Thanks for performing that interesting experiment, Steve. I,ve yet to put a switching circuit together, but in thinking about your results there seems only one likely possibility. Plate-out rate must be considerably higher on a 'fresh' electrode surface (corresponding to the polarity switching regime) relative to one that has been plating for some time (non-switched run). Hence there is a greater proportion of CS (actually ionic silver) that simply recycles from one electrode to the other. If that were not so the almost identical currents and times would lead to the same final PPM's. There will be a fairly complex surface phenomenon involved here. Wonder though whether your results would still apply to other situations - for instance much lower voltages and higher initial conductivity such as when adding citric acid as 'starter' (my situation)? Must get around to putting that switching circuit together.
regards, Kevin Nolan ----- Original Message ----- From: "S & J Young" <you...@konnections.net> To: "Silver List" <silver-list@eskimo.com> Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2002 2:37 PM Subject: CS>Polarity Switch Experiment > List, > > I performed the following experiment: > > Case 1 was to make one quart of CS using a constant 1 ma DC current for 4 > hours with electrodes spaced about 2 inches and with constant stirring. > Starting V= 173.7 volts, I=0.86 ma, so R = 202K. Ending V = 13.8, I=1.18 > ma, so R= 11.7K. Using Ivan's formala, the PPM was 1.3*(202/11.7) = 22.4 > PPM. uS measured 14.5 with Hanna PWT. At the end there was some gunk > which sluffed off the wires and sunk to the bottom. > > Case 2 is exactly the same as Case 1, except the polarity was reversed about > every 45 seconds. Start V=168, I=0.96 so R=175K. End V=30, I=1.16 so > R=25.9K. PPM calculates to 8.8 and measured 6.7 uS. Both wires were black, > but no gunk was produced. > > Both batches have very faint Tyndall effect, visiable only in a dark room. > Case 1 was slightly more visible. Both were made with Wallmart DW which > measures around 1 uS with the PWT. > > So it is obvious to me that polarity reversing definitely produces a weaker > batch. Case 1 is (14.5-1)/(6.7-1) = about 2.4 times stronger, comparing uS > measurements. Or, case 1 is 22.4/8.8= about 2.5 times higher PPM using > Ivan's formula. > > Granted this was not a highly controlled experiment. One quart jar may have > had a bit more residual silver which had "plated out" on the glass than > another. I may not have filled the jars to exactly the same level, the 120 > volt line voltage may have been a bit different, etc. But the difference > (more than a factor of 2) between polarity reversal and not is much too > large to be explained away be sloppy experiment procedures. > > So it appears that one must run their constant current generator a bit more > than twice as long if polarity reversal is used to end up with the same PPM > for no reversal. What is interesting is that at polarity reversal time, the > voltage rises up and settles back to the pre-switch voltage in just a few > seconds. Thus one would think the production strength would not be affected > more than 10% or so instead of over 50%. > > So, fellow scientists, why the big drop in uS or PPM when polarity switching > is used? How about if some of you repeat the experiment to ensure my > findings are valid? I suspect similar results will occur even if your > generator is not constant current (e.g. 3 9 volt batteries). > > --Steve > > > > > > > > -- > 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 > Silver-list archive: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html > List maintainer: Mike Devour <mdev...@eskimo.com> >
