url: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/m60213.html
Re: CS>Sludge on LVDC Electrodes
From: Marv Hacker
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 17:30:20
> Mike,
> Thank you for the encouragement. You and our family of technicians
> on the list are to blame for my success in making my first batch
> of LVDC CS :)
> Otherwise, I would have had a lot of trial-and-error to endure.
> You all have saved me a lot of GRIEF! Thanks!!! I appreciate your
> critique of the setup. Your good recommendations and explanations
> are a big help.
It takes courage to make that first step into the unknown. You took
it, and your results are outstanding.
> This first batch of LVDC CS has a light gray tint to it, but is
> otherwise clear. While it was brewing, I had no clue where it was
> re: PPM. It has been about six weeks since I stopped the process.
> So far, its appearance is unchanged . . . .
That's very impressive, especially when you just got your Hanna and
was able to measure the ppm.
> I ran the process, looking to achieve the current bogie that I had
> calculated (incorrectly, obviously).
Don't be afraid of making mistakes. They are quite common in this
business, and they often point to greater understanding.
> I agree. I should rather have 10 PPM, clean electrodes, and an
> inexpensive generator that I can afford to give away. I will keep
> at it until I can make it as bulletproof as I can.
I have tried different concentrations, and am starting to settle on
19 ppm calculated. This can be made in a convenient brew time, has
excellent dispersion in the salt test, and seems to have very good
biological activity. All the people who take this report they no
longer need to use very much. About one mouthfull every three or
four days.
One teenager is taking one mouthfull every two days, and this
completely cleared up the terrible mouth sores he used to get.
> The electrodes are 1.5 inches apart, I will move them in to 0.75",
> and make the other changes.
I have not really nailed down the optimum spacing between
electrodes. I have two opposing theories on what the spacing should
be:
1. Keep the spacing small to minimize the initial resistance.
2. Keep the spacing large to give a more uniform field and
minimize the possibility of forming ion channels.
I have tried different spacings, and to be honest, I really can't
tell there is much difference.
I just tried measuring the initial resistance of fresh dw using the
low current range of the HP3456A. But within seconds of the probes
touching the dw and as soon as ions start entering the solution, the
results become very ambiguous and it doesn't seem to make much
difference where I put the probes.
So the spacing you now have may be just fine. This will save
drilling new holes in the cap:)
> By the way, re: the salt test that you recommend, I poured a
> little into a glass (1.5"), and hit it with a few shakes of sea
> salt. It responded with a bluish tint on its way to a white cast
> that was no longer transparent. Like watered-down skim milk. A far
> different reaction than from the Utopia HVAC 10 PPM CS, which
> resolved to a slightly cloudy fluid with heavy TE.
Yes, once you get the hang of the salt test, the results are very
convincing. Everyone who watches it the first time is fascinated.
> Incidentally, the 60 PPM has a very light TE, using the beam of my
> $10 Harbor Freight laser level, while the 10 PPM has a relatively
> heavy TE. Evidently the HVAC unit produces a great deal more
> particles (I have no clue re: size). I suspect that one reason for
> the light TE is that the sludge-coating on the electrode may have
> caused heavy agglomeration??? Or, perhaps it is strictly due to
> the low current density???
My theory is the low current density minimizes the density of the
ion cloud that forms around both electrodes. This minimizes the
number of ions that are pushed together by Brownian motion to form
particles.
> I know that Bob Berger cautions those of us using HVAC, because of
> his discoveries re: the formation of NO3 and NO, unless produce in
> an oxygen free cell. Litmus paper shows both products above to be
> under 6.0 pH, what would be best to use to modify it to around 7
> pH?
The health guidelines I have read are primarily concerned with
fertilizer runoff from farms. I don't see much problem with NOx with
only a volt or so across the electrodes. Remember most people are
running at much higher current and voltage, and they don't seem to
encounter problems.
I wouldn't worry about the ph. It is close enough to normal ph to
not be a problem, even at 60 ppm. Probably anything you put in to
modify the ph would also affect the ions.
You might check the ph when you get the system running at lower
concentration. But I really don't think it's an issue. A lot of
people have been drinking a lot of cs made under much harsher
conditions. They don't seem to be turning black, green or blue.
This process is just about as gentle as you can get. Stop worrying
and just enjoy your incredible accomplishment:)
> My family, friends and I have been enjoying better health, due to
> CS from the Utopia unit, for over three years now. I Joined the
> SilverList to learn how to make an inexpensive, reliable
> generator. Thanks to Mike Devour, for providing this forum and to
> the contributions of you all, I'm on my way :)
> Best regards,
> :) Marv
Mike is a true jewel!
Just one final note - don't forget to check for two distinct clicks
whenever you connect the 9V battery. I lost an entire weekend of
data when I discovered the connector was intermittent. Instead of
going click-click, it went click-thud. The data was useless, and I
never got around to repeating the tests.
Again, Congratulations. Good job well done. We look forward to your
next report.
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]>
