Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:09:55 -0500
X-Loop: silver-list@eskimo.com
Subject: CS>Test Results from Colloidal Science Laboratories, Frank Key
OK Folks
Here it is from Frank Key, in bold [ouch] print as promised in the light of
operating truthfully "to the best of my knowledge" [in 2003]
[That's the "kicker"]
These results were obtained using the latest version of the series 2
silverpuppy generator [gts2b1] to run batches. [DC output/ one milliamp
controlled current on 7" of electrode and Thermal Stirrer ]
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.as 'seen' at the electrodes.
My reply to Frank Key:
Your uS readings are very close to my re-calibrated PWT [ie, PWT is working
properly..at last.]
Here's what I recorded. [An Experiment that was run to show heat effects on
PWT readings showed about +1 uS change per +10 deg F. as 'worst case average']
Batch #1 22uS at finish @ 91.1 deg F
11.1 uS in 8 days
Very faint TE with little change during stabilization period. This was an
unexpected occurrence seeing the amount of conductivity
drop...possibly....mostly very very small particles not into red laser
range of visibility? [Deemed probable and provable] Maybe, Super-conductive
unstable ions???? [well....way far fetched]
What I "figured" using Trems uS x 1.2 fudge factor...[silver making process
is virtually identical except for temperature. Fudge factor derived from
his results from same lab.]
It's established that virtually all content is ionic at first, 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. Added
note: {But straight conductivity after stabilization and cooling, with no
fudge factor turned out to be the more accurate method}
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.
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 more in accord with
the AA..
Average = 12.6- .8 = 11.8 uS [x 1.2 "should be" 14.16 PPM.."is" 11.9 PPM]
You say:
12.6 uS is the conductivity figure you got.
If I subtract .8 uS for the water, I get 11.8 uS...pretty close to the
11.29 total PPM [as a 1 to 1 ratio] 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 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.]
Reply from Frank Key
The answer is that you cannot use electrical conductivity to determine
silver concentration. The relationship between ionic silver content and
electrical conductivity is tenuous and highly unreliable. Anyone attempting
to get reliable data from conductivity is just fooling themselves. This may
be OK for a hobbyist but a commercial producer cannot rely on this measurement.
Our lab got a product sample made by a company that claims to be selling 20
ppm "colloidal silver" which they measure with a TDS meter. The product had
0.115 ppm of silver in it.
To get real results requires real equipment, hence my suggestion to find a
used AA.
The Lab report......................My comments in italic.
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, allowed to sit for 8 days in
clear glass. [Calculated" to be 21.5 uS - 3 uS [heat]- .8 uS [water] =
17.45 uS x 1.2 [fudge factor] = 20.94 PPM
[ IOW DC output....Everything tossed in, electrode sludge and all, shaken
up and sent to the lab as a "WORST CASE" ]
Sample# 1-2
Conductivity {uS/cm} 12.6
Total Silver {PPM} 11.9
Ionic Silver {PPM} 9.68
Percent Ionic 85.7%
Sample #3
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. ["Calculated" to be
17uS -3uS [heat] -.8 [water]=13.2uS x1.2 [fudge]=15.85 PPM]
[This one as NOT worst case.]
The result:
# 3
Conductivity {uS/cm} 8.5
Total Silver {PPM} 9.25
Ionic Silver {PPM} 9.12
Percent Ionic 98.6%
You can see that the conductivity to silver equation didn't hold water even
using the very same water.
It says "something" and might be somewhat useful for comparisons but it's
by no means accurate.
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
<http://silverpuppy.com/Coyote1.pdf>.pdf files will be emailed to you.
Francis Key, Principal Scientist
Colloidal Science Lab. Inc.
Westampton, NJ 08060
609.267.2065
It's pretty clear that using a meter is a hit or miss technique and every
generator setup is going to give different results when trying to equate
conductivity to PPM.
I wish it were otherwise, but it just ain't.
Anyone who uses "time" alone, as a standard probably isn't even on the planet.
You need to know "where" to start timing and you won't know that without
some sort of instrumentation.
Ken
At 11:11 AM 2/6/2010 +1030, you wrote:
Dick's snipped quote:
[10-20% colloidal silver particles, and 80-90% ionic silver particles]
-I wouldn't put money on that, that's not what my laboratory analysis
showed in some of my samples.
I'd prefer to see a number of people get some lab tests done of their home
made stuff rather than just put their faith in published material.
Who knows what conditions existed? construction of the EIS generator,
environment in which it was produced, ancillary equipment used {stirring,
heating blah blah etc etc}, time lapse between cessation of production and
actual laboratory testing etc. I know this always seems to fall on deaf
ears but published material means 'jack' to me unless as much additional
information as possible, or considered relevant, is included. But then
praps this is just *another* example of small pieces of information
inadvertantly left out of published material, who knows?
Dunno how many people are on this List, but if a percentage were to get
some home made solutions tested, praps they'd get a surprise too, and I'd
sure like to see those results.
One of my samples was 20 days old, and that 80-90% ionic figure is WAY
off. And if that's to be expected after such a time lapse before analysis
was done...then why is that not stated in published material so dumb*rses
like me know? Not being of scientific mind, I need things spelled
out. But then I have another sample which was only 2 days old, and is
still radically different to that ratio, so I have to ask...*when* were
those published material results tested?
I recall Marshall and myself discussing one of my samples a while ago and
I got the impression that my results were possibly, and I repeat,
*POSSIBLY?* {don't want to give any impression I'm arguing with Marshall}
in doubt, nevertheless, I have the report, and I know the appearance of
the solutions tested, and if that conflicts with accepted published
material...then that's just too bad, I'm going with my laboratory analysis
and my visual observations. I take note of everything I consider relevant
with every solution I produce, that's why I trust my lab results, for now
I'm well satisfied.
I would suggest a number of people should get a number of home made
samples tested, of differing ppm or uS readings, and over various time
frames *after* cessation of production and give some feedback. There's no
way in this world I can accept published ion/particle ratio's should be
accepted as the general rule, a guide perhaps, some I believe would
interpret it as meaning *that* is what they should be getting when *that*
could be far removed from the actuallity. While it may be a
generalization, home producers should not consider it the rule, unless
they have more information supplied to go on which will enable them to
make better determinations. Published material is based on science, Joe
and Jenny Bloggs can't base their home produced solutions on science, but
moreso on *artistic flair* is how I see it, in combination with some
science principals praps. And I assume there are a number of 'Joe and
Jenny Bloggs' on here, if not, then I'm *well* out of my depth and will
fade away.
I welcome anyone to shoot holes through all this in the interest of
furthering my knowledge, have to add though that in all probability I
won't be in a position to reply cos I'm no scientist and don't savvy the
lingo, but I'd be more than happy to READ any thoughts or considerations on it.
N.
----------
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 11:28:49 -0800
From: dickgoodwin2...@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: CS>moon on fingernails? -- how much do you use?
To: silver-list@eskimo.com
That sounds fine. That's what I do as well. I don't think there is any
difference between CS and EIS for purposes of this forum.
EIS is Electrically Isolated Silver, which is a form of CS, with around
10-20% colloidal silver particles, and 80-90% ionic silver particles,
which I understand are AgOH.
----------
Learn how Video chat with Windows Live Messenger
--
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: silver-list@eskimo.com
Address Off-Topic messages to: silver-off-topic-l...@eskimo.com
The Silver List and Off Topic List archives are currently down...
List maintainer: Mike Devour <mdev...@eskimo.com>
