In a message dated 9/28/2001 10:50:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time, squi...@silver.nxlkhost.com writes:
> Thanks, Roger > ....guess I did. But it is not so. We've got formulations based on our > std 10ppm product of 23ppm 34ppm and higher -- all as might be > characterized as ionic. The truth is no doubt more complex, ie. there is > 'ionic' and there is 'ionic'. We're working at a level of scientific > inquiry that is not fully understood. Stephen: I think one should not be too quick to wring ones hands in despair by dismissing the science we have at our disposal as being inadequate to provide important insights. Please check my calculations. Tell me where there are oversimplifications, bad assumptions, or just plain mistakes. As I said before, ionic species are readily definable. There is no mystique surrounding them as far as I know. Roger
