How many times on this list have we seen 'Oops, that should have been
milliamps rather than microamps or pints instead of liters'
If my recent go 'round with Hanna's calibration solution is any indicator,
any system that depends of chemical sachets supplied by the manufacturer or
solutions or calculations made by an operator can be suspect and no one
would know the difference.
General rule of human nature:
The more educated and lettered a person is, the more they tend to defend
their errors and oversights. They are, after all, paid to be right.
..and the rest of us must rely on, not so common, common sense.
Fortunately, any modicom of common sense is adequate in the
making, application and actual use of CS.
The details are almost irrelevent when good results in use are to be had.
Heck, even the "bad" stuff works.
..now, further complicate the effects with the power of belief.
If you can be convinced you have been burned, then actually grow a blister
in a matter of minutes. Then UN grow it when you're told the burn that
didn't happen, didn't happen.......
When a grapefruit sized tumor can dissappear over night, then reappear a
week later.....
...it sorta makes a person wonder what is real.
Maybe nothing is.
Maybe science is nothing more than quantifiable magic.
Rumor has it that the entire universe is created by the perception of it.
..and reality itself is subjectively relative.
Ode
At 04:09 PM 6/20/2003 +0005, you wrote:
Paula writes:
> I am completely puzzled by your utter reliance on a test (salt test)
> that is so completely subjective and not at all measured, controlled,
> or precise and your attitude towards ole Bob's lab equipment and
> multiple cross checks and tests by others (real lab tests, real
> calibrated equipment, much more repeatable even if somewhat variable).
> And your reliance on calculations and equations that as far as I can
> tell from your posts do not make any allowance for any variables in
> the distilled water. You amaze me.
Hehe. Personalities are the *fun* part of all this, dontcha know?
<GRIN>
Seriously, Paula highlights for me the one objection Mike M. has made
to the others' efforts that I have not yet seen a solid answer to, and
I'd *like* to see that answer.
I'm talking about his contention that some of Bob's samples show
higher silver content than is "theoretically" possible from the number
of Coulombs of electrons passed through the cell. So far the only
answer has been, "We've made hundreds of measurements and cross
checked with each other."
Now that is a good enough answer as far as it goes, and I do not
believe that Bob and the others are wrong. But *somebody* had better
figure out just what's being missed. What assumptions are wrong behind
Mike's calculations? What part of the computation is wrong. Or what
part of the data? Or assumption behind all of the measurements?
What say ye, oh silvan sayers of sooth?
Be well,
Mike D.
(who's signed his posts 'Mike D.' since the last time another 'Mike'
was active on the forum...)
[Mike Devour, Citizen, Patriot, Libertarian]
[[email protected] ]
[Speaking only for myself... ]
--
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]>
