M. G. Devour wrote: > > In another thread, Doug McMurtrie wrote: > > > Mike, that looked like a pretty reasonable protocol to me. The > > only part that I see needing clarification is the silver wire > > source. That should be specified with a company name, address, and > > phone number provided. Everything else should be available at the > > local Radio Shack. > > We could have Marsha supply all of us from her stash. <grin> > > When I proposed the design, I considered the purity spec and the > size/length to be more critical than the composition of the minor > impurities. If we have a lot of unexplainable variations between > different people's results, that would remain one of the unknowns > we'd have to explore. > > Everybody using the same wire would eliminate the variable for now, > but we'd still have to check to see if it is actually a problem > before we could release the protocol for general use. Couldn't > afford to have Ma and Pa using a different wire source and getting > different results without us knowing it. > > Good question. I don't have the answer. > > Mike D.
Mike & List, I was informed by my silver supplier that Handy & Harmon, their silver supplier, lists their Fine Silver as .999 fine, but in fact it is .9999 fine or better - that's all they produce in Fine Silver. Any Wholesale jewelry supplier getting '.999 fine' silver and getting it from Handy & Harmon should be providing a very consistant product. (I'm not even sure who else is producing fine silver in the US now...) Bruce -- 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>
