From:
http://www.physorg.com/news134129791.html
It sounds like they've found a novel way of making Quantum Dots.
The interesting part (to me) is that they used silver to make silver nanoparticles.
Colloidal silver is of personal interest to me, it having cured a long-standing sinus infection that had survived several powerful doses of powerful antibiotics, including "Z-Pac" and all the penicillin I got after a ruptured app'x. A few spritzes of 10ppm (parts per million) colloidal silver up my nose cleared it up in a few days. Along with chronic bronchitis from the cough that the post-nasal drip from the infected sinus, and the blepharitis that had survived four month-long treatments of antibiotic goo that the doctor had prescribed. Not to mention back zits.
Yes, I'm aware of the FDA's scare-tactics about "argyria", and so long as you don't go nuts with the stuff, you're safe. The FDA hates the very idea of there being alternative medicines that they can't regulate. (I first found out about it here, at PhysOrg, btw. http://www.jnanobiotechnology.com/content/3/1/6)
The usual "explanation" of how colloidal silver works is unsatisfying, but focuses on it "sticking" to enzymes peculiar to pathogens, which I think is probably close to being right.
Note in the article that they expect this to be useful in coming up with new catalysts. I know there are lots of categorical differences between enzymes and catalysts, but from the top-level perspective, don't they basically do the same thing? There's an energy barrier between one state and another, and they help lower that barrier which expedites the state transition. (There's a siphon analogy here someplace, but I'm not in the mood to write it out.)
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jul 6 2008, 03:18 AM)
Colloidal silver is of personal interest to me, it having cured a long-standing sinus infection that had survived several powerful doses of powerful antibiotics, including "Z-Pac" and all the penicillin I got after a ruptured app'x. A few spritzes of 10ppm (parts per million) colloidal silver up my nose cleared it up in a few days. Along with chronic bronchitis from the cough that the post-nasal drip from the infected sinus, and the blepharitis that had survived four month-long treatments of antibiotic goo that the doctor had prescribed. Not to mention back zits.
Yes, I'm aware of the FDA's scare-tactics about "argyria", and so long as you don't go nuts with the stuff, you're safe. The FDA hates the very idea of there being alternative medicines that they can't regulate.
Yes, I'm aware of the FDA's scare-tactics about "argyria", and so long as you don't go nuts with the stuff, you're safe. The FDA hates the very idea of there being alternative medicines that they can't regulate.
It would be nice if all of the supporters and purveyors of colloidal silver would ban together and fund some double blind studies to confirm it's effectiveness in cases such as yours. If such studies were to validate your claims, the FDA would not be forced to relegate colloidal silver to the state of dietary supplement instead of legitimate effective medicine.
QUOTE
(I first found out about it here, at PhysOrg, btw. http://www.jnanobiotechnology.com/content/3/1/6)
The article is gone from the link.
http://www.jnanobiotechnology.com/content/3/1/6
It's still there, you have to leave the close-parenthesis off.
I'm not a purveyor of colloidal silver, I have no vested interest in it. I don't make a buck either way, but my ethical obligation is to tell people about things like Vitamin D (which can prevent 30% of cancers) and other things I've found that have worked for me.
I'm not actually obligated to *convince* anyone of anything, however.
You might also be interested in this link, which explains why alternative medicines, regardless of their research pedigree, don't get FDA approval.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?act=ST&f=26&t=19172
It's still there, you have to leave the close-parenthesis off.
I'm not a purveyor of colloidal silver, I have no vested interest in it. I don't make a buck either way, but my ethical obligation is to tell people about things like Vitamin D (which can prevent 30% of cancers) and other things I've found that have worked for me.
I'm not actually obligated to *convince* anyone of anything, however.
You might also be interested in this link, which explains why alternative medicines, regardless of their research pedigree, don't get FDA approval.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?act=ST&f=26&t=19172
Drink plenty of water after taking the silver, wcelliott. We don't need a crystallized veined blue man walking around like Libertarian presidential candidate Harry Brown a few years ago. 
QUOTE
Drink plenty of water after taking the silver, wcelliott. We don't need a crystallized veined blue man walking around like Libertarian presidential candidate Harry Brown a few years ago.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Drink plenty of water after taking the silver, wcelliott. We don't need a crystallized veined blue man walking around like Libertarian presidential candidate Harry Brown a few years ago. |
Yes, I'm aware of the FDA's scare-tactics about "argyria", and so long as you don't go nuts with the stuff, you're safe.
Gotcha. 
Anyway, back to the original topic - Nanoparticles as "superatoms" turning the periodic table upside-down.
I mentioned earlier that enzymes and catalysts do basically the same job, lowering the energy barrier preventing chemical reactions from occurring, thereby facilitating the reactions.
One of the big arguments against the spontaneous creation of life from inanimate random chemicals is that the chemistry of life needs a lot of enzymes to work, and the notion of enzymes (which are generally massive, complex chemicals) happening spontaneously is a hard-sell.
The spontaneous creation of large clusters of atoms, however, is a lot easier to swallow, and if "superatoms" can, indeed, perform the functions of primitive enzymes (which I'm asserting is the case), then the spontaneous origin of life suddenly gets a lot easier to explain.
(For the record, I believe in God *and* I think Darwin had it mostly correct.)
I mentioned earlier that enzymes and catalysts do basically the same job, lowering the energy barrier preventing chemical reactions from occurring, thereby facilitating the reactions.
One of the big arguments against the spontaneous creation of life from inanimate random chemicals is that the chemistry of life needs a lot of enzymes to work, and the notion of enzymes (which are generally massive, complex chemicals) happening spontaneously is a hard-sell.
The spontaneous creation of large clusters of atoms, however, is a lot easier to swallow, and if "superatoms" can, indeed, perform the functions of primitive enzymes (which I'm asserting is the case), then the spontaneous origin of life suddenly gets a lot easier to explain.
(For the record, I believe in God *and* I think Darwin had it mostly correct.)
Nanoparticles are simply small, complex particles. They don't act as atoms and enzymes are made up of nanoparticles.
Mid - Please read the article referenced, esp., this part:
"The super atoms gave the periodic table a third dimension as it were, according to Schmidt-Ott: 'The chemical properties of the super atoms that have been identified up until now are very similar to those of elements in the periodic table, because their outer layers are much the same. However, we may yet discover super atoms with a different outer layer, giving us another set of completely new properties.'
Schmidt-Ott hopes to find atom clusters with new unique magnetic, optical or electrical properties, which would also be stable enough to create crystals or other solid forms. Potential applications include catalysts in fuel and extra-conductive crystals. "
"The super atoms gave the periodic table a third dimension as it were, according to Schmidt-Ott: 'The chemical properties of the super atoms that have been identified up until now are very similar to those of elements in the periodic table, because their outer layers are much the same. However, we may yet discover super atoms with a different outer layer, giving us another set of completely new properties.'
Schmidt-Ott hopes to find atom clusters with new unique magnetic, optical or electrical properties, which would also be stable enough to create crystals or other solid forms. Potential applications include catalysts in fuel and extra-conductive crystals. "
The keyword here is 'might' find the third dimension. Your previous post seemed as though this event was fact.
Based on my experiences with colloidal silver, I think it *is* a fact, just not an *established* fact.
I believe you are right.
I tried to start a different topic on this same article, but it got deleted.
Talking about clusters of atoms of the same element acting like catalysts (and interacting with enzymes) got me thinking that the origin of life on earth seems to have been a smaller step than the prevailing theories would imply.
I mentioned earlier that enzymes and catalysts do basically the same job, lowering the energy barrier preventing chemical reactions from occurring, thereby facilitating the reactions.
One of the big arguments against the spontaneous creation of life from inanimate random chemicals is that the chemistry of life needs a lot of enzymes to work, and the notion of enzymes (which are generally massive, complex chemicals) happening spontaneously is a hard-sell.
The spontaneous creation of large clusters of atoms, however, is a lot easier to swallow, and if "superatoms" can, indeed, perform the functions of primitive enzymes (which I'm asserting is the case), then the spontaneous origin of life suddenly gets a lot easier to explain.
(For the record, I believe in God *and* I think Darwin had it mostly correct.)
Talking about clusters of atoms of the same element acting like catalysts (and interacting with enzymes) got me thinking that the origin of life on earth seems to have been a smaller step than the prevailing theories would imply.
I mentioned earlier that enzymes and catalysts do basically the same job, lowering the energy barrier preventing chemical reactions from occurring, thereby facilitating the reactions.
One of the big arguments against the spontaneous creation of life from inanimate random chemicals is that the chemistry of life needs a lot of enzymes to work, and the notion of enzymes (which are generally massive, complex chemicals) happening spontaneously is a hard-sell.
The spontaneous creation of large clusters of atoms, however, is a lot easier to swallow, and if "superatoms" can, indeed, perform the functions of primitive enzymes (which I'm asserting is the case), then the spontaneous origin of life suddenly gets a lot easier to explain.
(For the record, I believe in God *and* I think Darwin had it mostly correct.)
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.