I think that if we stick to the rule of .2 microamps per sq. mm of the anode
we should arrive at an approximate method. Limiting the current to this
extent has enabled me to make batches with a high effect of beam scattering
while maintaining a very clear solution. Of course, the purity of the water
that we start with is of paramount importance. The extreme variability that
you refer to is caused by the lack of control of the current density.
Without effective current control, the process enters a runaway chaotic mode
that I suppose a butterfly in the Amazon could have some effect on.
Please note that I did not say that we could determine particle size
distribution by this method. I think that as long as we stay away from the
yellow color for our final solution, our particle size will be pretty good
and repeatable. Even the smallest possible particle size, say 10nm, will
cause visible scattering of the laser beam. I have seen it stated in this
forum that a particle has to be the same size as the wavelength of the laser
beam to be visible. That is not true. The confusion is probably caused by
thinking in terms of a tracking radar.
I am not saying that this method will be the equal of a Malvern
Zetasizer ($40,000). I would love to have one of those, but when I talk to
my wife about it, she says well, maybe NEXT Christmas.
Best Regards,
Arnold Beland
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marshall Dudley" <mdud...@execonn.com>
To: <silver-list@eskimo.com>
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 1:29 PM
Subject: Re: CS>Testers
> That is not possible without knowing the particle size, which can vary
> significantly from one batch to another, depending on voltage, current,
wire
> length, wire spacing, temperuture, water purity, and some even say the
phase of
> the moon.
>
> Marshall
>
> Arnold Beland wrote:
>
> > What I dislike most about the keychain type is the fact that you have to
> > keep replacing those little hearing aid batteries. The type I'm
referring
> > to use the same AAA batteries that you use in your TV remote control,
> > available everywhere. The beam from them is typically broader, thus
> > reducing the amount of optical power available in a given volume of
water.
> > I would like to encourage as much standardization as possible. If
enough of
> > us on the list had them, along with a light meter, we might arrive at a
> > method of measuring the ppm of true colloidal silver without the use of
a
> > $40,000 particle analyzer.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > Arnold Beland
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Gaston" <obouc...@colba.net>
> > To: <silver-list@eskimo.com>
> > Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 2:05 PM
> > Subject: Re: CS>Testers
> >
> > > Hi Arnold,
> > >
> > > You wrote:
> > >
> > > " > Try to get a quality laser pointer, not the key chain type. The
> > class
> > > > IIIa 5mW units are best. They are available on ebay constantly at
> > > > reasonable prices."
> > >
> > > I would be interested to know the difference(s) between a quality
laser
> > pointer
> > > and a key chain type pls other than the price.
> > >
> > > I understand that the key chain type uses in general a wavelength
> > > of 630-680nM and its max. output power is < 5mW.
> > >
> > > I do use the key chain type and appears to work ok for me.
> > > if I remember correctly advices on this list was that, this was ok
to
> > use.
> > >
> > > Comments would be appreciated.
> > >
> > > Gaston
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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>
> > >
>
>
