Hope all you techies respond to this call for standardization. Then I
can cope technically also. It will be so-o-o much simpler.
Victoria Welch wrote:
>
> Hello Bob and All,
>
> > It's pot stirring time again!!!!!!!
>
> :) and bringing my pot HUGE stirrer along also :-).
>
> > The only person on this list besides myself that I know is doing any
> > work on understanding this process is Vikki Welch.
>
> Well, I am trying in the interest of *knowing what it is with reasonable
> expectations of a specific yield". Once we have that, then we can
> figure out what dosages are useful for what.
>
> > [ ... ] I can say that if one duplicates my set-up then
> > they can get the same results.
>
> > For example yesterday I made four runs [ ... ]
> > on a new machine [ ... ]
> > and
> > all of the ppm's were 11, 13.5, 13.5, & 14. As measured with my
> > spectrophotometer. The times varied from 40 minutes to 2 hr and 15
> > minutes. Quantities were 3 at 16 oz and 1 at 14 oz.
> >
> > I never argue with success. Can anyone duplicate this type of
> > performance?????
>
> Well spoken Bob!
>
> I've avoided doing the following for the potential mess it could cause,
> but I really DO think this is the right thing to do and the only way we
> are going to have any idea what we produce and how to use it
> effectively.
>
> Please bear with me on this.
>
> As near as I can tell at the moment, there are many different generators
> out there using many different parameters to "get to the same place".
>
> The only place I have seen ANY data is from Bob and I. I fully agree
> that only Bob is producing metrics that have value (that I am aware of),
> if I have accomplished anything, it is data that backs up the process as
> pretty repeatable for the same parameters. Once I get (1)Bob some
> samples or (2) get some test instrumentation myself or possibly get item
> 1 and exchange some data with the one centimeter probe with Bob (or
> anyone else that has one together) then we'll have something to work
> with.
>
> I have looked over the net rather extensively and have found no one
> publishing data to back up their claims. Nor anyone offering access to
> data. Everyone seems to be producing "the best performance of any CS
> generator available". Might well be, but how could I tell? What
> procedures and tests are being done that would prove that and allow me
> to reproduce those results reliably?
>
> Without hard data, reproducibility and peer review what we have is
> "snake oil", IMO. Perhaps useful "snake oil" but still "snake oil".
>
> Standardization is going to require everyone make changes. I don't
> think that this is necessarily bad and shouldn't have to be expensive to
> do. It would certainly go a LONG way to answering those questions that
> I keep seeing both on the list an out in "the field". "What am I
> making", "how much will help" and similar questions go on endlessly -
> since I have been around anyway and "out in the field" I have heard the
> same questions echoed for years now ("out in the field" means not on the
> list). And the responses to these questions remain nebulous... No one
> in the regular medical industry takes this seriously - small wonder.
>
> I personally think that there are enough of us here that this does NOT
> have to be so.
>
> So we talk of "Standards". Just what does/will that mean? This is
> going to have to be agreed to my a majority and in such the "Standards"
> will have to be discussed and agreed to.
>
> Where to start? It appears to me that there are possibly four (4) major
> configurations / classes:
>
> 1. LVDC (Low voltage Direct Current).
> 2. LVPS (Low voltage Polarity Switching - could be called LVAC?).
> 3. HVDC (High voltage Direct Current).
> 4. HVAC (High voltage Alternating Current).
>
> A standard would have to be defined for each category. As a preliminary
> "thought starter" I submit the following:
>
> LVDC:
> 1. Specific voltage (i.e.: 3 or 4 - 9 volt batteries)
> 2. Specific quantity of DW.
> 3. Ability to meter current flow for starting and stopping current.
> (Ole Bobs 1K 1% resistor and even a cheap voltmeter seems the answer
> for this, it is effective, simple and cheap).
> 4. Specific size of electrodes (diameter and length) as well as spacing.
>
> [Interjection: for at least the DC/PS methods the stirring motor DOES
> make a significant different, just my two cents worth.]
>
> Actually, without going on and belaboring the point here, I think that
> the same basic parameters would be equally effective for all the
> generator classes, they just wouldn't be the same parameters.
>
> I see one potential problem with the LV method using 9V (or whatever)
> disposable batteries as a power source. They run down and the potential
> voltage would decrease. This could be compensated for with sufficient
> data.
>
> With the "Standards" listed above (assuming everyone agrees and I didn't
> miss anything important), THEN we can start generating test data for
> specific time-to-run to end up with a given ending current and verify
> (or disprove) the repeatability of obtaining a given PPM. Whatever
> happens at this point we have data to work with that can be used for
> either proof or giving us a direction to go to reach the goal of
> *knowing what we are producing*.
>
> The first thing, probably before or at least in concert with the above
> that will need to be "Standardized" is the methodology of determining
> the necessary metric. I would think that this would be PPM, but I would
> appreciate Ole Bob commenting on this as he is the only one I am sure of
> that has the facilities to do this and is doing it. Anyone else I am
> not aware of who can speak with authority in this matter is certainly
> invited to do so!
>
> Perhaps it would be prudent to establish a group for each generator
> class of a given size of people to do this. Set a procedure for
> reaching the goal and then sharing it with everyone. Nothing says that
> everyone has to go to the standard established for a given class of
> generator, but I think most would if they could reliably know what they
> were producing.
>
> I realize that this is going to take some effort and be some work as
> well as costing the development group some money. For those willing and
> able to do so, I think the benefits to themselves, the CS community and
> the world at large would be most useful!
>
> Comments Please!
>
> Thanks & take care, Vikki.
> --
> Victoria Welch, WV9K, DoD#-13, Net/Sys/WebAdmin SeaStar.org,
> vikki.oz.net
> #include <coffee.h> My web site: http://vikki.oz.net/~vikki/
> "Walking on water and developing software to specification are
> easy as long as both are frozen" - Edward V. Berard.
> Do not unto others, that which you would not have others do unto you.
>
> --
> The silver-list is a moderated forum for discussion of colloidal silver.
>
> To join or quit silver-list or silver-digest send an e-mail message to:
> silver-list-requ...@eskimo.com -or- silver-digest-requ...@eskimo.com
> with the word subscribe or unsubscribe in the SUBJECT line.
>
> To post, address your message to: silver-list@eskimo.com
>
> List maintainer: Mike Devour <mdev...@id.net>
