----- Original Message ----- From: Victoria Welch <vi...@oz.net> To: <silver-list@eskimo.com> Sent: Monday, 27 September 1999 10:03 Subject: Re: CS>Standardization - A Call for Standards!
> Good Morning Ivan, Hi Victoria, > First off apologies to everyone for the abysmal formatting of the > origninal message here. Not sure how it happened :(. Don't worry, it seemed fine to me ;-) >>snip<< > > [ ... ] > > That is because, in my case, I don't see the point in generating > > test after test reconfirming what I already know, and providing > > data useful for only those generators using my parameters. I have > > already posted and reposted the parameters for the simplest of > > generators with repeatable results. > > Wonderful, I would love to see the data! If I can reproduce your > results accurately and consistantly then I would be most happy! I shall dig them out and post them. > Just because *you* don't see a point in doing this is fine for you, no > question and no problem with that. > > The problem is those that have not been through the same process and > have not a clue what they are producing other than "something useful". > Perhaps there are a lot of people out here who are concerned with what > they are doing and are equally concerned about what they put into their > personal biosystems. Not everyone is capable of generating this > information themselves for a wide variety of reasons. I'd be willing to > bet I am not the only one protective of my personal biosystem :-). > > This leads me to wonder why the same questions are being asked time > after time after time. If there is a place where people can see the > data and conclusions then why are the same questions being asked > constantly? Well there is so much disparate information about CS and CS generation about that it is no wonder that people become confused. If they end up on the list, then we generally try to help them with their questions. > > [ ... ] > > What data are you looking for? One would hope that the various > > generators are tested for their production and are translated > > into operating instructions. > > My personal default condition is to QUESTION claims. If they are indeed > legitmate and accurate then there is simply no problem. Again, I am > personally leary of what I put into my personal biosystem. The idea of > going out and purchasing something that is *supposed* to be bone simple > just doesn't wash for me, batteries and clipleads are well within my > capabilites to construct. How do I *know* - as you note "One would > hope", I personally am more than a bit leary about "hoping" when my > health is the crux of the issue :-). > > > You pick your generator and take your chances, just like the rest > > of life. If you are wise you look around for someone you feel you > > can trust, and who offers an independant silver assay of their > > product. > > Sorry Ivan, <bzzzzt> wrong answer. When it comes to my health I do not > grab something to see what is going to happen (I can go to a medical > industy practitioner and pay lots of money for that privilige). When it > comes to this I *do not* grab and take my chances, I want the *most* > informed decision that I can possibly make. No other options are > acceptable to me. > > "Feeling I can trust" someone has not been a reliable procedure to > follow, at least where I live in the US, where honor is measured in > dollars accumulated and greed drives most everything. > > Pardon my cynicism in the matter, but I am reminded of Microsofts > "independant analysis" of their product against others a while back. > They hired independant labs inc to do this and the results were strongly > in their favor. Once the data was published (or at least was not able > to be duplicated) the idea of an "independant analysis" sort of paled. > > Yes, I am *picky* where my health is concerned :-)! Ok, but then we are left in a state of limbo. What else can one do (apart from build their own) but make a decision based upon information supplied? What else can a supplier do but have their product tested by an independent laboritory? Certainly one should investigate the subject as one is able, but the long and short of it is, a decision needs to be made in order to proceed. It would be wise to validate the claims by having ones own analysis made. > > > Without hard data, reproducibility and peer review what we have > > is > > > "snake oil", IMO. Perhaps useful "snake oil" but still "snake > > oil". > > > > What we have is colloidal silver in all its guises, and whether > > you approve of its manner of generation matters little to those > > who are making it in their kitchen and using it to good effect. > > I may be wrong here, but I am getting the impression that you are > feeling like I am "attacking" you. Not so. This is a quest for > understanding through intelligent discourse for myself and everyone else > who does not already have answers that they are totally happy with. If > you already have all the answers that make this work for you, I think > that is wonderful! Unfortunately the rest of us (a sizable percentage?) > do not share that luxury, from what I can gather. Yes, sorry, I was feeling a little testy. Please understand that I try to gather my response as if I was someone who didn't understand the first thing about the technicalities of silver generation, but had been diligently generating CS with my three batteries for twenty minutes, the last few years (or whatever) and have been happy with the results. Now I find it is snake oil and I need change things and buy meters and so on. Don't get me wrong, I feel that the three battery method can be improved a great deal, hence my simple generator post, but the battery method does work (even with its inconsistancies) and the CS so generated is perfectly adequate. I do have the answers to LVDC CS generation, more or less. I am able to produce hundreds of litres per week if needs be, of a very consistant nature. Indeed I have just tested a batch which is over a year old, and shows no deterioration. The process itself is not difficult, what is difficult is designing a small cheap system with repeatable results, and understanding the limits of this device. Also the chemistry and physics of this particular colloid system (ie CS) is also difficult to unravel, given that I do not have the funds available for an in depth investigation. Although I have been quiet over the last month or so, I have generally been free in offering advice and assistance to those who asked for it. > Lets get this much straight right here. I neither AVOCATE NOR APPROVE > of ANY particular method of generation. I am personally convinced that > there are a lot of ways to generate CS and with the proper research and > *data* that known operational charactistics and results are obtainable > using ANY of these methods. Agreed. > The primary reason that I am paralleling my experimentation with Ole > Bobs method is that I have his *data* to compare my results to. I do > not think that my method of generation is the "ultimate" way to do it > and neither does he from what I gather from my communications with him. > The "ultimate" method (assuming that one actually does exist) may or may > not already have been discovered - who knows - again: *where is the > data*? I don't believe in an ultimate way... apart from different types of electrolysis, there are many other methods of capturing charged silver particles in water. Each has its own merrits and disadvantages. > >From mail I have received in response to this posting, it DOES appear to > me that there are indeed those out there who are interested in these > specifics whether what they are making on their kitchen counter works > "good enough" or not... Well it is interesting to me also, I am a tech-head after all. :-) I am not trying to dissuade you in this endevour (if it seems so, I am sorry) just trying to put things into perspective as I see it. (if people don't respond on list how would I know what they feel...I may be way out of line with my comments, not for the first time either!) > > Peer review... there is a Colloidal Silver Association somewhere > > in the US who require a product of not more than 7ppm I believe. > > Other than that, how and who would review my products? > > I just ran several searches for this organization and if they exist, > then they appear not to have a web presence. First warning bell... I couldn't find them when I searched many moons ago either. > Just because there is an "organization" is meaningless. There are > enough "organizations" out there put together by the "opposition" (in > many areas, I am not inferring CS in particular) that I don't think I > need to elaborate on this. I haven't seen anything on this, can't find > a web presence and never heard of this organization before you mentioned > it. As far as I understand it, they are a group of manufacturers trying to establish some kind of minimum standard for affiliates. I believe CS Pro is a member or have had their product endorsed. (from memory) > If they are requiring a "product of not more than 7 PPM", then I would > want to know why (Second warning bell), as it seems to make no sense to > me. I think we can agree that there is a much wider spread of CS PPM > being used and apparently with "good" results (again, no data). I guess they have their reasons. This is why I never followed up in this matter, my product is 20ppm. >>snip<< > > The fact that the regular medical industry does not take CS > > seriously has nothing to do with these questions. The medical > > industry did not take vitamin suppliments or herbal cures etc > > seriously either. > > And for the same reasons - there was no proof. Talk to a few doctors > about this and you will get the same questions you see on this list. > Where is the research, it has not been proven? What are the dosage > parameters? From proofs comes general acceptance (resistance driven by > greed aside, even that will fall over time and sufficient data). Here I must disaggree. If a remedy is not handed to a doctor (gross generalisation here) in a bottle by a phamaceutical company, or unless it is specifically asked for, it will not be dispenced. I remember back in the late eighties hearing an interview of an Australian doctor who discovered that the majority of stomach ulcers were caused by bacteria and a course of ABX cured them. The trouble he had convincing the wider med. profession to believe him, documentation in hand, was unbelievable. Just look at the use of enzyme treatments in Europe and Asia, 60 years of documented proof and studies in its efficacy. Available in the rest of the west, not on your Nelly. There are hundreds of documented case studies etc. on the use of silver in treating medical conditions, of its oligodynamic properties against a large number of pathogens. We are up against a wider agenda here I think. > > [ ... ] > > I think there is great merrit in providing data for the standard > > 3 or 4 battery method, even for 2 batteries. I will be happy to > > provide this as time permits. > > I also think this the ideal place to start. Easy enough for anyone to > do with an absolute minimum of knowledge, cash outlay and technical > skill required. It gets CS into the hands of those that need it the > quickest. > > Let us decide on what would consist or the "Standard Basic Generator". > How much DW, what size containter (HxWxD), how many batteries (although > expensive, perhaps "basic batteries" would be wisest to start with (?), > What wire size, length and spacing? I would strongly recommend for the > inclusion of the 1K0 1% resistor in all variations as measurement of > current and consequently resistance is very simple with the most basic > equipment. What might I have missed here? The items we standardize on > should the things readily obtainable anywhere inexpensively. Once we > "lock this down" we can start with the trials! I think that locking down a configuration is good, but that all possible combinations should be looked at, especially those that require no testing apparatus by the user. Agreed that the basic 8oz tumbler and 16oz jar should be defined, and electrode length and guage. Then it should be possible to state within a margin of error the concentration for a given time in hot and cold water. Absolutes would be impossible, but one could say that the solution is higher than 5ppm. I suspect it will always be lower than 15ppm. And don't forget those that use ingots. > Other processes that "improve" on this basic method can be explored and > documented in turn. Sounds good! > I very much look forward to studying your data! > > > I should think that Voltage, current (which will give > > resistance), conductivity, temperature and ppm vs. time covers > > all bases. > > Seems like a good start, let's get the parameters defined and the > measurement tools formally defined. > > > Also laser inspection at these time points. > > Please elaborate on this, I am completely currently ignorant on how, > precisely, this would be applied. I have done some very basic (and > inconclusive in my mind) work with a laser (TE works although I have NO > idea what this tells me that I might consider to be concrete data). I > started working on a "laser test" jig, but it has not been gotten back > to :-). Interesting to note that it uses the same basic components as > the Hanna device I mention below... I meant for noting any Tyndall effect :-) > > As voltage drops in battery only systems a resistance (E/I) vs > > ppm graph would be most important. > > Agree and I think that simple reference charts could be reasonably > easily prepared given a "standard generator configuration". > > > There are others on the list who, whilst not making much noise, > > also have the required test equipment. > > This is good! My one concern has been measurement ability and concern > about loading those good souls willing to do it, even if they are doing > it "at cost" I don't feel it fair to load them with endless testing (we > all must maintain "a life" in the process :). > > I have looked over the Hanna site for instrumentation and looked at the > instrument (HI 93737 Silver Meter) pointed to by the following link: > > http://www.hannainst.com/products/ion/93737.htm > > This is reasonably afforable - is it something that would tell us what > we want to know? Just as an aside, looking at the specs, would this be > buildable? Lasers of that wavelength and detectors as mentioned are > pretty cheap - if we knew how they got the results, this might be > buildable more affordably? Just something to consider. This is a colorimeter and measures only to 0.6ppm unfortunately. The test range we require (5 - 50 ppm) is not well served by cheap test equipment, I'm sorry to say. One can buy test strips that measure up to 5ppm or down to 500ppm but not in between. Colorimeters seem to be the same, although I suspose one could dilute the CS to bring it into range. I use an Ion Selective Electrode which gives the most accurate measurement of the silver ion but costs well over $1000. [ BTW, you don't need a laser for these instruments, a blue LED or tungsten fillament lamp with a filter is sufficient. With the appropriate photodiode reciever (some have integral amplifiers), reagents and blue light passing cuvets, this could well be home made. I have a RGB LED set up to act as a crude uv/vis spectrophotometer that I have been playing with.] > > One problem is that the starting resistance needs to be the same > > for different waters. To this end I have asked Bob if he would > > establish the amount of seeding it would require to swamp the > > initial dist. water conductivity reading, have had no reply so > > far. > > This also has been a lingering question in the back of my mind. Is the > beginning current flow actually significant in and of itself? Would > this not make itself up when you run to a specific ending current flow? > As one of my famous SWAGs (scientific Wild Arsed Guesses :), as yet > untested, running to a given cutoff current should compensate for > varying Initial current. It would definitly change the time of run. I > am currently entertaining ideas for a automatic cutoff device settable > to a desired current flow, but have not done anything with it yet :-/. The amount of silver deposited in the water is a function of the work done less the silver that is lost through fallout and adherance to the cathode, so the current cutoff method is not really feasable, unless you maintain constant voltage, but you then risk needing to generate with a high current density and the fallout and cathode sludge this can bring (LVDC). If maintaining constant current, then Voltage could monitored. The conductivity of the water, and hence the resistance is directly proportional to the silver content. (which is why I asked you some time ago if you knew of a circuit which could be configured to cut the power at a particular resistance. My electronic skill doesn't stretch to that :-/ ) What I am trying to develop is a constant current and constant voltage generator that varies series resistance in response to the varying load resistance (Wheatstone bridge?) and will cutout at some predetermined point. This will be the ultimate generator!!! :-) You heard it here first folks. > > Most use the 3 battery method and the greatest good will be in > > addressing their use. Raw data and graphs will not be of much use > > to most of these users. > > Ah, I respectfully disagree. The raw data and graphs must be available > to all, it provides what "marketing hype" doesn't - proof that anyone > who chooses to understand and make the effort can use to validate > independantly. Granted, not many will probably want to do so, but the > option must be there IMO. Ok. > > Others who have the skill to build a fancy circuit with stirring > > etc. would be fewer in number, and a good proportion of these > > have their own ideas and circuits. These people could generate > > their own data, the only obstacle being the silver assay. > > Agree, but once we have standards for measuring in place, why not use > them? Sure. > > I will > > buy a conductivity meter in the next week or so and measure the > > conductivity of various concentrations of CS, which should enable > > people to measure their own concentration with the purchase of a > > cheap meter ... the final parameter is thus revealed. > > This is our goal! Please share with me what instrumentation you are > considering, if it might be possible for me to obtain one I think it > might help (as well as anyone else interested). Standard metrics are > important and I am concerned that a few people may bear the brunt of > measurement, if possible we should spread this out as much as possible > for several reasons. One: no one gets swamped and 2) multiple > independant reporting of results. The Conmet 1 (HI 98305) would be the unit of choice at $142.00 http://www.hannainst.com/products/testers/conmet.htm But more likely the DiST 3 at the miserly sum of $46.70 http://www.hannainst.com/products/testers/distw.htm > Thanks for your response and contributions to this effort! > > Take care, Vikki. Talk to you later - Ivan -- 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>
