Hi All, Ivan's points are well made and well taken. I offer additional comments.
Water quality is a critical parameter. First, it must contain nothing harmful in itself, and nothing which will combine with silver to produce significant amounts of compounds which are harmful. However, if the water is too pure, it is virtually a dielectric, and very little current flows, producing very few silver particles until the water becomes more conductive. The size of the particles produced is of great importance. I am aware of three major considerations: 1. If they are too large to be supported by the movement of the molecules and ions in the water, they sink; "fall out of solution" and are useless. 2. If they are larger than small capillaries, they do not get deep into the tissues and do not reach deep-seated infections. This factor probably also limits the ability of the particles to enter cells, where certain pathogens---such that which causes Lyme disease---hang out. 3. If a given mass of silver is divided into smaller pieces, there are more "silver bullets". Also, it is obvious that very small particles affect pathogens differently than very large particles. Just where that line lies is a good research subject. The equipment and skills to test silver for total concentration are relatively inexpensive and easy to learn. Not so for particle size. The equipment and skills to test silver sols against pathogens are relatively easy to learn and a minimum of equipment. But the process of managing live bacteria is a full-time-job, and has critical time-based factors which do not allow one to drop the work for a while and go do the other things one must in order to make a living and take care of family responsibilities. Until we take into account the size of the particles we are making, and test the sol against live pathogens, the mg/L of the sol is meaningless. James Osbourne Holmes [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: Ivan Anderson [SMTP:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, September 26, 1999 2:07 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: CS>Standardization - A Call for Standards! ----- Original Message ----- From: Victoria Welch <[email protected]> To: Silver-List <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, 26 September 1999 13:15 Subject: Re: CS>Standardization - A Call for Standards! > Hello Bob and All, Hi there, > > 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. 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. >>snip<< > 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. 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. Yours and Bob's data is fine for anyone using the same generating equipment. However, the data does not translate to other generators, and is not much help to anybody without a conductance meter, ammeter, motorised stirrer etc. > 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? What data are you looking for? One would hope that the various generators are tested for their production and are translated into operating instructions. 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. > 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. 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? > 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. Standard: ...something against which others are judged or measured. So what can a standard supply... nothing more than a recipe in this case. 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. 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. 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. > 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. 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. > 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! I should think that Voltage, current (which will give resistance), conductivity, temperature and ppm vs. time covers all bases. Also laser inspection at these time points. As voltage drops in battery only systems a resistance (E/I) vs ppm graph would be most important. There are others on the list who, whilst not making much noise, also have the required test equipment. 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. > 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. 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. 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. 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. > 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. Regards - 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]>
