From: Steven Foss <foss_ste...@yahoo.com>
Date: 22 September 2008 7:41:08 AM
To: silver-list@eskimo.com
Subject: CS>Re: Ions and particles, etc.
Hi David
You wrote:
"Sure he knew the difference between ions and particles, he just had
wrong info about the the proportions of those things in the batches
he was testing."
Based on Frank's website commentary?
Yes.
Prof Gibbs continues to state the lower concentrations of
particulate silver were found and the combined value of both forms
of silver were given..
"... We should always try to ascertain the proportion of dissolved
material to particulate silver material as well as the size
distrbution of the particulat silver if we are to know the quality
of the colloidal silver product we are using."
Why? Perhaps so that it fits their definition of what a 'true'
colloidal silver should be? Looks like a set-up to me.
In the previous 2 paragraph he address large particle size as well
as concentration, "As an example, in a ten ppm sample actually
composed of half dissolved and half particulate there could be only
five ppm of colloidal particles present." In the next paragraph,
"In the example discused above having having half of the silver in
particulate form [5ppm] dominate by large particles [greater than 1
micron] the efeective colloidal silver present could be very low,
even less than one ppm, hardly an effective suspension of colloidal
silver."
The next chapter deals with confocal microscopic examination of the
colloidal silver, in which he eliminates four samples for large
particles on the bottom of the samples "of unindentifiable
material, hair, large Silver particles not in suspension, fibrous
organic material (paper fibers)." A fifth sample is eliminated
because of bacteria. A sixth sample was eliminated for having high
amounts of Flocs (clustering of silver particles).
Three additional samples had flocs.
We are now at 6 eliminated
Prof G then said he found three samples "with a number of small
clusters along with a number of small silver particles."
We are now at 9 eliminated
Prof G then went to example dried samples under the confocal
microscope. Anything other than metal particles.
Subsequently Prof G went to TEM examination.
I am not an expert on TEMs although I do remember that the TEMs I
ran across use a vacuum chamber for the specimens to be observed.
(Has anyone place Ionic Silver in a vacuum chamber to "boil away
the water and thus eliminate the possibility of producing silver
oxide in the drying process?)
After examination all but one product was eliminated as ideal.
Let me guess.. It was, errr, mesosilver?
This I believe was rated 5 stars.
(There were several 4 star products with 3 star, 2 star, 1 star
making up the balance and are all are referenced in the Bacteria
study in vitro.)
By page 25 there is commentary about AC and DC generated Colloidal
Silver with the statement that DC was the highest in Ionic Silver
and had very low level of metal particles.
The AC process was the method in which all the "4 star
product" (out of 5 stars) were produced.
(The HVAC Colloidal Silver is produced either by a total submersion
method or a plasma underwater arc method.)
"I think its pretty obvious CSL did all the analysis of the physical
properties of the 15 samples."
On what do you base that assumption? It isn't obvious to me.
Nowhere did CSL labs receive mention in the book.
Because Frank said so in the quote below. He says CSL developed the
methods to determine ion vs particle concentration, and these methods
were obviously used to analyse the the samples Frank made. It follows
that surely Ron Gibbs used CSL to determine the ion/particle of ALL
the products. It would be highly unscientific to do otherwise.
(Quote from FAQ ":For example, the samples that Ron tested, some
of which were made for him in the Colloidal Science Lab. Inc.(CSL)
were believed by Ron to be at least 50% colloidal when in fact they
were mostly ionic (typically 90%). The methods developed at CSL to
determine ionic vs. particle concentration were just being
developed at the time Ron wrote the book and so he was not fully
informed about the ion/particle ratio of the test samples and
consequently made some erroneous assumptions. Ron assumed the
sample were at least 50% particles when they were only 10%.)
It could be equally obvious that the 15 samples were tested at
Univeristy of Delaware.
Their are also plenty of FDA approved labs in the vicinity of
Delaware but why use them if you have facilities in house.
"In addition to that, they actually 'made' some of the samples."
Did MesoSilver make some of the samples or CSL?
They are the same company.
I don't think the people at Natural Immunogenic are the only ones
that know about Colloidal Ions or Scientific terms.
I was being sarcastic Steve. Natural-Immunogenics are masters of
confusionism.
Incidently I havent been able to connect to the Mesosilver site for a
while.
Regards
David
--
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
Address Off-Topic messages to: silver-off-topic-l...@eskimo.com
The Silver List and Off Topic List archives are currently down...
List maintainer: Mike Devour <mdev...@eskimo.com>
