Hi James, Count me in....at least if we can get enough others to go for it.
Trem [email protected] ----- Original Message ----- From: James Osbourne, Holmes <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, September 27, 1999 8:46 AM Subject: RE: CS>Research overview... > I was thinking we could make several categories of the major methods which > we are using, by lot, select several samples---say different run times or > different start water configurations, of each major type of process used, > and choose randomly from the samples the one's to be tested. My guess is > it would cost about 1500 debt certificate equivalents to get a first look > of about three samples of three types. Maybe less. That's 30 of us > shelling out 50 FRNs. The real hassle is cordination, bookeeping, shipping > packaging, collating the data and distributing it. I cannot do all of > this myself at present. The labs one for particle size and one for kill > titer---another consensus choice to be made---would not like receiving the > samples one at a time, so they would have to be sent to a single > destination for packing and forwarding to the labs. A standard [oops..] > bottle and labeling method would have to be designed. > > It is a bit of a project, but It would give us real data. > > James Osbourne Holmes > [email protected] > > > -----Original Message----- > From: M. G. Devour [SMTP:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, September 27, 1999 1:01 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: CS>Research overview... > > James O., H. wrote: > > > 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. > > I believe we've proven before that folks are willing to do this. I > think it will happen and be more than useful when the time comes > that *we have something to test!* > > Prudence has always headed these efforts off before the money got > sent and spent. The reason is that we never really standardized any > of the processes so that the testing would apply to something useful > to everyone. > > Each vendor or user could do it for themselves, if we all had the > money to spend, and that *would* tell us something in a broad, > unsystematic way. But the best focus would be to thoroughly test only > the two or three best looking systems, as measured by ease of use, > repeatability of the simpler measures, low cost, etcetera. > > Once we've got some momentum behind a very few "recipes", then there > will be a *lot* of incentive to test the h**l out of 'em! <grin> > > That's my thought, anyway. > > Be well, James! > > 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]> > > >
