Dick's snipped quote:
[10-20% colloidal silver particles, and 80-90% ionic silver particles]
-I wouldn't put money on that, that's not what my laboratory analysis showed in
some of my samples.
I'd prefer to see a number of people get some lab tests done of their home made
stuff rather than just put their faith in published material.
Who knows what conditions existed? construction of the EIS generator,
environment in which it was produced, ancillary equipment used {stirring,
heating blah blah etc etc}, time lapse between cessation of production and
actual laboratory testing etc. I know this always seems to fall on deaf ears
but published material means 'jack' to me unless as much additional information
as possible, or considered relevant, is included. But then praps this is just
*another* example of small pieces of information inadvertantly left out of
published material, who knows?
Dunno how many people are on this List, but if a percentage were to get some
home made solutions tested, praps they'd get a surprise too, and I'd sure like
to see those results.
One of my samples was 20 days old, and that 80-90% ionic figure is WAY off.
And if that's to be expected after such a time lapse before analysis was
done...then why is that not stated in published material so dumb*rses like me
know? Not being of scientific mind, I need things spelled out. But then I
have another sample which was only 2 days old, and is still radically different
to that ratio, so I have to ask...*when* were those published material results
tested?
I recall Marshall and myself discussing one of my samples a while ago and I got
the impression that my results were possibly, and I repeat, *POSSIBLY?* {don't
want to give any impression I'm arguing with Marshall} in doubt, nevertheless,
I have the report, and I know the appearance of the solutions tested, and if
that conflicts with accepted published material...then that's just too bad, I'm
going with my laboratory analysis and my visual observations. I take note of
everything I consider relevant with every solution I produce, that's why I
trust my lab results, for now I'm well satisfied.
I would suggest a number of people should get a number of home made samples
tested, of differing ppm or uS readings, and over various time frames *after*
cessation of production and give some feedback. There's no way in this world I
can accept published ion/particle ratio's should be accepted as the general
rule, a guide perhaps, some I believe would interpret it as meaning *that* is
what they should be getting when *that* could be far removed from the
actuallity. While it may be a generalization, home producers should not
consider it the rule, unless they have more information supplied to go on which
will enable them to make better determinations. Published material is based on
science, Joe and Jenny Bloggs can't base their home produced solutions on
science, but moreso on *artistic flair* is how I see it, in combination with
some science principals praps. And I assume there are a number of 'Joe and
Jenny Bloggs' on here, if not, then I'm *well* out of my depth and will fade
away.
I welcome anyone to shoot holes through all this in the interest of furthering
my knowledge, have to add though that in all probability I won't be in a
position to reply cos I'm no scientist and don't savvy the lingo, but I'd be
more than happy to READ any thoughts or considerations on it.
N.
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 11:28:49 -0800
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: CS>moon on fingernails? -- how much do you use?
To: [email protected]
That sounds fine. That's what I do as well. I don't think there is any
difference between CS and EIS for purposes of this forum.
EIS is Electrically Isolated Silver, which is a form of CS, with around 10-20%
colloidal silver particles, and 80-90% ionic silver particles, which I
understand are AgOH.
_________________________________________________________________
Video chat with Windows Live Messenger Learn how
http://windowslive.ninemsn.com.au/messenger/article/870686/video-chat-with-messenger
