At 12:54 PM 10/18/2008 -0400, you wrote:
>>
>> One Degree or 10, is not worth a nickle for arriving at the ppm of CS.
That's very silly. CS is a physical substance, and there are known methods
which
are quite precise.
>>
>> And a Chemist cannot usually operate the huge combination of
>> instruments used for
>> some measurements, ........... without highly special training.
>>
By definition, a qualified chemist or lab tech can indeed do just that.
>> No true ppm meter exists. All are EC meters and do internal
>> calculations or you do them
>> externally, to get a close approximations
>>
If all you have is silver, water and it's various combinations, there is
little doubt what is being measured.
Since there are other environmental elements involved, those other
elements must be controlled and they CAN BE controlled with some care and
elimination of samples.
An EC meter will not tell you what they are, but it can be used to monitor
*change* in EC and make *comparisons* in the same sealed sample over time.
Under the same conditions, samples that do change their EC reading are
eliminated as contaminated...it's the ones that don't that are of interest.
You eliminate variables to get a commonality.
If they ALL change, then the *conditions* must be reconsidered.
That's setting up the parameters of reasonable accuracy while considering
the limitations of the tools being used.
You CAN work around limitations with eliminations.
Better tools may reveal why the changed samples changed, but that's not
the commonality when not all of them do.
You CAN get good results with bad tools.
If you've ever dealt with laboratories, you'll know that "data" is not
absolute either..it's just a better guess than average...and they DO
average it.
I don't "sell" meters because people insist on believing that a PPM meter
measures PPM.....it doesn't.
I wind up spending hours un twisting contexts, explaining what they
actually DO do, and what they won't do.
If someone *buys* a meter despite not being "sold" one, there's a better
chance that they know what to do with it.
But I still cringe a little when I pack one up.
Science is a matter of educated guess over blind faith, there are no absolutes.
I never said there were...YOU said that, then claimed that I did, then
tried to prove it with no evidence.
I say:
..it's ALL magic.
Science is repeatable magic made by eliminating the more un repeatable.
"Commonalities within parameters"
But even that is a hierarchy of probability.
In the subatomic realms, the very bottom of the reality pot.... the
measuring itself, creates what is being measured... and the space/time in
which to measure it.
It all comes down to probably repeatable fantasy vs random fantasy.
There is no **proof** that ANYTHING even EXISTS, only evidence gathered by
elimination. [The function of every sense depends entirely upon what it
eliminates from perception]
Evidence doesn't prove anything, it only points out common sets of
probability by shucking the uncommon.
Anecdotal evidence works the same way.
You listen to a thousand stories and look for what they have in common
while eliminating what they don't have in common, thus establishing a set
of probabilities to look into deeper with more detailed eliminations.
Anecdotal evidence contains data.
Sensory perception is a HORRIBLY inaccurate measuring tool, but it works
well enough to create cohesive realities held in common, BECAUSE..... it is
based upon the process of elimination.
Measure it with a string, mark it with a crayon and cut it with a chain
saw, then compare pieces to find the center. ["Cut and try"]
That's a long way around differences, but it's every bit as accurate as a
computer guided laser.
LOL, then the "Doors of Perception" turn into windows and you find there is
no distance for there to be a difference between.
All perceivable motion is "spin" finding the center of a fantasy to argue
into a semblance of a common existence.
Ode
An EC meter reveals *conductivity*; only proper chemical analysis can
reveal *what* we are measuring the conductivity of.
Come on now, this is really elementary stuff.
Either we have data, or we have anecdotal evidence, but we do not *call*
anecdotal evidence "data" if we wish to be honest.
Sincerely,
indi
--
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: 270.8.1/1732 - Release Date: 10/18/2008
6:01 PM
