Dear Leo,
Since I am "sidelined" today....with an aggravation of an
ancient knee injury (football 1943), I am pandering to a series personal
biases-----and your inquiry has "struck another nerve",
As the bulk of the older list membership is aware, we have---over
the past 5 years---invested sizeable effort and resources in evaluating a
rather wide array of generation techniques for producing acceptable
colloidal silver solutions. The principal goal of our endeavors was not to
identify the state-of-the-art protocol, but rather to identify acceptable
means.... achievable by the intelligent but untrained individual.....to
economically produce a CS substance yielding results near the middle of the
spectrum for proven/measureable CS solutions then extant (RMS nomograms
derived from CS generated from Current/Voltage controlled variations of LVDC
(49VDC AND LESS); HVDC up to 240 vdc; half-wave DC, from 60 hz
source.....up to 200 volts; and HVAC FROM 5 TO 15 KV). These data were
achieved against a variety of some of the more prevalent
pathogens-of-consequence---both viral and bacterial.
A brief summary of our data reveals some interesting information
including: (1) Neither the HVDC or HVAC systems produced a product
superior enough to the voltage-regulated LVDC (30 to 40 volt range)......to
justify (in our view) the additional complications imposed upon the
"technically challenged". (2) We were unable to verify ANY effectivity
advantage of the HVAC/HVDC products over the "monitored generation" LVDC
ones......in direct comparison evaluations in vitro----excepting a time
advantage in favor of the HVAC (especially in tests involving the more
virulent viral pathogens). However, even this advantage, rarely over 2 to
1, would not seem to be great enough to pre-empt use of LVDC cs in favor of
HVAC------for the typical do-it-yourself experimenter. e.g. A typical
comparison was flu virus (several types); 10 min. average for replication
nullification for HVAC; 18 min. for LVDC.
In vivo comparisons were so close (due to the problems of
anecdotal nature of tests) as to prevent any detectable difference in
efficacy.
It is of consequence to mention that all LVDC solutions were
generated using low-grade instrumentation (e.g.$8.00 DVM., LOW-COST Reg DC
power supplies......less than 50.00). Evaluations using high-quality,
lab-grade DC supplies did not improve the product quality.
The single, most important LVDC parameter revealed to be the
current flow ----both as a determinant of ppm magnitude.....and particle
size. For dc voltages at or below 40 vdc, consequential excursions in
particle size did not occur until the current level rose beyond 12 MA for
single element electrodes with 5" wetted exposure.......and 20 MA for dual
element electrodes. Above these levels the particle size began to rise
rapidly.....sometimes exponentially. Note: Scanning Electron Microscopy
revealed ABSOLUTELY NO comfirmable increase particle size differentiation
populations between current levels of .75 MA and 5.65 MA at regulated
D.C. voltages (at constant settings) between 30 and 40 vdc. One other
anomaly we discovered may serve to precipitate contention/controversy by
some on the list. However, we determined---beyond any reasonable
doubt----that the use of a properly installed aquarium air pump and bubbler
to be equal to....or superior in some cases....to the various stirring
motor/magnetic stirring techniques employed. The most simple....and cost-
effective system we evaluated proved to be one composed of a small air pump
(Aquaculture 10 gallon model) obtained from Walmart for a cost of about
$6.00; silicone rubber hose (8' for $1.25); plus the small, cylindrical,
ceramic bubble-stone (About $1.00). This inexpensive system, with the
bubble-stone placed upon the bottom of either a 32 ounce or 64 ounce glass
container (Mason jars)---and located between the electrode
assemblies----works splendidly. The volume of air is quite large and the
aggitation achieved is more than adequate for a continual
mixing/dilution......even for the half-gallon container. Contenders
holding this is inferior to low-cost motor-driven stirrers, only have to
replicate our setup for direct comparisons. I am not attempting to
denigrate mechanical stirring......it works splendidly. I simply mention
our experiences for the benefit of those who might like to utilize an
effective alterntive. One, additional, comment......product resulting from
water preheated to an average of 180 F. resulted in product of a quality
totally INDISTINGUISHABLE from product derived from water temperatures
around 80 F------but with the added advantage of an average 50% reduction in
generation time.. Although there are a myriad of related comments I could
add, this epistle has, already, exceeded---by an order of magnitude---my
original intent.
Upon detailed examination, we found it an obvious conclusion
that a commercial producer would be well-served to utilize HVAC
methodologies for product preparation.......but found no such compelling
reason for the average do-it-yourselfer.
Sincerely,
Brooks Bradley
---- Original Message -----
From: "Leo Keaveney" <leo.keave...@oceanfree.net>
To: <silver-list@eskimo.com>
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 6:48 PM
Subject: Re: CS>Generators and Methods
> Hi All,
> At this time I am unable to afford a HVAC generator and therefore
> some innovation is called for.
> I made a 175volt DC unit by using voltage doubling electronics (diodes &
> capacitors).
> When making the CS I clean the negative electrode frequently and stir the
> solution in a circular motion.
> As the solution saturates with silver and the current rises near 3mA I
swap
> the positive lead to one with a resistor connected in series.
> The electrodes are separated by about 3" apart to keep the current down
and
> the bubbles on the negative electrode are very small, barely visible.
> When I started making CS first I used an air ioniser with the current
> limiters shorted out.
> This made half a pint of crystal clear CS over a period of about two days,
> at first I thought that I had failed to make CS until I measured it's
> resistance with an multi meter.
> Be careful using a modified air ioniser, my one rectifies the 220V ac
mains
> voltage supply, then doubles it 14 or 15 times, removing the current
> limiting resistors makes it lethal to go near when the power is applied as
> the voltage would be in the order of 15,000volts and will arc or leap half
> an inch or so, I don't know just how far, I'll probably find out some day
> when I'm careless.
>
> Leo
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Wayne Fugitt" <wa...@fugitt.com>
> To: <silver-list@eskimo.com>
> Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 2:58 PM
> Subject: CS>Generators and Methods
>
>
> > Morning Dean,
> >
> > >> You're treating CS as if it were a medicine. It's not.
> >
> > Thanks for making that so clear. Generally, I think as you do, but
> > still like to see other peoples methods.
> >
> > I have been using CS for about two years. In my realm of friends and
> > enemies, we have over 100 people locally using it. I think many of
them
> > are still confused as to the best methods for use.
> >
> > Honestly, I am still a bit confused on the absolute best way to make CS.
> I
> > have made it with several generators,
> > and a variety of voltages from batteries.
> >
> > The highest voltage I have used is 75 Volts DC. The longest time
interval
> > has been 4 hours, but not with the
> > 75 VDC.
> >
> > I would be interested what others consider the very best generator,
time
> > intervals, ppm, use of saline, ect.
> >
> > Wayne
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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
> > Silver-list archive: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html
> > List maintainer: Mike Devour <mdev...@eskimo.com>
> >
> >
>
