> It turns out (as far as I can determine) that ppm as silver is
> almost equal to the reading in uS/cm^2 in water. I don't know why I
> haven't noticed this before!
y reading.
Some confirmation is required I guess, but I am confident that this
will save me some work :-)
Cheers - Ivan.
- Original Message -
From: M. G. Devour
To:
Sent: Monday, 27 September 1999 12:09
Subject: Re: CS>Standardization - A Call for Standards!
> >
> > Th
07 AM
To: silver-list@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: CS>Standardization - A Call for Standards!
- Original Message -
From: Victoria Welch
To: Silver-List
Sent: Sunday, 26 September 1999 13:15
Subject: Re: CS>Standardization - A Call for Standards!
> Hello Bob and All,
Hi there,
>
> The Conmet 1 (HI 98305) would be the unit of choice at $142.00
> http://www.hannainst.com/products/testers/conmet.htm
> But more likely the DiST 3 at the miserly sum of $46.70
> http://www.hannainst.com/products/testers/distw.htm
>
Ivan!!
Check out the Hanna PWT (Pure Water Tester) and se
- Original Message -
From: Victoria Welch
To:
Sent: Monday, 27 September 1999 10:03
Subject: Re: CS>Standardization - A Call for Standards!
> Good Morning Ivan,
Hi Victoria,
> First off apologies to everyone for the abysmal formatting of
the
> origninal message here.
- Original Message -
From: Ivan Anderson
To: Silver-List
Sent: Sunday, September 26, 1999 1:12 PM
Subject: Re: CS>Standardization
>
> - Original Message -
> From:
> To: silver-list
> Sent: Sunday, 26 September 1999 06:34
> Subject: CS>Standardiza
Good Morning Ivan,
First off apologies to everyone for the abysmal formatting of the
origninal message here. Not sure how it happened :(.
> Are you saying that you need to know what the silver content is
> of a particular set of generating parameters?
> What doseages are useful for what is an e
Hope all you techies respond to this call for standardization. Then I
can cope technically also. It will be so-o-o much simpler.
Victoria Welch wrote:
>
> Hello Bob and All,
>
> > It's pot stirring time again!!!
>
> :) and bringing my pot HUGE stirrer along also :-).
>
> > The only perso
- Original Message -
From:
To: silver-list
Sent: Sunday, 26 September 1999 06:34
Subject: CS>Standardization
> Hi Ya'All;
Hi Bob,
> It's pot stirring time again!!!
>
> The only person on this list besides myself that I know is
doing any
> work on u
- Original Message -
From: Victoria Welch
To: Silver-List
Sent: Sunday, 26 September 1999 13:15
Subject: Re: CS>Standardization - A Call for Standards!
> Hello Bob and All,
Hi there,
> > It's pot stirring time again!!!
>
> :) and bringing my pot
Hello Bob and All,
> It's pot stirring time again!!!
:) and bringing my pot HUGE stirrer along also :-).
> The only person on this list besides myself that I know is doing any
> work on understanding this process is Vikki Welch.
Well, I am trying in the interest of *knowing what it is with
Hi Ya'All;
It's pot stirring time again!!!
The only person on this list besides myself that I know is doing any
work on understanding this process is Vikki Welch.
During this month I have made over 12 runs, all data plotted and
measured for ppm, and I can say that if one duplicates my set-u
40 matches
Mail list logo
