I'm hosting the latest version of EKarels Theory paper on my web site at:
http://monatomic.earth.com/contributed/white-powder-primer.html
I'm adding relevant hypertext links so that ideas can become more
connected and easier to follow.
I've also gone back over Barry's comments and I have, some questions
and comments to be found below.
"Barry Carter" writes:
> ORMEs are naturally occurring in certain volcanic soils dating
> back to early geological events. Such soils are prevalent
....
> While this might be true I don't recall Hudson saying this. Is this
The text reads "soils which are considered rich" so it isn't
claiming that all soil is so composed. This all pretty much
jives with what Hudson says in the Dallas lecture:
We're talking about 12-14 percent of this rock was these elements.
...
The elements are quite plentiful particularly in volcanic areas or
volcanic soil.
If you still disagree with some part of the wording contact me in
private email and we'll see if we can figure it out.
> numbers. Has anyone even added up the numbers which Hudson quotes
> three times in every lecture?
I got 2419 on one set.
> 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.
This makes no sense to me either. If commercial applications can
use the white powder version then it is just as valuable to them
as the metallic form. I will consider taking out the more speculative
parts of the text at a later date but since this is what Hudson
apparently has said I'm leaving it in for now.
> 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.
monatomic and monoatomic are just different spellings of the same
word, there is no difference in their meaning and monatomic is the
most common spelling of the word.
What is the scientific difference between "form of matter" and
"phase of matter"? Can you clarify why you think it should be form
and not phase?
My understanding of the definition of "phase of matter" is a state
of matter that has unique physical properties. E.g., plasmas are
a unique phase of matter and not just a really hot gas. There are
other recogonized phases of matter as well, including Bose-Einstein
condensates and liquid crystals. So you might say that the white
powder form of gold is a new phase of matter.
Let me know if you disagree but for now I've standardized on calling
them a new phase of matter in the interest of being precise.
> Microclusters.- Nuclear physicists recently discovered that the
....
> Most elements never exhibit metalic characterists.
I think it's pretty obvious we are talking about metallic group
elements there. If you can find a way to make that clearer without
getting to wordy send me the text.
> I am not sure
> that most metalic elements require a minimum of 14 atoms before they
> exhibit metallic characteristisc.
I removed that.
> 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
That was already gone in the version I had.
> atoms together. I think it is still the strong nuclear force. It
> is just not as strong in a superdeformed nucleus. The questions
The strong force is only operative at a few fermis (it drops off
very fast) so it isn't the strong force.
Hudson states that in: Physical Review Letters, Volume 62, Number
10, March 1989, March 6, 1989 [Direct Mapping of Adatom-Adatom
Interactions, pp. 1146-1149]:
And their conclusion was that it's like there's a Coulomb wave that
comes off of the atom [at a wavelength of 6.3 angstroms and that
the atoms are spaced apart by this wave].
For the record, I doubt that it is a Coulomb wave.
> here are why is there an equilibrium state at a certain deformation
> level and are there different equilibrium states at different
> levels of deformation.
I suppose that we will have to wait until someone can prove that
monatomic atoms have deformed nuclei to find that out.
> 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.
The details about this are not at all clear to me. I would high
recommend that we discuss this point on the list and try to figure
it out as best we can. Anyway, Ekarels had noted that in his latest version.
> corrode.) To the contrary, monatomic atoms of the same element
> behave more like a ceramic in that they are generally a poor
....
> 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".
Almost the entire document is "Hudson claims". I think it is easier
to point out the few known facts. When I next make a pass over the
document I'll figure out what I want to do with that.
> 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.)
I rewrote this paragraph since it was incorrect on a number
of counts (including the fact that the valence electrons
play no role here, it's the orbitals of the nucleons).
> 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.
Right, they are more unstable than normal but still stable.
> 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.
the comment only applies to "coulomb".
> I am not sure about the Coulomb force.
Text was ok, but I had to rewrite it anyway along with the previous
paragraph.
I welcome any more comments anyone has.