HI I just wanted to add the following. When one looks at the pictures from http://silvergen.com/toppage2.htm it seems to me that the SG6 which I am taking as a slower type of method to producing the silver looks liker the particles are a lot more uniform and smaller and lack any clumps. When I looked at the photo for the SG7 I saw clumps. Any reasoning for this?
--- Trem <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Paul...and the list, > > Time to clear the air a bit. Paul is speaking about > us. > > Let me give you some information as to how this came > about. We had Stephen Quinto (Natural Immunogenics) > do an analysis of our CS using a transmission > electron microscope. He supplied us with several 5" > X 7" photos of the results. These photos have a > scale attached as a reference. See > http://silvergen.com/toppage2.htm As you can see, > there is very even distribution of the particles and > also much uniformity of particle size. Stephen's > report indicated there were some larger particles in > the mix. However it was apparent to me that the > majority of particles were between the range of .001 > or less and .005 microns. Using a dial caliper to > measure the smallest ones on the photos and using > the scale provided by Stephen showed me the smallest > particles were less than .001 microns so I put .0006 > microns as the minimum size in our description next > to the photos even though the report indicated .001 > as minimum. > > When Paul called for information I wasn't sure what > the report stated and said so. It had been so long > since we had gotten the report I wasn't sure what it > said. I told Paul to call Stephen if he wanted to > because Stephen had told me our CS was second only > to his in quality. That statement had carried a lot > of weight for me since Stephens product is about as > good as one can get as far as I'm concerned. > > Paul called Stephen and was told there were some > large particles in our mix. That is a fact. He had > pulled the original report and read from it. > However what is not clear is the fact that there > were very few larger particles. The vast majority > are in the extremely small range. To be honest, > when we made the website I didn't feel it necessary > to point out the fact there were a few larger size > particles when most of the mix was in a consistently > small range. I guess if I was marketing my daughter > as a bride I wouldn't advertise the fact she had a > wart since it would have little bearing on her > overall qualities. After all it's the whole picture > that counts. As a side note Frank Key recently did > an analysis of our CS for a customer of ours. His > analysis was that our CS was 99.97% ionic and .05 > PPM particulate out of 21.5 PPM total. Hopefully > you can see my reasoning to not mention there were a > few larger particles when they don't really matter > because there just aren't many there. If one > directs a laser pointer through our CS it is obvious > there are no large visible particles. The Tyndall > is very weak. > > I also used the word "typical" in describing our > particle size. Had I said this is the particle > size....period.... that would have been untruthful. > > Anyway, after looking at the report again and using > the calipers again I decided it would be best to > change the minimum size from .0006 to .001 microns > even though they still look that small to me in the > photos. Stephen tells me they use a similar method > to size the particles. And really, it's splitting > hairs when we're talking about the small difference > here so I changed our information to reflect the > minimum size on the report. > > We try to be as straightforward in our descriptions > and information as possible, however it appears I > was not completely honest in not pointing out a > small anomaly. Hopefully we won't be thought of too > badly because of it. > > I also tried to call Paul yesterday at his place of > business and his home to explain what I was going to > do about our size information but he didn't return > my call. > > Thanks for your time. > > Trem > www.silvergen.com > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Paul Ladendorf > To: [email protected] > Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 7:59 PM > Subject: CS>Buyer Beware > > > I wanted to share an experience with the list. > Yesterday I was on a website which touted the small > particle size of silver made by their generator as > proven by a lab analysis to show it's superiority. > When I read the figures I was very, very impressed. > I contacted the manufacturer to ask for a copy of > the assay (certificate of analysis). The person > responded: "There's a picture right on my website". > Well I was looking for a certificate and a picture > doesn't say anything about particle size. Right away > I felt like the person was trying to sidestep the > issue. Again I asked: Don't you have a certificate. > "I don't think I got one" was the response. This > time I was really skeptical that someone would pay > to have their product analyzed and not get a > certificate of analysis. They told me to contact the > lab that it was tested at. No problem as this was a > company that I do business with currently. The man > at the lab who tested the product gave me a differe! > nt set of numbers than this person told me and had > on their website...larger numbers. Now the numbers > didn't look so impressive - still good mind you. I > called the manufacturer back and told him what the > lab said. "He must have made a mistake. Let me call > him and I'll call you back." Never heard back so I > called the man at the lab today to confirm the > numbers again. He told me he hadn't gotten a call > from the mfg. I asked him, "Didn't this mfg. get a > certificate?" I asked. "He certainly did, he paid > for it." was their response. Next I go back to the > mfg's site and see the numbers changed to much > closer figures (still not accurate) to what the lab > gave me. The sad thing is that I'm sure this mfg's > generator is excellent quality as others have > attested to and I probably would have done business > with them had I not found this "error". I wonder how > many other people saw those numbers and bought > without verifying, thinking that they were getting > something b! etter than what they got. Buyer Beware! > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Do you Yahoo!? > New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo! __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! News - Today's headlines http://news.yahoo.com -- The silver-list is a moderated forum for discussion of colloidal silver. Instructions for unsubscribing may be found at: http://silverlist.org To post, address your message to: [email protected] Silver-list archive: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html List maintainer: Mike Devour <[email protected]>
