## I don't mind. Your use of some terms confuses me and makes me look things up. This is good. Youu seem to deny the presence of oxides when my eyes can clearly see they exist. The use of 'oxidation' referring to charge relates to 'oxidation potential' not oxidation defined as combining with oxygen. So, I'm confused by what you say when you use that term. It seems a different way of looking at the same thing in reverse. Confusion over anode/cathode/positive and negative charges comes from being taught electronics theory both ways at once. [electron theory/hole theory] I can no longer bias a transistor and understand what I did. OK, so now I know what you 'mean' to say [maybe] and I'll try to fit it in. I am attempting to understand what I am seeing in an environment that I know little about. You seem intent on steering me away from my own perceptions with irrelevent technicaleese mixed with the relevent and designed to make me look like an idiot. Well, I AM an idiot, so it doesn't matter to me how I look. Really now, I appreciate the effort you've put into explaining what you believe to be true and have gotten a great deal of enlightment from it. I'm not saying what you believe is not true but it doesn't 'completely' match what I see happening. Partially true helps too. Obviously, there are some elements missing and a mystery existing. I say what I 'think' they are as an attempt to communicate that there is a question, not to show off what I know. If I 'Knew' I wouldn't bother, but I don't automatically believe everything I'm told and stop looking either. I'll look where ever they might be. We both think what we want to. That's natural. I think I'm making mistakes. The only question is which is which. That how learning happens. That makes me an idiot AND a pain in the rump. You may dismiss me as such and stop responding or continue and put up with your ideas of my ignorance. It's OK either way.
Language is the greatest barrier to communication. Thank you for your time and efforts. The results are not yours to determine. Now, something here bothers me and seems incomplete. *Again, one does not need to assume the presence of silver oxide for this to be true. "Hydrogen peroxide removes this deposit, because it is elemental silver, and so is able to supply an electron to the bound O(-1) ion ### What is the bound ion O (-1) bound to? If it is bound to something other than Oxygen, isn't it reasonable to assume an oxide compound? so that it may become O(-2) ion (which is oxygens most stable ion), which then combine to form O2(gas). ## Understood In doing so it has disassociated the metalic silver by oxidation (removed electrons) and formed Ag+ ions which can then be measured." ## Disassociated the metalic silver from what? *Molecules do not 'have' pigments, their colour depends soley on the reflection, refraction, absorption and emmitance of light.### No problem with that in that I suppose that pigments are molecules that reflect and absorb light. This is directly related to the particle size as proved in previous posts. YOU are no longer talking about pure silver ion clusters, as if that is a fact! ## Actually stated as a supposition with the 'as if' being an accurate statement. Look at carbon... Carbon black is a powdery substance which absorbs light with no reflectance or emission in the visible spectrum, hence it looks black. However sugar, which is a large molecule containing many carbon atoms, when dissolved in water is colourless. ## Yes yes, diamonds and coal. *The fact that you can't 'see' the cloud does not mean the reaction has stopped, it just means the particles involved are too small to see.## What I see is silver being locked up inside hydrogen bubbles, therefore, not in the water. True, maybe not ALL of them. When the bubbles break up after removing power, I see the characteristic white cloud burst forth. *Further proof that what I have said is true... that there is little if any silver oxide in coloured solutions, can be found in the fact that my Ion Selective Electrode test equipement measures the activity of silver ions only.### Charged silver particles or ions, But not oxides? It does not measure the activity of any other ion (except sulphide) or compound.## only silver ions,no compounds... OK When the results of an (ISE) reading of coloured CS (as produced by myself, others may have elemental particle inclusion) is compared to the Atomic Absorption (AA) test result (which measures total silver content, regardless of ionic nature or compound) the results match to within the margin of error! ### Of course it does. It doesn't take oxygen bound to silver as anything different than total silver content. The silver didn't go away just because it caught or lost some oxygen. The atomic absortion test is "Atomic Absorption Spectronomy" [looked it up] where the tested substance is vaporized , usually, in a flame. How do these test confirm or deny existance of oxides?## At 11:27 AM 4/10/00 +1200, you wrote: > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "coyote" <[email protected]> >To: <[email protected]> >Sent: Monday, 10 April 2000 03:17 >Subject: CS>long and winding oxides and how to make strong clear LVDC >CS > >Dear Ken, > >I hope you don't mind me saying this, but you seem to display the very >same adherence to dogma that you suspect others of, that is, clinging >to a belief either through ignorance or bloody mindedness. > >How can we have a serious discussion if you do not know the meaning of >the terms you use! > [snipped and displaced] Make your own pure clear Colloidal Silver with a current controlled, "auto off" generator, for pennies a gallon. http://www.silverpuppy.com -- 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]>
