Hi Ivan,
We had AA testing done on samples from our SG6 which does not have polarity
reversal and also on our SG7 which does reverse polarity and found both
units produce about 85% ionic. Apparently it makes no difference...at
least in our units.
What now?
Trem
At 10:41 AM 1/20/2002 +1300, you wrote:
Nice test Steve, thanks.
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%.
Well it is not the voltage that indicates the rate of silver
dissolution. The current dip and restoration will be more indicative,
and as Kevin mentioned, some of the energy will used in undoing what
was done in the last cycle, and as he mentioned later, it is likely
that a higher proportion of metallic colloid particles are produced. A
test of total silver content for both runs would be very interesting.
Ivan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: S & J Young [mailto:you...@konnections.net]
> Sent: Saturday, 19 January 2002 4:38 p.m.
> To: Silver List
> 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>
