Mary K. Johnson <[email protected]> made the following suggestion:
> * Peter Lindemann's article "A Closer Look at Collolidal > Silver" gives a lot of information, and explains silver color > differentials. You can see it at: > http://www.elixa.com/silver/lindmn.htm Thank you Mary! I revisited the site you list and read the article. It was so good a presentation that I wrote the elixa folks a response praising them and asking a few questions. By the way, I have corrected the site address above. The original seemed to be "lindmn.html", whereas the corrected address is "lindmn.htm". Please note! My comments below about "clueless incompetance" and "misunderstanding and ignorance" are not directed to folks on this list! Rather I am talking about the weak-minded marketing claims being passed off as scientific discourse by some of the commercial vendors. We're all struggling to find the truth here, and none of us claim to be scientists. I don't want anyone here to feel offended. Also, I have no interest or affiliation with the Elixa folks' products, other than my own opinion based on reading the information offered on their web site. If I felt compelled to buy rather than build, they would probably get my money. Here are my rather lengthy comments on Lindemann's article... Begin included text: >>------------------------------------------ Please extend my thanks to Peter Lindemann for his lucid and rigorous article on colloidal silver. It is delightful to read anything in the online "literature" about CS that isn't marred by clueless incompetance. With verifiable references at the end, no less! Thank you for spreading the information, and for the well engineered and reasonably priced devices you sell. Yes, there is profit in them for you, and there's nothing wrong with that. But a set of replacement electrodes is only $10, for example. What with the connectors and the assembly and packaging required, that makes perfect sense. In other words, it's obvious to me that you are not gouging your customers. I have several questions and comments. If you could forward a copy of this to Mr. Lindemann, I would be grateful. One question I have relates to an apparently contradictory set of assertions he makes in the sections "It's In The Water" and "Please Pass The Salt." In the former, he says, "The warmer the water, the faster the reaction will take place, and the smaller the particles will be." In the latter section, he states, "The presence of salt increases the electrical conductivity of the water and this dramatically speeds up the reaction. As the reaction speeds up under these circumstances, it produces larger particles." In one case faster is good (smaller), and in the other, faster is bad (larger). Obviously the phrase "under these circumstances" attempts to deal with this inconsistency, but the mechanism is left unexplained. Is it one of degree: faster versus too fast? Different results because of different chemical processes with and without salt? Another question also relates to salt: What concentration of silver chloride results from adding, for instance, three drops of a solution made from 1/2 teaspoon of salt in 6 oz of water, to the 8 oz glass of distilled water with which you're making your CS? (This, he may recognize, is one of the recipes being promoted by other CS generator makers.) Undoubtedly the compound forms. The questions is whether its presence is dangerous at these levels? I know I can figure the concetration and research the toxicity of AgCl, but most people won't. Are the effects minor or unknown, as might seem to be the case given the later discussion of silver chloride in the section on "Safety and Toxicity?" Since a good (indeed, better!) product can be made without added salts, I agree there is no compelling reason to use them. Mr. Lindemann's article has convinced me to re-evaluate my own procedures and try this method. The section entitled "The Same Difference" brings up the difficulty in achieving reproduceable results from batch to batch, even when using the same materials and apparently the same conditions. This raises two questions: First, how hard is it to test for concentration, and could a "home test kit" be designed? Second, doesn't this argue against the claimed benefits of the Quick Silver 47 unit's self-timing feature? Or is that the purpose of the "Sophisticated subtle energy circuitry that smoothes the solutions and eliminates negative characteristics found in some water?" Such a self timing feature, or even better a self *regulating* feature (not to be confused with the better voltage regulation also provided) would be a welcome feature and well justify the cost. Mr. Lindemann may wish to add a clarification of terms to the section about "Purity of Silver." I have had repeated debates with folks who believe that "three nines" pure silver is 99.999 *percent* pure, rather than 99.9%. The "three nines" or "3N" type terminology is used in the materials catalogs, so an explaination would benefit those poor souls who may be paying *way* more than they have to for reagent grade and "nuclear" grade super metals from companies like Aldrich and Johnson-Matthey. Minor nitpick: In the first paragraph under Safety and Toxicity, sixth sentence, I suspect Mr. Lindemann intends to say "CITED in the medical literature" rather than "sited." I am offering these comments and questions in a sincerely positive spirit. I would appreciate knowing the answers for my own sake, and I hope that by asking I might motivate worthwhile improvement of an already superior article. I have used home-made CS for a number of months now and am satisfied it is safe and effective. The ignorance and misunderstanding that characterize most discussions on this subject are one of the main obstacles to wider acceptance of this important product. You have done a fine service to the community with your products and the information you provide, both of which I feel safe in recommending to others. Thank you. Sincerely, Mike Devour [Mike Devour, Citizen, Patriot, Libertarian] [[email protected] ] [Speaking only for himself... ]
