Hi Scott and the List! > By the way, I think I figured out the answer to the "3 NINES" confusion..... > > The figure 99.9 % is equivalent to 99.9/100, which is identical to > .999! That is why the ingots I have in my little beakers right now > have the insignia ".999 pure fine silver". Does that add up ok on > your calculator too?
By jove I think you've got it! That's what I've always believed. Count the significant figures, ie. the total number of nines. So 99.9 *percent* is the same as .999 "fine" and *also* 3 "nines". > I also agree that there does not seem to be any price gouging > going on here. If all things "pan out", it would be a reasonable > investment, for those who do not desire to make a unit themselves > from inexpensive parts and make silver as good or even better. :) I'm familiar enough with electronics to know just about how you'd go about building these various gadgets we keep finding on the net. By the time you count component costs, engineering and testing, packaging, and (gasp!) profit for the seller, you won't be doing much better than these Elixa folks and stay in business. Again that assumes the results are as advertised when one buys and actually uses their equipment. But their claims are internally consistent and better formed than most. > Before anyone goes out and buys the "expensive spread", I have a > sneaking suspicion that the ALCG (Advanced Lamp Cord Generator:) > method might just prove to make an excellent clear/small particle > size solution. It has all the signs of it at this point. I just > need to get it sent out for tests (particle size/ppm) and will post > the results immediately upon receiving them. <great big grin> Be *real* *REAL* careful there Scott, okay? Don't get yourself "zapped," man! > By the way, if anyone knows of a particularly inexpensive way to get these > tests run, I surrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrre would appreciate your sharing the place > to have it done, yet again!! > Right now $200 for a particle size test is going to severely limit > how many tests I run. I probably only need one of those, though > (for the new method). Then I would like to run at least three for > ppm, at different generating times. So , any help along this line > would surely be appreciated. Thank you for committing the time and money to it, Scott. It's expensive, but you've got to find out what you've got. > Judging by what has been said in the article, I too, think the > Lindeman device could be a dependable unit for those looking to > buy one that makes yellow-golden silver consistently. (At least , > going from the articles and the information given about these > devices). I still have'nt seen one work for myself. Nor have I > received testimony from anyone that I personally know and can vouch > for. At this point, it is just another interesting ad, from my > perspective. Having a *good* product is a lot better than having *nothing* while the perfect product is "on it's way." At least we have somebody here who's not being blatently manipulative. He's been so thorough and careful about what he says that it's much easier to accept. Best of luck, and be careful over there! Mike [Mike Devour, Citizen, Patriot, Libertarian] [[email protected] ] [Speaking only for himself... ]
