Does anyone here do materials analysis?

[geni]

According to David Hudson the material either shouldn't read at all or you would only get a reading of the impurities.

I don't care what he says. They way mass spec works that isn't posible unless you want to argue with some fairly fundimental physics (the first law of thermodynamics comes to mind). Mass spec works by first putting a charge on the particle (which it will do these machines can put a charge on helium) then accellerating them through a magnetic field onto a dectector. Unless the ions cease to exist between the acelorator and the dectector (not going to happen) they will be dectectable. If you have monoatomic gold mass spec will be able to pick up the presence of gold without even trying.

If the impurities can be somehow tested for chemically and the chemistry doesn't allign with the expected results then I know I have something 'out of the ordinary' at least.

What impurities would you be expecting?

The consistency of the material when it is in solution is exactly like Hudson described - a white milky, gelatinous substance like semen.

Sounds like a long chain hydrocarbon.

 

[geni]

White powder gold, eh?

I have seldom seen so much woo....

Heh google monatomic gold sometime. You aint seen nothing yet.

 

[clarsct]

Yeah...been lurking a bit.

"Monatomic gold"

Erm.

Ok.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Monoatomic, as in one atom at a time? I think this is, as geni stated, the gaseous phase...isn't it?

And, secondly, what the sam hell are you supposed to do with this stuff? Why would you WANT any of it?


(White and gooey, like semen? excuse me for being juvenile, but ..erm...

I think I'll pass.)

 

[Filip Sandor]

White powder gold, eh?

I have seldom seen so much woo....

I'm a bit more open minded about it actually. The first time I learned about the substance was from someone who was not related at to David Hudson or his work, but coincidentally, some of the stranger properties ascribed to the substance matched exactly. The fellow who spoke of this material never mentioned Hudson's name so I don't think they were working together. The subject matter discussed on the radio was entirely different from Hudson's work.

I'm going to have to look into some analysis here at the University of British Columbia. Just need to wait until I have more time...

 

[geni]

Yeah...been lurking a bit.

"Monatomic gold"

Erm.

Ok.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Monoatomic, as in one atom at a time? I think this is, as geni stated, the gaseous phase...isn't it?

Gaseous gold is probably diatomic.

And, secondly, what the sam hell are you supposed to do with this stuff?

Everything

Why would you WANT any of it?

If half of the claims about it were true then that question is simular to asking why would you want to be all powerful.

 

[Filip Sandor]

Gaseous gold is probably diatomic.

I think the term 'monatomic' is just a more practical way to view the atoms whose electrons are cooper-paired; because they act more like a "single" atom once the cooper-pairing is complete; technically I think diatomic= is more appropriate, since it takes two to do the tango.

As for becoming all powerful... I don't know about that. I have many reasons to believe this might be the same material Hudson was making and I do find it very interesting, but I don't think this stuff will make you all powerful. The rhodium might boost your immune system sure, but it stop a bullet from killing you.

 

[Filip Sandor]

Yeah...been lurking a bit.

"Monatomic gold"

Erm.

Ok.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Monoatomic, as in one atom at a time? I think this is, as geni stated, the gaseous phase...isn't it?

And, secondly, what the sam hell are you supposed to do with this stuff? Why would you WANT any of it?


(White and gooey, like semen? excuse me for being juvenile, but ..erm...

I think I'll pass.)

My only aim is to verify this is indeed what it is claimed to be. If it doesn't show up on spectroscopic analysis that would be enough evidence for me because I know spectroscopy analysis pretty much any material most people can get their hands on. Then it's just about doing some simple chemistry to confirm or falsify the readings so why not try it? Obviously superconductivity is not that well known, since we are coming up with new compounds that require lesser degrees of cooling to become super-conducting, if we knew everything, we should have the 'best' superconductors already available and apparently, many scientists speculate we don't have it yet.

 

[geni]

I think the term 'monatomic' is just a more practical way to view the atoms whose electrons are cooper-paired;

No it isn't

because they act more like a "single" atom once the cooper-pairing is complete; technically I think diatomic= is more appropriate, since it takes two to do the tango.

Cooper pairing at room tempreture seems unlikely. Anyway that can be tested with various forms of microwave spectrosocopy

As for becoming all powerful... I don't know about that.

Heh there are a lot of claims about this stuff being made

I have many reasons to believe this might be the same material Hudson was making and I do find it very interesting, but I don't think this stuff will make you all powerful. The rhodium might boost your immune system sure, but it stop a bullet from killing you.

From what I know of how the immune system functions that seems unlikely.
It wont do anything because it isn't chemicaly posible

 

[geni]

My only aim is to verify this is indeed what it is claimed to be. If it doesn't show up on spectroscopic analysis that would be enough evidence for me because I know spectroscopy analysis pretty much any material most people can get their hands on.

Mass spec all the way.

Then it's just about doing some simple chemistry to confirm or falsify the readings so why not try it?

Simple? Chemical detection is rarely simple

Obviously superconductivity is not that well known, since we are coming up with new compounds that require lesser degrees of cooling to become super-conducting, if we knew everything, we should have the 'best' superconductors already available and apparently, many scientists speculate we don't have it yet.

However the new ones tend to be rather simular to the old ones just with slightly different levels of dopeing.

 

[Filip Sandor]

Mass spec all the way.

Yes, that is what I was thinking.

Simple? Chemical detection is rarely simple

[/b]

I meant 'simple' for a chemist with access to the right materials. Anyway, I have to look into it some time this week, but I'll keep you posted.

Edit: By the way, I have read and heard a lot of Hudson's lecture material and know a great deal about all the claims made about it. Unfortunately some of those claims are difficult to test or 'inconvenient' to say the least, if you know what I am talking about then you understand. On the other hand, I am pretty confident that Hudson isn't a 'liar', but the people doing research on it now seem to keep quite secretive about it, unnecessarily so in my opinion, but nonetheless it seems to be that way. Well my point is that it's difficult to make radical claims about something I know very little about. You seem to know a bit about this stuff too.

 

[KingMerv00]

Ok here are the expensive and accurate ways to identify your substance:

Mass Spec
HPLC
GC
NMR (H and C13)
IR Spec
UV/Vis Spec
Edit:X-Ray Spec

These are the best and I'm sure there are independent labs that will do the testing for you. To get a real fix on the substance, multiple tests are probably needed.

Of course, in your case you don't want to spend tons of money and the substance supposedly won't be detectable by spectroscopy (I call BS on this BTW). So how about some easier tests:

Melting Point
Density
Boiling Point (assuming you can get it to melt)
Solubility in different solvents
Magentic or not?
pH change when in solution (acid or basic)

In the end though, I wouldn't recommend just handling unknown powders if you can help it. You never know.

 

[casebro]

I just Googled <"david hudson" "platinum group">, found this site: http://www.levity.com/alchemy/hudson.html with some discussion. The stuff has all the trademarks of WOOO WOOO. Originally found on Native American soil. Cures everything, including AIDS, re-aligns your DNA, restructures your cells, thereby it improves your sex life, cures male pattern baldness, makes your children smarter, breasts larger, IQ increases, clothes fit better, prevents acne, cures the vapors, encourages confidence, firms your buns, brings a 'good hair day' AND defies chemical analysis.....I wonder how much I can sell my can of micro ballons for? Or should I try potato flakes, there may be some synchronisity in the name?

 

[Filip Sandor]

Ok here are the expensive and accurate ways to identify your substance:

Mass Spec
HPLC
GC
NMR (H and C13)
IR Spec
UV/Vis Spec
Edit:X-Ray Spec

These are the best and I'm sure there are independent labs that will do the testing for you. To get a real fix on the substance, multiple tests are probably needed.

Of course, in your case you don't want to spend tons of money and the substance supposedly won't be detectable by spectroscopy (I call BS on this BTW). So how about some easier tests:

Melting Point
Density
Boiling Point (assuming you can get it to melt)
Solubility in different solvents
Magentic or not?
pH change when in solution (acid or basic)

In the end though, I wouldn't recommend just handling unknown powders if you can help it. You never know.

Well I can tell you that powder seems quite resistant to heat. I put a little 'chunk' on a red hot element and let watched it for about 2 minutes and there was no smoke, discoloration or loss of substance that I could see. The finer parts (the powdery parts) are extremely fluffy and compress quite a lot. The 'chunks' seem denser, very light weight compared to their size and easy to break into smaller pieces. As far as magnetism goes, the powder seems to have some kind of magnetic property to it, except that it is not static. I know that because I rubbed a plastic bag on the carpet and noticed it would suck up dust particles, but not the powder and given the light weight of the powder it if was indeed static it should attract easily. This 'charge' is relatively easy to observe. Move the powder around with anything ie. metal, plastic, wood (toothpick) glass it sticks to everything and then collects in a sort of fuzz on the object you move it around with. I also tried chopping up the chunks into smaller pieces with a razor and then moved them around, when I did this the powder literally sprayed away from itself and formed, little pieces fly ahead of the razor and jump off to the side. This effect is very noticable and pretty strange considering it isn't visibly affected by a strong ceramic or neobydium magnets either. It's also very difficult to put it back into the container because it sticks to the edge of the glass container keeps spraying out and around onto the rim of the container, seems like the more you try to push it down the more tends to fly go in all directions. In water it forms a suspension if you mix it in lots of water or a milky white gelatinous substance if you use only a little water.

I've never tried it on my hair...

 

[clarsct]

Hmmmmmmmmm.

Am I wrong in thinking this sounds a bit like cornstarch?

 

[Vitnir]

So people eat this stuff? Well is it probable that it contains any gold at all? from what I remember gold is pretty toxic. Has any lab been bothered to analyse this powder before?

 

[Filip Sandor]

more pics

I played around with the levels in photoshop and managed to make the stacked chunks (and the field aligning them) more visible. You can clearly see, especially in the second photograph that there are little chunks of the material that are stacked up on the tips of other chunks, they almost look like little caps and exist mostly near the center of the pile and on top.

Both samples were spilled out of the container by gentle tapping; as long as you don't shake it vigorously and cause the finer particles to cover and stick to the inner walls of the container the sample slides out with ease so I simply spilled it into a little pile. Both photographs were taken right after I poured out the powder from the container. The samples were not touched physically or altered in any way, the state you see them in is the state they fell into. There are no magnets and no strong static near the samples. I tried making a video of the pieces spraying away from the razor using my digital camer, but the camera can't focus in close enough to over come the white glare of the sample and so you can't really see most of the particles jumping. If you actually see it with your own eyes there is no question this stuff is spraying away with considerable force. It even sprays upwards up to several inches in air, over and around to the back of the razor - yet no reaction to magnets or static. Strange. Could it be a new kind of force we don't know about? Woo-ooooooo spooky!!!

I am curious what other substances behave in the same way and fit the description and images I've posted here. Maybe some of you chemists can shed light on the matter. In the mean time, I have contaced someone in the physics department at UBC inquiring about commercial spectroscopic analysis and awaiting their reply.

"Note: sample #2 is on capet, over regular kitchen 'handi-wrap' (washed down with water to eliminate static charge).

Pic 1

Pic2

 

[Filip Sandor]

So people eat this stuff? Well is it probable that it contains any gold at all? from what I remember gold is pretty toxic. Has any lab been bothered to analyse this powder before?

Keep in mind this is not your standard metalic gold.

According to David Hudson several different labs have analyzed the monatomic materials and they all listed the impurities, mostly silica and aluminum (basically dirt), which was something like 2% of the sample by weight... and nothing else. By working with one of the first few physicists David brought the material to he managed to seperate out all of the impurities. There was still 98% of the sample there, which did not read in the spectroscopic analysis.

David eventually managed to work with someone from Germany who builds and designs spectroscopic analysis machines and they pretty much figured out how to make it from pure gold and convert it back to gold, produced superconductivity, etc. If you're going to ask me why doesn't anybody know about this, well, there can be many reasons. Fear of losing their job, not enough time or money to invest in promoting it to the scientific community... time, money, money, time, you get the idea.

By the way, I should note this interesting point, any patents filed for Superconductivity in the US have to be approved by the DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE - that might explain why your local supermarket doesn't have it!!

 

[geni]

Keep in mind this is not your standard metalic gold.

According to David Hudson several different labs have analyzed the monatomic materials and they all listed the impurities, mostly silica and aluminum (basically dirt), which was something like 2% of the sample by weight... and nothing else. By working with one of the first few physicists David brought the material to he managed to seperate out all of the impurities. There was still 98% of the sample there, which did not read in the spectroscopic analysis.

Not posible. Anything with electrons will surface under X-ray spectroscopy. Anything that isn't transparent will surface under UV/Vis spectroscopy. It is posible (although tricky) to do NMR on anything.

David eventually managed to work with someone from Germany who builds and designs spectroscopic analysis machines and they pretty much figured out how to make it from pure gold and convert it back to gold, produced superconductivity, etc. If you're going to ask me why doesn't anybody know about this, well, there can be many reasons. Fear of losing their job, not enough time or money to invest in promoting it to the scientific community... time, money, money, time, you get the idea.

No I don't

By the way, I should note this interesting point, any patents filed for Superconductivity in the US have to be approved by the DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE - that might explain why your local supermarket doesn't have it!!

Errr no. There is no reason for my local supermarket to care about US patent laws.

Have you considered the posibilty that David Hudson is lying?

 

[Vitnir]

Pure solid gold metal isnt toxic to my knowledge, its the salt of gold that is toxic. One doctor told me over lunch that reumatics can be treated with injections of gold salt so it has some good uses apparently. And to say 98% is unidentifiable, well either ignorance of available analytical methods or outrigth lying are the only options I can think of. Atomic emission spectrometry comes to mind, there are new fancy instruments that can give you the elemental composition of any sample. There is one in my lab though its not any instrument I use, I could perhaps persuade someone to run it for me, I dont know.

 

[KingMerv00]

According to David Hudson several different labs have analyzed the monatomic materials and they all listed the impurities, mostly silica and aluminum (basically dirt), which was something like 2% of the sample by weight... and nothing else. By working with one of the first few physicists David brought the material to he managed to seperate out all of the impurities. There was still 98% of the sample there, which did not read in the spectroscopic analysis.

David eventually managed to work with someone from Germany who builds and designs spectroscopic analysis machines and they pretty much figured out how to make it from pure gold and convert it back to gold, produced superconductivity, etc. If you're going to ask me why doesn't anybody know about this, well, there can be many reasons. Fear of losing their job, not enough time or money to invest in promoting it to the scientific community... time, money, money, time, you get the idea.

Is it made of atoms? Can you see it? Are you certain it is not a black hole?

If you answered yes to the above questions, then spectroscopy will work.