Agreed Wayne.
When eyeballs and taste buds are sufficient gauges for what's good enough and will work, by all means use them in such a way that the result DOES work. But also use them to initiate intuitive caution. If it looks good, it probably is. [If you have an idea about what 'good' looks like. I've seen explicit instructions on how to make something I'd dump out..even saying that a "pink" CS is very very good stuff.] If it tastes like rocket fuel..assume that it's rocket fuel. After that, it's all pretty much splitting hairs. Start looking for numbers to back up the eyeballs, now...that's where simplicity goes out the window. Half way is half way. If you want numbers that mean anything at all rather than just 'sounding' like they mean something..and I'm only talking "reasonable" accuracy.. THEN there's a lot of things to take into account. Not just time. "Time" is like going 1/10th of the way. Time may tell you if you got off the ground but won't tell you how fast you'll be going when you hit the moon...or that you just popped up on a pogo stick. Current wise... Are you driving a Volkswagon or a Ferrarri? Water wise... Autobahn or cow track? If getting into the Ballparks parking lot of 'close enough' is cool...then it's cool. But to claim that's a view of the pichers mound is not so cool, especially if you bought tickets for a front row seat and are expecting to watch the game. Being "in" the game and marking actual score to the decimal is another level yet again. Most mega dollar LABs don't make it there. The CS "industry" is loaded with claims, 'instructions' and numbers backed up by nothing at all which are very often totally off the wall, pulled straight out of a hat and made to sound like they mean something. If silver water were the least bit toxic, the dosing "standards" I've seen so far would mean a lot of dead people. They make zero sense. [and , fortunately..don't have to, to work without killing anyone.] When you get a commercially made sample that only contains 1 hundreth of the silver content claimed on the label or they say it's 87% particles and turns out to be 87% ions...ya just gotta wonder... what the heck do they 'think' they're doing? They're either lying, or they're totally ignorant and don't know it. If it's ignorance, it's usually because they're operating under the idea that they have a clue because someone 'told' them how and they believed that method of knowing works when it doesn't. And doesn't work because it leaves out 90% of what's really relevent. The innocently ignorant don't know, that they don't know. There's plenty of that going around even at the "Professional" level. Time alone simply doesn't work to put 'any' sort of numbers on the end product. Todays water may give to 10 PPM, tomorrows water, 100 PPM or 1,000 and the next..2 PPM, all in the same amount of time using the same brand of water. All it takes is a stray salt crystal or so, a dust of baking soda in the air, a minuscule trace of soap scum or anti spotting agent from the dishwasher, to make all that difference. If you don't know where you started, especially on an acceleration curve, you'll have no idea at all where you'll wind up. The flat end and the near verticle end of the curve aren't all that far apart..only a few microsiemens. Using a simple constant voltage generator, PPM per minute is really PPM per minute, per minute but I've never seen any generator seller tell anyone that using that generator is like falling off a building without knowing how tall it is. The saving grace there is, if you have any idea at all about what wind-speed feels like, you can pop the parachute before you get flat. "Bounce" is good enough. Were you told about wind-speed? [Probably not] Even using a generator that takes everything reasonably practical into account, the time difference to get to a given conductivity..a close 'ballpark' figure.. [never mind 'actual' PPM] can vary by hours with only a 3 microsiemens difference in the water. That's a difference that almost won't even register on a cheapo PPM meter or even a good PWT that's not calibrated well. A near invisible speck of baking soda will make more than that amount of difference in a small batch. Ask Stan Jones.. Had he used time... and eyeballs/ tastebuds and an educated guess, at least he wouldn't have gotten into trouble. He "thought" he had a clue because he was told something that wasn't true and believed that more than what he was seeing happen. No one told him what else to look out for, or that there WAS anything else TO look out for. He just didn't know..and..He didn't know that he didn't know. Heck fire, ya gotta know a little bit just to think to ask. Say, is this thing supposed to fizz, foam and make emulsified brown/black stuff within 3 minutes? I have a $150 generator here, made and sold back in the 80s, with instructions, that does just that. I traded a 'real' one for it out of curiosity. According to the instructions [if I recall..it's been a while since I dragged it out.]..that's 5 PPM of the finest colloidal silver that can possibly be made. [Try 5000 PPM of total cruddy crap?] It doesn't mention what the results are supposed to look like. It does warn that running it for more than 4 minutes might cause it to catch fire. It does mention that touching the electrodes while it's plugged in could kill you. It doesn't bother to say.." These instructions don't mean a thing...Yer on yer own, Blue Boy". Now, that's an extreme case, but, point made. What if I didn't know any better? What if my 'yuck tolerance' wasn't what it is and I had a 'If a leetle be good, mo be mo betta' mentality? DANGER Will Robinson! Oh yea, thanks Robbie..it didn't see that landslide coming. Ode At 10:01 AM 7/5/2004 -0500, you wrote: >Morning Ode, > >At 07:27 AM 7/5/04, you wrote: >>I don't think you can do that with time alone. >>The time it takes to do that can vary by hours depending on even small >>variations in intial water purity. > I see this akin to the perfect recipe for wine making. Man has been >trying to make a science out of wine making for thousands of years. Tons >of variables in the grapes alone. > > I know the commercial people have come close. Most home brewers make >it by the seat of the pants, like some CS makers. Results can be >satisfactory and amazing in both cases. > > No doubt, in a laboratory controlled situation, one may be able to >control CS and define the process scientifically. Some of you have >virtually done that. > > Most of us need to understand where practicality stops and science starts. > > Other things are similar such as, "The science of growing the perfect >tomato". or...... >"The Science of Growing the Perfect Watermelon". > > What everyone misses here, ( especially the ones that have not done it >) is.... The fun of the chase. > >I have spent 5 weekends trying to kill a deer with the bow. When I did >it, I felt like I had accomplished very little, almost hated to end the chase. > > To each his own. If I had a lab, my first project would be tissue >culture and make plants from a single cell. > > Wayne > > > >-- >The Silver List is a moderated forum for discussing Colloidal Silver. > >Instructions for unsubscribing are posted at: http://silverlist.org > >To post, address your message to: [email protected] >Silver List archive: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html > >Address Off-Topic messages to: [email protected] >OT Archive: http://escribe.com/health/silverofftopiclist/index.html > >List maintainer: Mike Devour <[email protected]> > >
