Ivan Anderson wrote: > > > If clumps of silver repel each other how can that happen if they are > not > > > ions? > > > I did not say they were not ions. I said single atom ions vs multi > atom > > particle ions. > > You said silver metal, but whatever. I don't claim CS is single atomic > ions either, but I do believe my CS is groups of single atomic ions. >
Really. Here is the quote which was at the bottom of the message I replied to, decide for yourself: " I still maintain that there is a BIG difference between how a single atom ion of silver, such as you have in compounds, acts as opposed to the multi-atom clump of atoms ion that is in CS. " > > > Name one mineral that exists in the body other than as an ion or > /> > compound. > > > > Once again, I did not say they were not ions. Just not single atom > ions. > > The difference between how a single atom ion of silver acts vs a > multiatom > > ion of silver is dramatic. Catalytic effects alone are a thousand to > a > > million times more active in the multi-atom clump. > > Here I do mean single atomic ions. As for the rest of your statement > regarding the catalytic effect, I suppose you have some research to back > such a bold claim? Absolutely, I have referenced it here in the past several times. Teh book "Colloidal Chemistry" is one good reference which even has graphs of this. > It CAN act as a > catalyst > > without reacting, and positively charged silver particles are very > strong > > oxidizing catalysts. > > It has to react to be a catalyst, a catalyst is reconstituted at the end > of the reaction. But in any event the major method of silvers' > disinfective action is the bonding of silver ions to the pathogen. I still believe that catalytic oxidation is also related to the effectiveness: See http://silver-lightning.com/research2.html for more on this. >From a previous posting: "I believe you are incorrect that a catalyst has to take part in the reaction. For some catalyzed operations, such as making polyethylene, it does not take part, but acts as a templet. But in other instances it can take place in the reaction, but what happens is that it is involved for only a moment, then ends up back like it was. For instance you want to react A and B, but they will not react. The addition of a catalyst causes A to react with the catalyst (or at least be absorbed onto the surface, which is what I am claiming for CS), then it becomes available to B to react with it, so you end up with A reacted with B, and the catalyst unchanged. This is still considered a catalytic operation." Metalic catalysts do not react with the constituate parts in many cases. They normally provide surface area where the two components come together easily and can then react. They provide a substrate, and will often take part in the transfer of electrons between the two components reacting by virtual of being a good conductor. (A good example of this would be copper and zinc in an acid bath, then you short the two together with silver, they suddenly begin corroding. While this is not really considered a catalyst, it is the macro version of the same reaction). They can also attract the components that are to react to the surface by having a charge. CS does all of these. >From a previous posting: "It IS well documented that the catalytic effects of colloidal metals go from almost non-existant to strong, back to almost non-existant as particle size increases. Check "Colloidal Chemistry" for some nice graphs of this phenomenon. Here is the theory behind it. For a catalyst like silver to work, it must attract both the reducing agent (pathogen) and the oxidizating agent (oxygen) to it's surface. Once both are on the surface, they are neutralized by the silver attracting the loosely bound electron(s) from the agents. The agents, no longer repealling each other now, easily come in contact and react, killing the pathogen. Now, if we have one silver atom, it may attract an oxygen atom or a pathogen. The oxygen or pathogen will be neutralized by the silver taking an electron from it since the silver is positive and the oxygen or pathogen negative. At this point the silver atom and other particle present a neutral body. It no longer is positively charged, and thus no longer attracts any more oxygen or pathogens. Thus it is ineffective as a catalyst. However when a group of silver atoms are in one particle with a charge of more than one electron in magnitude, it will attract more than one negatively charged particle to it. This is necessary for it to work effectively as a catalyst. The effect is that as more atoms and charge are on a particle, the catalytic properties increase rapidly. Catalytic properties can be approximated by the surface area of the particle once we have a group of particles for particles which are small. However as the particle size increases further, the mass increases by the 3rd power or the diameter, but the area only increases by the second power. So we very quickly get into where the mass is growing much faster than the surface area. Thus the effectiveness of the particle may still be increasing, but at a rate much lower than the mass is increasing, so the effectiveness of the sol for a constant ppm is rapidly decreasing with particle size beyond a certain point. Thus the most active particle size for a sol catalytically speaking is likely in the range of 7 to 35 atoms for a constant ppm. This corresponds to about .2 to .3 nm in diameter since a silver atom is approximately .1 nm in diameter." Marshall -- 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]>
