We seem to be on different pages here.
When you speak in absolutes, I tend to take it literally. Now I understand,
you speak in absolutes but are "taking a lot on faith". That's fine for you,
but IMO it is irresponsible to broadcast "EIS unchanges after five years"
armed with only an EC meter and a laser pointer, for the simple reason that
those devices are not enough to *prove* your claims (in scientific terms).
I'm sorry if I've upset you, Ode. That was not my intention. But I do not
feel the "onus" you seem to assign to me, as I am not the one making
extravagant claims based on rudimentary observation; I'm just trying to
provide some perspective.
Peace,
indi
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 08:07:41AM -0400, Ode Coyote wrote:
> At 01:04 PM 10/13/2008 -0400, you wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 12:08:32PM -0400, Ode Coyote wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > If the container is non reactive
>>
>> That would have to include the lid of course.
>> :)
>
> ## Unless you slosh the contents around, there is no direct contact
> with the lid.
>
>
>> > there is little air space and all you
>> > have is water, water byproducts and silver..which ISN'T photo reactive,
>> > then it has nothing to change into.
>>
>> Yes, but litlle air space isn't zero air space, and your container is
bound to
>> contain *something* besides pure H2O and silver ions.
>
> ## If they don't react in a few days, they probably won't, ever.
> Contaminants DO cause problems and sometimes glass itself can leach out
> them over time if contaminants have impregnated the glass.
> But that's not the topic in discussion. The topic is change of the EIS
> itself, in LONG term storage..not.. changing.
> Generally if it does change, it will do so within a few days and if it
> doesn't [and most doesn't] there are no extraneous problems that are
> relevant to the "EIS" itself.
>
>
>> > You do get some silver hydroxide formation after a few days, but once
>> > the EIS has "stabilized", it stays the same, light or dark.
>>
>> If it is perfectly sealed, perhaps. Otherwise no.
>
> ## You have years of observation to back that up?
> Due to equalized inner and out gas pressures, any tight seal is
> essentially perfect.
>
>
>> > If the EIS was made past the saturation points, it may continue to
>> > stabilize for a month or so and make compounds out of dissolved water
>> > byproduct gasses, none of which are photo reactive.
>> > In that case, you'll see a visual change...generally gone yellow.
>>
>> Actually, *any* visual change implies chemical reaction, usually
induced or
>> facilitated by light or heat.
>
> ## Heat and light will makes EIS cross some reaction thresholds for sure,
> but only if the water is contaminated with something to react with.
> "Contaminated" EIS is not the topic of discussion. The EIS itself is
> not light sensitive. If it gets too COLD, it can lower its saturation
> point and particulates crystalize out, but boiling stabilized EIS has not
> caused it to change in my experience.
> Too much heat while *making it* HAS made a difference in my experience,
> but that's BEFORE stabilization where excess Brownian motion makes for a
> high reaction rate before ions are protected by bonds with the water.
> The only way that light plays a role is with the addition of electrons
> making ions into metallic silver and the only way those electrons can be
> added is via surface contact with metallic semi conductive glass
> components serving as a rather poor solar panel and the silica as a
> capacitor. Electrons can't exist in a free state in water. I have not
> seen this happen to the extent of significantly changing an EC reading
> even after the batch has sat on a South facing window sill for years and
> years.
> Yes, "some" batches do change, but those are *contaminated* batches... a
> distraction to this context of *not* contaminated EIS changing in the
> sunlight.
>
>
>> > You cannot make a vacuum in a container full of water...vapor will fill
>> > it to saturation.
>>
>> Practically all commercially distributed carbonated beverages ship in
>> gas-tight
>> packaging... :)
>
> ## Gas tight and a vacuum are two completely different animals.. and gas
> tight has a LOT to do with pressure differentials and what is in the
> container.
> Making a gas tight *compressed* Hydrogen container is virtually
> impossible, but at atmospheric pressure, not very hard.
> At highish pressures, you can even force oil through iron and bronze for
> oil impregnated bushings.
>
>
>> > If the internal pressure is the same as the external, there's no
>> reason for
>> > any gases to exchange though a seal.
>>
>> That is incorrect, fluctuation in barometric pressure does cause gas
to pass
>> through, otherwise airtight packaging would rarely be necessary.
>
> ## Most lids used are air tight by YOUR definition "because" they were
> made for food.
> Barometric pressure changes change faster than contents can leach
> through a container wall, so sure, there will be an impregnation flux
> going on, but that takes more time than a pressure change takes to change
> the other way.
> There is a matter of exposed surface area too. A full bottle with a
> narrow neck has very little, so even if it does leak some, there is
> little effect.
>
>> I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I just can't agree with your premises nor
>> your conclusion on this one.
>> I'll have to stand by my original statement: You have not come close to
>> proving
>> that your ionic silver solution was unchanged after five years, and
frankly
>> it would be a miracle if you did end up with that result.
> indi
>
> ## Well, that's a opinion built on some flawed theory so far as I can
tell.
> Is it backed by experience?
> What sort of experience??
> For one, I don't see how sunlight can change a non photo-reactive ion
> into anything else without some intermediary intrusion and some other
> component added to become something else with...nor have I seen it happen
> without explanation within measurable parameters.
> If there is contamination, maybe so, but that falls out of the context
> of the discussion.
> Contamination is another subject.
>
> I'll hand it over on the absolutes, but none of us have the means to
> measure or even observe absolutes.
> Is any given batch ABSOLUTELY the same? How can I know?
> All I have is a good EC meter and a laser pointer with dusty time faded
> notes describing numerous batches within realistic parameters of
> conductivity , TE, dropout, plate out, color, turbidity and general
> appearance.
> There ARE no absolutes with an EC meter or eyeballs, only reasonable
> parameters
> Even the "right" tools encounter parameters and labs use averages.
>
> IF any changes have happened, [within the context of this discussion as
> per reasonably *uncontaminated* EIS where things go right ] they haven't
> gone out of those parameters, therefore I can't tell that there is a
> difference, so in "practical" terms......there isn't one.
> If a batch does observably change, it does so fairly quickly and usually
> STOPS changing over the long term. Usually I can trace the change to
> contamination, sometimes I don't know why, but none of those batches have
> any relevance to those that DON'T observably change.
> Call that a miracle if you like.
> In my world, miracles are the exception, not the rule and in my well
> lighted environment where windows almost exceed wall space and window
> sills are shelving and I don't use colored glass and do use food
> containers with food lids which by your definition are well sealed....
> changed batches are an exception.
>
> The point is "change over the long term" and even the BAD batches don't
> generally change...they stay bad for years and years, with a few
> exceptions, bad the same way all that time.
> Some of the exceptions have proven to be very instructive about why they
> are bad, also revealing observable facts that fly in the face of some of
> the theories, particularly where color is concerned in terms of *this AND
> that* vs the usual simplistic *this OR that*.
>
> Perhaps now we can discuss what sort of changes YOU have observed as a
> rule and get down to why and how they may have changed [and when], rather
> than simply stating that my experience of over ten years of DOING this,
> is impossible.
> Just because you have justified why you can't jump over a turtle doesn't
> mean that I couldn't have jumped over a lot of them when I don't have a
> bunch of hear say theory making turtles too tall, keeping me from trying.
> DID it, beats any theories of can't, every time.
> Saying that I can't, doesn't prove a danged thing.
> You are going to have to prove that I didn't.
> But the only way you will be able to prove it, is to do it
> yourself....get going.
> If you fail, I might be able to tell you how not to...having done so a
> whole lot of times.
>
> It ain't like I haven't tripped over herds of turtles and filled a lot
> of drains with crap CS.
> ..or heard a whole lot of disprovable mixed context BS along the way.
>
> Ode
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> >
>> >
>> > At 02:33 PM 10/10/2008 -0400, you wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 01:57:20PM +0000, M. G. Devour wrote:
>> >> > Someone asks Ken:
>> >> > > >> What mehod did you use to verify that it was still ionic and
>> >> > > >> unchanged?
>> >> >
>> >> > Ken wrote:
>> >> > > > ## EC meter.
>> >> > > > Colloids don't conduct electricity.
>> >> >
>> >> > Indi replies:
>> >> > > That is incorrect. Even tap water will conduct electricity.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> What I mean is that measuring for conductivity is no guarantee of ionic
>> >> silver specifically, particularly if the solution in question is
>> five years
>> >> old. Truly gas-tight containers certainly exist, but are not the
>> norm (that's
>> >> the reason sealed packaging exists). If you place your solution in a
>> bottle
>> >> or jar and just screw the lid on, five years later you will have had
>> >> all sorts
>> >> of chemical activity going on in that container. (unless it was
stored in
>> >> the dark in a vacuum, and the cap as well as the container is glasss).
>> >> You can
>> >> measure for conductivity, but that will not give proof of a given
>> >> solution being
>> >> "unchanged".
>> >>
>> >> I don't mean to get into an argument or anything, but it's just the way
>> >> things are. Ionic solutions are volatile (have a short shelf life),
>> and are
>> >> photo-sensitive by nature. That is why medicinal ionic solutions (for
>> >> insstance those commonly known as "iodine" and "mercurachrome")
>> always came
>> >> packaged in brown glass bottles.
>> >>
>> >> When someone tells me he kept some ionic solution for five years and
>> >> measuring for conductivity "proved" the solution was still pristine,
>> >> I feel obligated to point out that he has not proved that at all.
>> >> It is hard enough to determine proper facts in this field of study,
>> after all.
>> >>
>> >> BTW, one can easily test this at home; measure the conductivity of a
>> jar of
>> >> plain distilled water, then store the jar for a few months, then
>> >> measure again.
>> >> You will see much more conductivity after. :)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> The Silver List is a moderated forum for discussing Colloidal Silver.
>> >>
>> >> Instructions for unsubscribing are posted at: http://silverlist.org
>> >>
>> >> To post, address your message to: [email protected]
>> >>
>> >> Address Off-Topic messages to: [email protected]
>> >>
>> >> The Silver List and Off Topic List archives are currently down...
>> >>
>> >> List maintainer: Mike Devour <[email protected]>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> >> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
>> >> Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.8.0/1721 - Release Date:
>> >> 10/12/2008 12:00 PM
>> >
>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
>> Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.8.0/1724 - Release Date:
>> 10/14/2008 2:02 AM
>
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.8.1/1730 - Release Date: 10/17/2008
8:07 AM
