Ode Coyote wrote: > At 06:19 PM 10/7/2003 -0400, you wrote: > >url: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/m63187.html > >Re: CS>Measuring very high ppms > >From: Ode Coyote > >Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 10:39:19 > > > > > Colloidal Copper is said to be more effective on molds and fungi. > > > > Yes, I find it much more effective. But it doesn't last long, maybe > > a day or less. It's a constant battle, but I can now get brief > > periods with no headaches. How glorious this is, I can't tell you. > > > > > Copper sulphates have been used for that for ages, I believe. How > > > did you make your collidal copper? > > > > Each electrode is 3 feet of 12 ga house wiring folded into a W. The > > wetted area is about 5.5 sq.in. I tried different current densities > > and am now running at 144 uA/sq.in. > > > > > I've copper electrodes for hours on end and never got a TE or > > > conductivity rise to go over 3 uS [But I did get a blue grey > > > precipitate] Same with zinc ... without the precipitate. > > > > Yes, I monitor the cell voltage and calculate the ppm. As soon as it > > hits 3 ppm calculated, the cathode starts turning dark and the cell > > voltage flattens out. > > So 3 ppm calculated seem to be a hard limit for copper electrolysis. > ####OK, So you have found as have I that 3 PPM is about the upper limit for > CC..or really ionic copper..as I have been unable to make anything that has > even a hint of a TE. > > A while back I made a generator with a 1/8th " x 3 3/8" stainless steel > cathode in the center and 3 anodes surrounding it at the same length, one > of 12 gauge silver wire, one of 10 gauge zinc wire and one of 10 gauge > copper wire. If I recall, I was running it at .7ma and no stirring. > I think I'll go find it again. :-) > > > > ..........At some point, the Ag+ and OH- ions start combining to > > form silver hydroxide and silver oxide. I posted the equations > > earlier. > > > > But when you put H2O2 on plain silver, the reaction is very slow. > > For example, you get a gray sludge on the cathode at low current > > density. As you explained, this is pure silver covering small > > hydrogen bubbles. > > > > When you shake it off into the water, the bits fall to the bottom. > ### and the bits eventually dissipate releasing a cloud of particles just > like the so called 'ion cloud' as the hydrogen bubbles dissolve into the water > > > > If you add H2O2 to the cs, bubbles start appearing and the tiny bits > > start rising to the surface. When the bubble breaks, the bits fall > > back down. This will go on for days. > > > > So the reaction of H2O2 on pure silver is completely different than > > on silver oxides. The H2O2 breaks down to water instead of acting as > > a catalyst. I posted the equations earlier. > > > > Now, when you get a yellow tint to the cs and add a tiny bit of > > H2O2, the tint disappears and the solution remains clear > > indefinitely. > > > So this confirms what we learned by evaporating cs and adding H2O2 > > to the black stuff. The reason for the yellow tint is silver oxides, > > and not elemental silver particles. > > ## I have found that whatever makes the yellow tint will eventually stick > to the glass of the container leaving the water colorless. > This probably has something to do with the larger mass of the large > particles impacting the container sides and sticking there while the small > particles just keep swimming around. > > If the water is then poured off and peroxide is placed on the deposit, it > vanishes instantly.
I believe that the H2O2 oxidizes the silver producing silver oxide, which is slightly soluble, and thus dissolves in the peroxide. Also it is possible that silver oxide is much more soluble in peroxide than in water, but can find no information on that. > > The reaction is very much like when an oxide blackened electrode is placed > in peroxide, which leads me to conjecture that the yellow color of the > particles has something to do with the inclusion of oxides in that crystal > structure. I have doubts that the deposit is silver oxide, since silver oxide is somewhat water soluble. It is likely silver peroxide, which is totally insoluble in water. I believe the likely explaination is that silver peroxide is soluble in H2O2. > > There just may be a whole range of crystal structures containing both > oxides and hydroxides that key in with various particle sizes...not that > any particular structure actually has a color as in "pigment" but that the > composition of the crystal may have something to do with the size limit and > range of the particle and it's reflective/refractive properties. > > When I use peroxide in CS, the TE increases...often taking on a faint > bluish hue in full spectrum [sun] light. > I think that maybe the peroxide is breaking the crystal structure apart > producing both smaller particles AND releasing ions. That is another possibility. > > > I've used as little as 4 drops of peroxide in a quart of violet colored CS > to clear it, but it took many days. > > I mentioned making silver flakes while using peroxide as a starter [don't > recall how much..I don't pay much attention to what I consider total > failures]. > I let that batch sit around for over a year and look at it now and > then...just because it was pretty. > For the first few months it remained unchanged. I could shake it up and > see that pretty snowfall effect like a paper weight thingie. Water was > colorless with no visible TE [if I remember] > > Then a fuzzy fluffy white precipitate formed out of the shiney flakes on > the bottom as the water turned yellowish. > > After several more months the water went clear with no color..but it's > hard to tell WHAT color it "isn't" as it reflects 'whatever' color [except > in the green and blue range, ie, picks up yellows and browns best] from any > object that's near it, the fuzz dissipated, several small round black balls > formed on the bottom, it grew a very strong fine TE under laser light and > conductivity remains unchanged at 13 uS. [as measured with my "calibrated" > ??? PWT but was originally measured with an uncalibrated one with the more > or less consistant factory settings] > Now that is plain wierd! Marshall > > I'm making up some stuff to send to Frank. Maybe I'll send some of that too. > > Weird stuff! > > > > > So this confirms what we learned by evaporating cs and adding H2O2 > > to the black stuff. The reason for the yellow tint is silver oxides, > > and not elemental silver particles. > > > > It also confirms the main biological activity of cs is due to the > > ions. If you can show the particles have been converted to ions, and > > there are no particles left, and the cs works even better, then it's > > doubtful the particles have any biological effect in the first place. > ### For me, adding H2O2 increases the TE indicating MORE, but smaller, > particles. > I believe the human eye can pick up on a single photon but the resolution > of the eye cannot distinguish one photon from another. > When a laser is shined on a quantity of particles suspended in water, the > eye can detect an average 'texture' and pick up on the occasional stray > that's larger in a sort of comparative sizing perception effect. > So, a quantity of small particles will be seen as a fine grained beam of > light where a quantity of larger particles will be seen as a grainey course > beam...but no single particle can be nailed down to perception. > If there is a mix of both, a size comparison becomes visually evident. > This is especially pronounced when looking through an optically clear > cylindrical glass container as it magnifies everything to 10x or better. > > This is what I'm talking about when I say fine TE or course TE..a visual > texture range within a color [or colorless] range of water/CS. > Along with that goes 'light to heavy' TE indicating particle density. > Of course, all this is a matter of subjective comparisons of opinions. > Unless two people are looking at the same thing in the same jar, it won't > mean a whole lot more than 'some idea'. > And eyeballs don't print out numbers. > > > > > That's why I believe it is so valuable. If the particles have no > > biological effect, why bother trying to measure them. Just get the > > process to minimize them. > ## I'm not so certain that particles have no biological effect. Location > and surface area could have something to do with a difference but I think > that both do something and the smaller the particle, the more like an ion > it will behave when it encounters a microbe and a article that's small > enough to see a membrane as transparent will go anywhere an ion will. > It might not be as active there, but probably lasts longer. > So, we might have an 'ion blast' effect and a 'particle gaurding' effect. > > I like a good mix in my shotgun. > If it turns out that particles don't do anything but pass through, they > pass through and so what? > But we don't know. > > Ode > > > > Sorry, Ken. The headaches are coming back and I gotta stop here and > > go kill some spores. > ### Yea, just got over a 3 day one where I couldn't tell if my teeth were > making my head hurt or the other way around. I get 3 to 5 a year like that > and that's WAY too many! > Whew!! > > Ode [Ken] > > > > -- > 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: silver-list@eskimo.com > > Silver-list archive: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html > > List maintainer: Mike Devour <mdev...@eskimo.com>
