Yes, I was quoting published sources as to the likely concentration of EIS, made as recommended on this email list.
So ... what are your test figures, and how did you make yours? I wish you had supplied that information below. Dick ________________________________ From: Neville Munn <one.red...@hotmail.com> To: silver-list@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, February 5, 2010 7:41:34 PM Subject: RE: CS>moon on fingernails? -- how much do you use? 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: dickgoodwin2...@yahoo.com Subject: Re: CS>moon on fingernails? -- how much do you use? To: silver-list@eskimo.com 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. ________________________________ ________________________________ Learn how Video chat with Windows Live Messenger