John:
There is no silver particle smaller than a silver ion. That is as small as it
can get and still be silver.
The best home generators generally make about 85% ionic silver.
So 85% of what the home generators make is as small in "particle" size as it
can get.
It apparently is very difficult to make very, very small PARTICLES of silver
(NOT IONS) that stay small in solution (as I understand it, they tend to clump
together to make larger particles - this is when your solution turns colorful).
However, we are talking particles here, not ions.
I prefer not to regard ions as particles. This is semantics, but for our
purposes we need to distinguish ions from particles. A colloid is a lot of
very small particles in suspension in a liquid. This is difficult to achieve
and remain stable, granted. The particles consist of multiple atoms of silver
bonded together, thus A PARTICLE IS NOT AS SMALL AS AN ION! A solution is when
the material (silver in this case) is dissolved in the liquid in the form of
ions, which are simply electrically charged pure silver atoms (missing an
electron?). This is relatively easy to achieve (we dissolve things in liquid
every day) with some simple equipment, thus the home generators.
So ions in solution are the "smallest" possible form of silver. But they are
electrically charged, which means they have a tendency to interact with
oppositely charged ions of other materials to form compounds. This gives rise
to the controversy as to whether true colloids (tiny particles) are more
effective than silver solutions (ions). The argument is that the silver ions
form compounds when they hit the stomach, thus are not pure silver any more,
and thus are no longer as effective at combating pathogens as pure ions, or as
the tiny silver particles in a true colloid which are electrically stable
(although much larger in size than ions).
I am aware of this controversy, but am not qualified to comment on it.
Besides, it has already been extensively discussed, and resolved to what I view
as an uneasy truce between the two camps, since the colloids DO contain ions
and the solutions DO contains at least 15% particles (you can see them in the
beam of a laser). I cast my lot with the ionic solution many years ago and see
no reason to change. The ionic stuff is very effective, so the colloidal party
(if I can call them that) has to explain that away if they want to say their
colloids are superior to ionic solutions. I also think there is much less
chance of an amateur like me going astray and turning blue when using a good,
self-limiting home generator.
Excuse the length. It is partly because I started trying to explain it to
myself. I have no direct expertise in all this, I am only saying what I
understand from my reading of many discussions.
Please correct me if the above is inaccurate in any detail.
Del
----- Original Message -----
From: John E. Stevens
To: silver-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, September 06, 2009 10:35 AM
Subject: Re: CS>to make,coloidal silver
There's a company that has been working since the late '80's experimenting
and regulating the amps with the voltage and has come up with a superior CSW
generator. It makes sense to me that the smaller the particles, the better
health wise.
If you can make a generator that makes particles .0008th of a micron, you've
got CSW that will get into the smallest capillaries in the body to eliminate
stealth diseases. Bigger particles cannot do that. The best CSW that I've
seen and have used for years is absolutely clear, not gray or yellow in color.
The color tells me the particles are too large to be supremely effective.
Anyone can make a simple CSW generator that suspends colloidal silver, but the
size of the particles matters greatly. Yes, the homemade generators are
effective with some illnesses, but not as many pathogens as the smaller
particles can eliminate.
S. Spencer Jones, author of the original "The Silver Water Manual," tested
hundreds of CSW generators and found one to be superior to the others. And he
doesn't work for any of the companies. He seems to know what he's talking
about.
John
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Dorothy Fitzpatrick <d...@deetroy.org> wrote:
Depends where you're coming from. It is *very* expensive to some, but
peanuts to others. All relative really. dee
On 6 Sep 2009, at 14:14, John E. Stevens wrote:
$159.00 is not expensive...
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 7:59 AM, <zzekel...@aol.com> wrote:
In a message dated 9/6/2009 6:24:16 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
jonellis.steven...@gmail.com writes:
I sugg
