[email protected] wrote: > > In a message dated 9/26/99 10:29:00 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected] > writes: > > << I think that locking down a configuration is good, but that all > possible combinations should be looked at, especially those that > require no testing apparatus by the user. Agreed that the basic > 8oz tumbler and 16oz jar should be defined, and electrode length > and guage. Then it should be possible to state within a margin of > error the concentration for a given time in hot and cold water. > Absolutes would be impossible, but one could say that the > solution is higher than 5ppm. I suspect it will always be lower > than 15ppm. And don't forget those that use ingots. > >> > > As a newbie, I can see that having some sort of even loose standards viewable > on one site would be most helpful. > I picked the above excerpt because, after reading it, I wondered what was the > effect of using ingots as opposed to smaller and/or thinner electrodes. Does > more exposed silver surface during the process make for higher PPM? Should > brewing time be adjusted downward?
As a SWAG I would think that the ingots would just (possibly, depending on other factors and what you compare it to) have more surface area (total wetted area - see my calculations on this on the web site). > There are so many variables that I feel I know less now than when I first > dived in. I understand the feeling Kathie. I'm not the worlds greatest techie, especially in some of the areas involved with CS. About the only thing I do know that can help resolve some of these issues is standardizing methods and generating data for that - from one point of knowledge we can move forward, I think, into variations. The problem is getting to the first conclusive data points. There are just so many ways to produce CS, all of which seem to produce something that is "good enough". > I am afraid that my not very technically inclined mind may be drawing the > wrong conclusion from reading your research findings. That basic standards > site would be grand. We have eminently qualified people here on the list that can help resolve this issue. One of the great things that contributes to the problem is that whatever any of us are doing we ARE producing useful stuff. We just don't know in accepted scientific protocol what this is (well some folks may :). My comment about "snake oil" was not meant to imply "fake useless stuff sold to ignorant people to prey on their needs". It was meant to imply that what we have we can not discribe to accepted norms of scientific communication. Sometimes I do better at saying what I mean than others :-). 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]>
