On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 09:01:13 -0500 Clayton Family <clay...@skypoint.com> wrote:
> > The question is, do you calculate the ppm? You don't have to guess > much, and if you prefer, you can do the calculations for error > resolution too, then you know exactly how much guessing you are > doing, or as they say, "parameters of error fall within plus or minus > X percent" . If X percent is low, it is not much of a guess, if it > is high, then whoa, look out. Might as well throw mud at the wall. > > Faradays Law describes the electrolysis very well. Distilled water > for laboratory use is the good enough for labs, so it is by > definition good enough for us. I do not take that for granted, I > check the conductivity of the water first anyway. Distilled water for > lab use should have nothing else in it except water, and it should > not conduct any electricity, so the EC reading should be zero. Mine > usually is not zero, but very close, within a few parts per billion. > After it sits for a while, the EC reading climbs a little, as the > distilled water absorbs some gases from the air. It is a very > sensitive measurement for my type of purpose. > > My own experiments show that for me, consistently, the amount of > silver deposited in the water during electrolysis as calculated by > Faraday's Law is the same as the EC reading taken immediately in the > water as it is working. > > All the hard science I learned is based on first observation, then > explored via calculations and experimentation. We are all of us here > doing our own science that is as good or better than most of what > passes in the medical field, what with all the abuses that occur > there. > > I am glad to hear that you are feeling benefit from your experiments. > > Best Wishes, > > Kathryn > Hi Kathryn and Hi list, I do not have faith that one can either guess or calculate PPM with any degree of accuracy. There are just too many unknowns. I notice a lot of people (not you, AFAIK) have made a lot of assumptions about me due to my skepticism regarding acceptance of certain ideas. I believe there has been an "oh yeah, well what's *your* answer, smarty pants!" type of reaction. :) But I really do not claim to have those answers yet, nor do I feel that having them is a prerequisite for pointing out others do not have them when they (no doubt inadvertently) falsely claim they do. My "indicator" at this time is not scientific at all, frankly -- I go by whether or not I feel better, what it tastes like, and how much CS does it take to keep my symptoms at bay. For instance, I believe that my most recent batch is weak, because I have to drink at least four ounces twice per day to keep my symptoms from reappearing (a "normal" batch will do that with four ounces once per day). This is not a bit scientific, of course (all sorts of things could affect the dose required), but then my primary goal *is* to get better, with being able to explain precisely "what the medicine is" running a distant, but still important, second. The fall and winter is my economic lean time, but in the spring I hope to begin accumulating equipment and chemicals so that I can do more proper testing. I am not remotely qualified, mind you, but my plan is to at least have a shot at reaching some meaningful numbers. Obviously, an atomic absorption spectrometer is beyond my means, but there are some simpler methods for getting decent numbers (not as simple as an EC meter and laser pointer though). Also, if certain business arrangements go well (which is not at all "in the bag" yet) I may gain access to some funding for equipment by spring. And if all else fails, I should at least have money for sending samples out to an established lab. Meantime, I do not want to get caught up in data which is unlikely to be accurate (and if that makes me "arrogant", as at least one person here has claimed, oh well...mark me with a big "A" then). There are degrees of accuracy, of course, with "absolute" being unavailable (and Ode has pointed this out before). However, my "close enough" standard requires at least accounting for all elements present as a base. Otherwise, we wind up with more questions than answers, don't you agree? One rather obvious example is that many people have been shocked to learn the types of indoor pollutants their homes contain -- how can we be sure there is nothing but "pure air" in the environment in which we operate? From carpets, upholstery, and wall coverings that release various gasses, to radon pollution, it's a huge question mark whenever we do work like this in the home. When you unseal a container at home, what are you exposing it to? And what is the effect? And then we supply electrical current, which is an excellent catalyst, LOL... Okay, I'll admit I'm a bit neurotic, but I'm also quite right about this. I just want to know what *is* in that solution. Otherwise, what good is an EC meter reading? Until I can determine that, I just don't see much value in either guessing or calculating PPM, because the question "PPM of what?" has not been answered. This is not to say that I think anyone is making an inferior solution, merely that I want to know more. BTW, you sound knowledgeable enough to already have seen this, but in case you haven't, Frank Key and George Maas have some very good info on analysis in a pdf available here: http://www.silver-colloids.com/Papers/CSProperties.PDF No worries about the arcing -- that bit isn't very hard. :) Thanks, 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: silver-list@eskimo.com Address Off-Topic messages to: silver-off-topic-l...@eskimo.com The Silver List and Off Topic List archives are currently down... List maintainer: Mike Devour <mdev...@eskimo.com>
