Neville Munn wrote:
Continued to ensure all goes thru...
Part 2.
Footnote: Until I can find a laboratory which understands testing
procedures for EIS/CS where I am located I must go with the results I
have on several samples I've had analysed...using AAS and acidified
HNO3, whatever that may be?
AAS is atomic absorption spectrometry. HNO3 is nitric acid and is used
to digest the colloidal silver for analysis. Digestion changes the
particulate to ionic. This combination will measure total silver
content. Do you know what tests were done for the ionic or colloidal alone?
I would also like to say that I use my own equipment and production
practices and praps I simply have more control over what it is I
produce. Although the lab I had my samples tested at may not be
connected with human biology or whatever, the methods for analysis I
assume is adequate, could be wrong there but must go with the results
I have til I can find another suitable lab, and the sponduliks for
payment of analysis, and make a comparison. Unfortunately I can't use
the same solution as it's long been consumed. The crux of my
statements lie in those lab results, and I've no reasonable reason to
doubt them.
I've always maintained that as each person uses different equipment
for EIS/CS production, and incorporate their own production practices
there must be a possibility for resultant solutions/suspensions to be
different from others, and may not fall within the accepted norms of
published material available in the public domain.
Certainly the final concentration will affect the ratio. An analysis of
the way the colloid is formed indicates that lower concentrations will
have a higher ionic content and higher concentrations will have a lower
ionic content. Also higher current densities will produce lower ionic
content. For instance if one uses a voltage source instead of a current
source, the higher current at the end should result in a higher
particulate content. Definitely if you go over 20 ppm, the particulate
content will increase rapidly for each ppm. However this does not
necessarily improve effectiveness significantly since the particle
density likely does not vary much in these conditions, but rather the
particles simply get larger. This can be determined by the color
becoming yellow, gold, or even orange as particle size increases.
I believe that most of the measurements that indicated a 10 to 15% ionic
component were made years ago on 5 to 10 ppm samples. Many people are
now producing 15 to 20 ppm samples, and the assumption that they contain
the same ratio is likely invalid. It is quite possible that a typical
20 ppm sample may typically contain something closer to 20 to 50%
particulate.
With this in mind I have checked the numbers on a number of products,
and this is what I found. Note that I threw out any that were 100%
ionic (almost certainly silver compound and not EIS) or particle
(obviously made by other than electrolysis). I suspect that those which
show a high particle content at lower concentrations were either made at
high temperature, high current, or using HVAC method. The one with a *
next to it I know was made with HVAC: Those with a ** I suspect are HVAC:
ppm ratio
2.43 94.7
4.56 81.4 *
5.24 13 **
9.54 85.2
9.71 94.9
9.95 86.6
10.92 98.4
11.2 96.6
11.6 49.3 **
21.1 92.4
21.2 88.2
22.3 87.9
26.4 82.6
26.9 21.7
32.5 10.5
603 6.3
Now, the 5.24 is a flier, and I suspect was made with either excessive
current or using HVAC (I personally found that making anything over 5
to 6 ppm resulted in quickly advancing particle size and gold color,
this sample was amber). I am going to throw that one out along with
those I am pretty sure are from HVAC and do a polynomial regression on
the rest. This yields a least squares fit of:
*ionic% = 1.846097353·10^-3 ppm^2 - 1.253334856 ppm + 90.75660734
T*he fit though is pretty bad:
*x*
*y*
*Calculated y*
*Error*
1.
81.07335716
13.62664284
2.
98.0214435
12.8214435
3.
98.17049687
3.270496871
4.
98.3608099
11.7608099
5.
98.89061357
4.906135661·10^-1
6.
98.9723417
2.372341701
7.
81.74272149
10.65727851
8.
81.37256647
6.827433529
9.
77.04699252
10.85300748
10.
56.86265165
25.73734835
11.
53.96744626
32.26744626
12.
15.21883478
4.71883478
13.
6.299724148
2.758524177·10^-4
Although the fit is horrible, probably due to differences in current
density, method (LVDC vx HVAC), temperature and stirring, there is a
definite trend that indicates a rapidly increasing particle content when
we get above around 25 ppm. The 90% and above ionic are almost all
under 10 ppm, and the less than 90% are all above 21.1 ppm. This data
seems pretty clear cut, go above 25 ppm, and the particle % ( and most
likely size ) increase explosively.
Data was obtained from http://www.silver-colloids.com/Reports/reports.html
Marshall
Please correct me if I am wrong, but most importantly I'd like to
know WHY some of my ion/particle ratios appear to be FAR different
from that published material, remembering that the solution was clear
with no settlement observable over time. It so happens that I have a
result for a yellow batch also which resulted in similar ratios.
However, I do have other results which come closer to your stated
ratios, I must have parted my hair differently on the day I made those
batches <g>.
N.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meet singles at ninemsn dating Looking for a great date?
<http://clk.atdmt.com/NMN/go/150855801/direct/01/>
**
--
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>
