Hi Marshall, I find these discussions and theories interesting... I'm not sure that they are of much interest to the average silver-ite and I don't suppose you and I will agree on some matters, but then if we agreed...
> Ivan Anderson wrote: > > > Hi Marshall, > > > > The fact remains that colloidal silver IS effective at all these > > particle sizes and it can definitely NOT be said that CS at .001 > > micron is 1000 times more effective than CS at .015 micron. > > It has been reported that it is not the particle size that > > conveys effectiveness but rather quantity of silver involved. > > Please read my reply again, that is EXACTLY what I said. If you have 1000 > times as many particles than you should expect something like 1000 times the > effectiveness. I am assuming that there is no difference the effectiveness > between different particle sizes, although there may be some. The 1000 > factor comes from the physical fact that if a particle is 1/10 the size > there are 1,000 times as many of them for the same PPM. I understand what you said Marshall. Your theory is that the same quantity (weight) of silver can exist as a number of particles of one size, or a greater number of particles of a smaller size, the amount of silver stays the same. I stated that the quantity (different weight) of silver has been linked to its effectiveness. It surely it is obvious that no CS is a 1000 times more effective than another of the same concentration. There is probably some difference in effectiveness between different CS brews, but not enough to make an issue of, they all work. > > More over most CS will contain a range of particle sizes which > > may be found to be more effective against a range of pathogens. > > This may be due to larger particles having a greater net charge, > > available for interaction, than smaller particles. > > This is something that needs to be explored. It does appear that larger > particle size works against bacteria in the lower GI tract for instance, > probably because they don't get absorbed into the blood I think. Without > any experiments that address this issue the best I can do is assume that the > effectiveness between differerent particle sizes within a certain range is > the same, and that any differences in the effectiveness would be dependent > on the number of particles. I am talking about the silver particles in the accepted size range, which is readily absorbed into the blood stream. Using your figures, it stands to reason that a .015 micron will have 3375 times the positve charge, or accept 3375 more electrons than would a .001 micron particle. > > Even if there are 3375 more .001 micron particles in an oz of CS > > than .015 micron sized particles, that number is so insignificant > > to be meaningless when you compare it to the actual number of > > silver particles...which is at least 1,000,000,000,000,000 in > > number per oz at 5 ppm. > > Not 3375 more particles, but 3375 times as many particles. That is instead > of 1 quadrillion particles, there would be 3,375 quadrillion particles. > That IS significant. You are correct, I should have done the math last night. There are more or less, in 30mls (1oz) 5 ppm CS : 2.73 x 10^23 particles at 1nm (.001 micron) diameter 8.1 x 10^22 particles at 1.5nm diameter 2.81 x 10^21 particles at 5nm diameter 8.1 x 10^19 particles at 15nm diameter. These are all very large numbers but If the smallest is taken from the largest it wouldn't even notice. Which makes me wonder why would one need to take any more than a drop of the 1nm CS, if the particle number theory is correct then 1 drop should be the equivalent of about 200 ml of 15nm CS. Which is absurd, isn't it? Bottom line is, all CS of reasonable quality is effective in treating a wide range disorders... and these questions and theories are probably only of interest to the mad scientist. Count me as one. 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]>
