We seem to be on different pages here. When you speak in absolutes, I tend to take it literally. Now I understand, you speak in absolutes but are "taking a lot on faith". That's fine for you, but IMO it is irresponsible to broadcast "EIS unchanges after five years" armed with only an EC meter and a laser pointer, for the simple reason that those devices are not enough to *prove* your claims (in scientific terms).
I'm sorry if I've upset you, Ode. That was not my intention. But I do not feel the "onus" you seem to assign to me, as I am not the one making extravagant claims based on rudimentary observation; I'm just trying to provide some perspective. Peace, indi On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 08:07:41AM -0400, Ode Coyote wrote: > At 01:04 PM 10/13/2008 -0400, you wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 12:08:32PM -0400, Ode Coyote wrote: >> > >> > >> > If the container is non reactive >> >> That would have to include the lid of course. >> :) > > ## Unless you slosh the contents around, there is no direct contact > with the lid. > > >> > there is little air space and all you >> > have is water, water byproducts and silver..which ISN'T photo reactive, >> > then it has nothing to change into. >> >> Yes, but litlle air space isn't zero air space, and your container is bound >> to >> contain *something* besides pure H2O and silver ions. > > ## If they don't react in a few days, they probably won't, ever. > Contaminants DO cause problems and sometimes glass itself can leach out > them over time if contaminants have impregnated the glass. > But that's not the topic in discussion. The topic is change of the EIS > itself, in LONG term storage..not.. changing. > Generally if it does change, it will do so within a few days and if it > doesn't [and most doesn't] there are no extraneous problems that are > relevant to the "EIS" itself. > > >> > You do get some silver hydroxide formation after a few days, but once >> > the EIS has "stabilized", it stays the same, light or dark. >> >> If it is perfectly sealed, perhaps. Otherwise no. > > ## You have years of observation to back that up? > Due to equalized inner and out gas pressures, any tight seal is > essentially perfect. > > >> > If the EIS was made past the saturation points, it may continue to >> > stabilize for a month or so and make compounds out of dissolved water >> > byproduct gasses, none of which are photo reactive. >> > In that case, you'll see a visual change...generally gone yellow. >> >> Actually, *any* visual change implies chemical reaction, usually induced or >> facilitated by light or heat. > > ## Heat and light will makes EIS cross some reaction thresholds for sure, > but only if the water is contaminated with something to react with. > "Contaminated" EIS is not the topic of discussion. The EIS itself is > not light sensitive. If it gets too COLD, it can lower its saturation > point and particulates crystalize out, but boiling stabilized EIS has not > caused it to change in my experience. > Too much heat while *making it* HAS made a difference in my experience, > but that's BEFORE stabilization where excess Brownian motion makes for a > high reaction rate before ions are protected by bonds with the water. > The only way that light plays a role is with the addition of electrons > making ions into metallic silver and the only way those electrons can be > added is via surface contact with metallic semi conductive glass > components serving as a rather poor solar panel and the silica as a > capacitor. Electrons can't exist in a free state in water. I have not > seen this happen to the extent of significantly changing an EC reading > even after the batch has sat on a South facing window sill for years and > years. > Yes, "some" batches do change, but those are *contaminated* batches... a > distraction to this context of *not* contaminated EIS changing in the > sunlight. > > >> > You cannot make a vacuum in a container full of water...vapor will fill >> > it to saturation. >> >> Practically all commercially distributed carbonated beverages ship in >> gas-tight >> packaging... :) > > ## Gas tight and a vacuum are two completely different animals.. and gas > tight has a LOT to do with pressure differentials and what is in the > container. > Making a gas tight *compressed* Hydrogen container is virtually > impossible, but at atmospheric pressure, not very hard. > At highish pressures, you can even force oil through iron and bronze for > oil impregnated bushings. > > >> > If the internal pressure is the same as the external, there's no >> reason for >> > any gases to exchange though a seal. >> >> That is incorrect, fluctuation in barometric pressure does cause gas to pass >> through, otherwise airtight packaging would rarely be necessary. > > ## Most lids used are air tight by YOUR definition "because" they were > made for food. > Barometric pressure changes change faster than contents can leach > through a container wall, so sure, there will be an impregnation flux > going on, but that takes more time than a pressure change takes to change > the other way. > There is a matter of exposed surface area too. A full bottle with a > narrow neck has very little, so even if it does leak some, there is > little effect. > >> I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I just can't agree with your premises nor >> your conclusion on this one. >> I'll have to stand by my original statement: You have not come close to >> proving >> that your ionic silver solution was unchanged after five years, and frankly >> it would be a miracle if you did end up with that result. > indi > > ## Well, that's a opinion built on some flawed theory so far as I can tell. > Is it backed by experience? > What sort of experience?? > For one, I don't see how sunlight can change a non photo-reactive ion > into anything else without some intermediary intrusion and some other > component added to become something else with...nor have I seen it happen > without explanation within measurable parameters. > If there is contamination, maybe so, but that falls out of the context > of the discussion. > Contamination is another subject. > > I'll hand it over on the absolutes, but none of us have the means to > measure or even observe absolutes. > Is any given batch ABSOLUTELY the same? How can I know? > All I have is a good EC meter and a laser pointer with dusty time faded > notes describing numerous batches within realistic parameters of > conductivity , TE, dropout, plate out, color, turbidity and general > appearance. > There ARE no absolutes with an EC meter or eyeballs, only reasonable > parameters > Even the "right" tools encounter parameters and labs use averages. > > IF any changes have happened, [within the context of this discussion as > per reasonably *uncontaminated* EIS where things go right ] they haven't > gone out of those parameters, therefore I can't tell that there is a > difference, so in "practical" terms......there isn't one. > If a batch does observably change, it does so fairly quickly and usually > STOPS changing over the long term. Usually I can trace the change to > contamination, sometimes I don't know why, but none of those batches have > any relevance to those that DON'T observably change. > Call that a miracle if you like. > In my world, miracles are the exception, not the rule and in my well > lighted environment where windows almost exceed wall space and window > sills are shelving and I don't use colored glass and do use food > containers with food lids which by your definition are well sealed.... > changed batches are an exception. > > The point is "change over the long term" and even the BAD batches don't > generally change...they stay bad for years and years, with a few > exceptions, bad the same way all that time. > Some of the exceptions have proven to be very instructive about why they > are bad, also revealing observable facts that fly in the face of some of > the theories, particularly where color is concerned in terms of *this AND > that* vs the usual simplistic *this OR that*. > > Perhaps now we can discuss what sort of changes YOU have observed as a > rule and get down to why and how they may have changed [and when], rather > than simply stating that my experience of over ten years of DOING this, > is impossible. > Just because you have justified why you can't jump over a turtle doesn't > mean that I couldn't have jumped over a lot of them when I don't have a > bunch of hear say theory making turtles too tall, keeping me from trying. > DID it, beats any theories of can't, every time. > Saying that I can't, doesn't prove a danged thing. > You are going to have to prove that I didn't. > But the only way you will be able to prove it, is to do it > yourself....get going. > If you fail, I might be able to tell you how not to...having done so a > whole lot of times. > > It ain't like I haven't tripped over herds of turtles and filled a lot > of drains with crap CS. > ..or heard a whole lot of disprovable mixed context BS along the way. > > Ode > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > At 02:33 PM 10/10/2008 -0400, you wrote: >> >> On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 01:57:20PM +0000, M. G. Devour wrote: >> >> > Someone asks Ken: >> >> > > >> What mehod did you use to verify that it was still ionic and >> >> > > >> unchanged? >> >> > >> >> > Ken wrote: >> >> > > > ## EC meter. >> >> > > > Colloids don't conduct electricity. >> >> > >> >> > Indi replies: >> >> > > That is incorrect. Even tap water will conduct electricity. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> What I mean is that measuring for conductivity is no guarantee of ionic >> >> silver specifically, particularly if the solution in question is >> five years >> >> old. Truly gas-tight containers certainly exist, but are not the >> norm (that's >> >> the reason sealed packaging exists). If you place your solution in a >> bottle >> >> or jar and just screw the lid on, five years later you will have had >> >> all sorts >> >> of chemical activity going on in that container. (unless it was stored in >> >> the dark in a vacuum, and the cap as well as the container is glasss). >> >> You can >> >> measure for conductivity, but that will not give proof of a given >> >> solution being >> >> "unchanged". >> >> >> >> I don't mean to get into an argument or anything, but it's just the way >> >> things are. Ionic solutions are volatile (have a short shelf life), >> and are >> >> photo-sensitive by nature. That is why medicinal ionic solutions (for >> >> insstance those commonly known as "iodine" and "mercurachrome") >> always came >> >> packaged in brown glass bottles. >> >> >> >> When someone tells me he kept some ionic solution for five years and >> >> measuring for conductivity "proved" the solution was still pristine, >> >> I feel obligated to point out that he has not proved that at all. >> >> It is hard enough to determine proper facts in this field of study, >> after all. >> >> >> >> BTW, one can easily test this at home; measure the conductivity of a >> jar of >> >> plain distilled water, then store the jar for a few months, then >> >> measure again. >> >> You will see much more conductivity after. :) >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> 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> >> >> >> >> >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> >> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >> >> Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.8.0/1721 - Release Date: >> >> 10/12/2008 12:00 PM >> > >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >> Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.8.0/1724 - Release Date: >> 10/14/2008 2:02 AM >
