Hi James,
I will try to answer your questions. But I must say that some of them address issues outside my competence (such that it is), but thank you for that. No gain without challenges. You ask if you are communicating your questions clearly, the answer is of course, at least as clearly as my answers ;-) >My questions are: does one atom only of the Ag cluster loose an electron? > Or is there a net effect on the cluster from the interaction with the >surrounding water components? But charge is quantatized isn't it? > Further, if it is the result of the loss of a single electron, where is >that electron? My understanding is that the silver anode is dissasociated atom by atom in an electrolysis reaction. Other methods of dissasociation generally vapourise the silver (AC and DC arcing, Laser and Ion bombardment), the vapour is captured in water, and I could see clusters being torn free in this manner. In the electrolysis method, atoms have an electron removed, enter the solution and are attracted towards the cathode at a speed related to the potential applied to the two electrodes. ****The measurement of this speed is one method of determining Zeta potential, which is not so much the measurement of the charge of the colloid particles, although this is an important part of the equation, but : "A charged particle will move with a fixed velocity in a voltage field. This phenomenon is called electrophoresis. The particles mobility is related to the dielectric constant and viscosity of the suspending liquid and to the electrical potential at the boundary between the moving particle and the liquid. This boundary is called the slip plane and is usually defined as the point where the Stern layer and the diffuse layer meet. The Stern layer is considered to be rigidly attached to the colloid, while the diffuse layer is not. As a result, the electrical potential at this junction is related to the mobility of the particle and is called the zeta potential. Although zeta potential is an intermediate value, it is sometimes considered to be more significant than surface potential as far as electrostatic repusion is concerned. Zeta potential can be quantified by tracking the colloidal particles through a microscope as they migrate in a voltage field."**** Anyway if the potential is high, the atoms are more likely to encounter the cathode or each other, and if current is high large numbers of atoms will be leaving the anode at one time. These factors probably overcome the repulsion the atoms have for each other and allow the formation of clusters during electrolysis. I have found that using low voltages and most importantly, limiting current (<1mA) results in a solution that has no Tyndal during electrolysis. I surmise that very small particles are being generated (single atoms?). However during the 24 to 48 hrs after the potential is removed, the Tyndal slowly becomes more defined until it is quite distinct. The solution remains clear. This I feel, is the atoms forming small cluster arrangements probably similar to those crystaline arrangements Bob Lee described in an earlier post, and I am confident that these are clusters of Ag+ atoms. The electrons removed from the silver atoms appear via the anode connection at the positive side of the power supply or battery. >I am certainly not trying to redefine "ion". But there may be a need to >discriminate between types of ions of the same element, if their behavior >and charge origin is different. This has probably already been done, and >I am simply unaware of it. All charge has the same origin, the gain or loss of an electron (or proton) from a neutral atom. Of course we have 1 2 or 3 valence ions of silver and the behaviour is probably different between them, just as a cluster of silver atoms with only one having lost an e- would be different. No doubt these exist in some CS, especially if large amounts of cathode sludge has been generated. As you know, nano-particles can have very different properties from larger particles or the parent metal, and the investigation of these properties is expensive and I'm out of my depth. >We know that silver salts, which are generally strongly ionized, produce >silver ions that are more reactive in the body chemistry than clusters of >ionized silver. Do you agree? I think only those salts that dissolve or dissasociate in water are more reactive. >If so, why? Does it have to do with the >forces binding the Ag group together? Are these stronger than the forces >involved in the capture of an electron by the silver cluster. If one >silver ion captures an electron from another element, does the whole clump >become bound into a molecule, or does that silver atom come free from the >cluster? Or, as it seems from the lack of deposition of silver compounds >in tissues from CS, no reaction occurs. Well, James, I'm flying blind here. But for what it is worth, intuition says... I think the reactive properties of, say, silver nitrate is two pronged. First, the silver is monatomic Ag+ and remains that size because of the interaction with the NO3- ion and polar water molecules in solution. Second, the nitrate has a reaction with tissue in its own right. I imagine that monoatomic Ag+ has a wider realm of interaction, but once it has bonded with a sulphur atom or molecule to which it has been attracted, there it will stay until it meets a stronger reducing agent such as selenium, these atoms or molecules may be part of the dermis or other tissue.. Clusters of Ag+ atoms may accept an electron from the same sulphur atom or molecule but not remain bonded to the now neutral atom, and may remain in solution due to the clusters continuing, all be it slightly less, positive charge, eventually to be excreted. Probably some silver atoms or clusters do remain bonded to the tissue. It would be interesting to take a tissue specimen from a CS user and see if the silver content is higher than normal. >If there is a valence charge on the cluster, then it comes from only one >atom---correct me if I am wrong. The cluster cannot have lost more than >one electron without having a higher positive charge. Perhaps that is the >case. Clusters can indeed be composed of more than one single ion (Ag+ atom). There is an electrostactic repulsion barrier, as you might imagine, when two like charged atoms or particles approach each other, but... "The DLVO Theory (named after Derjaguin, Landau, Verwey and Overbeek) is the classical explanation of the stability of colloids in suspension. It looks at the balance between two opposing forces electrostatic repulsion and van der Waals attraction to explain why some colloidal systems agglomerate while others do not... ...The height of the barrier indicates how stable the system is. In order to agglomerate, two particles on a collision course must have sufficient kinetic energy due to their velocity and mass, to jump over this barrier. If the barrier is cleared, then the net interaction is all attractive, and as a result the particles agglomerate. This inner region is after referred to as an energy trap since the colloids can be considered to be trapped together by van der Waals forces." >Your experience comparing the ISE with AAS is very puzzling. Not if you accept the statement above, and that Ag+ ions may form crystaline structures in which they share electrons, the net charge being equivalent to the same number of monoatomic ions. >Bruce Marx, goes out of his way to demonstrate that his "positively charged >colloid" contains virtually no "ionic" silver. Yes I know ;-) His definition is confusing. I suppose he means, containing no monoatomic ions, or does he mean no little ionic reading when tested by the TDS or ISE method. > I am confused. Me too. Ivan. -- 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: [email protected] -or- [email protected] with the word subscribe or unsubscribe in the SUBJECT line. To post, address your message to: [email protected] List maintainer: Mike Devour <[email protected]>
