IN MARCH I POSED THE FOLLOWING QUESTION....
***Has Anyone Converted White Gold to Yellow?***
If there is anyone who has been successful in the conversion of white gold
to yellow gold I will freely offer a laboratory to confirm, or deny the event.
Also, if there is anyone who has the specific ability, please contact me
through this group ....... what ever the results (good, bad, or indifferent)
they will be posted in this group.
***Response 1 to my Question***
Your question implies that you have some white powder gold to be converted
to yellow gold. Aren't you asking the opposite question?
Hudson claims that in order to obtain his patent he had to demonstrate
bi-directional conversion and he did that.
Why do you want to know?
***My Reply to The First Response***
I concur with your statements that David has demonstrated bi-directional
conversion. However, from a truly "technical point of view" one can easily
take Au and reduce it to salts and reconvert the salts to Au.
Au can form all sorts of funny compounds such as hydrides, carbides (I
realize that no carbon was present excluding the dissolved CO2 from the
atmosphere), chlorides, nitrides, etc............
What, if anything, establishes its "monatomic" properties. In the true
sense of the word, monoatomic means singular. Hence, you would have
particles equal to 2.6 Angstroms, or 0.00000026 millimeters in diameter.
Impossible to collect.
Bear with me [snip..], for I am not being negative to you or David.
My position is -- people are laying claims to the natural occurrence of
"mono-atomic" gold. If true, and it is in the concentration that they are
claiming, this raises a fundamental question. Why sell it as monoatomic
in lieu of reclaiming the Au for profit? If their claims are exact (and not
the figmentation of false instrument readings -- which is what I suspect)
they would be worth billions.
The reality being, I hope they are correct. But, all that I am asking is
for someone to step up to the plate and say we have it. Furthermore, here
it is and why!
I will forgo the expense just to see it. Also, I will go one step further,
if such is done, I will post the results in this forum.
Respectfully, Joe Champion
****A Response to this Posting Two Months Later****
You wrote:
> Au can form all sorts of funny compounds such as hydrides, carbides (I
realize that no carbon was present excluding the dissolved CO2 from the
atmosphere), chlorides, nitrides, etc............
My understanding is that the standard scientific tests for gold, iridium,
etc. fail to return anything because the monatomics are not easily detectable.
> What, if anything, establishes its "monatomic" properties?
Superconductivity of something that tests as gold or iridium at 70+F.
> In the true sense of the word, monoatomic means singular. Hence, you
would have particles equal to 2.6 Angstroms, or 0.00000026 millimeters in
diameter. Impossible to collect.
Except that it remains a solid powder. Monatomics do have some very strange
properties.
> My position is -- people are laying claims to the natural occurrence of
"mono-atomic" gold. If true, and it is in the concentration that they are
claiming, this raises a fundamental question. Why sell it as monoatomic in
lieu of reclaiming the Au for profit? If their claims are exact (and not
the figmentation of false instrument readings -- which is what I suspect)
they would be worth billions.
The process would appear to be very expensive. And also, David has stated
that he believe that it is his purpose in life to deliver the white powder
gold, the manna, bread of the gods, to the world.
On a different track, I would like to get your comments on the following
[this is from the Portland lecture]. My comments are at the end.
> The example I use is rhodium because it has a very unique color to the
chloride solution. It is a cranberry color almost like the color of grape
juice. There is no other element that produces the
same color in chloride solution. When my rhodium was separated from all the
other elements it produced that color of chloride. The last procedure you do
to separate the material out is to neutralize the acid solution and it
precipitates out of solution as a red brown dioxide. That is heated under a
control led atmosphere to 800 degrees for an hour and that creates the
anhydrous dioxide.
> Then you hydro reduce that under a controlled atmosphere to get the
element and then you anneal away the excess hydrogen. So when we did that,
we neutralized the acid solution and precipitated it
out as a red-brown dioxide. Which is the color it is supposed to
precipitate. Then we filtered that out. We heated it under oxygen for an
hour in a tube furnace then we hydro-reduced it to this gray-white powder:
exactly the color rhodium should be as an element. Then we heated it up to
1400 degrees under argon to anneal away the material and it turned snow white.
> Now this wasn't expected. This just isn't what is supposed to happen. So
what John did was he said "Dave, I'm going to heat it to the anhydrous
dioxide, I'm going to cool it down. I'm going to take one third of the
sample and put it in a sealed vial. I'm going to put the rest of the sample
back in the tube furnace and heat it up under oxygen, cool it back down,
purge it with inert gas, heat it back up under hydrogen to reduce away the
oxides and the hydrogen reacts with oxygen forming water and cleans the metal.
I'll cool that down to the gray-white powder. I'll take half of that and
put it in another sealed vial. I'll take the rest of the powder and put it
back in the furnace. I'm going to oxidize it, and hydro-reduce it and
anneal it to the white powder. Then I will put it into a vial and send all
three vials to Pacific Spectrochem over in Los Angeles, one of the best
spectroscopic firms in the U.S.
>
> The first analysis comes back. The red-brown dioxide is iron oxide.
> The next material comes back; silica and aluminum. No iron present.
> Now just putting hydrogen on the iron oxide has made the iron quit being
iron and now it has become silica and aluminum. Now this was a big sample.
We just made the iron turn into silica and aluminum. The snow white
annealed sample was analyzed as calcium and silica. Where did the aluminum
go? John said "Dave my life was so simple before I met you." He said "this
makes absolutely no sense at all." He said "what you are working with is
going to cause them to re-write physics books to re-write chemistry books
and come to a complete new understanding.
David claims in other lectures that standard analysis cannot detect the
monatomic elements and that they instead report false quantities of the
impurities. So if a small amount of the monatomic rhodium,
which is unstable because of the high-spin, superdeformed nuclei, is
fissioning into iron, silica, and aluminum that would explain the results.
****My Reply to the Second Response****
In response to the fact that superconductivity tests gold and iridium at
70+F, I would have to say we need more proof than David's statement. Where
is the scientific communities validation? Just because one says it, does
not make it absolute. WE NEED PROOF!
You state that monoatomics have very strange properties. For now, I will
accept this statement. However, has any scientific body proven that the
monoatomic state that David speaks of truly exists? They say there are
strange properties, but to my knowledge no qualified researcher has stood on
top of the mountain and supported David claims.
When I challenged the potential worth of the material you quoted David in
the following:
"David has stated that he believe that it is his purpose in life to deliver
the white powder gold, the manna, bread of the gods, to the world."
I feel that a new denominator is being added to mainline science with such a
response called the study of metaphysics, or the paranormal. With respect,
when one can not find the answer they turn to dimensional sources. A case
in point, Russell Lao was brilliant and when one reads his books they will
find that when he gets into an area that can not be explained at that point
in time he leans toward metaphysics. This is human nature -- for when one
observes an anomaly they must justify it. Without asking the question,
David, and numerous others (inclusive of myself) have observed anomalies
associated with this, and similar types of research. Observations are
those of the recorder. The explanation, is only a hypothesis.
My final statement regarding your reply.......
In the portion of lecture that you were kind enough to share with me David
left himself wide open for challenge. When such occurs it posses questions
as the validity of other statements. My case in point follows:
David said: "The example I use is rhodium because it has a very unique color
to the chloride solution. It is a cranberry color almost like the color of
grape juice. There is no other element that produces the same color in
chloride solution. When my rhodium was separated from all the other
elements it produced that color of chloride."
It is well established in chemistry (a simple compound) that cobalt will
provide the same color and physical characteristics that David stated. In
complex compounds (di-atomic. hetro-atomic...) there is a limitless list of
material that will produce the same characteristics. This is of course
inclusive of iron compounds.
The fact that the chemist David was working with was unable to identify for
certain makes me extremely suspicious.
In closing, David has been the recorder of numerous observations, of which
some are anomalies to main stream science. However, these anomalies must be
studied in order to gain an understanding as to the truth. Call it
monoatomic, low energy nuclear transmutation, or the unknown, the fact is
something strange is occurring and with time, money and patience the truth
will present itself.