OK Folks Here it is from Frank Key, unabridged in bold [ouch] print as promised in the light of operating truthfully "to the best of my knowlege" [That's the "kicker"] These results were obtained using the lastest version of the series 2 silverpuppy generator [gtsb1] to run batches. I have no idea how they apply to previous versions except that they are set to shut down at nearly the same conductivity and voltage references within .06 volts and 100 ohms. Other phenomenen I've never seen before seem to be happening with the B1 having to do with abnormally high [but repeatable] conductivity drops in storage along with the lack of a corresponding visible TE development.
>Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 11:16:27 -0500 >To: "Frank Key" <fr...@colloidalsciencelab.com> >From: Ode Coyote <coyote...@earthlink.net> >Subject: Re: Test Results >In-Reply-To: <001501c3b784$84740d30$1001a...@pent424k> > My reply to Frank Key: > Your uS readings are very close to my re-calibrated PWT [ie, PWT is working properly] > > Here's what I recorded. [Experiment run to show heat effects on PWT readings showed about +1 uS change per +10 deg F. as 'worst case average'] >Batch #1 22uS at finish @ 91.1 deg F > 11.1 uS in 8 days > Very faint TE with little change during stabilization period [an unexpected occurance seeing the amount of conductivity drop...possibly....mostly very very small particles not into red laser range of visibility? Super-conductive unstable ions????] [This is an unusually high drop in conductivity leading to some speculation that the B1 version is doing something different than previous versions..the "usual" is about 4 uS not 11 and with the development of a pretty strong TE which didn't happen with the B1] > >What I "figured" using Trems uS x 1.2 fudge factor...[silver making process is virtually identical except for temperature] > At first, [I supposed] virtually all content is ionic, later, forming most of the non conductive particles which accounts for conductivity drop over time. > So, I used the initial conductivity at finish to do the calculations. >22uS - .8 uS [initial water conductivity] - 3 uS [for 30 deg max heat soak effect]= 18.2 uS x 1.2 [fudge factor] = 21.84 PPM > > Apparently this is in error even though ion to particle 'ratios' look about right. > Any idea why? > > Batch #2 > 20.5 uS [at finish @ 94.9 deg F] - .8uS [water] -3 uS [heat] = 16.7 uS x 1.2 [fudge factor]= 20.04 PPM > Stabilized for 8 days at 12.8 uS > >Batches #1 + #2 averaged; >21.5 uS - .8 uS - 3 uS = 17.45 uS x 1.2 = 20.94 PPM > > But I see that the average 'stabilized' PWT reading is the more accurate. > Average = 11.95 uS [x 1.2 "should be" 14.34 PPM] > > But it's not. > Any idea why? > >You say: >12.6 uS > If I subtract .8 uS for the water, I get 11.8 uS...pretty close to the 11.29 total PPM you came up with and accounts for why PPM is a little lower than conductivity. [That which was adding to the conductivity of the water wasn't silver] > > There's something going on that I don't understand...like maybe relationships of conductivity to PPM aren't the least bit reliable? > I've got the sinking feeling that every batch is going to be different [except that these were virtually the same]...or a PWT is totally useless where PPM is concerned. So much for standard fudge factors too. [No reflection on you, Trem..it just didn't work for me.] > > I'm getting a distinct taste of crow pie...and even the feathers aren't black like would be expected. > So be it. > >..now to get busy. > > PS Thanks a bunch in advance for the particle size distribution plots. > >Ode > > > > > >At 03:57 PM 11/30/2003 -0500, you wrote: >>Ode, >> >>Here are the test results for your samples from the ICP/AES. >> >> These batches [#1+#2] were run totally plug n play / absolute neglect in a beaker and added together to form an average, . >>Sample Total Silver Ionic Silver % Ionic >>Conductivity >> # ppm ppm >>(uS/cm) >> >>1-2 11.29 9.68 85.7 >>12.6 This batch was totally plug n play/ absolute neglect in a pint canning jar allowed to sit for 8 days in clear glass. It could have used a stir/reset sequence. My record: Off at 17 uS @92.2 deg F dropping to 8.5 uS in 8 days. The result: >> 3 9.25 9.12 98.6 >>8.5 >> >> >> >>ICP/AES Measurements: >> >>1. Each measured value was an average of three individual measurements. Each >>individual measurement was taken from three replicates of 10 seconds each. >>Total integration time per measured value (3 x 3 x 10 seconds) is 90 >>seconds. >> >>2. Measured made using the silver emission spectral line at 328.068 nm >> >>3. Calibration: blank ( 0.00 ppm) and 10.00 ppm - linear from 0 - 30.00 ppm >>(minimum) >> >>3A. Measurement error (95% confidence) is less than: 0.05 ppm >> >>4. Particles were removed from samples by application of 365,000 G-forces >>for 15 minutes. >> >> >>Particles size distribution plots will be done in the next few days and the >>.pdf files will be emailed to you. >> >> >>Francis Key, Principal Scientist >>Colloidal Science Lab. Inc. >>Westampton, NJ 08060 >>609.267.2065 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- 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>
