Terry Chamberlin wrote: The smallest particle would be a single atom ion. You can't go smaller than that. It appears that even ions are effective at least to some extent.
> > Questions like: > 1. Does particle size matter below a certain size? > (1/4 chunks are too big, yes!) This is one of, if not > the major, consideration. If coffee-colored, LVDC CS > is just as effective (in killing pathogens) as > crystal-clear, HVAC CS, then variations in voltage and > current are only relevant to the speed of CS-brewing. > The smallest particle would be a single atom ion. You can't go smaller than that. It appears that even ions are effective at least to some extent. > > 2. Apart from known silver compounds (silver-nitrate, > and silver compounded to any already toxic metal like > mercury, lead, cadmium, etc.) is the fear of making > silver compounds from any other minerals found in > water simply a superstition? (Minerals we think > nothing of drinking such as what is found in spring or > well water.) A superstition is something that is > feared without any logical reason, or even in the face > of logic. I have repeatedly seen newbies admonished > with great authority to NOT use salt, that this is > dangerous. Or, no other water but DW or Deionized > (maybe RO) should ever be considered. Yet I have seen > no data to substantiate these ideas. > The problem is that in the process of making CS, the silver leaves the wire as ions. Ions are very reactive and will react immediately with many things. Once the ions combine and form colloid then the silver becomes very non-reactive. So if your water has 50 ppm of salt in it, the first silver ions will combine with the chlorine in the salt and produce silver chloride. Only after all the elements that will combine with the silver ions are consumed will sufficient quantity of ions be present to actually start making colloid. Thus depending on the water, you may have to make several hundred ppm of ionic silver, which will combine and likely precipitate out, before you ever make the first clump of colloid. > > A significant amount of time, money, equipment, etc., > is expended by the Technical-oriented folks on the > List on determining how to make CS with small particle > size, or a preponderance of ions or particles, or a CS > that has no color. Yet, little if any of this research > seems to address the question, Does this method > improve the microbe-killing or health-enhancing > benefit of CS? (Which, in my opinion, is the top > priority.) > The theory is pretty sound. Silver buried inside a particle can do nothing, and particles of silver which never contact a pathogen can do nothing. When you reduce particle size then the surface to volume ratio increases, and the number of independent particles increase. Both effects should increase the effectiveness. Also you have to consider what size is required to pass through the stomach wall. > > Its considered to be humorous that religious > theologians of 4-500 years ago used to expend serious > energy discussing such weighty matters as, How Many > Angels Can Sit On The Head Of A Pin? The reason its > humorous is because the question is irrelevant, it > doesnt matter, it has no bearing on anything. If it > turned out that there was no significant difference > between the pathogen-killing, health-enhancing effects > of LVDC vs. HVAC CS, wouldnt we commence research in > other, more important areas? > I am not aware of much if any discussion of LVDC vs HVAC, just on particle size, which either can control to some extent with the right setup. > > To be objective, and because this may very well be > true, it may be quite important, what color CS is, or > what voltage or current is used, or the addition of > various substances as starter. Or it may turn out > that ionic CS is better at fighting some kinds of > ailments and particulate CS others. But it doesnt > seem that any comprehensive, methodical research is > being conducted to determine this. We do know that when you add salt to ionic silver, the silver precipitates out. If the silver is gone out of the water, then we know that it will not be effective since nothing is left but slightly salty water. > Yet the question still remains: How do we know any of > this matters in the slightest? We know that color defines particle size, and that particle size determines stability. We know that when the particles settle out, the remaining liquid is less effective at the very least. We also know that if the particles are too big they will not make it into the blood stream. I tested this when I was a child. When I swallowed a dime, it made it through without ever making it to the blood stream (thank goodness). > How do we know if one > type of electro-colloidal CS is better than any other? What other? Grinding silver up in a machine? That is like trying to use bowling balls for a job that requires ball bearings. If you make CS by reduction of silver nitrate, then you end up with other chemicals in the product, and most likely some silver nitrate will be left as well. We know the dangers of silver nitrate. > > Speaking subjectively, my own experience with the CS I > make using a very simple method (that anyone else > could use) is so good, it is sometimes hard for me to > take seriously the discussions of ionic vs > particulate, 0.1 vs .001 size particles, meso vs > non-meso, colored vs clear, stirred, heated, > magnetized, oxygenated, prayed-over, etc., Colloidal > Silver, when there is not ALSO offered some kind of > data to indicate that this particular > method/technique/adjustment makes CS more effective at > doing what we seek for it to do. We read impressive > testimonies about nearly every kind/type/method CS > made. > It is true that CS is such a fantastic antibiotic that all of it seems to work no matter how it is made, and whether it is primarily ionic or colloid. But why not make it the best that you can. Lets say that an anthrax has been developed that is somewhat immune to silver. Then what? One is limited as to the amount of CS they can take by how much water they can drink. Most effective CS could make a difference in you life. > > If you build a whole method and line of reasoning on > an unsubstantiated assumption, isnt that risky? The > medical establishment has done that on a wide variety > of issues. They are left with scrambling around trying > to bolster their position, trying to save face in > response to mounting scientific evidence that exposes > their faulty premises. Let us not do the same. > What assumptions are unsubstantiated? We KNOW that color depends on particle size, this has been known for almost 100 years. We know that larger particles cannot make it through the stomach lining. We know that when a particle is made smaller the surface to volume ratio increases. We know that ionic silver will immediately combine with salt making silver chloride. All these things come out of research or math and are known. > > The proposed newbie CS FAQ/Info Primer (a great idea) > must be careful to separate fact from unproven > assumptions. It is believed by some, though not all, > should be made clear, or else CS superstition will > quickly appear. > Sure. 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]>
