Good Morning Ivan, First off apologies to everyone for the abysmal formatting of the origninal message here. Not sure how it happened :(. > Are you saying that you need to know what the silver content is > of a particular set of generating parameters? > What doseages are useful for what is an entirely different > proposistion, and if the variables in generating are > considerable, the variables in dose - ailment outcomes are more > so.
That is essentially what I am saying. Most of what I have seen (and granted I am a list.newbie who has not seen everything that has gone by here) is *claims* with no data to back them up. This may come from my revulsion and distrust of "marketing hype", having been screwed too many times on too many things, I personally want *real* data that I can check out, especially for something I put into my personal biosystem :-). This is NOT a criticism of anyone making generators, CS or whatever - they may *well* have this data and their claims may well be legitimate. > [ ... ] > That is because, in my case, I don't see the point in generating > test after test reconfirming what I already know, and providing > data useful for only those generators using my parameters. I have > already posted and reposted the parameters for the simplest of > generators with repeatable results. Wonderful, I would love to see the data! If I can reproduce your results accurately and consistantly then I would be most happy! Just because *you* don't see a point in doing this is fine for you, no question and no problem with that. The problem is those that have not been through the same process and have not a clue what they are producing other than "something useful". Perhaps there are a lot of people out here who are concerned with what they are doing and are equally concerned about what they put into their personal biosystems. Not everyone is capable of generating this information themselves for a wide variety of reasons. I'd be willing to bet I am not the only one protective of my personal biosystem :-). This leads me to wonder why the same questions are being asked time after time after time. If there is a place where people can see the data and conclusions then why are the same questions being asked constantly? > [ ... ] > What data are you looking for? One would hope that the various > generators are tested for their production and are translated > into operating instructions. My personal default condition is to QUESTION claims. If they are indeed legitmate and accurate then there is simply no problem. Again, I am personally leary of what I put into my personal biosystem. The idea of going out and purchasing something that is *supposed* to be bone simple just doesn't wash for me, batteries and clipleads are well within my capabilites to construct. How do I *know* - as you note "One would hope", I personally am more than a bit leary about "hoping" when my health is the crux of the issue :-). > You pick your generator and take your chances, just like the rest > of life. If you are wise you look around for someone you feel you > can trust, and who offers an independant silver assay of their > product. Sorry Ivan, <bzzzzt> wrong answer. When it comes to my health I do not grab something to see what is going to happen (I can go to a medical industy practitioner and pay lots of money for that privilige). When it comes to this I *do not* grab and take my chances, I want the *most* informed decision that I can possibly make. No other options are acceptable to me. "Feeling I can trust" someone has not been a reliable procedure to follow, at least where I live in the US, where honor is measured in dollars accumulated and greed drives most everything. Pardon my cynicism in the matter, but I am reminded of Microsofts "independant analysis" of their product against others a while back. They hired independant labs inc to do this and the results were strongly in their favor. Once the data was published (or at least was not able to be duplicated) the idea of an "independant analysis" sort of paled. Yes, I am *picky* where my health is concerned :-)! > > Without hard data, reproducibility and peer review what we have > is > > "snake oil", IMO. Perhaps useful "snake oil" but still "snake > oil". > > What we have is colloidal silver in all its guises, and whether > you approve of its manner of generation matters little to those > who are making it in their kitchen and using it to good effect. I may be wrong here, but I am getting the impression that you are feeling like I am "attacking" you. Not so. This is a quest for understanding through intelligent discourse for myself and everyone else who does not already have answers that they are totally happy with. If you already have all the answers that make this work for you, I think that is wonderful! Unfortunately the rest of us (a sizable percentage?) do not share that luxury, from what I can gather. Lets get this much straight right here. I neither AVOCATE NOR APPROVE of ANY particular method of generation. I am personally convinced that there are a lot of ways to generate CS and with the proper research and *data* that known operational charactistics and results are obtainable using ANY of these methods. The primary reason that I am paralleling my experimentation with Ole Bobs method is that I have his *data* to compare my results to. I do not think that my method of generation is the "ultimate" way to do it and neither does he from what I gather from my communications with him. The "ultimate" method (assuming that one actually does exist) may or may not already have been discovered - who knows - again: *where is the data*? >From mail I have received in response to this posting, it DOES appear to me that there are indeed those out there who are interested in these specifics whether what they are making on their kitchen counter works "good enough" or not... > Peer review... there is a Colloidal Silver Association somewhere > in the US who require a product of not more than 7ppm I believe. > Other than that, how and who would review my products? I just ran several searches for this organization and if they exist, then they appear not to have a web presence. First warning bell... Just because there is an "organization" is meaningless. There are enough "organizations" out there put together by the "opposition" (in many areas, I am not inferring CS in particular) that I don't think I need to elaborate on this. I haven't seen anything on this, can't find a web presence and never heard of this organization before you mentioned it. If they are requiring a "product of not more than 7 PPM", then I would want to know why (Second warning bell), as it seems to make no sense to me. I think we can agree that there is a much wider spread of CS PPM being used and apparently with "good" results (again, no data). By "peers" I mean those that have the interest, knowledge, open mind and the ability to test the data and / or the results. I am not lost in the dogma that my only peers in the CS endeavor would come from professional researchers / "professional organizations" / college research facilities management or anyone else with (necessarily) a masters degree in anything. It would be nice if this were so, but in that we are having this discourse would seem to indicate that it is not so. I meant, specifically, the people on this list who meet the qualifications mentioned at the start of this paragraph. I would probably catagorize this as "lots of people on this list". They *know* this works (even if we have no formal proofs yet) and are open minded and I think generally smart enough to deal with all this even if they do not have the formal training in the necessary disciplines (I cartainly do not, but I can learn and am doing a lot of that :-). Personally I would rather work with people in this endeavor who have not already been taught what is impossible... > [ ... ] > Standard: ...something against which others are judged or > measured. Precisely! > So what can a standard supply... nothing more than a recipe in > this case. If this will offer consistant and documentable results that will answer the questions being asked endlessly !*yes*!. > Do this and this will be the outcome. Nothing wrong > with that of course, and the more data presented addressing the > variables the more various people in various locations will be > able to use it, assuming they have the measuring equipment. We agree completely here! However, if they don't have the measuring equipment they must, at least, have access to it. > If one takes the trouble to have the concentration of their > normal brew measured then the question of a generating standard > is resolved. The other questions involving eficacy and doseage > are separate. Again, we agree. > The fact that the regular medical industry does not take CS > seriously has nothing to do with these questions. The medical > industry did not take vitamin suppliments or herbal cures etc > seriously either. And for the same reasons - there was no proof. Talk to a few doctors about this and you will get the same questions you see on this list. Where is the research, it has not been proven? What are the dosage parameters? From proofs comes general acceptance (resistance driven by greed aside, even that will fall over time and sufficient data). > [ ... ] > I think there is great merrit in providing data for the standard > 3 or 4 battery method, even for 2 batteries. I will be happy to > provide this as time permits. I also think this the ideal place to start. Easy enough for anyone to do with an absolute minimum of knowledge, cash outlay and technical skill required. It gets CS into the hands of those that need it the quickest. Let us decide on what would consist or the "Standard Basic Generator". How much DW, what size containter (HxWxD), how many batteries (although expensive, perhaps "basic batteries" would be wisest to start with (?), What wire size, length and spacing? I would strongly recommend for the inclusion of the 1K0 1% resistor in all variations as measurement of current and consequently resistance is very simple with the most basic equipment. What might I have missed here? The items we standardize on should the things readily obtainable anywhere inexpensively. Once we "lock this down" we can start with the trials! Other processes that "improve" on this basic method can be explored and documented in turn. I very much look forward to studying your data! > I should think that Voltage, current (which will give > resistance), conductivity, temperature and ppm vs. time covers > all bases. Seems like a good start, let's get the parameters defined and the measurement tools formally defined. > Also laser inspection at these time points. Please elaborate on this, I am completely currently ignorant on how, precisely, this would be applied. I have done some very basic (and inconclusive in my mind) work with a laser (TE works although I have NO idea what this tells me that I might consider to be concrete data). I started working on a "laser test" jig, but it has not been gotten back to :-). Interesting to note that it uses the same basic components as the Hanna device I mention below... > As voltage drops in battery only systems a resistance (E/I) vs > ppm graph would be most important. Agree and I think that simple reference charts could be reasonably easily prepared given a "standard generator configuration". > There are others on the list who, whilst not making much noise, > also have the required test equipment. This is good! My one concern has been measurement ability and concern about loading those good souls willing to do it, even if they are doing it "at cost" I don't feel it fair to load them with endless testing (we all must maintain "a life" in the process :). I have looked over the Hanna site for instrumentation and looked at the instrument (HI 93737 Silver Meter) pointed to by the following link: http://www.hannainst.com/products/ion/93737.htm This is reasonably afforable - is it something that would tell us what we want to know? Just as an aside, looking at the specs, would this be buildable? Lasers of that wavelength and detectors as mentioned are pretty cheap - if we knew how they got the results, this might be buildable more affordably? Just something to consider. > One problem is that the starting resistance needs to be the same > for different waters. To this end I have asked Bob if he would > establish the amount of seeding it would require to swamp the > initial dist. water conductivity reading, have had no reply so > far. This also has been a lingering question in the back of my mind. Is the beginning current flow actually significant in and of itself? Would this not make itself up when you run to a specific ending current flow? As one of my famous SWAGs (scientific Wild Arsed Guesses :), as yet untested, running to a given cutoff current should compensate for varying Initial current. It would definitly change the time of run. I am currently entertaining ideas for a automatic cutoff device settable to a desired current flow, but have not done anything with it yet :-/. > Most use the 3 battery method and the greatest good will be in > addressing their use. Raw data and graphs will not be of much use > to most of these users. Ah, I respectfully disagree. The raw data and graphs must be available to all, it provides what "marketing hype" doesn't - proof that anyone who chooses to understand and make the effort can use to validate independantly. Granted, not many will probably want to do so, but the option must be there IMO. > Others who have the skill to build a fancy circuit with stirring > etc. would be fewer in number, and a good proportion of these > have their own ideas and circuits. These people could generate > their own data, the only obstacle being the silver assay. Agree, but once we have standards for measuring in place, why not use them? > I will > buy a conductivity meter in the next week or so and measure the > conductivity of various concentrations of CS, which should enable > people to measure their own concentration with the purchase of a > cheap meter ... the final parameter is thus revealed. This is our goal! Please share with me what instrumentation you are considering, if it might be possible for me to obtain one I think it might help (as well as anyone else interested). Standard metrics are important and I am concerned that a few people may bear the brunt of measurement, if possible we should spread this out as much as possible for several reasons. One: no one gets swamped and 2) multiple independant reporting of results. Thanks for your response and contributions to this effort! 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]>
