Hi Chuck, > Possible the new silver is a different purity?
I don't think so, my sister got these (bright gal :) from a jewelry store where she works occasionally and she sez .999 is what she asked for and got. One thought on this is to take some of the sterling I have and make a test run with it just to see what happens... > How about swapping the new electrodes into the old setup? Can't easily do that. I can easily enough build a new electrode assembly out of the 14 gauge to match the old 18 gauge setup. I have a marvelously simple method for doing this that involves a compass (two metal pins - no pencil lead), a scribe (needle), a metal rule, a yogurt container top and hot glue :). I think I may have found the answer (or at least part of it): Did some calculations the gist of which is: Size & # elements Total Wetted Area 18 gauge 4 electrodes: 1.524376436 14 gauge 2 electrodes: 1.617462816 Almost the same wetted area, so why do I see a problem here? A couple reasons :-). Loose nut behind the keyboard for one. I checked my logs and the starting current (Ico) for the 18 gauge assembly was (for round numbers) 0.70 mA. Interesting to note that the Ico for the 14 gauge assembly is (again for round numbers) 0.35 mA. Generally a factor of two (2). The run takes twice as long to get to the same Icf (ending current) value. We have the same surface area for all practical purposes. The run time is *still* twice that of what Ole Bob's chart showed. Not sure about all this yet, but we are getting there. One thing that certainly must figure into this is that the 18 gauge 4 electrode configuration is configured as two sets of two electrodes. I also noted that with banging around over time that the separation of the electrodes is no longer a one inch square, but closer to a 3/4" square. The generator in the current configuration is capable of putting out 10.5 mA short circuit current so I don't think current capacity is the issue. This can be increased by changing the LED current limiting resistors to the optos if this is an issue, but I suspect not. Just to verify this, I am going to make another run with the 18 gauge assembly to see what happens. More on this to follow. This may well be a case of changing too many things at once. Again, the thing that bothers me is that *now* I am running basically the same configuration that Ole Bob used to generate the charts he posted a while back and where I was matching the first run (leftmost of the plots) consistantly with the 18 gauge stuff, I am now (well, two runs) matching the 6th plot, seemingly consistantly. I'm not *out of the ballpark* but we seem to be way off to the side. I've made these changes in the interest of standardization to see if we can arrive at similar data points so we can possibly determine factors that might be consistant enough to give a reasonable PPM figure for a given Ico and time of run to get to a given end point. More research is required here. Comments? Thanks & take care, Vikki. P.S. am I now stirring the pot :-) ;-)? -- Victoria Welch, WV9K, DoD#-13, Net/Sys/WebAdmin SeaStar.org, vikki.oz.net #include <coffee.h> My web site: http://vikki.oz.net/~vikki/ "Walking on water and developing software to specification are easy as long as both are frozen" - Edward V. Berard. Do not unto others, that which you would not have others do unto you. -- The silver-list is a moderated forum for discussion of colloidal silver. To join or quit silver-list or silver-digest send an e-mail message to: silver-list-requ...@eskimo.com -or- silver-digest-requ...@eskimo.com with the word subscribe or unsubscribe in the SUBJECT line. To post, address your message to: silver-list@eskimo.com List maintainer: Mike Devour <mdev...@id.net>
