Hello Bob and All,
> It's pot stirring time again!!!!!!!
:) and bringing my pot HUGE stirrer along also :-).
> The only person on this list besides myself that I know is doing any
> work on understanding this process is Vikki Welch.
Well, I am trying in the interest of *knowing what it is with reasonable
expectations of a specific yield". Once we have that, then we can
figure out what dosages are useful for what.
> [ ... ] I can say that if one duplicates my set-up then
> they can get the same results.
> For example yesterday I made four runs [ ... ]
> on a new machine [ ... ]
> and
> all of the ppm's were 11, 13.5, 13.5, & 14. As measured with my
> spectrophotometer. The times varied from 40 minutes to 2 hr and 15
> minutes. Quantities were 3 at 16 oz and 1 at 14 oz.
>
> I never argue with success. Can anyone duplicate this type of
> performance?????
Well spoken Bob!
I've avoided doing the following for the potential mess it could cause,
but I really DO think this is the right thing to do and the only way we
are going to have any idea what we produce and how to use it
effectively.
Please bear with me on this.
As near as I can tell at the moment, there are many different generators
out there using many different parameters to "get to the same place".
The only place I have seen ANY data is from Bob and I. I fully agree
that only Bob is producing metrics that have value (that I am aware of),
if I have accomplished anything, it is data that backs up the process as
pretty repeatable for the same parameters. Once I get (1)Bob some
samples or (2) get some test instrumentation myself or possibly get item
1 and exchange some data with the one centimeter probe with Bob (or
anyone else that has one together) then we'll have something to work
with.
I have looked over the net rather extensively and have found no one
publishing data to back up their claims. Nor anyone offering access to
data. Everyone seems to be producing "the best performance of any CS
generator available". Might well be, but how could I tell? What
procedures and tests are being done that would prove that and allow me
to reproduce those results reliably?
Without hard data, reproducibility and peer review what we have is
"snake oil", IMO. Perhaps useful "snake oil" but still "snake oil".
Standardization is going to require everyone make changes. I don't
think that this is necessarily bad and shouldn't have to be expensive to
do. It would certainly go a LONG way to answering those questions that
I keep seeing both on the list an out in "the field". "What am I
making", "how much will help" and similar questions go on endlessly -
since I have been around anyway and "out in the field" I have heard the
same questions echoed for years now ("out in the field" means not on the
list). And the responses to these questions remain nebulous... No one
in the regular medical industry takes this seriously - small wonder.
I personally think that there are enough of us here that this does NOT
have to be so.
So we talk of "Standards". Just what does/will that mean? This is
going to have to be agreed to my a majority and in such the "Standards"
will have to be discussed and agreed to.
Where to start? It appears to me that there are possibly four (4) major
configurations / classes:
1. LVDC (Low voltage Direct Current).
2. LVPS (Low voltage Polarity Switching - could be called LVAC?).
3. HVDC (High voltage Direct Current).
4. HVAC (High voltage Alternating Current).
A standard would have to be defined for each category. As a preliminary
"thought starter" I submit the following:
LVDC:
1. Specific voltage (i.e.: 3 or 4 - 9 volt batteries)
2. Specific quantity of DW.
3. Ability to meter current flow for starting and stopping current.
(Ole Bobs 1K 1% resistor and even a cheap voltmeter seems the answer
for this, it is effective, simple and cheap).
4. Specific size of electrodes (diameter and length) as well as spacing.
[Interjection: for at least the DC/PS methods the stirring motor DOES
make a significant different, just my two cents worth.]
Actually, without going on and belaboring the point here, I think that
the same basic parameters would be equally effective for all the
generator classes, they just wouldn't be the same parameters.
I see one potential problem with the LV method using 9V (or whatever)
disposable batteries as a power source. They run down and the potential
voltage would decrease. This could be compensated for with sufficient
data.
With the "Standards" listed above (assuming everyone agrees and I didn't
miss anything important), THEN we can start generating test data for
specific time-to-run to end up with a given ending current and verify
(or disprove) the repeatability of obtaining a given PPM. Whatever
happens at this point we have data to work with that can be used for
either proof or giving us a direction to go to reach the goal of
*knowing what we are producing*.
The first thing, probably before or at least in concert with the above
that will need to be "Standardized" is the methodology of determining
the necessary metric. I would think that this would be PPM, but I would
appreciate Ole Bob commenting on this as he is the only one I am sure of
that has the facilities to do this and is doing it. Anyone else I am
not aware of who can speak with authority in this matter is certainly
invited to do so!
Perhaps it would be prudent to establish a group for each generator
class of a given size of people to do this. Set a procedure for
reaching the goal and then sharing it with everyone. Nothing says that
everyone has to go to the standard established for a given class of
generator, but I think most would if they could reliably know what they
were producing.
I realize that this is going to take some effort and be some work as
well as costing the development group some money. For those willing and
able to do so, I think the benefits to themselves, the CS community and
the world at large would be most useful!
Comments Please!
Thanks & take care, Vikki.
--
Victoria Welch, WV9K, DoD#-13, Net/Sys/WebAdmin SeaStar.org,
vikki.oz.net
#include <coffee.h> My web site: http://vikki.oz.net/~vikki/
"Walking on water and developing software to specification are
easy as long as both are frozen" - Edward V. Berard.
Do not unto others, that which you would not have others do unto you.
--
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]>
