Re: CS> Requests For Lab Test on ULVDC CS Hi Jason,
Thanks for the really great comments. In a lot of things, I couldn't agree with you more. I love your comments on Frank's Mesosilver on your forum page. It's so good, it's worth repeating here: -------------------------------------------------------------------- Welcome! There's nothing wrong with Mesosilver. There is, however, quite a bit wrong with their unsubstantiated philosophy that silver ions are not effective in the body. They tend to over-simplify the biological processes to a few simple chemical reactions. I've spoken with numerous chemists who disagree with their base idea that silver chloride always remains silver chloride in the body. They ignore metalloproteins, and a whole host of other possible chemical reactions that could take place. Experience, while certainly not scientific proof, indicates that ionic silver is greatly effective. Based on their claims, their product should be at least 9 times more effective, when compared with the other top electrically isolated silvers out there. I have yet to see evidence that this is the case. With less refined isolated "colloidal silver" products, it should be over 100X more effective. As an example, I just recently spent quite a bit of time on the phone speaking with someone who cured a case of neurosyphilis by drinking silver chloride. If the makers of Mesosilver were correct, then this individual should be six feet under about now. If he had listened to them, he would also be six feet under about now, as he would likely have abandoned his usage, and would not have been able to afford to purchase their product. I've viewed numerous testimonials from those using Mesosilver, and have spoken with quite a few users. I've also had numerous conversations with the founder of silvercolloids.com. The staff has a great deal of knowledge and is very committed to their product. However, they are completely biased. Furthermore, I have been told there is no interest in actually PROVING their claims. They are willing to rest on their beliefs, which is of course their right. While their product is certainly a quality colloidal silver, I haven't seen anything to indicate that it works better than the best ionic silver's out there. There is, however, plenty of clinical and scientific proof concerning the effect of silver ions. The works of Dr. Robert O. Becker, Dr. Bart Flick, among others clearly show the potential benefit of silver ions in the human body, provided they of course ARE in a usable form. Silver ions from silver-coated catheders work just fine as well: http://www.silverinstitute.org/silvnews/2001/4b01.html You may also want to read the following mini-articles carefully: http://www.somaticsplus.com/health_hints/hhls7a.html Best Regards, - Jason Last edited by AVRA on Thu May 15, 2003 7:56 pm; edited 1 time in total http://www.silvermedicine.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12&sid=5ee9f6e687277e5da0f16fb1d7e9165e -------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes, I think you will find many people who agree with your assessment of Frank's claims. I don't know about the guy who cured neurosyphilis with silver chloride. If silver chloride worked that well, we'd all be adding salt as a starter to make cs. Most people stopped doing that a long time ago. I think you'll find that many people here agree with you that ionic silver is the true workhorse in colloidal silver. Robert and Marshall certainly do, and I definitely agree. My experience with high ionic silver and the Shingles and cold virus came as a complete surprise, and convinced me of this fact. Low ionic silver is great for bacteria, and when you are young and have a vigorous immune system. But as you age, the immune system starts to degrade, and the 10 ppm or so you get from the 3 nines is no longer adequate. Nearly all cs generators will work against bacteria, but many viruses are a lot harder to kill. The SARS virus terrified the world and killed a high percentage of the people it infected, even with the best medical care possible. Most doctors seem convinced the next one is only a matter of time. The West Nile virus is now in the US, and it is spreading. It has a low death rate, but it can cause serious damage. Other terrible viruses can spread from their source, and there is nothing medical science can do to stop them. So I think we should pay a great deal of attention on how the cs process works and what it takes to produce high ionic silver reliably. One of the best ways to see if a particular electrode arrangement or current density works better is to have a quick and reliable way to measure the ion content. The salt test is an excellent method. Here's the equation: Ag(+) + Cl(-) --> AgCl Since the salt test only works on silver ions, it can never go out of calibration. You can even use it after adding H2O2 to clean up cs that has turned yellow. The dispersion shows the solution gets stronger, which means the H2O2 has converted the silver particles back to Ag+ ions. Some people have observed the Hanna PWT may not give reliable readings when H2O2 is added, but the salt test clearly shows the improvement. One possible reaction may be 2Ag2O + H2O2 --> 4Ag(+) + O2(g) + H2O2 In this reaction, the H2O2 acts as a catalyst and is not consumed. So it takes only a very small amount - perhaps 0.1ppm, to keep the solution clear indefinitely. I'm not a chemist, and the equation only a guess, but it seems to work quite well, as you have mentioned on your site. There is one statement you made on your forum that I'd like to discuss. You said "Yes -- increased voltage with the same current only increases the speed of the process." http://www.silvermedicine.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10&sid=5ee9f6e687277e5da0f16fb1d7e9165e Now I don't see how that can be true. At any point in the cs process, the solution has a definite resistance. It follows Ohm's law, which states E = I * R So if you increase the voltage across the cell, the current has to increase, don't you think? And if you increase the current, the process indeed speeds up. Sometimes it speeds up too much, and you get misting, or the solution turns black and has to be discarded. Each process and electrode configuration has a limit to the maximum ppm it can produce, and we need to find the reasons for the limits and ways to increase it. Now, I've found is there is a definite correlation between the amount of silver oxide produced and the current used to make the cs. At the high current density typical of most cs generators, the process starts making particles at about 10 ppm. This is confirmed by the Faraday equation and the salt test, which gives a weak, pale blue dispersion. The silver oxide coats the electrodes with a black film, and black deposits are formed on the sides of the glass and appear on the bottom under the rods. So we know where the ions went. When the current density is reduced, the process can go to a higher ppm before it starts turning color. This is confirmed by the Faraday equation and the salt test. For example, at 87 uA/sq.in., I can easily make 19 ppm cs that stays clear indefinitely, even after freezing. The salt test shows a milky white dispersion. Now, you don't have to understand the math to be able to use the Faraday equation. Just download Mercury here: http://archives.math.utk.edu/software/msdos/calculus/mrcry209/.html Mercury does all the hard work for you, and you only need to give it the unit conversions. Here's a bunch related to colloidal silver: C = I * sec ; total number of Coulombs den = I / sqin ; current density Amperes per sq in ele = I / 1.60217733e-19; electrons per second gm = k * I * sec ; Faraday's equation isn = isq / 6.45e14 ; ions per square nanometer per sec isq = ele / sqin ; ions per second per sq. in. per sec k = 107.868 / 96485 ; Coulombs required per gram of silver lt = 3.785 * gal ; convert gallons to litres lt = ml / 1000 ; convert millilitres to litres mg = gm * 1000 ; convert grams to milligrams ml = 29.57 * oz ; convert ounce to milliliters phr = ppm / hrs ; ppm per hour ppm = mg / lt ; 1 ppm is 1 milligram per litre sec = hrs * 3600 ; convert hours to seconds Now all we need to do is enter the parameters and Mercury solves for the unknowns: gal = 2 I = 6.2211842e-3 ; current in Amperes sqin = 0.59 ; wetted area hrs = 3.8 So you can see how easy it is to understand a particular cs process when you can compare the theoretical ppm and the actual result. In this case, the calculated ppm is 12.56. When you do this kind of analysis, you quickly find the electrode shape is also very important to the process. For example, I'm very glad you put the Silverpuppy at the very top of your Product page at http://www.silvermedicine.org/products.html I find the round 12 ga wire used in the Silverpuppy gives a very good correlation between the Faraday equation and the actual ppm measured with the salt test, up to the point where silver oxide starts being produced. This is determined by the current density at the electrodes. However, the correlation using flat plates is not as good. In fact, it's terrible. Robert did a study recently using low current density. He was going to use 12 ga wire, but ended up using flat plates instead. I told him I was concerned about problems with edge effect reducing the max ppm, and it seems I was right. I also mentioned in previous posts that the current density at the cathode of his normal setup was too high, and would produce lots of oxide and low ppm. He did three runs and happened to use his cathode in the third run, and my prediction came true. Somehow, Bob forgot to post the data and my reply to the group. It's highly illuminating, so here it is. Note his ppm measurements correlate very well with the salt test, except in the very first run. I used a double line to enclose the entire email. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Email From Mike Monett to Robert Berger on His ULVDC Results With Flat Plates. From - Tue Jun 24 23:30:16 2003 X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Message-ID: <[email protected]> Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 23:30:16 -0400 From: Mike Monett <[email protected]> Organization: UTS X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "boberger-at-swbell.net |Feb 2003 G| " <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Test Data References: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Bob, > Hi Mike, > Over the weekend I ran three tests using basically your protocol. Well, the same current density but with flat plates. I use 12 ga wire. But the results are very interesting. Thanks! > After you have looked at them I will post a brief on the list. > Test conditions; 14 oz (400 ml) DW. Unfortunatley Wal-mart water > has changed from the 2.0 to 2.5 uS/cm to 8 to 10 uS/cm so I used > it. Adjustable power supply with a 68K ohm series resistor so that > the current could be adjusted to 300 A to start. If possible. -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Test #1; Anode 1"x 4" wet, cathode 1" x 3.8" wet with 2" spacing. > 6 hour run time. time I cell V cell 0 300 uA 10.66 1.5 346 7.38 1.75 300 6.50 readjust current to 300 uA 4.5 346 3.6 6 ? ? This was an evaluation run > Cf= 43 uS/cm; pH = 7.80; Ag+ = 10.1 PPM; NO3 = 0.27 PPM; NO = 0.0 > PPM Salt test no immediat color change. With 10.1 ppm, I would expect pale blue in the salt test. Let's see what Faraday says. Here are the conversion factors C = I * sec ; total number of Coulombs den = I / sqin ; current density Amperes per sq in gm = k * I * sec ; Faraday's equation k = 107.88 / 96500 ; Coulombs required per gram of silver mg = gm * 1000 ; convert grams to milligrams ppm = mg / lt ; 1 ppm is 1 milligram per litre sec = hrs * 3600 ; convert hours to seconds ml = 29.57 * oz ; convert ounce to milliliters lt = ml / 1000 ; convert millilitres to litres Here are the parameters. I guessed the average current at 320 uA. hrs = 6 ; brew time in hours sqin = 3.8 ; wetted area I = 320e-6 ; current in Amperes oz = 14 Here's the results. den = +8.42105263e-5 gm = +0.00772711 lt = +0.41398000 mg = +7.72711461 ml = +413.980000 oz = +14.0000000 ppm = +18.6654297 The current density is almost exactly what I use. I target 19 ppm, and get a milky salt test. You measure 10.1 ppm, but get nothing in the salt test? This is very strange. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Test #2 Anode 1" x 3.8" wet, cathode 1" x 4" wet with 2" spacing 6 hours time I cell V cell 0 300 15.6 1 369 8.8 2 425 5.3 3 443 4.2 4 449 3.8 5 455 3.4 6 459 3.1 Your initial voltage is higher than I get, but maybe my Wallmart dw may not be as good as yours. I'll just eyeball the average current at 440 uA. Cf = 48.5 uS/cm; pH = 8.02; Ag+ = 9.02 PPM Very slight blue tint. You measure 9.02 ppm and get a slight blue tint in the salt test. These correlate quite well. Faraday says hrs = 6 ; brew time in hours sqin = 3.8 ; wetted area of 12 ga wire I = 440e-6 ; current in Amperes oz = 14 C = +9.504000000000 den = +0.000115789473 gm = +0.010624782590 lt = +0.413980000000 mg = +10.62478259067 ml = +413.9800000000 oz = +14.00000000000 ppm = +25.66496591785 Something is wrong. I would get a very strong response in the salt test with this number of Coulombs in this volume of dw. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Test #3 Anode 1" x 3.8" wet, cathode 3/64" round rod 2" spacing 6 hours time I cell V cell 0 285 15.4 1 329 12.3 2.5 410 7.2 3.25 450 5.9 4 441 5.2 5 448 4.5 6 458 4.1 I'll assume you set the wetted length of the cathode to 4 inches. area = pi * d * l d = 3 / 64 l = 4 area = 0.589 sq. in. I should integrate your readings to get the average current, but I'll guess 440 uA. I know this is not correct, but the results are so divergent it doesn't matter for the first cut. Faraday says for the following parameters hrs = 6 ; brew time in hours sqin = 0.589 ; wetted area I = 440e-6 ; current in Amperes oz = 14 den = +0.0007470 gm = +0.0106247 lt = +0.4139800 mg = +10.624782 ppm = +25.664965 The current density is almost ten times what I run. I think this explains the black deposit on the anode and cathode. This will reduce the ppm. > Black on anode and cathode. > Cf = 61 uS/cm; pH =8.19; Ag+ =11 PPM Salt test some blusih tint. You are still getting 11 ppm. The salt test confirms it. We can see some of the ions went to make the black deposit. But is this enough to explain the huge discrepancy between Faraday and your results? And what happened in the previous runs? You mentioned the edges of the plates are insulated. How far does the insulation go? -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Comments: > After 24 hours + the salt tests for #1 & #2 are the same. #3 is > more dense. >The conductances after 24+ is; >#1 32.2 uS/cm >#2 31.2 uS/cm >#3 42.8 uS/cm > The T.E. of #1 & #2 are the same. #3 is much weaker. > I am holding the samples. > If you want the article on H2O2 send you mailing address. > "Ole Bob" Thanks, Bob. Please post this. It is absolutely amazing. The salt test and your ppm readings correlate well, but you can't seem to get above 10 ppm or so. I wonder if the flat plates have anything to do with it? Is there any way you can get some 12 ga wire? Best Regards, Mike Monett ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Now all this is great if you only need 10 ppm or so. It is excellent cs and I used it for many years. It may be all that is needed when you are young and strong, and have a vigorous immune system that only needs a helping hand once in a while. But as we age, our immune system starts to degrade. Others may have compromised immune systems, and some may have contracted very serious infections such as SARS or the West Nile. In that case, we need something stronger, and the venerable 3 nines just won't do the job. I have shown one way to get to 20 ppm and higher - I'm sure there are many other ways to do the same thing. But probably few of them are so simple, inexpensive, and well-documented:) Jason, you've got a great site, a great forum, and it's clear you are searching for the truth. That's a good sign. But I just can't see paying a lab big bucks to get the same information than you can get using Faraday's equation and a bit of salt. Even if you could find two labs that gave the same result:) Best Regards, Mike Monett -- The silver-list is a moderated forum for discussion of colloidal silver. Instructions for unsubscribing may be found at: http://silverlist.org To post, address your message to: [email protected] Silver-list archive: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html List maintainer: Mike Devour <[email protected]>
