I am glad that there is a forum for monoatomic musings and
unrestricted gossip. I think it is tacky, however, to steal the name
of the other white gold forum. Beginnings often set the tone for
what comes after.
Thanks for the Theory of the White Powder. I noticed some specifics
within the theory which don't jibe with my understanding of Hudson's
talks.
I am intimately familiar with the Portland, Yelm, Tampa, Los Angeles,
Dallas and one of the Virgina Beach presentations. Ekarels says:
ORMEs are naturally occurring in certain volcanic soils dating
back to early geological events. Such soils are prevalent
throughout the western United States. Soils which are considered
rich in these elements might contain up to six percent of this
material. The remaining 94 percent or more of the material is
ordinary dirt comprised mainly of silicon compounds. Initial
processing consists of removing the dirt to get the residue. The
residue comprises ORMEs or the "white powder."
While this might be true I don't recall Hudson saying this. Is this
number based on the roughly 2000 ounces per ton of PGM's which Hudson
claims he gets from his particularly rich site? It is probably
unfair to assume that other sites are as rich and certainly unfair to
imply that this amount of monoatomic material is common.
Because the percentage of ORMEs in certain volcanic soils is so
high (up to 6 percent) in comparison with normal high-grade ore
(up to 0.0015 percent), there is considerable interest by mining
companies in the technology required to convert ORMEs to their
metallic form. The yield increases by a factor of 4000. So
far, no mining company has figured out how to do this. The
processing technique is highly proprietary and will not be
disclosed, according to Hudson. Hudson has stated that his sole
interest is in the monatomic form of these elements; he has no
interest in producing the metallic form of the precious
elements. Further, Hudson states that there is never a need to
convert monatomic materials to their metallic state during the
manufacturing process. The only time a conversion is required is
to allow standard analytical chemical procedures to be used to
identify a small sample of the material.
This 4000 fold increase in PGM yield may be a more accurate way to
portray the actual amounts. Still Hudson claims in the Portland
lecture that he got 2400 ounces of PGM's per ton and that the best
mine in South Africa only produces a third of an ounce per ton of
PGM'S. This would be a 7200 fold increase. We need to confirm some
of these numbers ourselves instead of swallowing Hudson's variable
numbers. Has anyone even added up the numbers which Hudson quotes
three times in every lecture?
Hudson further states that he has the technology to separate the
monatomic material into the various elements for specific
commercial applications without conversion to the metallic
state. That is, he can produce the white powder of gold, the
white powder of palladium, the white powder of osmium, etc
without conversions. He also stated that the white powder which
will be delivered to the members of his spiritual foundation
would be refined but "unseparated" monatomic material. That is,
it would contain all the monatomic elements in their
naturally-occurring proportions. It is his intention to not make
the white powder of gold uniquely available to the spiritual
membership although the naturally-occuring percentage of the
white powder of gold would be included in the delivered mixture.
In other words, the gold would not be removed from the mixture
prior to delivery to the spiritual membership.
In the Portland workshop I think I recall that Hudson said the
various PGM's would be separated out. It seems logical to assume
that this will be the case since the industrial processes will
require separation.
Hudson's lack of interest in the metallic form of the precious
metals is not entirely altruistic. His spreadsheet analyses have
shown that he can profit more by licensing in perpetuity the
white powder for industrial applicatons than by selling the
bullion on the precious metals market. There is also a much
lower security risk because the white powder itself has no
market value to thieves.
I would guess that the white powder itself has a much higher market
value to thieves and corporate interests. It has value for it's
rarity now and will have greater value for it's technical, medicinal
and philosophical properties as they are proven and more people
become aware of them. While it is difficult to use electronic
methods of identification, it is apparently quite easy to identify
these materials with wet chemistry. There are several physical
properties which Hudson mentions which could be used to identify
these materials as well.
Phases of Matter.- Classical science teaches us that the three
phases of matter are gasses, liquids, and solids. Some solids
crystallize into a lattice structure with metallic
characteristics. What classical science does not teach is that
there is, in fact, another phase of matter called "monatomic."
These materials have ceramic-like properties.
I prefer to use monoatomic to refer to the naturally occuring
elements which Hudson identified both out of respect for Hudson's
use of the terminology and to make a distinction with the single
particles created using high energy physics. Hudson uses the word
monoatomic ten times in his British patent an never uses the term
monatomic. Monoatomic cannot accurately be considered another phase
of matter. It should, rather, be considered another form of matter.
Microclusters.- Nuclear physicists recently discovered that the
atoms of some elements exist in microclusters. These are tiny
groups of between 2 and 100 atoms. If you have more than a
specified number of atoms in a microcluster, these atoms will
aggregate into a lattice structure with metallic properties. If
you have fewer than that critical number of atoms, that
microcluster will disaggregate into monatomic atoms with ceramic
properties. Monataomic atoms are not held in position by the
forces of their neighboring atoms as they are by atoms in a
lattice structure. Most elements require a minimum of 14 atoms
before they exhibit metallic characteristics. The critical
number of atoms for rhodium is 9 and the critical number of
atoms for gold is just 2.
Most elements never exhibit metalic characterists. I am not sure
that most metalic elements require a minimum of 14 atoms before they
exhibit metallic characteristisc.
The significance of this is that if you have two or more gold
atoms in a microcluster, it will exhibit metallic
characteristics. However, if you have 9 or fewer atoms in a
microcluster of rhodium atoms, the microcluster will
spontaneously disaggregate to become a group of monatomic
rhodium atoms. Apparently, the only force which binds monatomic
atoms together is gravity. More insight is needed in this area.
I do not believe that gravity is the force which binds monoatomic
atoms together. I think it is still the strong nuclear force. It
is just not as strong in a superdeformed nucleus. The questions
here are why is there an equilibrium state at a certain deformation
level and are there different equilibrium states at different
levels of deformation.
It has been observed that the valence electrons of monatomic
elements are unavailable for chemical reactions. This means
that monatomic atoms are chemically inert and have many of the
physical properties of ceramic materials. Because the valence
electrons are unavailable, it is impossible to use standard
analytical chemistry techniques to identify a monatomic element.
This is not exactly true. There is a sort of shadow chemistry which
still works on monoatomic elements. Hudson speaks of the same color
changes in monoatomic chemistry as occur in metalic chemistry. From
alchemical understanding I suspect that similar chemical reactions
still occur but at a much reduced rate. In other words a chemical
process which takes a few days with metalic chemistry may take months
or years using this "shadow" chemistry. For the sake of consistency
we might want to call this "shadow" chemistry alchemy.
In general, a metallic element is physically stable and is a
relatively good conductor of both heat and electricity and is
usually chemically active (metals typically rust and/or
corrode.) To the contrary, monatomic atoms of the same element
behave more like a ceramic in that they are generally a poor
conductor of both heat and electricity and are chemically inert.
In addition, monatomic elements exhibit the characteristics of
superconductors at room temperature.
This is one of Hudson's claims which has never been demonstrated in
public. Hudson has not even offered any charts, graphs or other test
results to confirm this. The statement should be prefaced with the
words "Hudson claims".
Russian scientists explicitely state in their literature that
atoms in lattice structures are metallic in nature and that
these same atoms in the monatomic state are ceramic in nature.
Which Russian scientists in which literature?
The implication here is that there is an entirely new phase of
matter lurking about the universe. This phase of matter is
comprised of monatomic elements; a heretofore unknown phase of
matter. They have remained unknown for so long because they are
inert and undetectable by normal analytical techniques.
Form not phase.
This might be nothing but a scientific curiosity except for the
fact that these same scientists now believe that up to 5 percent
of the earth's mass is comprised of monatomic elements. This is
a huge amount of heretofore unknown matter, existing
undiscovered right under our noses since the beginning of time.
At the very least, it should be an embarrassment to the
scientific establishment.
Hudson claims that a very rich ore body contains 5 plus percent of
monoatomic PGM's. It is quite a reach, based on this one claim, that
"these same scientists now believe that up to 5 percent of the
earth's mass is comprised of monatomic elements". Which scientists?
Where do they say this?
Limitations of Analytical Chemistry.- How could it be that up to
five percent of the earth's matter could be comprised of material
which heretofore has been completely undiscovered? It has to do
with the theory of analytical chemistry. None of the detection
techniques of analytical chemistry can detect monatomic
elements. They can only detect elements by interacting with
their valence electrons. Because the valence electrons of
monatomic atoms are unavailable, the atoms are unidentifiable.
To detect a monatomic element requires that you first convert it
from its monatomic state to its normal state to allow the element
to be detected with conventional instrumentation. As a result,
this phase of matter has existed as a stealth material right under the
noses of scientists without detection until quite recently.
As I pointed out earlier, some of the identifiers of analytical
chemistry still operate but at a reduces strength. What don't seem
to work are electronic testing methods. Hudson claims in his British
patent that:
"The electron rearrangement bestows upon the monoatomic elements
unique electronic, chemical, magnetic, and physical properties
which have commercial application."
The lack of electronic response may be a dead give away. There also
may be magnetic or physical properties which can be used as
identifiers.
The physical appearance of the monatomic form of an element is
that of a fluffy white powder with a fluorescent-like glow.
This powder behaves as a superconductor at room tempeature,
giving it very interesting properties. Because it is a
superconductor, it tends to "ride" on the magnetic field of the
earth, giving it the powers of levitation. It has been found to
be very difficult to determine the specific gravity of monatomic
elements because the weight varies widely with temperature and
the magnetic environment. Under some circumstances, monatomic
elements weigh less than zero! That is, a box full of monatomic
matter has been observed to weigh less than the empty box. This
is a hard concept to swallow for those who say they only believe
what they see.
The container is not a box. I have not heard any reference to a
fluorescent-like glow in any of the Hudson presentations I have
encountered. Where did this reference come from?
These elements have the characteristics similar to that of
porcelain in that they do not chemically react with anything and
are very tough, durable, and heat resistant.
A powder cannot be described as tough. The glass form, according to
Hudson, is very brittle and unlike what we think of as ceramic in
terms of hardness. What I would say is that these monoatomic forms
are very stable.
Normal nuclei are spherical in shape. They are held in this
shape by the competing forces of all the neighboring atoms of a
lattice network. Monatomic elements, on the other hand, have no
neighbors to keep them out of trouble. Because the valence band
of electrons are only half filled, these heavy elements are
inherently physically unstable in the monatomic state. (Note a
distinction between being chemically inert and being physically
unstable. Monatomic elements are both inert and physically
unstable.)
If these elements are more plentiful in their monoatomic than in
their metalic forms and are in approximately the proper proportions
which stellar physicisists claim they should be in - as Hudson says -
then they are both inert and physically stable. Their perceived
instability in high energy physics experiments is probably an
artifact of the high energies involved rather than anything which
would be noticed under normal earth surface conditions.
This is where the "strong" and the "coulomb" (electromagnetic)
forces come into play. When working within the dimensions of a
spherical nucleus, the "strong" force of an atom overwhelms the
weaker coulomb forces, maintaining the atom in a stable
configuration. But, when a monatomic atom starts to vibrate, it
tends to be deformed into the elongated shape of a bowlng pin.
If this shape is caried to an extreme whereby the atom is twice
as long as it is wide, then the coulomb force overwhelms the
strong force and the atom spontaneously disintegrates into two
smaller elements accompanied by a burst of radiation. (This is
clled spontaneous fission.) Of course, most monatomic atoms
never reach the critical level of deformity which causes them to
disintegrate. They simply exist is a steady state of less than
critical deformity.
I don't believe that the strong nuclear force is generally considered
to be an electromagnetic force. I am not sure about the Coulomb
force. Are there any physicists out there who can help us out here?
Barry Carter <bcarter@igc.apc.org>
Blue Mountain Native Forest Alliance
Voice 541-523-3357
Fax 541-523-9438
At this very moment, lawless logging
is destroying the ecosystems which provide
the air we breathe and the water we drink.
Insanity is doing the same thing
and expecting different results.