url: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/m61477.html Re: CS> Requests For Lab Test on ULVDC CS From: Ode Coyote Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 04:09:47
> I ran a batch with a modified silverpuppy yesterday and last > night. I was very busy so I didn't watch it like a hawk or > anything. > Ultra low current and voltage DC > Current control set at 164 microamps. > Starting voltage 7 volts [no load voltage at 28 volts] > 6.5" submerged x 12 gauge looped electrodes/ 1 3/8" apart > Batch size 1 pint > Water at 1.6 uS at start. > No stirring except when taking meter readings > After 7 hours: > No appreciable deposits of changes to electrodes. Bubbles on both > electrodes..large and few Maybe it's some dissolved gas. > 1.42 volts > 12.1 uS > Very slight TE I would have let it run about 8 hrs, but this is good data. Let's see what Faraday says: hrs = 7 ; time I = 164e-6 ; current in Amperes ml = 250 ; volume of dw sqin = 6.5 / 4 ; wetted area Solution: C = 4.132 ; total Coulombs den = 0.0001009 ; 100 uA/sq.in. Perfect! phr = 2.64 ; ppm per hr ppm = 18.48 ; ppm liberated Hah! I did the calculations for 100 uA/sq.in., and it came out perfect. Of course, it has to, but it's a good sanity check. If you let it run a bit longer, it would be very close to what I use. This is the stuff I found so effective on the Shingles virus. Do you have a conversion between uS and ppm? I added a calculation to give the uS change per second. I don't know what the original value was, so I set it to zero. Here's the first calculation: uh = uS / sec ; microsiemens per hr Solution: sec = 25200 uh = 0.000480 Let's track that number: 0.000480 > After 11 hours 9 minutes: > one electrode white, other sorta darkish grey/brown..nothing > significant. > Bubbles still > 1.42 volts [still? That's odd.] [didn't check amps] > 16.5 uS > Slight TE Now we are starting to make deposits, so much of the current is diverted. Here's Faraday: hrs = 11 ; hours mnt = 9 ; minutes uS = 16.5 ; uS Solution: ppm = 29.43 uh = 0.000411 This is very interesting. I start to get a yellow solution at this level, but you are still clear. I'm going to get rid of the rods I use for the anode and switch to the same "W" I use for the cathode. Note the change in uS/hr. It has dropped from 0.000480 to 0.000411. I could do the calculation to show the difference which would make it look like a bigger number, but you can see this is a significant drop in the slope. So we are starting to lose ions and make deposits on the electrodes. This will make the calculated ppm and actual ppm start to diverge. > After 20 hours 33 minutes: > Significant but still not 'heavy' white metallic plateout on one > electrode..a little fuzzy. The other, mostly clean metal with very > little darkish fuzz towards the bottom of the loop. No bubbles at > all anywhere. > .84 volts > 146 microamps > 24.6 uS > Slight TE Here's Faraday: hrs = 20 ; hours mnt = 33 ; minutes uS = 24.6 ; uS Solution: ppm = 54.25 uh = 0.000332 The calculated ppm is quite high, but the uS/hr has dropped substantially from the starting number of 0.000480 So we can see much of the current is used making deposits. The big difference is my current setup would be dark yellow by now. I am still using straight rods for the anode, and a "W" for the cathode. I have noticed a drop in performance lately - maybe it's partly due to the crud I am letting build up on the anode. Soon I will clean it off with H2O2 and see if it makes any difference. > Salt test: > Enough salt to leave some undissolved in bottom of a shot glass. > Turned milky white..but not like skim milk or anything. Yes, I would expect a very strong dispersion. Could you see objects behind the glass? > Crystal clear CS [no color] This is amazing. I gotta change my setup:) > Conclusion: > Not significantly different from most batches made at .9 ma with > thermal stirring. Perhaps a lighter TE indicating a higher ion to > particle ratio than some batches made at .9 ma. One batch doesn't > tell that story. > Ode [aka Ken] Yes, I was hoping it would be very similar, but you have convinced me of the value of folded wire for both electrodes, and how harmful the straight rods are. My current setup would not have performed nearly as well. It starts pooping out at about 23 ppm calculated. I am using the straight rods for the anode to see if the crud has any effect. When I use the "W" for the anode, it stays clean. So it seems there really is a difference in the way they work. The big advantage of the lower current density is it needs no stirring, which would be a heavy drain on a battery and less suitable for use in remote areas or third world countries where batteries are expensive. Stirring also adds to the cost, and I am trying to drive that down to the absolute minimum and still maintain quality. When you depend on donations, every tenth of a penny counts. I just remembered something. In the US, medical laws used to require that you to toss old batteries after a certain time. I had a friend who got cases of brand new alkalines with only one or two batteries missing. Maybe that law still holds, and might even apply here in Canada. If so, I might be able to find a good source for batteries! Ken, thank you very much for taking the time to do this test and post the data. I am amazed at how much better your setup works than mine. And thanks for the good data. You made the calculations easy, and the experiment will be a good reference in the future. 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]>
