Hey everyone,
I'd love to hear feedback on this dialogue I've been having with Brooks
off-list.
And Brooks, were some of the runs current limited and some not?
Thanks,
Katarina
Dear Katarina.
You may, certainly, share my comments with
others.
Sincerely. Brooks
Katarina Wittich wrote:
> Hi Brooks,
> Wow. So that means that according to your tests the golden color doesn't
> necessarily mean larger particle size than clear. Were the golden samples
> made with honey so that maybe it wasn't particle size that affected the
> color, but some addition?
>
> Just to make sure I got it right. This doesn't mean that you can't make cs
> with larger particle size -- obviously if you use contaminated water you
> will have larger particle size. But if you make good quality cs with good
> water the particle size doesn't seem to vary. Were some of your solutions
> current limited and some not?
>
> And would you mind if I post this private exchange on the list because I am
> sure it would be of interest to others?
>
> Thanks so much for taking the time to answer my questions!
>
> Take care,
> Katarina
>
> > Hello Katarina'.
> > Some of our samples were clear and some were
light
> > golden in color (those containing one small drop of honey). We did not
find
> any
> > increase in particle size between the light golden colored and the clear
> > solutions-----regardless of the system used to generate them. The particle
> sizes
> > varied between .015 and .012 microns, generally, with .013 microns being the
> RMS
> > (root mean square) average.
> > We have found that the principal causes for large particle
> agglomeration to
> > be contaminants of one type or another........even quite minor ones.
> > It is possible to get color variations through solution contaminate
> conditions,
> > quite independent of the silver cluster enlargement characteristic. And
some
> of
> > these closely resemble the color expressed by the silver
> molecule-light-dispersion
> > characteristics, displayed as silver particles agglomerate into large
masses.
> > Sincerely. Brooks.
> > Katarina Wittich wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Brooks,
> >> that is so interesting.
> >> Am I correct in assuming that all the samples you sent were clear and had
> >> good tyndall? Were any of them yellow? My question being, does your
> >> experiment mean that - at the particle size created by clear solutions
> >> there is no discernable difference in size. Approximately what was the size
> >> of most of the particles?
> >>
> >> But it doesn't mean that if you make your CS badly or if you aim for yellow
> >> cs you won't have bigger size particles, does it?
> >> And yes, this is very helpful!
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Katarina
> >>
> >> > Hello Katarina.
> >> > Yes, that is exactly what I mean. An
electron
> >> > microscope resolves to better than 120,000 diameters. It will , easily,
> >> resolve
> >> > beyond .001, therefore it most certainly will discriminate between larger
> >> > diameters.
> >> >
> >> > I hope this helps. Sincerely. Brooks Bradley.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Katarina Wittich wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Hi Brooks,
> >> >>
> >> >> Does this mean that regardless of the process you always ended up with
> >> >> approximately the same particle size according to the electron
microscope?
> >> >> How precise is an electron microscope? Does it tell the differece
between
> >> >> .001 and .01 ?
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks,
> >> >> Katarina
> >> >>
> >> >> > To all interested list members. I have
been
> >> >> > reluctant to enter this discussion, but since we have some actual,
> >> objective
> >> >> > data on this issue, I will break my covenant of silence. I do this
> knowing
> >> >> that
> >> >> > many on the list do not possess the discretionary funds required to
have
> >> >> > multiple electron microscope runs performed (@ $120.00 each). In 1997
> we
> >> had
> >> >> a
> >> >> > number of specimens examined under electron microscopy, at an
> independent
> >> >> > laboratory. Among these were 27 vdc (using batteries), 36 vdc
> (regulated
> >> ),
> >> >> 28
> >> >> > vdc (regulated power supply), 18 vdc (reg. pwr supply), 12 vdc
> (reg.pwr.
> >> >> > supply), 10,000 vac, 1000 vac; generated using COLD (35 DEGREES
> F..),
> >> ROOM
> >> >> > TEMP (80 DEGREES F.), and HOT (180 DEGREES F.). ALL RESULTS were so
> >> similar,
> >> >> > that NO visible differention was possible.....using the unaided human
> eye.
> >> >> > since the magnification was in excess of 100K, most of the discussion
> >> is---at
> >> >> > least to us---moot.
> >> >> > I do not mean to be
confrontational/adversarial
> in
> >> >> this
> >> >> > matter. These are just our findings. Others may have data which
> >> contravenes
> >> >> > ours. If so, I would be most appreciative of receiving their
> commentary.
> >> >> > Sincerely. Brooks.
--
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]
Silver-list archive: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html
List maintainer: Mike Devour <[email protected]>
