Hi Folk, A while back I proposed that we get a group together to contribute a small amount of "money?" each and pay for some high end lab testing of a variety of types of silver which we are making. No one responded.
James Osbourne Holmes [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: M. G. Devour [SMTP:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, September 26, 1999 6:06 AM To: [email protected] Subject: CS>Research overview... Good Morning, lister's! (At least it's still morning *here*! <g>) This is especially directed at the several folks who are discussing the work Vikki's doing to reproduce Bob's results and her call for standards. I haven't heard you folks say *anything* that's wrong yet. What's needed is to put what's going on into a broader context. What brought me to CS was that it seemed to work for folks with no axe to grind or profit motive. There are too many reports to ignore. But I came in asking *exactly* the same questions that we still hear from newcomers, now, two years later: Where can I find studies? How does CS work? What CS/generator/process/ppm/color is "best?" Since the only big budget research effort we're likely to see anytime soon will probably be designed to "prove" that CS doesn't work, the only answers to these questions will come from independant and small cooperative efforts like ours. This demands great ingenuity and as much time and money as we can afford. And I believe it can be aided in an unprecedented way by the sharing of research design and data over the internet. In broad strokes, we need to: *** Document all the existing work and as much anecdotal evidence as we can find. (There's a lot!) *** Analyse the process of making CS to the point we can understand, control, and predict it *and* measure our results sensibly. *** Do controlled studies in culture, animals, and human volunteers that verify the safety and alleged clinical usefulness of CS *and* identify how it works, the best treatment modalities and supportive therapies, and how to optimise it for particular applications. *** Make the best available information accessible to interested people along the way, so they may make an informed decision about experimenting with it. Take a deep breath, all, and envision the scope and scale of of the task I've just described. Notice that the current work is a small part of number 2 above, and that we can't *really* do number 3 properly until at least parts of number 2 are well along. This is the hangup with the present state of the art. The term CS as we use it now describes a huge array of poorly quantified preparations. So, to focus in on CS process and characterization research: We have a complicated process to unravel. At the simplest level, anything that can be described as "good" CS seems to work, though what qualifies as "good" varies from one process and person to another. It isn't necessary, however, for everybody to stop and wait while we get the results nailed down in every detail. What we do need to do is learn to accurately characterize (measure the features of) colloidal silver generated by a number of different kinds of generators that serve different needs: ** Cheap and simple: the bare minimum needed to get started. More work to use, less repeatable. Might be made more effective, reliable and convenient by some simple feature which we'll discover as we go along, like using lower voltage or a series limiting resistor. ** Sophisticated: Ranging from active current limited LVDC to microprocessor controlled HVAC. Any combination of bells and whistles that make the process easier to control. Since HVAC has been well developed by Bruce Marx, we may need to do little more than attempt to cross check some of his published results as we develop the tools and skills to do so. Other features, like polarity switching, may make the LVDC process so simple to use that it is worth the complexity. ** Research Tools: This is where Victoria's ideas for a Stamp or PIC controlled LVDC generator may really shine. The same hardware can be used to impliment any LVDC design, but its greatest strength may be the ability to quickly test *dozens* of different process variations, any of which could guide the design of simpler and cheaper devices. If there is a *standard* that most needs to be created, it is the *example* Vikki is giving us of publishing her results, as well as the method of formatting and the level of detail needed for others to follow and duplicate her work. I'd like to see us work with Bob Berger to get his results on the web. Marshall Dudley has stated that UV/Visible scanning spectrophotometry was a good method for quantifying the particle size. I'd love to see those scans posted and some of our other product put throught the same testing for comparison. On or about February 27 or 28 this year, Ivan posted instructions for a simple CS generator. You'll find it in the archives at: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html?mID=5609 He says that he gets 10ppm +/- 2ppm of a clear to light yellow product with little buildup or treeing on the negative electrode. *But* we need to see these instructions illustrated with photos and diagrams, plots for voltage and current vs. time and ppm vs. duration, and particle size distribution measurements by electron microscopy or scanning UV/visible spec, plus enough repetitions to generate genuine error bars on the key measures, etc. Then we've got the LVDC techniques like Trem Williams' current limiting, or Bob's low current polarity switching that Vikki's testing: ** Can we demonstrate that particle size *IS* closely related to current density? I'd like to see the UV/visible spec scans for product generated at different constant current densities for a given electrode geometry. ** Can we figure out the effects (or non-effects, hopefully) of electrode geometry on these different processes? ** Can we get to the point that we can predict what someone's CS generator will produce from easily measurable features of the setup and procedure? Reduce the whole thing to a handful of guidelines, tables and equations? At every step along the way, there's the need to make measurements of ppm, conductivity, particle size, current and voltage, etc. It will help to develop standard control and monitoring techniques and reporting methods. But *nothing* will happen without our actually *doing* the thing. Like most of you who aren't rich and have other things in your life besides CS and this list, I've *done* a lot less than I've wanted to. I can't give you promises of what I can do and when. And I'd be perfectly happy if others would take my ideas and run with them. But I'm offering what I can... ** I'd like to help design and build a flexible testbed along the lines of Vikki's Stamp unit. And I'd like to see us publish the schematics and detailed instructions and code for it so others can duplicate it -- *not* as a CS generator but as a research tool. Then I'd like to use it to simulate and monitor various processes, from simple to sophisticated, so we can get detailed measurements of results to correlate with measurements. ** I *might* be able to get some spectrophotometry done on some samples by a friend of a friend, but I'd also like help finding out where to get this done and what the costs are like, so we can use the technique more freely. And ultimately, we'll have to invest in the electron microscopy to cross check the spec measurements, which will be costly if someone can't persuade a friend to do it on the side somewhere. ** And I'll publish what I do, and invite others to let me publish or link to your results on the silver list web site. Web publishing is what I'm focusing on right now, for a couple of different projects, so I think this is actually a promise that has some value, finally. As we *do*, we will learn. By the questions we get from others, we'll learn how we should refine our reporting methods. By the results we get we'll find out what tools and techniques are most useful. And by exposing ourselves to collaboration and a sort of real-time peer review, we'll all be held to the highest standards we are capable of. And, hopefully, we'll get to the point of being *confident* in our understanding of the process and be ready to help others to test CS for safety and efficacy in the real world of culture dishes and test animals and human volunteers. We'll be able to clearly describe a CS preparation *and* provide a reliable method for duplicating it. Then, we'll have made the first baby steps toward "proof" of all the claims -- and in the meantime, given everyone who wants it the best information and guidance to be found. Food for thought, I hope. Be well, Mike D. [Mike Devour, Citizen, Patriot, Libertarian] [[email protected] ] [Speaking only for myself... ] -- 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]>
