Hi group, Indi, Ken, The current debate (happily, I can still use that word to describe the discussion; thank you for staying civil, guys...) about alleged "absolute statements" and "proof" seems to have originated in a few sentences posted days ago in the "blue moons revisited" thread:
Indi wrote: > Typically, if you have real CS (i.e. *not* ionic silver) there will be > a small amount of ionic silver. > This can be mostly eliminated by exposure to sunlight though. To which Ken replied: > How would this be so? > > I've left ionic silver on a sunny window sill for as long as 5 years > and it was still ionic and unchanged. This was met with Indi's request for methodology (Ken: Tyndal and EC) and a lengthy discussion of why this isn't good enough, standards of evidence and proof and criticisms of alleged "absolute" statements and their effects on the CS community's credibility. After reading far too many posts, I saw the following which I think is quite significant: Indi wrote: > I mentioned getting rid of ions by allowing solution to sit in the sun. > I also never claimed to have verified this with instrumentation, just > pointed out that according to what I know, that should do it (I leave > the lid off for speedier results, in case you were wondering). Ions are > unstable; it doesn't matter which element we're discussing. They will > react with other compounds at their first opportunity. So yes, I am > assuming my method to be sufficient. But, I don't think I ever claimed > otherwise. So, let me see if I've got this right, Indi? Earlier you made the "absolute statement" that: "This can be mostly eliminated by exposure to sunlight though." You didn't say "I believe that..." or "This might be mostly eliminated..." You just made the unqualified statement. Saying "This can be..." seems to be prescriptive, as if you "know" that exposure to sunlight will (mostly) eliminate the ionic portion. Yet you now say that you have not "veified this with instrumentation" and that "according to what I know, that should do it?" Beyond this admission you also mention that you "leave the lid off for speedier results." This all raises a couple of issues. First off, what "results" are you even talking about? If you're not doing measurements, how do you support this assertion of yours that you're eliminating the ionic portion from your "real CS?" Next, if you leave the lid off you no longer have a closed system. Distilled water (and your CS), will absorb carbon dioxide from the air and form (I think it is...) carbolic acid. This process is easily detected by the rise in conductivity you can measure in DW in an open container over a period of hours or days. This changes the pH, adds another ion to the mix, and basically all bets are off. Of course, detailed elemental analysis will be needed to confirm the species present, but this work has been done elsewhere and ought to be readily available in the literature if you have any doubts that it happens. So I guess I have to turn this around on you, Indi. Instead of criticizing Ken for not properly qualifying and detailing the basis for all his observations of experiments he's actually *done,* why not answer his question, instead? Ken wrote: > How would this be so? If you've no answer better than "according to what I know, that should do it," I suggest you yield the point. More to follow in another message... Be well, Mike Devour silver-list owner [Mike Devour, Citizen, Patriot, Libertarian] [[email protected] ] [Speaking only for myself... ] -- 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]>
