Sciencemadness Discussion Board - On the subject of ORMUS

On the subject of ORMUS

Pages: 1 2

Vlad - 11-2-2009 at 05:08

I'm not pulling your leg.
I said I can't put the process online, so no details and no reproducibility are nil because it is 100% reproducible and I have details.
No credibility is subjective.

No references - well like I said this turns the forum into a professional science forum then.

not_important - 11-2-2009 at 05:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Vlad

The Red Gold process I learned from the chemical engineer is claimed to create inert diatoms that form a polymer with water.

Please note

Quote:

Diatoms (n):
Single-celled algae, different species of which live in different kinds of water. They secrete silicious skeletons that are morphologically distinct to species. Diatom analysis involves sampling sediments from deep-sea cores or lake sediments and then analysing the species representation at different levels to provide a picture of the changing environment.

It might be better to use the terms di-atoms

Red Gold, besides being a copper-gold alloy with copper being roughly 1/4 to 1/2 the alloy, and a type of potato, is an alchemical term with a half dozen common definitions including several biological ones. It is better to provide definitions for terms archaic, open to multiple definitions, or used in a nonstandard meaning.

Edit

Quote:

I said I can't put the process online, so no details and no reproducibility are nil because it is 100% reproducible and I have details.

Science, amateur or professional, is all about details, methods, and at least attempts at reproducibility. Anything else is not science; it may and art or craft as in the old usage, or it may be storytelling, tale spinning, relating hearsay, or similar.

[Edited on 11-2-2009 by not_important]

Sauron - 11-2-2009 at 05:20

I did say: Paracelsus, not (Linus) Pauling.

watson.fawkes - 11-2-2009 at 07:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Vlad
I said I can't put the process online, so no details and no reproducibility are nil because it is 100% reproducible and I have details.

I don't believe you that it's reproducible. Insofar as I can tell, it's just your assertion that it's so. Your whole field is tainted with liars, charlatans, and dupes. The baseline respect you might otherwise have expected is absent in this situation. It's your responsibility to convince us that there's something interesting here, and your word is insufficient.

Quote:

No references - well like I said this turns the forum into a professional science forum then.

You are confusing sufficiency and necessity. Professional references would attract the interest of amateur scientists here. Such posting is sufficient to attract such interest. It is not necessary, though, because other things could attract such interest. The most notable sufficient cause would be posting the procedure with enough detail to be reproducible.

So, do you know this procedure personally and are unwilling to publish it? Or is that you've only ever seen it performed reproducibly? Or (and the possibilities for lack of respect are growing) have you just had someone tell you that they're reproduced it? Or even that you've heard from someone else that it's reproducible?

Vlad - 11-2-2009 at 08:59

Quote:

So, do you know this procedure personally and are unwilling to publish it? Or is that you've only ever seen it performed reproducibly? Or (and the possibilities for lack of respect are growing) have you just had someone tell you that they're reproduced it? Or even that you've heard from someone else that it's reproducible?

I know the procedure and have performed it dozens of times; it is repeatable. I am unwilling to publish it because I don't want it on the net like this on a forum and especially not on Google since posts from this forum show up in a search. I was told the process personally and it is also my belief that the author does not wish the process put online and public in a manner like this.

Sedit - 11-2-2009 at 09:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Sauron
A peer reviewed scientific journal is one in which all articles are submitted for review prior to publication to a referee or referrees who are eminent figures in the specialized subject matter, there is then an exchange between the referree(s) an the autho(s) of the pepr resulting in additions and corrections. When the referrees are satisfied onlyt then is the paper published.

The paper must meet the standards of the journal and follow its format.

Background, references, detailed experimental procedures and results, and analytical data inclusing instrumental analysis are required. For any novel compounds claimed rigorous proof of structure and full physico-chemical characterization is required.

The ultimate test of the credibility of an article is REPRODUCIBILITY. Sufficient information needs to be provided so that the results can be replicated, and if they cannot, the authors will probably stand in the corner wearing dunce's caps. Viz. the authors of the infamous Cold Fusion debacle.

Kattesh Katti of U.Missouri has supposedly filed a US patent application, if so that is a public document. Patents have a somewhat different standard to meet than do scientific peer reviewed journal articles. Katti and colleagues are obviously being entreprenurial (they formed a company) and trying to obtain intellectual property rights is part and parcel of that. So is self promotion like posturing for that puffery in CHEMICAL WORLS.

What I want to see is the hard science in peer reviewed journals.

If there isn't any then, this might as well be the production of Unobtainium, or Gold Kryptonite a la DC Comics.

Because, sedit, THIS is how science is done.

Thats what I thought.
For once as much as it kills me to say it

I agree with you fully.

Of laboratory mice and scientific men.

Innerspace - 11-2-2009 at 09:11

I don't have as much time to post as some here, so allow me to try and clarify. I am indeed an entrepreneur, as has been pointed out. I’m not a scientist by training, but natural observation is the basis of all science. My formal training is in Political Science, Entrepreneurial Business, and design/manufacturing. My business partner is mainly the formally trained engineering aspect of our operations, but that doesn’t mean that I have a lack of topical and applied knowledge.

Unfortunately I think that some here missed the point of my postings. I'm not some new age huckster, and I try not to make unqualified statements. If you’ve read any of the materials I mentioned in regards to the background on these materials then you can see whether or not any of it holds up to your scrutiny. It's unwise to criticize something if you have no basis for it. On the point that the burden of proof is on me, forgive my being naieve, your corrections were warranted in this situation. I’m not here to spar. Spending too much time in an electro magnetic field (your puter) might have made some of you a little testy, I’d recommend more fresh air.

A personal attack is really unprofessional, and contributes little to scientific advancement. Scientific revolutions always occur outside of the mainstream, and discoveries are always made by individual explorers, not dogmatic regurgitations. I'll cite Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions." (See Bottom)

The single article I mentioned about cancer and nanocolloidal gold can be found at www.zptech.net/metals-in-medicine.html. Some articles that I have yet to read were mentioned in earlier posts on this thread. ZPTECH is a retailer of these materials, or at least their version of them. I don’t work for or with them, so you can discount that right off the bat. I’m just interested in their applications, as some of you appear to be. You could always call them directly I you want specific data. They’ve been more than happy to provide requested materials to me. I don't outlay capital without diligent research, it's just bad for business. Pretty transparent guys, no strings, no snake oil. Their product is just metalurgy in action. Their claims might lack validity, but that's why we're here isn't it?

On the physics end, it’s not my area. The examples just made sense. In reffering to the observer effect I didn't mean that a human body bears the same effect as a non- localized particle. I was using the analogy in a behavioral capacity. Might have been a bad analogy.

My thanks for the useful observations and criticisms. Compassion and a humble mindset are useful virtues and exist in opposition to arrogance. The Lord Kelvins of the world like to rest on the laurels of their "knowledge"and individual achievements, but they resist new disocveries with great vigor if anything falls to far out of the range of their anchor of acceptance. Classic behavioral analysis and communications theory.

I'll post more in the future when we're actually working with the materials. Until then, I hope there might be some useful discoveries and additions around here. Prost Kameraden!

This sums up my point-
"One aspect of the parallelism must already be apparent. Political revolutions are inaugurated by a growing sense, often restricted to a segment of the political community, that existing institutions have ceased adequately to meet the problems posed by an environment that they have in part created. In much the same way, scientific revolutions are inaugurated by a growing sense, again often restricted to a narrow subdivision of the scientific community, that an existing paradigm has ceased to function adequately in the exploration of an aspect of nature to which that paradigm itself had previously led the way. In both political and scientific development the sense of malfunction that can lead to crisis is prerequisite to revolution. Furthermore, though it admittedly strains the metaphor, that parallelism holds not only for the major paradigm changes, like those attributable to Copernicus and Lavoisier, but also for the far smaller ones associated with the assimilation of a new sort of phenomenon, like oxygen or X-rays. Scientific revolutions, as we noted at the end of Section V, need seem revolutionary only to those whose paradigms are affected by them. To outsiders they may, like the Balkan revolutions of the early twentieth century, seem normal parts of the developmental process. Astronomers, for example, could accept X-rays as a mere addition to knowledge, for their paradigms were unaffected by the existence of the new radiation. But for men like Kelvin, Crookes, and Roentgen, whose research dealt with radiation theory or with cathode ray tubes, the emergence of X-rays necessarily violated one paradigm as it created another. That is why these rays could be discovered only through something’s first going wrong with normal research."(Kuhn 1962)

sparkgap - 11-2-2009 at 09:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Vlad

I am unwilling to publish it because I don't want it on the net like this on a forum and especially not on Google since posts from this forum show up in a search. I was told the process personally and it is also my belief that the author does not wish the process put online and public in a manner like this.

So there is nothing to discuss, then... what then is this thread for? Certainly, not allowing a disinterested third-party to verify a claim of such-and-such is not conducive to the pursuit of progress.

In which case, since you won't let anyone else verify, this can only result in the trumpeting of the few, of which I believe this fine forum is not intended for.

sparky (~_~)

Sauron - 11-2-2009 at 11:20

Alchemists were big on secrecy and often encrypted their records, as I recall.

This is incompatible with science. Despite what we owe the alchemists for getting the ball rolling, they were really unscientific in this essential regard. Science is community property.

Vlad - 11-2-2009 at 11:38

Alchemy? Turning lead to gold? You don't believe it anyway but still...
Monoatomics can be converted back to metal. Extract from a source material that is cheap like some sands and doesn't contain precious metal, and convert the monoatomics to (gold) metal. Possible and been done. Yes unscientific on my part don't believe me if you don't want to but I've seen the pictures and know the process (it's in Hudson's patent one way, and another you may know: burn monoatomics powder with sulfur and add a collecting metal for the gold formed like silver).
Another more interesting facet is the creation of the stone or projection stones, notably powders that transmute metal upon introduction into molten metal like lead or tin or heated mercury.
This is also possible. I don't understand how it works, I think many people who have done this don't understand it either, but it works according to some people I talked to and discussed this with and read from. So this is hearsay.

The real reason imo that there is secrecy has not to do with the fact that there is transmutation going on. It has to do with the ability of these substances to enhance or expand consciousness to a god like state. This was the food of high priests and kings.
You can't just give this to a common person. It's incompatible. That's one reason it's incompatible with science since science is accessible for the common man. (And look how that polluted the world since the industrial revolution)

[Edited on 11-2-2009 by Vlad]

Vlad - 11-2-2009 at 11:47

The attached picture shows transmuted gold. It was transmuterd and reduced from a solution while still in the testtube. Look closely you will see the gold adheres to the glass of the test tube. The gold was not poured molten into the test tube because the heat would have deformed the glass.

[Edited on 11-2-2009 by Vlad]

gold.jpg - 31kB

Sauron - 11-2-2009 at 12:17

Transmutation means changing an element into another element.

Allegedly changing gold into gold is not transmutation.

Shy of high energy physics you will not be transmutating anything at all.

You continue to trip over your own ignorance.

You might want to review what it means to be an element and what the difference is between a chemical process and a nuclear one. Transmutation is a nuclear process. Radioactive decay is a nuclear process. Many radioisotopes eventually decay to lead, naturally in some cases and artificially in others. You would be well advised to obtain a clear idea of what an isotope is as opposed to an element.

@Vlad

watson.fawkes - 11-2-2009 at 12:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Vlad
I know the procedure and have performed it dozens of times; it is repeatable. I am unwilling to publish it because I don't want it on the net like this on a forum and especially not on Google since posts from this forum show up in a search. I was told the process personally and it is also my belief that the author does not wish the process put online and public in a manner like this.

Why on earth or in heaven or in hell are you asking us to share our time with you when you refuse to share yourself? This really is a kindergarten-level of skill in respect wer're talking about. And then, to compound the problem, you later posted photos of the result of some secret process. My reaction is so what? I can't conclude anything relevant to some hypothetical process from just a few photos. It's just more disrespect from you that you keep claiming things, even in pictorial form, with publishing sufficient information to allow reproducibility.

If you publish it, it will get out, no matter how you do it, because once you publish it, someone else with publish it elsewhere. So that first reason is self-referential nonsense.

As for the second reason, you apparently didn't promise him not to publish the technique and he apparently didn't even ask you to keep it private. You don't need to reveal any names in order to publish a lab procedure. What I conclude from this is that either (1) you value your relationship with this person more than you value external assistance from the participants of this board or (2) you've been telling lies.

So, if you have respect for the people here, you can either post this procedure or you can stop asking people here to be interested. It's your choice.

Sedit - 11-2-2009 at 12:22

Vlad I performed an experiment a while back that formed a substance looking exactly lick that. Guess what I used to ake that gold substance... Lean and Tin alloy. It was an experiment of mine to try to produce a soldering flux that contained finely divided solder in flux so that the compound could be brushed on and soldered two copper pipes together without the need for the two step process of fluxing and solder.

What I achieve eventialy was a ratio of compounds that satifyed my needs because I am a plumber by trade. But in the process When mixing the salts of the two metals into the flux which is mainly bees wax and ammonia chloride if im not mistaken the heat and bees wax produced a reductive enviroment allowing the metals to drop out as the flux evaportated. What gets left behind is that surface oxidized material looking exactly like what you have there.

I am also seeing some green salt there in that picture do you care to tell what that is?

You speak of the philosophers stone correct? I found that years ago after reasearching its origins what what I found that that Mercury Sulfate (HgS) loosely translates from ancient china to philosophers stone. In its pure form it fits the old discriptions given to it and also they believed that mercury could also accomplish two things. One being the transmution of gold and the other being that the ancient chinese thought that mercury had the ability to give " eternal life."

(I almost agree with them but thats a whole nother story and is base on a mummy they found in china over 3000 years on in perfect condition after being submerged into a solution of HgS amonst other things. Keep in mind they thought that if the body stayed in tacked the soul never died.)

The point I am getting at here is just because it looks like gold and glitters like gold dosnt mean that it is gold.

I want to see that substance you have there put into a specific gravity test and at the very least a scratch plate test

Because other then that I can perform an experiment from my kids chemistry set that can turn a copper penny into "Gold" if you know what I mean.

watson.fawkes - 11-2-2009 at 12:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Sauron
Alchemists were big on secrecy and often encrypted their records, as I recall. [...] This is incompatible with science. Despite what we owe the alchemists for getting the ball rolling, they were really unscientific in this essential regard. Science is community property.

It's incompatible with public science. Science is only as big as its community. The claim that the NSA had public key cryptography years earlier than the public did is an example. So when was it discovered? It was discovered twice. The first public discovery was later than the first private one, but because it remained private, it doesn't get priority. We reserve the notion of priority for public science.

If Vlad doesn't want to publish, fine. But then he's outside of this community and we can ignore him.

The persuasive argument is that science happens both faster and more faithfully the larger the community is. By tale, I hear of a community of two (maybe three). If they pull off something amazing, good for them. As long as they remain apart from public science, I'll listen to them only after they've done their hypothetically amazing thing, and not a moment before.

@Innerspace

watson.fawkes - 11-2-2009 at 12:36

Thank you being moderately reasonable. And I say only "moderately" because of the flagrant hypocrisy that I quote from you.

Quote:

Originally posted by Innerspace
Spending too much time in an electro magnetic field (your puter) might have made some of you a little testy, I’d recommend more fresh air. [...] A personal attack is really unprofessional, and contributes little to scientific advancement.

Sauron - 11-2-2009 at 12:44

W-F, idle banter with people like innerspace is truly time wasted.

He believes in things, as Douglas Adams once put it, that they wouldn't swallow even in Salt Lake City.

Pick your fights, he is a write-off. Hopeless case. Lost cause.

watson.fawkes - 11-2-2009 at 12:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Sauron
W-F, idle banter with people like innerspace is truly time wasted. [...] He believes in things, as Douglas Adams once put it, that they wouldn't swallow even in Salt Lake City.

I complimented only to the extent that he acknowledged that the burden of proof was on him and that he had not yet met it. That behavior is entirely appropriate, and evidently uncommon (as witnessed also on this thread so far), and worthy of my answer. As to his quasi-scientific interests, I have nothing to praise.

Sauron - 11-2-2009 at 14:01

I merely meant that it's a waste of energy, I did not mean you were unduly symathetic.

hissingnoise - 11-2-2009 at 14:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Sauron
Even in Salt Lake City.

And where is WTFTech.com (ZeroPointTechnologies) based?

Yep! It's Utah. . .

hissingnoise - 11-2-2009 at 14:26

. . .not that I've got anything against Morons!

Vlad - 12-2-2009 at 03:48

Quote:

Transmutation means changing an element into another element.

Allegedly changing gold into gold is not transmutation.

Shy of high energy physics you will not be transmutating anything at all.

You continue to trip over your own ignorance.

You might want to review what it means to be an element and what the difference is between a chemical process and a nuclear one. Transmutation is a nuclear process. Radioactive decay is a nuclear process. Many radioisotopes eventually decay to lead, naturally in some cases and artificially in others. You would be well advised to obtain a clear idea of what an isotope is as opposed to an element.

I know what you are saying. But this was not gold. This was lead and copper, changed into gold. It was tested on tests for pure gold by a professional metallurgist and miner who knows what is gold and what not. It's better/stranger this transmuted gold than pure natural gold apparently. It doesn't even dissolve in cold aqua regia which gold does. Requires hot aqua regia to dissolve.

Quote:

As for the second reason, you apparently didn't promise him not to publish the technique and he apparently didn't even ask you to keep it private. You don't need to reveal any names in order to publish a lab procedure. What I conclude from this is that either (1) you value your relationship with this person more than you value external assistance from the participants of this board or (2) you've been telling lies.

I don't want some processes to end up patented and published in journals under another's name. This patenting of an 'alchemical' process/product happened before and money is a motivation as many times. I don't like certain substances that enhance consciousness to end up being patented for greed or fame.

Quote:

I am also seeing some green salt there in that picture do you care to tell what that is?

I don't know, the author of the transmutation kept parts a mystery, but it was obvious from his explanation that this was the remainder of a green solution of gold. Where have we seen this before?

Quote:

You speak of the philosophers stone correct? I found that years ago after reasearching its origins what what I found that that Mercury Sulfate (HgS) loosely translates from ancient china to philosophers stone. In its pure form it fits the old discriptions given to it and also they believed that mercury could also accomplish two things. One being the transmution of gold and the other being that the ancient chinese thought that mercury had the ability to give " eternal life."

I have read that ORME elements have no electron shield that prevents nuclear particles to go migrate outside the nucleus to another element. The electron shield is squashed like a saucer shape with both poles of the atom exposed I believe the explanation was. This allows an ORME element to change to another element, and the explanation was also given that all elements donate or accept particles until they become gold.

David Hudson in his lectures online also said that monoatomic mercury if correctly made drops to gold. Hg is right next to Au. If the previous explanation is correct this makes sense.

The HgS method for making the philosopher's stone seems to involve KOH to make a monoatomic form of the mercury through the potassium ion reaction just like sodium is used for. Then the monoatomic mercury is made to drop down to gold, and it is the monoatomic gold or another isotope of it that has unique properties as the philosopher's stone and transmutes.
There is a book I had from a Danish alchemist from the 80s who had pictures of the stone and transmuted gold, and had subjected the projection powder or philosopher's stone to lab tests, and one thing that came out besides that it's a very heavy substance, is that it's a radioactive substance.

Pomzazed - 12-2-2009 at 04:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Vlad

The HgS method for making the philosopher's stone seems to involve KOH to make a monoatomic form of the mercury through the potassium ion reaction just like sodium is used for. Then the monoatomic mercury is made to drop down to gold, and it is the monoatomic gold or another isotope of it that has unique properties as the philosopher's stone and transmutes.

sorry, but WTF?

hissingnoise - 12-2-2009 at 05:20

Congratulations, Vlad, you've rendered us catatonic. . .
Some of us can't even remember who we are or what we're supposed to be doing.
You've pulled the comforting rug of REALITY from under our feet and now *we're* looking for religious texts so that *we*, too can get all worked up over utter rubbish. . .

[Edited on 12-2-2009 by hissingnoise]

watson.fawkes - 12-2-2009 at 05:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Vlad
I don't want some processes to end up patented and published in journals under another's name. This patenting of an 'alchemical' process/product happened before and money is a motivation as many times.

Please learn some patent law. Only the true inventor may file a patent application. When someone who is not the true inventor files an application, it's called patent fraud. One of the very quickest ways of invalidating a patent, even before issuance, is to show that there was fraud.

Now, if you're worried about patents, you should worry about this associate of yours filing for one. If you publish it prior to that (and you don't have to take personal credit for it to do so), it counts as prior art. Even if you're not worried about your associate, they may well have told other people, people who are unscrupulous and who would be willing to commit fraud.

Sauron - 12-2-2009 at 07:42

Vlad, you are a comedian!

sparkgap - 12-2-2009 at 08:01

Seeing your concern for patent law, I assume the "procedure" you have mentioned in your U2U is necessarily incomplete?

sparky (~_~)

Sedit - 12-2-2009 at 11:23

Vlad you are misunderstanding what I ment. HgS IS the philosopher's stone. It was used in china as a means of eternal life, and was claimed to have the ability to transmute to gold from some sources(Which I believe maybe because of trace amounts of gold already contained in the substance to begin with). Also due to its anti bacterial propertys it was used for embalming to preserve the dead.

All in all HgS wasnt a substance used to make the so called magical stone, It was the 'magical' stone.

Vlad - 12-2-2009 at 11:44

I got you but I'm saying from the Hg from HgS the magical stone was made. Even today there are still many alchemists (mainly in France) who continue to pursue that route to make the 'stone' in spite of modern or other methods.

Vlad - 12-2-2009 at 11:47

In fact just some days ago I came across a website of french alchemists pursuing the HgS 'method'
They have some pictures at http://heliosadam.alchimie.free.fr/alchimie/photos.php
The last two show the projection powder.

hissingnoise - 12-2-2009 at 11:57

This is just brain-dead drivel; you guys should return to your soap-operas!
We've suffered enough.
Piss off with this bilge!!!

[Edited on 12-2-2009 by hissingnoise]

Sedit - 12-2-2009 at 12:00

Ok.
Do you know how to read french?
If you can read it what the man is showing is the process for purifying HgS from cinnabar.
If needed I can translate that page for you If you would like but I dont know if it is needed considering there are american pages showing how to prepare HgS.

Vlad Im telling you brother if you stop using terms such as projection powder for magic force fields you will get laughed at just a little less in these forums then you do now.

@hissing
the philosopher's stone was a real substance but I feel in no way shape or form would it have the abilitys that they state that it did. The philosopher's stone was nothing more then misguided attempts to recreate a substance known to the anceint chinese and much confusion can about as to its propertys due to lack of translation of the times.

[Edited on 12-2-2009 by Sedit]

Vlad - 12-2-2009 at 12:12

I can read French.
The fully white beaker in the pictures section is interesting to me though. I don't think during the purification of HgS from cinnabar there is such a bright white substance that can be produced.

As for being laughed at I don't care.

On the mercury, this is what David Hudson claimed:

Quote:

It's interesting to note that the philosophical text . . . over in the Ayurvedic text, I was sent a copy by the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi who knows of this work, and he had it translated into English and sent it over to me. These are about 2,000 B.C. that this information comes from supposedly, and it says you can take mercury and divide mercury, and divide mercury and divide mercury, until you divide it into it's essence and you actually get a white powder of mercury. And the way you test that mercury to see if it's ready for ingestion, is you heat it in air and if it turns to gold, then it's ready for ingestion. And they knew this 2000 B.C. Did you know that superdeformed mercury, when all of its electrons are paired in the high-spin state, if you heat it in air in 78% Nitrogen, in air, that when you get up to around red heat, that the outside electron pair will annihilate with itself. It actually will withdraw it's screening potential enough that outer pair annihilates, and that electron pair doesn't produce 510,000 electron-volt photons like electron annihilation normally does, it produces a 1 million electron-volt photon that is always absorbed by the binding nucleus.

So here your mercury atom now has a 1 million volt photon that comes flying into the nucleus, in the binding nucleus of the mercury, and that's the energy it takes in a high-spin state to knock off a proton and several neutrons. Coincidentally. Now you have a low spin gold, and it goes right immediately to low spin gold. Now low spin gold, if there's other gold atoms near it will aggregate as a metallic material, and once you got diatomic gold, you got it, you're on your way home now, you got metal. So you could actually take mercury to the high-spin state and the way you check it is heat it in air, and if it goes to gold then don't heat the rest of it, consume it, it's a medicine. And that's something that miners and metallurgists have a real hard time with, they say, "Why don't they want the beautiful yellow valuable metal?" Because the white powder is more valuable, that's why.

Sedit - 12-2-2009 at 12:22

This is to me the most disturbing thing that Hudson has ever written an I feel that something should be done with him to stop him from writting crap such as this ASAP because he is advocating that people ingest mercury and its salts which if he has done may explain why he can no grasp the misconceptions about things in science.
Im sorry but I cant discuss this anymore.

~Sedit

Vlad - 12-2-2009 at 12:34

I don't think anyone reading that part of his lecture is that stupid as to not realize mercury is mostly toxic (I said mostly because amalgams are still used in dentistry and thimerosal for vaccines) and not to trust words. We should not return to the middle ages were people got burned for sayin things.

hissingnoise - 12-2-2009 at 12:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Sedit
I feel that something should be done with him to stop him from writting crap such as this.

And irony is something with a lot of iron in it. . .

Sedit - 12-2-2009 at 14:42

Explain where the irony is hissing noise.
I would love to heres the meaning behind this comment.

I have posted no claims of anything I have only stated facts, So if there is a problem with things I have mentioned here I will gladly take it up with you in a U2U

hissingnoise - 12-2-2009 at 14:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Sedit
Explain where the irony is hissing noise.

You mean you actually don't know. . .???

Sauron - 12-2-2009 at 14:59

If you start with Cu and Pb you will end with Cu and Pb.

Not a single atom of Au will arise from them.

Not the smallest nanoparticle.

You cannot alter the nucleus of an element by chemical reaction.

To say otherwise IS to return to the Dark Ages.

Elements are defined by the number of protons in the nucleus. That is the atomic number and that cannot be changed, except is certain cases by high energy nuclear processes. That is the only real transmutation.

Anything else is a farce and a fraud that only the ignorant and credulous will entertain.

There is nothing magic about Au. You can't create it and you can't destroy it. Just like Cu and just like Pb. If you think otherwise, examine your thought processes because you are delusional.

Sedit - 12-2-2009 at 15:03

yes this is exactly what I mean hissing where is the irony in me thinking that david hudson needs to stop from poisioning people.

Have you heard me promoting ORMUS or hudson? ]
Have you heard me say that transmution is a reality?

[Edited on 12-2-2009 by Sedit]

hissingnoise - 12-2-2009 at 15:19

This is just way too ridiculous, Sedit. I give up!

Sedit - 12-2-2009 at 15:28

Hissingnoise your giving up because you cant find one single piece here where I stated anything supporting these ideas and as for the supposed non grasp of basic science it would seem as though you may want to examine ones self before attempting a half thought out insult on someone else.

Sauron - 12-2-2009 at 16:36

Not only can you not alter the nucleus of an element by chemical processes, but you can't do so either by ALchemical processes, whatever they are, un'ess they happen to include the use of particle accelerators, fast neutron flux reactors and the like.

Vlad, you are spouting nonsense.

sparkgap - 12-2-2009 at 18:14

"I said mostly because amalgams are still used in dentistry and thimerosal for vaccines"

I can't seem to find the disturbing YouTube video showing mercury vapor emanating from amalgam in a false tooth...

Scary shit.

With thimerosal, you might want to search for the mounting suits on this... it's no less than fucked up that you jab into a kid a cumulative poison (do the math if you're skeptical, check the usual vaccination schedule for a child and the amount of thimerosal in a single vial).

sparky (~_~)

Sedit - 12-2-2009 at 18:27

Off topic(as though this whole threed isnt) If you have almalgam fillings in your teeth DO NOT mess around with tesla coils.

I lost 4 fillings the first month I started making teska coils from the EM causing minor sparks and evaporating the Mercury. Not to mention the sores that started to appear on my arms that I have since found out are part of mercury poisioning.

Nicodem - 13-2-2009 at 01:38

Oh, great! Now we even have nuclear reactions in a test tube.

This is getting too insane even for the Whimsy section, so it can't be moved there. I don't know what to do with this thread. It looks like some find it crazy enough to be entertaining, so I guess it is not a good option to just lock it. But the amount of nonsense that is accumulating here is too much for this forum with the word "Science" in its name. Anybody has any suggestion what to do before we get drowned in tens of pages of pseudoreligious crap?

Vlad - 13-2-2009 at 02:04

As I learned it chemical transmutation is imposible because protons are prevented from leaving the nucleus by the orbiting electron cloud bouncing back the protons if they try to leave. So make a hole in the electron cloud and you shouldn't have that problem no? Or are there other forces preventing this to happen?

Sauron - 13-2-2009 at 02:20

Well, you can't make a hole in the electron cloud because it is not a cloud, that is merely a description of the electronic shells. And yes of course there are other forces holding the nuclear center (nucleus) together, I suggest you read THE CURVE OF BINDING ENERGY. Protons are not billiard balls.

Sauron - 13-2-2009 at 02:23

Delete the entire thread and ban anyone who starts it up again.

not_important - 13-2-2009 at 03:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Vlad
As I learned it chemical transmutation is imposible because protons are prevented from leaving the nucleus by the orbiting electron cloud bouncing back the protons if they try to leave. So make a hole in the electron cloud and you shouldn't have that problem no? Or are there other forces preventing this to happen?

Sauron has already pointed you at some decent reading, but for the Cliff Notes version you can try

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_nuclear_force

http://35.9.69.219/home/modules/pdf_modules/m280.pdf

This is a force roughly 2 orders of magnitude stronger than the electromagnetic force.

Note that it is fairly easy to produce H(+) ions, which have not electrons; this can be done with deuterium and tritium as well. If the electrons were all that held the nucleus together, ionised D or T would fall apart. Helium and lithium are also not too difficult to fully ionise, again they so no instability as a result.

Heavier elements are more difficult to fully ionise, the inner electrons generally taking orders of magnitude more energy to remove; the 1st electron of sodium taking a tad less than500 kJ/mol while the last (11th) electron takes almost 160 mJ/mol. The energy levels involved quickly move from vis-UV light into the x-ray region, in ordinary condensed matter these levels are only very slightly affected by anything happening out at the valence level.

Sedit - 13-2-2009 at 09:37

Quote:

Vlad have you ever heard of Ions? They have there electrons striped away and yet they dont transmute into anything.

Sauron - 13-2-2009 at 09:55

Nor has he heard of the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, binding energy etc.

But what can one expect from an acolyte of David Hudson?

Very little I'm afraid.

Transmutation of a sort goes on all the time in nuclear reactors. The exact processes and products depend on what the fuel is, and other details. Thatn is nuclear criticality. Gold is not a product that I recall, but if it were it would be radioactive gold.

The fission of a single nucleus of a fissile isotope such as U-235 "transmutes" that atom into two lighter atoms, releasing an enormous amount of energy (the famous Einsteinian equation) which is the released nuclear binding forces. The theory is all there for you to look at. The theory is not secret, and at this point not very much of the practical aspects remain so either.

Lawrence and Seaborg and colleagues did lots of transmutations with huge cyclotrons and lineacs and so on. Bombarding elements with atomic particles at very high (relativistic) velocities so that the nuclei would sometimes make room for another proton. That is not a chemical process. That is the province of high energy physics.

[Edited on 14-2-2009 by Sauron]

Pomzazed - 13-2-2009 at 18:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Sedit

Vlad have you ever heard of Ions? They have there electrons striped away and yet they dont transmute into anything.

Ions and then what? The ions just lost the outermost electrons in the shell (or accept some more electrons). How can that interfere with inner orbitals?

Plus even without any electrons, the two nuclei have a strong repulsion force not to get fused together so easy!

Sedit - 13-2-2009 at 19:07

Ok you have me compleatly lost? Lets talk about the first eight on the periodic table where the inner shell is all they have. Or better yet lets talk of helium. If you strip away its outter shell are you trying to suggest to me that it will make it possible for the repulsive forces to split helium into hydrogen?

Sorry if I misunderstand you, it just seems that you are suggesting that transmution is a possibility. My example was just a thought experiment to make Vlad picture an atom without electrons.... and nothing more.

Pomzazed - 13-2-2009 at 19:20

Oh sorry Sedit I misunderstood what you mean.
Basically you and me are saying the same thing, that even without electron shells the transmutation isn't easy with just mix and shake! Nuclear reaction please.

[Edited on 14-2-2009 by Pomzazed]

Blind Angel - 13-2-2009 at 19:23

An atom stripped of it's electron is still the same atom, no matter what, what keep proton and neutron together are far from being electron, it's the strong nuclear force. This is more in the physic real than the chemistry real.

On another note, I've been following this thread for some time now, and to be honest it is full of very useful information on basic chemistry. If you cut out all the crap in it you end up with something that could actually be the basic of good Q&A.

Sedit - 13-2-2009 at 19:28

"transmutation isn't easy with just mix and shake! Nuclear reaction please."

Im going to start selling the EZ bake oven for terrorist. Just shake , bake strip of electrons and youll have a nuke it 30 mins or less... so easy even a kid could do it

Your right BA aside from the pie fights here and there it does contain some basic QA that people may find useful down the line. Quite possibly the reason this threed has survived this long

Vlad - 14-2-2009 at 01:24

Quote:

On another note, I've been following this thread for some time now, and to be honest it is full of very useful information on basic chemistry. If you cut out all the crap in it you end up with something that could actually be the basic of good Q&A.

I still think it's bad logic to assume things like the green goldchloride solution are fraud/fake/something else just because I don't offer peer reviewed publications.

Now I can understand their point of view, after all they are chemists and I didn't study chemistry at all but computer science. Though I learned some practical chemistry I found out there are things that chemists have no answer for and they quickly wipe it under the mat so to say.

For example, the gold in a testtube pictures. I still think it's gold, but let's assume it's not gold but another metal or amalgam. How can it end up in the testtube sticking to the glass without the glass having been melted by the heat of the reaction of the molten metal or amalgam being poured into the test tube? That's certainly interesting. I don't see how it could have been done but if someone knows it'd be interesting to hear.

[Edited on 14-2-2009 by Vlad]

Jor - 14-2-2009 at 01:41

Now, for over 200 years, millions of very educated scientists have been seriously experimenting and trying on all kind of chemistry and physics subjects. The have tried so many times, if can change an element. AND IT DID NOT WORK BY SIMPLY HEATING!
So please, you are a computer scientists, and therefore you have no clue what you're talking about. It is bullshit. That would mean that everyone who has melted Cu and Pb alloys would have gold! And a LOT of people have!
You can't just warp out a proton by a little heating... Please. You are all insulting chemists don't see things, and they rather turn their back from it, but at least these people use common sense and give arguments why you can't get out a proton of the nucleus, wich is verified by millions of chemists/physics. But mr. computer science thinks he knows best and his resources are:
-a bunsen burner
-a test tube.

And goldchloride is NOT green, but yellow. Copper(II)chloride is green!
You mentioned 2 pages before your gold did not dissolve in cold aqua regia but it did in hot! Yes, that is because it was a Pb/Cu alloy, and Pb does NOT dissolve in aqua regia, only very slowly!
Gold start dissolving as you throw it in aqua regia.

Get real!

[Edited on 14-2-2009 by Jor]

[Edited on 14-2-2009 by Jor]

Vlad - 14-2-2009 at 02:49

Quote:

It was gold. It was tested on all tests for 24 carat gold including the stannous chloride test.
Copper chloride is another kind of green.
Goldchloride is yellow yes, but that's the point, there appears to be a way to make a green gold chloride and it seems implicated in transmutations.

Sauron - 14-2-2009 at 02:51

Vlad, your "reports" are not merely unreviewed, you have made not the slightest effort to engage in any sort of scientific reportage.

You refuse to details your materials and methods.

You offer not the slightest verifiable proof.

You make wild and farcical claims.

You exhibit no understanding of fundamental principles of chemistry and physics, in fact you flout them.

What you claim is not only implausible but impossible. Logic dictates that the impossible be rejected.

Science is based on experiment with disclosure and reproducibility of results.

You reject all that. You make no disclosure so no attempt at reproduction of your results is possible.

So why should anyone pay the slightest attention to you as anything but a joke?

You reject the scientific method.

So scientists reject you.

sparkgap - 14-2-2009 at 03:05

Again, Vlad, let me repeat the advice I gave you: if you wish to be treated on par (even with your "different" background), you will have to show the exact procedure you followed publicly (and not via U2U like your previous communique).

You say you are a computer scientist... one can get away with showing an executable as a "black box" and never revealing the source code, but that is not contributory to progress as a whole. Better to post the executable and the source code.

In the same way, photos and even a video is insufficient; for all we know you may be pulling behind-the-scenes machinations on us. On the other hand, most of us here are disinterested parties who (I hope) will credit the original discoverer if a procedure is found to be on the straight and narrow.

Finally, to condense what has been told to you across multiple posts in a short sentence: the strong nuclear force cannot be overcome by purely chemical means. Utmost you are merely moving electrons around. But no protons are moved, and therefore no element transmutation occurs. A cursory view of what you have shown me in your U2U tells me no protons are displaced, even with the "extreme" conditions you propose.

sparky (~_~)

Vlad - 14-2-2009 at 03:19

I get it but I still 'believe' something is at work that is not understood yet because I have come across a lot of reports and 'proof' of transmutations.

However like I said in the previous posts, how come the glass didn't show melt signs with the metal in it? Nobody has been able to explain that yet.

I have the process of how the person got the solution to go back to metal. It was by boiling down at at least 96°C with sulfuric acid. He said the metal dropped all at once out of solution with a loud POP sound.
Obviously if you do this you usually get an ordinary sulfate normally so either he was lying or some other mechanism is at work.

Sauron - 14-2-2009 at 04:36

Then you can bank on the fact that he was lying,

Check out the price of gold.

If it could be made from Cu and Pb do you reckon

a) the price of gold would plummet

or

b) the prices of Pb and Cu would skyrocket?

??

This is the original free lunch that, as the saying goes, there is no such thing as.

TANSTAAFL.

[Edited on 14-2-2009 by Sauron]

watson.fawkes - 14-2-2009 at 06:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Vlad
I get it but I still 'believe' something is at work that is not understood yet because I have come across a lot of reports and 'proof' of transmutations. [...] However like I said in the previous posts, how come the glass didn't show melt signs with the metal in it? Nobody has been able to explain that yet.

Nobody can explain it because nobody can reproduce it because nobody has published the procedure. And yes, I'm talking to you, Vlad. Publish what you know so that other people can explain it. If you think there's a transmutation going on, I'm sure the people here will be able to determine whether it be or so.

Vlad - 14-2-2009 at 07:32

The photos come from an alchemist on an alchemy forum. The procedure is probably incomplete, and at first glance seems not to produce anything special. However it is my belief the alchemist left his secret 'solvent' out that reduces (according to the philosophy) metals to their prime matter/state. As I see it chemically, without the solvent, you don't get to the state where the transmutation happens.
But for the curious the recipe is below.

---
Greetings
I would like somebody to try a experiment to confirm some results I got.
Take Nitric acid commercial is ok, add salt peter, Ammonia chloride, heat . The color should change from clear to yellow . Should be a form of aqua regia which dissolves gold . Now put in copper and gold digest completely solution should be lime green. Boil down to thick syrup not dry. -Add sulfuric acid . Boil down again to syrup add sulfuric acid again. At this stage there was a small pop and the copper changed to gold and the gold dropped as a metallic. Wash with distilled water add salt peter and melt in crucible. To confirm copper changed to gold place the cooled gold nugget in Nitric. If it turns Blue your copper is still copper if clear and your gold is at the bottom you had a transmutation my end result was about 100 times greater gold quantity than I started with. End of that experiment I did this in a open test tube so some of the copper could have gone up in smoke. Ill use a distilling device and exact measurements next
I noticed something else . Several months ago I explained a process of separating a black salt from copper resulting in a small quantity of gold. Today I got the reverse . I put gold into solution then dropped it into stannous chloride. ( Tin in Hcl ) . The solution turned to a black oil after heating my pure gold turned into copper and gold. The gold was in the form of a black to dark brown precipitated salt combined with some of the tin. the copper was metallic. This was also done in a open test tube. I had no copper in this solution at all in the begging . I was using CP grade tin and pure gold.

---

The clue is where he said "digest completely solution should be lime green". This normally doesn't happen.

[Edited on 14-2-2009 by Vlad]

Sauron - 14-2-2009 at 08:11

Ah. So you never saw the "gold" and never tested it yourself and only have the word of some sois-dissant alchemist on an alchemist forum (God what a mismatch!) and you reckon he his holding back secrets (as alchemists always were wont to do, after all.)

You have not performed this yourself. Correct?

I hope so for your sake. Because clearly the fellow is a liar, and you have been duped.

If you say that you have done this and the product is verifiably gold then we have to draw different and harsher conclusions about either your veracity or your reason (by which I mean rationality, grip on reality, sanity.)

There really isn't any middle ground.

Jor - 14-2-2009 at 08:41

Vald in your last post you say that you dissolve gold and copper. So you dissolve gold, then drop it out of solution...
Where is the Pb?

I can also dissolve gold and drop it out of solution again.....

EDIT:
So this is the forum of the alchemists?
http://forum.alchemyforums.com/
http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?t=512

I see your name there as well.

It's a little bit like that site where everybody still thinks the world is flat.

And there is only one possible stone that can 'convert' Pb in Au, albeit very slowly, and that is some large crystal of a gold-salt. The gold would plate out , and Pb would form the chloride for example. And I doubt even if this will work. And this is a chemical process.

[Edited on 14-2-2009 by Jor]

hissingnoise - 14-2-2009 at 09:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Jor

It's a little bit like that site where everybody still thinks the world is flat.

Jor, I beg to disagree---it's a little bit more than a little bit like the flat-earthers site. . .
Red Bull Lion, anyone. . .

[Edited on 14-2-2009 by hissingnoise]

Vlad - 14-2-2009 at 09:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Sauron
Ah. So you never saw the "gold" and never tested it yourself and only have the word of some sois-dissant alchemist on an alchemist forum (God what a mismatch!) and you reckon he his holding back secrets (as alchemists always were wont to do, after all.)

You have not performed this yourself. Correct?

I hope so for your sake. Because clearly the fellow is a liar, and you have been duped.

If you say that you have done this and the product is verifiably gold then we have to draw different and harsher conclusions about either your veracity or your reason (by which I mean rationality, grip on reality, sanity.)

There really isn't any middle ground.

No I haven't done it but I don't consider it necessarily a fraud just because classical chemistry says it's not possible. The photos are still there and again no point about the metal adhering to the glass, unmelted.

Vlad - 14-2-2009 at 09:36

Quote:

Vald in your last post you say that you dissolve gold and copper. So you dissolve gold, then drop it out of solution...
Where is the Pb?

You add it and dissolve it too. The above process is only about Cu and some Au. And when it said the quantity of gold was about 100 times greater than what was started with, that is probably to be ignored as a lie, no?

Quote:

EDIT:
So this is the forum of the alchemists?
http://forum.alchemyforums.com/
http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?t=512

That's another forum yes.

Quote:

It's a little bit like that site where everybody still thinks the world is flat.

Actually, and laugh, several people including me know of a process that starts with urine and makes a powder out of it (no, not the salts present in urine, we're not that stupid), and one alchemist recently performed this and took photos of it, and had his stone transmute lead into platina and gold and it was tested by a jeweler. Not much, about 5.6 grams only, but it's still a transmutation. Now believe what you want, but I'm saying this is not difficult to understand when you realize monoatomic elements are present in urine too, which most if not all of you consider impossible because it goes against classical chemical thinking.

Blind Angel - 14-2-2009 at 09:50

You have a deficit of energy in there.
Let say that you agree with the law of energy conservation, and let's do some basic math.

So Copper has 29 Proton of mass 1.67×10^−27 kg and an average of 34.62 Neutron (considering isotopic percentage) of mass 1.67×10^−27 kg (the difference of mass between the two is minimal, but know that there is one due to the difference of mass between Up and Down Quarks)

That's mean that for one atom of copper we have an average energy of:
29*1.67×10^-27 + 34.62*1.67×10^-27 = 1.06×10^-25 kg

If we do the same calculation with Gold using 79 Protons and 118 Neutron (note that gold has only one natural stable isotope):
79*1.67×10^-27 + 118*1.67×10^-27 = 3.29×10^-25 kg

So we have a difference of 2.23×10^-25 kg which would translate in energy (according to the well know formula of E=mc²) as:
2.23×10^25kg * 3×10^8m/s = 2.01×10^-8 J/atom
this seem very small and it is, but this is for 1 atom of copper, now for 1 gram we would need:
2.01×10^-8 J/atom * 1g * 63.55g/mol * 6.022×10^23atom/mol = 7.692×10^17 Joule

Now how could I put that in perspective.
By comparison the three gorge dam which is the biggest power plan in the world actually have a maximum output of:
22.5 × 10^9 Joules/second (22500 MW).
So considering that you are trying to create matter here, you'd need to plug yourself directly on that dam for about 34186666 second which is 1 year 30 days 16 hours 17 minutes and 46 second (give or take a second). That is considering pure transmutation of Copper into Gold.

Now ask yourself, did my Bunsen burner (Meker, torch well anything you might too to melt that) is able to give enough power in 10 minutes than the Three Gorges Dam is able in a year and a month?

Now you might say, yes but i may have fused together two nuclei. Copper is a Z=29 and gold is a Z=79, the 50 Protons in that might come from something in my solution, well you do have Nitrogen (Z=7), Oxygen (Z=8), Hydrogen (Z=1), Chloride (Z=17) and Sodium (Z=11) and, let's push it farther, Silicium (Z=14) and Boron (Z=5) from the borosilicate glass of the test tube. The is not a single one with a Z=50m so it'd require multiple fusion, which is very unlikely. I don't know though how to calculate the energy needed for a fusion, I know that you need to take in account the repulsive force of the electromagnetic force, and the strong force dissociation and re association. It's over my capacity, but I'm guessing that if even stars have a hard time doing this, it'd be very improbable to do in a test tube using standard household equipment.

While I do not fully dismiss you're theory, I do think that using the method fore mentioned, you have a deficit in energy.

And if you don't really believe in the conservation of energy law, well it's about saying you don't believe in modern science.

Also, remember that the internet is anonymous, everybody can say anything they want to get attention. If I want to say that I'm a billionaire who work for NASA, I can say it. I can also prove it to you by saying that one of my good friend can vouch for me. I can also say that I'm a kid genius of 5 years old. In any case the only thing you have as a proof is my word. Now if a guy say that he did it, and that a jeweler attested the purity. What proof do you have, can you contact the jeweler to be sure, can you ask him to attest it on a second jeweler of your choice which you know is trustworthy. Remember that the more important the claim is the bigger the proof need to be, especially when there is the possibility of power and money linked to it.

[Edited on 14-2-2009 by Blind Angel]

Sauron - 14-2-2009 at 09:58

Nice tries, gentlemen, but vlad does not care for rational argument. He is after all a True Believer.

"Afainst stupidity the gods themselves struggle in vain."

"There's one born every minute."

[Edited on 15-2-2009 by Sauron]

Sedit - 14-2-2009 at 14:47

I dont know what Im more pissed about.. someone being able to transmute gold and not telling me how... or the fact that I tryed to start a serious threed on nano particals and every one pays more attention to this one

sparkgap - 14-2-2009 at 17:23

Jor wonders upthread if lead can precipitate out gold. I ask if anyone has a table of standard reduction potentials, or better yet, a Latimer diagram for lead and gold.

sparky (~_~)

@Vlad

watson.fawkes - 14-2-2009 at 18:17

First you say this:

Quote:

Originally posted by Vlad
I know the procedure and have performed it dozens of times; it is repeatable. I am unwilling to publish it [...]

Then you say this:

Quote:

Originally posted by Vlad
The photos come from an alchemist on an alchemy forum. The procedure is probably incomplete, and at first glance seems not to produce anything special. However it is my belief the alchemist left his secret 'solvent' out that reduces (according to the philosophy) metals to their prime matter/state. As I see it chemically, without the solvent, you don't get to the state where the transmutation happens.
But for the curious the recipe is below. [... recipe elided ...] The clue is where he said "digest completely solution should be lime green". This normally doesn't happen.

If you're talking about two different experiments, then I'm still waiting for the one you've performed and reproduced, because it's clear that the recipe you posted isn't it.

If you're still talking about the same thing, perhaps you could "clarify" the lies.

Sauron - 14-2-2009 at 23:51

Sedit, I think as long as vlad keeps wearing a KICK ME sign on his back, people are not going to be able to resist stopping by and putting the boot in.

This thread is an attractive nuisance.

Like rubbernecking at the scene of a five car flaming crash on the interstate.

Your perfectly good thread will be there when this thread is a distant bad memory.

You see, we discuss science all the time on this forum but we get very few opportunities to discuss utter bullshit such as this, with someone who hasn't the common sense to know when he is unbelievably wrong.

Vlad - 15-2-2009 at 03:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Blind Angel
Now you might say, yes but i may have fused together two nuclei. Copper is a Z=29 and gold is a Z=79, the 50 Protons in that might come from something in my solution, well you do have Nitrogen (Z=7), Oxygen (Z=8), Hydrogen (Z=1), Chloride (Z=17) and Sodium (Z=11) and, let's push it farther, Silicium (Z=14) and Boron (Z=5) from the borosilicate glass of the test tube. The is not a single one with a Z=50m so it'd require multiple fusion, which is very unlikely. I don't know though how to calculate the energy needed for a fusion, I know that you need to take in account the repulsive force of the electromagnetic force, and the strong force dissociation and re association. It's over my capacity, but I'm guessing that if even stars have a hard time doing this, it'd be very improbable to do in a test tube using standard household equipment.

I think it's fusion or zero point energy.
Another possibility is the way it's described in alchemical texts. They say metals are composed of mulitple parts, and these decompose and recombine.

Vlad - 15-2-2009 at 03:15

I just saw this too looking for somethin else in Hudson's lecture. Seems relevant to energy needed to change atomic structure.

Quote:

Anyway, if you'll move it down where we can read together, we're going to read some portions of this that are really important to understand. Move it on down a little further where I can point at it. Okay. Let's read this here, beginning right here. "It is now known that the atomic nucleus is a more or less spherical object, whose diameter is about a few fermis, a unit of measure equal to one quadrillionth of a meter, or simply 10-15 meter." Now that's tiny, okay? "Electrons orbit the nucleus at a distance of about 100,000 fermis. (For comparison, the radius of the moon's orbit is only about 30 times greater than the diameter of the earth.)" So we think the moon's a long ways out there, but relative to the earth, it's very close. You take an atom, the electrons are way the heck and gone away from the nucleus. "Packed in this fermi-size nucleus is nearly all of the mass of an atom and all it's positive electric charge. The mass of the nucleus comes mainly from nucleons. Protons carry the positive charge. The structure of the nucleus arises from two types of interactions: strong and electromagnetic. As a result of the strong interaction, or nuclear force, protons bind to neutrons and to each other. The nuclear force binds nucleons very tightly [but acts over a very short range]". Okay, now, this is old hat for you people who took physics, but this is very important, to most of you. "To separate two neutrons that are one fermi apart, for instance, requires an energy of about one million electron volts". Now this is the standard thinking that you were taught in school. Now, "On the other hand, only about 10 electron volts is needed to disassociate two nucleons that are 10 fermis apart". So, the strong force only works over very short distances, okay? And once those nuclei start coming the least little bit apart, now the glue no longer adheres.
"As a result of the electromagnetic interaction, or Coulomb force," now this is the repulsive force, the "protons repel other protons, although the Coulomb force is weaker than the nuclear force, it acts over a much longer range". So "If two protons are one fermi apart, the Coulomb force is about 100 times weaker than the nuclear force. Yet at a distance of 10 fermis the coulomb force is about 10 times stronger than the nuclear force."

Now, you begin to understand what's happening here? These foreign nuclei no longer are glued together like they are supposed to be glued together. They actually want to come apart on their own. The force that's inside that nucleus that is pushing apart is very weak compared to the force that's holding them together, but when they become deformed all the rules break down.

And so we're taught in school that the nucleus takes a million electron-volts to push it apart, but in fact, this phenomena is not, doesn't hold true when you're talking about deformed nuclei. Okay? Now here it is in Scientific American, okay, it's very serious. Now that's the basis of what we're dealing with. Let's go to the next paper.

Edit: This is what I was looking for:

Quote:

Okay there is a man by the name of Max Planck. You all remember Max Planck? About the turn of the century, 1906, he came with a little thing called little "h" that you have to put in all your wave computations because if you don't it isn't accurate. That's Planck's frequency. When Max Planck died he still couldn't tell us why you have to use Planck's constant. He just knew that that was the number it took to balance the equation, if you didn't use it, it didn't work. But he came up with this phenomena called the quanta. Well what caused him to come up with this is he encountered this phenomena I've got pictured up here. As you come across the electro-magnetic spectrum from the tower waves, radio waves, microwaves, when you approach the ultra-violet, you find that this energy right here, and he actually has this backwards according with how it's depicted today, as you come from these long wavelengths going to short wavelengths in this direction, that literally this is called black body radiation. This is the energy that emits from a perfectly absorbing black body. Okay and it builds and collapses and then the solar energy light spectrum is over on the left side and it collapses, and the two don't come together, and he was really disturbed of why don't these two peaks just run together like this. Why do they come up and just collapse? And what he was encountering is the electro-magnetic zero point. This is what I'm telling you. And I'm telling you the same thing he was telling you except I'm telling it to you with a different perspective.

It was just to the... if you go on a electro-magnetic charge, you go from 100 electron-volts to 10 electron-volts to 1 electron-volts, and then you can't go any further than that. Because in the real world there's 2.3 children in the average household in America. Show me the .3 child, I'd like to see him. There is no .3 child. On a macro scale there's 2.3 but on an individual family no family has .3. They have 2 or they have 3, but there's no .3. In the real world there's one positive electron and there's one negative electron, but there's nothing less than one. And so as you come 100, 10, 1, you can't go to .5 or .1 or .001 electro-volts because there's no such thing in the real world. Now you can put anything on a chart, but in the real world at 1 it all ends. There's plus one and there's minus one. And what I want to know is where's the zero point, and it's between plus one and minus one. That's really easy to figure out. And so if you come down here from 100 to 10 to 1, then you have to turn around and go back plus 1, or minus 1, actually it's minus 1, minus 10, minus 100 and it goes back. Now if you pick up the electro-magnetic spectrum and you look at it you'll find absorption spectroscopy and emission spectroscopy all on the same chart. But they're not exactly the same, they're slightly offset because it's a logarithmic chart and where this turns around and goes back is where the electro-magnetic zero point is and it just happens to be dead center where these two won't reconcile. Next slide. And in fact what happens is as this turns around you get something that looks about like this. You get a singularity. It's where it literally turns around and starts to come back and at the point where it perfectly turns there's actually a singularity. Because in reality it literally turns and runs off in another dimension and then comes out of that dimension and continues on. The two miss each other by Planck's frequency, they don't touch. That's the width of the frequency. And that's what it looks like, that's literally coming up and turning and running down into another dimension and coming out of that dimension and continuing on. It's where another dimension intersects. It's where time intersects the electro-magnetic spectrum and it intersects at the electro-magnetic zero point.

Where do you find that? You find it at the area where matter exists, you find it at the temperatures where you exist. To the right is the ionization spectrum, to the left is the ultra . . . . is the microwave, but it's in this spectrum, in the middle, where the zero point is. And that's what you'll find out is that God, or the electro-magnetic zero point is within you. That's where it is. It's within all life. It's what is life. It's what makes up life. It's what makes up matter. All physicists are looking for that singularity. They're trying to crunch waves tighter and tighter and tighter and tighter and tighter together until they literally. . . ., and they're going way out past deep gamma trying to crunch those waves together and get them where they stack on top of themselves. But the amazing thing is at the electro-magnetic zero point they literally turn and run off, and relative to you they stack on top of themselves. It's inherent in the system that this singularity occurs at the electro-magnetic zero point. And all physicists are looking for the creation way out in deep gamma and right back here at null, it's where it all came from. It's the primal soup. It's where particles are born out of that vacuum energy every day. Electrons disappear into it and reappear out of it continually. It is the creative force. It's where it all came from. And if you get yourself shrunk down where you could climb inside that dark slit right there, where literally matter, the wave, no matter how long it is, it's running away from you so it's stacking on top of itself relative to you, if you could get inside of there, you would be one with God.

[Edited on 15-2-2009 by Vlad]

Vlad - 15-2-2009 at 04:01

watson.fawkes

Quote:

The pictures of transmuted gold and the Red Gold I made many times are two different things yes. I don't know how to make the transmuted gold, all I have are the 'recipes' from the alchemist and the pictures. I can share those. I already did, but to my knowledge no one has reproduced this. Nobody seemed interested either.
I haven't tried reproducing it yet because honestly I'm not that experienced in chemistry (you noticed and know that already) and have no lab (main thing) and don't want to boil down sulfuric acid without a good hood in a lab. Besides I'm pretty convinced somethin is left out because I tried getting the the lime green solution by doing the copper and gold dissolution together as described and it didn't give the lime green solution. The 'solvent' is left out.

Blind Angel - 15-2-2009 at 06:42

Well i red the second part, there is one big error in there, first of all eV are not a measurement of charge they are a measurement of energy, and yes in nature there is partial charge. Quarks (if you don't know what they are you should maybe look them up) have partial charge ±1/3, ±2/3, ±1 (for lepton). Now has the other end of the spectrum, I'd personally wouldn't go there since the energy is too great, we have the atmosphere to protect us from that.

Also, if you post a complete protocol of what you did, I'll personally try it, and analyze it in an ICP or Atomic Absorption or the two, so you'll have exact value of what it is.
(It will depend though of my free time, but I'll try)

Vlad - 6-7-2009 at 09:10

http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/tw/PureNothing.htm

Pure Nothing
by Barry Carter and Don Nance

You can easily make your own "pure nothing" from gold, using a method
that I discovered in 1997. In December of 2005, Don Nance made some
white precipitate of gold using the Peroxide Method which I first described at:

http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/...h/goldto-m.htm

This method is simple enough that I first did it on my back porch
using chemicals I purchased at the hardware store and food co-op. The
first indicator that this process is converting the metal into the
ORMUS state is the green color of the gold chloride as you can see in
this picture that I took when I was developing this method in 1997:

http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/tw/greengold.jpg

Unfortunately, I did not take any pictures of the white precipitate
that I made from gold; however, Don Nance did take pictures of white
gold precipitates from various methods that you can see at:

http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/...oldMethods.jpg

In the picture above, the white gold precipitate in the bottle on the
right was made using the Peroxide Method.

Don also wrote up a more comprehensive version of the Peroxide Method
back in June of 2002:

http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/tw/wgpowder.htm

Using this method, Don made some white powder gold in December of
2005. Then he redissolved it in hydrochloric acid and sent it to Acme
Analytical Laboratories in Vancouver, BC for assay. He also included
samples of the Red Devil Lye and Smart Brand food grade HCl that he
used in the process of making the white gold powder. Acme did the
assays and sent them to Don on January 10, 2006 as you can see at:

http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/tw/AcmeGT1205.jpg

Don makes and sells the white gold powder (as a wet precipitate)
under the name "Golden Tear" so the assay on this substance is named
GT1205. The lye assay is named RDL and the HCl assay is named SMARTFG.

I have put these three assays into a spread sheet where you can
compare the elements that show up in the assays with the unassayable
ORMUS gold:

http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/tw/AcmeGT1205.xls

Notice that only 2.74 parts per billion of gold shows up in this
precipitate which was made almost entirely from 99.99% pure gold
metal. The only other components were lye, HCl and hydrogen peroxide
with whatever contaminants were in these components.

Also notice that, if you exclude the sodium and chlorine from the
assay, only 979.25 parts per billion of other elements show up.

This means that this assay shows the white gold precipitate to be
99.9999% pure nothing, with only 0.0001 percent of the total assay
showing up as something that is identifiable.

hissingnoise - 6-7-2009 at 09:53

Quote: Originally posted by Vlad

You can easily make your own "pure nothing" from gold, using a method
that I discovered in 1997.

Really Vlad? You can turn gold into pure nothing---you're surely on to a winner there. . .
Have you applied for a patent yet?
I think, though, I'll stick with my tried and tested method of making nothing as it involves less effort than your method. . .

[Edited on 6-7-2009 by hissingnoise]

Fleaker - 6-7-2009 at 10:57

Sounds like a waste of gold to me.

Send me all the pure gold you want though, I'll return pure nothing back.

setback - 6-7-2009 at 11:02

Quote: Originally posted by Vlad

If you are so certain it's all BS why don't you try to reproduce it just to show it's all wrong and that it's just a nanocluster. I've seen pictures of the green goldchloride solution and if you can get that well then you might be able to show you have what you believe to be ordinary gold nanoparticles. But most of those who claim it's BS can't or won't even produce the green goldchloride solution. What does that say about their analytical and logical skills in chemistry then?

[Edited on 5-2-2009 by Vlad]

It doesn't work like that, prove to us that it's not BS. We'll need more than "oh some chemist that's on some mailing list blah blah blah I don't have any hard evidence."

setback - 6-7-2009 at 11:04

Quote: Originally posted by Vlad

I have no reference. I know this from a mailing list I was/am subscribed onto and where chemists are subscribed on too as well, and some of them made the grass green goldchloride solution Hudson refers to as being a monoatomic chloride and subsequently precipitated a white fluffy flocculant/precipitate from it that when dried and annealed is said to be gold orme. So obviously the boiling down steps in the patent to reach a green solution do work.

HAHAHA! That's rich.

stygian - 6-7-2009 at 11:26

I'm astonished this topic still even exists. FWIW, I was saturated with illegitimate substances when I posted it and now find it embarassing. If a mod would be so kind as to remove it... thanks.

Sedit - 6-7-2009 at 11:34

Instead of the normal insults and such that you already have enough of I would like an explination for the discrepancies in the analysis of the product compaired to the starting NaOH material also analyzed.

First up is Al as there is much less in the product then there is in the Lye that formed the product even though Aluminum hydroxide should more then likely follow any action taken here. Also Copper and many other materials seem to vanish in the final product but Phosphorus remains untouched and makes it thru whole from the starting lye.

All this means very little just observation but what does bother me ALOT is the Sodium Chloride content went up dramaticly suggesting that his Gold solution is nothing more then Salt water. Why is there so much added NaCl?

All the lack of gold in the final product truely shows is that there is a huge possibility that your tossing out your baby with the bath water somewhere along the line as gold is not the most reactive substance in the world but it does behave in funny ways when made into a salt. It is a huge possibility assuming this person even tryed to make it out of Gold.

Sorry but that analysis does not have me sold.

Vlad - 6-7-2009 at 13:36

Well one way to test it would be to take the final product, dry it, and convert it back to metal. There are techniques for this but I don't feel comfortable putting this on this forum that shows up in Google. Nevertheless anyone interested can readily find them with some simple research and reading.

Such a technique was tried on a source material that is commonly assumed/known to be devoid of precious metals, and was sent to a lab and analysed to contain 1.4 oz/ton gold and 279,408 oz/ton silver, among others.

Vlad - 6-7-2009 at 13:40

Quote:

All this means very little just observation but what does bother me ALOT is the Sodium Chloride content went up dramaticly suggesting that his Gold solution is nothing more then Salt water. Why is there so much added NaCl?

Because of the process to make it. It's explained in one of the links.

You basically alternate between lowering the pH by adding HCl, dissolving any precipitate of gold, and then raising the pH with NaOH carefully and slowly, forming a new precipitate, several times, and this forms NaCl repeatedly.

This process apparently works to make the gold come out as a different colored precipitate after a few precipitations, and eventually it ends up white, and assays as nothing.

Sedit - 6-7-2009 at 13:45

To see this performed in a lab would make me highly interested but I feel that a true lab setting of this 'rematerialization' or whatever you want to call it won't be done anytime soon. I just feel that theres no proof that the assayed material was even made out of gold to start with so the claims have little substance don't you think?

Vlad - 6-7-2009 at 13:52

Well one way would be to make it yourself. It's not hard and the chemicals are cheap, except for the gold (but even 0.1 gram could work and that is not a lot of money, it's currently about 40 euro for a gram as I bought some recently) and the assays.

setback - 6-7-2009 at 14:25

It's not even worth the effort, the burden of proof for this is on you.

Vlad - 6-7-2009 at 14:40

Proof for what? I don't agree with all that is claimed about the material. I have my own interests regarding this, and some things I certainly don't intend to put online. I think the assays are telling and the process for producing this product is even included. What more do you want? For me to shoot pictures of a professional lab and attach the resume of the scientists who performed the process?

Sedit - 6-7-2009 at 15:38

Vlad all the assays tell is whats in drano and a salt water solution this man is selling. The pictures and the resumes will help no doubt but they are also no definitive proof.

Vlad I love a good experiment one way or another but for me to entrench myself into any project the information has to be there and clearly laid out and besides what you feel the information is just not there other then folks such as your self saying..."It works" with the majority that have tryed it professionaly saying it does not. I have to chose where I get my sources from and I chose the CLEAN well equiped labs over anyone on this forum playing in there basement anyday(no offense people you understand).

I can not afford the Au, analytical grade chemicals, or the equipment to perform an operation of this standards to prove or disprove it. Trying to attempt it would do nothing but skew the truth even more then it already is. This man is selling salt water Vlad and the assay proves it yet folks are paying god knows what and someone from the Better Business bureau or what ever agency controls this sort of fraud should look into him right away and either force him to prove himself and his 'process' or shut him down from stealing money from the ignorent.

Vlad - 6-7-2009 at 15:58

Where are the sources for those you claim tried it professionally saying it does not work? I have heard just as much of professional sources with a well equipped lab saying it does work.

UnintentionalChaos - 6-7-2009 at 16:23

Quote: Originally posted by Vlad

I have heard just as much of professional sources with a well equipped lab saying it does work.

name one.

[Edited on 7-7-09 by UnintentionalChaos]

Sedit - 6-7-2009 at 16:41

"Where are the sources for those you claim tried it professionally saying it does not work? I have heard just as much of professional sources with a well equipped lab saying it does work."

I believe I posted some earlyer in this threed matter of fact.

[Edited on 7-7-2009 by Sedit]

setback - 6-7-2009 at 19:18

Quote: Originally posted by Vlad

Proof for what? I don't agree with all that is claimed about the material. I have my own interests regarding this, and some things I certainly don't intend to put online. I think the assays are telling and the process for producing this product is even included. What more do you want? For me to shoot pictures of a professional lab and attach the resume of the scientists who performed the process?

I don't really understand why you insist on posting pseudo-science crap on a forum dedicated to chemistry. You know, chemistry is real science. An alchemy forum filled with people who burn sage, arrange magic crystals in their rooms, and believe that homeopathy is valid medicine would be more appropriate.

This thread is the equivalent of going onto an astronomy forum and discussing astrology; or going onto a physics forum and discussing UFOs.

[Edited on 7-7-2009 by setback]

Polverone - 6-7-2009 at 20:14

This thread was open more than long enough.

Pages: 1 2