Re: CS>Re : CS>best pppm of CS to make and use
From: Ode Coyote
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 05:55:00
>> 30uS? That is rocket fuel! How do you reach that without having
>> it turn yellow before the brew is done? I can't get much above 24
>> ppm before it starts showing a yellow tint.
> That particular batch did go yellow by the next day, however, I
> have made batches up to 78 uS that never did. Not many..it's
> really iffy past around 20- 24 uS. Some anomoly in the water may
> account for being able to make really high concentrations that
> don't yellow 'sometimes'.
Thanks for the additional info. Yes, I got what I believe was 45 ppm
once, but never could repeat it. Before Jason jumps on this and
claims it was something to do with structured water, I attribute it
to an unusual pattern of convection currents that happened to keep
most of the anions and cations away from their respective electrodes
so they couldn't combine to form oxides. Also, perhaps the
electrodes were new, so they were very smooth and didn't concentrate
the current at sharp points.
Based on my experiments on making ions visible, I'm working on a
method that should give 40 to 45 ppm every time with much less
sensitivity to dw quality. You have discussed this method
previously, so I'll let you know how well it works.
I found that ionic cs can have quite high concentration without any
problems. I evaporated 1 inch of 20 ppm cs down to 1/8 inch, which
gave a concentration of 20 * 8 = 160 ppm. There was no indication of
color and the solution seemed very stable.
This shows the Nernst diffusion layer must concentrate the ions to a
very high value, perhaps 10X or more. Of course, the higher current
density with the 3 or 4 nines will increase the multiplication
factor and limit the resulting ppm to low values. Also, any sharp
corners on the electrodes can have a significant effect on the
maximum achievable ppm before it starts to show yellow for the same
reasons.
> I brought up the effect of dropping a piece of copper into the
> brew to point out that some water contaminant traces can change
> everything. The copper isn't "connected or charged" yet pulls
> every bit of silver out of the water eventually. First sparklies
> drop out, then TE vanishes, then all conductivity. The copper sits
> there shiny as a new 'old' penny unless some of the black crud
> dries on it...then it's silver plated.
I think something similar is done in a high school chem demo. And I
definitely agree trace contaminants can have a big influence on the
cs process. Also, the chloramines that Sol menioned may be very
significant. Apparently they are not ionic and do not show up in a
TDS or PWT measurement, but can have a dramatic effect in
applications that need pure water. The GE page says activated carbon
removes chloramines:
http://www.gewater.com/library/tp/813_Chloramines_.jsp
The problem is how do we know if they are in the dw, and how do we
tell if they are removed by filtering? And is there anything else
that does similar things???
> Incidently, I've been making colloidal copper with the latest
> evolution of the silverpup and found that it does something
> similar. Very Nice TE for a few days, then a few sparklies, then
> nothing but some blue grey crud on the bottom.
Very interesting. Can you tell more about the process? What is the
ppm, and what do you do with the electrodes?
> If CC is made without stirring of any sort, black tendrils extend
> outward for quite a distance.
Yes, I got them every time. They seemed to come from the cathode and
grew towards the anode. They also sent branches out like trees
looking for more paths to the anode.
I eventually switched over to making 200 ppm copper acetate by
sticking a massive wetted area electrodes in plain vinegar. The
solution comes out blue/green. But it had no effect on the mold
spores so I quit. All my clothes ended up green and smelly, so I had
to throw them away:)
> With even thermal stirring, they don't..looks like they wrap
> around the electrode making it very black and a little fuzzy.
> Isn't copper oxide green or blue?
Yes, usually blue, green or a combination. I think the black stuff
may be conductive, since it seems to support growth of the fingers,
but that doesn't help identify it. It could be copper that made it
all the way to the cathode and plated out like silver does at low
current density, but I can't understand why it would be black
instead of copper color. Silver atoms are gray when they appear at
the cathode, and they don't make fingers extending towards the anode
like copper.
Also, the black copper material definitely responds to electric
fields. If you turn off the current, they all droop down, but they
straighten out when you switch the current back on. So I have no
clue what it could be.
>> We really need to plot the voltage curve and verify it is linear.
> I did..wanna see it? It's not absolutely linear but close, then
> flattens out
Yes, you bet! Can you send me the data? I'll stick it in WPlot to
view.
>> I just spotted a nice dvm at Radio Shack for about US$60...
> That sounds cool. Then of course, I couldn't figure out how to
> make data plotting software do what I wanted and wound up with a
> pencil and graph paper. Dammit. LOL
WPlot can be a bit tricky. Can you run plain dos? I wrote a graphics
program that can handle multimillion data points, but it uses a
special memory addressing technique that only runs in ring 0, or
plain dos mode.
[...]
>>>> But, if the oxides contributed to the conductivity, the cell
>>>> voltage would continue decreasing indefinitely.
>>> I'll buy that beyond a point over 20 uS, but also look at where
>>> most of the oxides are..on the electrode surface...not doing
>>> much in the way of conducting electricity.
> I should have stated that better. If it's on the electrodes, it's
> not in the water doing the conducting.
I guess I still don't understand the point. The oxides are not ionic
like salts and don't contribute to cell conductivity. This is why
the cell voltage plateaus at the end.
> Which brings up another point: If the cell is left connected but
> not powered..a battery effect that reverses things? Vague
> suspicion of a memory of having read something about that on some
> EDU gobbledygook website. I'll run a batch, disconnect power and
> attach a voltmeter and see what happens one day soon. Could be
> interesting if not very relevent.
I notice that all the time. There is a small voltage between the
electrodes, perhaps 100 millivolts or so. I forget which polarity.
The short circuit current capability is very small. Perhaps it is a
small battery caused by contaminants in the dw or on the electrodes.
Can't run your computer off it, or light a bulb:)
>> The silver oxide would help form hydrogen gas at the cathode, but
>> probably doesn't contribute to silver ion release at the anode.
>> Otherwise it would shrink instead of growing thicker.
>> I don't think we can say most of the oxides stick to the
>> electrodes. Probably more goes into the cs.
> I have seen black oxides go into the water at higher current
> densities and concentrations...about 6 ma on 14 inch x 12 ga
> electrodes did the job. Don't recall the concentration as I don't
> keep data on things that don't work to my liking and am pretty bad
> about keeping it on stuff I do like...maybe 30 or 40 uS? That
> gallon batch took on a black cast that cleared up in a week with
> black deposits on the bottom, never went yellow.
Ken, we really got to get you interested in keeping better records.
How bout if I write some software for the Radio Shack dvm, and you
use it for your experiments? That way we can annotate the data with
any observations you come up with.
I'm sure there is a wealth of valuable information that passes
through your fingers every day. We need to get some of it tucked
away on a hard disk!
>>>> [...]
>>>> What happened to the simple thermal stirring you used to use?
>>>> Actually, I tried it as well as the other methods, and found
>>>> running without stirring worked best for me. Of course, I use
>>>> about 1/10th the current density you do, so the brew takes
>>>> longer.
> At that current density, Brownian motion probably does a pretty
> good job of stirring. All the batches I tried at those densities
> went yellow at 20 uS and up before they were done. 14 microamps
> with 6" exposure on the electrodes if I recall.
We need to find the posts in the archives. 14uA would take days.
[...]
>>> There's more than one oxide of silver. [4, I believe]
Yes, I expect there should be more types produced in the Nernst
diffusion layers due to the extreme ion concentrations.
>>> Ag2O colour: dark brown to black. solubility/water @25C: 22 mg/L
>>> AgO colour: charcoal gray powder, black crystal solubility/water
>>> @20C: decomposes in water...which means? If you see any, the
>>> water is already saturated with it?????..
You would think so, but I have many records that show visible black
deposits on the electrodes when the Faraday equations show less than
12 ppm of silver was released into the solution. Since the oxides
appear at the end of the brew, most of the silver remains in
solution as ions, and very little is deposited as oxides.
>> I generally brew 22 ppm cs. The oxide collects on the anode in
>> the last 1/2 hr or so, which is about the same time the cell
>> voltage starts to plateau.
>> In my system, silver is entering the solution at a rate of 1.55
>> ppm per hour, so the final phase accounts for a total of about
>> 0.75 ppm. The visible oxide on the anode may account for half or
>> less, with the rest wandering around in the solution as described
>> above.
> makes sense. How much does it take for it to be visible?
We can subtract the Hanna uS reading from the calculated ppm. From
all the information I can collect in the archives, and all the data
I have taken myself, it looks like very little is needed at or below
22ppm with rounded electrodes. Maybe 1/2 ppm or so.
The end of the brew is very sharp and well defined. Mine takes about
6 to 8 hrs, and everything seems to happen at once. The cell voltage
plateaus, the cathode gets Spanish moss, and black oxide appears on
the anode, all within about 10 minutes. You have to be right there
watching to see it happening.
>> So it is apparent the oxide that forms on the anode is far below
>> the solubility figures stated in the chemistry books, and it is
>> still not in solution.
> Wouldn't the concentration be much higher near the anode?
Everything seems to happen at once at the end of the brew. The cell
voltage plateaus, the Spanish moss appears, and the anode gets
coated all in about 10 minutes or less.
This indicates the system reaches saturation and starts making oxide
in the Nernst layer over a very small range of ppm. So the amount of
oxide is far below the solubility figures given in the chem books.
[...]
> H2O2 being a free radical could both add an atom of oxygen to a
> silver ion and oxidize it or scavange an atom of oxygen off an
> oxide and make it pure silver releasing an O2 molecule???
Adding H2O2 after the cs is made is very interesting. I'm sure there
is something else in the dw besides silver ions and water, since I
got this effect once and have not seen it since changing dw
suppliers.
One way that H2O2 might decompose is by donating an oxygen ion to a
silver ion to make AgO. The equation might be
Ag(+) + H2O2 --> AgO + H2O
But as you point out above, AgO decomposes in water. They don't say
what this means, but there might be several paths:
2AgO --> 2Ag(+) + O2(g)
3AgO --> Ag2O + O2(g)
> The "explosion" does clear up to some extent with time and no
> indication of anything dropping out.
I never had the patience to wait that long, so I never saw it clear
up.
> Could that be an emulsion like effect? [I'm obviously not a
> chemist here..but something to consider perhaps]
> Going beyond theory, how does one test the difference between
> silver oxide in solution and a silver particles in suspension when
> [assuming it's possible] that both are present?
Good question. First, there has to be a balanced equation that
describes the process. Second, separate the particles by centrifuge
or freezing. Then decompose to pure silver using heat or chemical
means and measure the amount of oxygen liberated.
> BTW I do get your point about there being no free electrons just
> floating about in the water. Just to be "difficult", could stray
> electromagnetic radiation supply something? We do live in a sea of
> it.
Cosmic rays generate muon showers that pass through our body at
about 500 per second at sea level. Some of these will generate
electrons in water, but the amount is in the femptoamp or attoamp
region which is too low to see much effect. Remember, we are only
dealing with a small volume of cs, so the capture area is small and
the resulting current is negligible. Here is a simple description:
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/cosmic_rays.html
Natural background radiation also generates ionizing events, but
they are also much too low to see any effect in cs.
[...]
> If oxides are inert, silver particles are impossible and ions are
> all that do anything, the oxides would be irrelevent. So, high PPM
> ionic...lots of conductivity would be the key and never mind
> whatever else. But even though oxides might be inert in the glass
> of water, are they inert when exposed to all that body chemistry?
> No clue here.
Using low current density and watching the Faraday calculation, it
is possible to make ionic cs with very low oxide content. I find
this much more effective than other brews that do generate oxides.
[...]
>> Despite Jason's comments on using low-ppm cs, I definitely find
>> high ppm ionic cs much more effective than the 5 to 10 ppm stuff
>> from the typical 3 nines. It only makes sense that a stronger cs
>> will have greater effect.
> Makes sense to me. But oft times, various 'people' don't make
> sense while others do. Establishment medicine would work a lot
> better if everyone made sense but it's obvious that nothing works
> the same for everyone. Both views have merit if both get results
> and one persons success doesn't cancel out anothers failure.
A lot of things happen as we age. Our immune system degrades, the
Herpes Zoster virus that remained hidden in our spine comes out to
cause Shingles, we build up toxic materials absorbed over a lifetime
that can reach levels that start affecting our health, the bacteria
and viruses get more difficult to kill, and so on.
I'll go with high-ppm ionic cs. I know it works, and the low-ppm
stuff doesn't anymore.
[...]
> Ode
Best Wishes,
Mike Monett
--
The Silver List is a moderated forum for discussing Colloidal Silver.
Instructions for unsubscribing are posted at: http://silverlist.org
To post, address your message to: silver-list@eskimo.com
Silver List archive: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html
Address Off-Topic messages to: silver-off-topic-l...@eskimo.com
OT Archive: http://escribe.com/health/silverofftopiclist/index.html
List maintainer: Mike Devour <mdev...@eskimo.com>
