Does anyone here do materials analysis?

[Filip Sandor]

I need to identify a fluffy, white powdery substance I have. The material is extremely light weight and if you play around with it enough it seems to exhibit signs of being energetically charged somehow. It likes to stick to stuff and seems to jump away from itself when you break it up and push it around... gets more difficult to gather and move around the more you play with it and sticks to everything.

I'm wondering if anybody here can run a simple materials analysis test of some sort that could identify what it is so if anybody cares to experiment please let me know and I can send you a high-res photograph of the powder, if you are interested along with more information about it. I'm not sure how much this sort of materials test costs so I'm willing to pay for it as long as it's not too expensive. I am not looking to do spectroscopic analysis or anything like that, I just need a basic test to test for the more common substances.

Thanks.

[Vitnir]

One way would be to try and dissolve it in a organic solvent such as methylene chloride and analyse it using GC/MS. Its still a wild stab in the dark as to expect a meaningful result but if its cocaine this would be the analysis to pick.
Edit: Commercial tests are pretty expensive, like 200 dollars and if its cocaince I don't want you to mail the sample to me please :) though I would do it for free.

[Ziggurat]

I need to identify a fluffy, white powdery substance I have. The material is extremely light weight and if you play around with it enough it seems to exhibit signs of being energetically charged somehow. It likes to stick to stuff and seems to jump away from itself when you break it up and push it around... gets more difficult to gather and move around the more you play with it and sticks to everything.

It's picking up a static electric charge. That's why it repells itself and gets attracted to other things. That's really nothing special, a lot of powdered materials do that.

I'm wondering if anybody here can run a simple materials analysis test of some sort that could identify what it is so if anybody cares to experiment please let me know and I can send you a high-res photograph of the powder, if you are interested along with more information about it. I'm not sure how much this sort of materials test costs so I'm willing to pay for it as long as it's not too expensive. I am not looking to do spectroscopic analysis or anything like that, I just need a basic test to test for the more common substances.

Thanks.

Unless you have some idea of possible materials, I'm not sure there IS any simple tests you can do. Where did it come from, why do you have it, and why do you want to know what it is? Is it organic (like, for example, cocaine or starch) or is it mineral (like zinc oxide)? "White powder" is really uninformative.

[casebro]

Micro balloons ? Itty bitty plastic ballons, used as a light weight filler in fiberglass, etc. But any plastic powder would act that way.

[Kopji]

I agree, it sounds like a plastic. Some is considered/suspected carcinogenic in that state so you might find out what it is before exposing yourself to it.

[Vitnir]

Someone skilled could maybe look at it and say something but otherwise the question "What is it?" is hard to answer even in a lab. It's a lot easier to answer "Is this baking soda?" by adding some acid and see the reaction. If it's an organic chemical compound and has some vapor pressure GC/MS is the way to go since you can run it against huge libraries of chemical compounds. Otherwise you might have to pick it up and you might recognize and say "Hey this is just talc". I dont know much about identifying inorganic compounds but I would say its harder, you could find out what atoms are in it and what relative proportions they have to each other but I dont know how to find out the structure.
For fun you could see if it dissolves in household liquids, does it dissolve in water or a weak acid like acetic acid? Then its a salt of some kind like baking soda. If it dissolves in gasoline or acetone chances are its a organic compound.
I have naturally looked up the MS-spectra of cocaine so I know it can be analysed by it but could also be in the form of a salt and I dont know which of the forms is prefered by users.
Either way it could realy be harmful, you dont want to inhale it or get it on your skin.

[JLam]

Question. Where does one obtain unknown white powder? What is the chain of events in your life that leads up to you posting on a message board about unknown white powder? I find this kind of fascinating.

[KingMerv00]

I do some material analysis where I work and there are plenty of tests you can run. The problem is finding an lab that will do it for you for a reasonable price.

In the mean time, don't mess with it. Hate to see you get cancer or end up infertile.

Edit: Your description of the substance could apply to hundreds of compounds.

[Filip Sandor]

It's picking up a static electric charge. That's why it repells itself and gets attracted to other things. That's really nothing special, a lot of powdered materials do that.

I know the effect you're talking about and this stuff seems kinda unique - the field seems to 'relax' if you leave the material unmoved for a few minutes and 'tense up' again when you move it around (reposition the aggregates). It also doesn't seem to react to a magnetic field or a static charge, at least not visibly - I tested this by waving a strong magnet around it.. nothing happens, charged plastic that I've rubbed on the carpet will attract dust and other small stuff, but not this.

Unless you have some idea of possible materials, I'm not sure there IS any simple tests you can do. Where did it come from, why do you have it, and why do you want to know what it is? Is it organic (like, for example, cocaine or starch) or is it mineral (like zinc oxide)? "White powder" is really uninformative.

I don't think it's organic, it doesn't burn at all. I put a little 'chunk' on a red hot element and let it sit there for a few minutes, not so much as a puff of smoke, also tried burning it with a torch lighter, no smoke. When the material is spilled out into a little pile I noticed that some of the aggregates, seem to arrange themselves in a strange way.. have you ever seen those rocks people pile up in a way that looks like they should all just topple over, but they don't? Well little bits of this stuff seem to do the same in the pile near the top center... they will arrange and sit on the tips of other pieces without falling yet static doesn't seem to be the phenomena at work.

Anyway, here is a picture (www.oddworldz.com/filipsandor/White%20Powder.jpg) of the powder I took with my digital camera for you guys to interpret, maybe you can tell more.

[Filip Sandor]

Question. Where does one obtain unknown white powder? What is the chain of events in your life that leads up to you posting on a message board about unknown white powder? I find this kind of fascinating.

It's a long story... and it took me a long time to get my hands on this 'stuff'. I was listening to Coast To Coast AM on the radio one night when I heard some information about some strange material made from the platinum group metals. I would just like to have some experimental confirmation that this is indeed the material I am looking for.

Any ideas where I can start without going to spectroscopy right away??

[Filip Sandor]

http://www.oddworldz.com/filipsandor/White%20Powder.jpg

[casebro]

Mashed potato flakes? Or maybe short fiber Asbestos- the kind that causes Mesothelioma? or the stuff they seed clouds with? Pixie dust? How many crop circles did you have to vacuum to get that much of it? Frost granules from your fridge? Titanium Dioxide, paint pigment?

[Filip Sandor]

Mashed potato flakes? Or maybe short fiber Asbestos- the kind that causes Mesothelioma? or the stuff they seed clouds with? Pixie dust? How many crop circles did you have to vacuum to get that much of it? Frost granules from your fridge? Titanium Dioxide, paint pigment?

Hahaha, very funny, maybe it's a superconductor!

[geni]

It's a long story... and it took me a long time to get my hands on this 'stuff'. I was listening to Coast To Coast AM on the radio one night when I heard some information about some strange material made from the platinum group metals. I would just like to have some experimental confirmation that this is indeed the material I am looking for.

Any ideas where I can start without going to spectroscopy right away??

Platinum group metals? To be honest mass spec would probably be the way to go. Various forms of ionisation spectrometry are also posible. While there probably is a chemical test for those methods that would seriously be the hard way to go.

By any chance does the description of these strange materials include the word monoatomic?

[Filip Sandor]

Platinum group metals? To be honest mass spec would probably be the way to go. Various forms of ionisation spectrometry are also posible. While there probably is a chemical test for those methods that would seriously be the hard way to go.

By any chance does the description of these strange materials include the word monoatomic?

Yes, it does. Have you heard, seen, or read the transcripts of any of David Hudson's lectures? I've heard a lot of the lecture material in audio and it sounds quite genuine, especially once David begins to make references to the physical reviews. Since he claims that spectroscopy analysis doesn't pick up on these materials and given the chance that this material (made by someone else) according to David Hudson's pattent

[geni]

Yes, it does. Have you heard, seen, or read the transcripts of any of David Hudson's lectures? I've heard a lot of the lecture material in audio and it sounds quite genuine, especially once David begins to make references to the physical reviews. Since he claims that spectroscopy analysis doesn't pick up on these materials and given the chance that this material (made by someone else) according to David Hudson's pattent

Mass spec isn't (despite it's name) a spectrographic technique. While there are methods involveing neutrons and gammer rays that would be quite caperble of detecting platinum regedless of any electron setup they are somewhat expensive. Thus Mass spec would be the logical choice.

What is the number of the pattent?

If it was posible to make room tempreture monoatomic platinum or indeed any monoatomic metal it would be a gas. The reason being is that monatomics can only interact through van der waals forces. Now for monoatomics the strength of van der waals forces is pretty much directly related to the number of electrons. Radon which is a monoatomic substance has 8 more electrons than platinum. However it is still a gas at room tempreture.

[Filip Sandor]

Platinum group metals? To be honest mass spec would probably be the way to go. Various forms of ionisation spectrometry are also posible. While there probably is a chemical test for those methods that would seriously be the hard way to go.

By any chance does the description of these strange materials include the word monoatomic?

I wouldn't be asking for help unless I knew that for sure, but suspect these might be 'those'. The makers of this material claim it to be pure monatomic (or monoatomic) gold or "the white gold powder" as David Hudson coined it; I thought some in depth, physical testing would be interesting to carry out on the stuff to see what shows up (or doesn't).

[geni]

I wouldn't be asking for help unless I knew that for sure, but suspect these might be 'those'. The makers of this material claim it to be pure monatomic (or monoatomic) gold or "the white gold powder" as David Hudson coined it; I thought some in depth, physical testing would be interesting to carry out on the stuff to see what shows up (or doesn't).

Mass spec would be the way to go since it measures the weights (ok charge mass ratio) of the atoms. Gold weighs in at 196.96655 atomic mass units so high res mass spec would give results that were pretty much certain for showing that the sample was in fact gold (ok you could get away with low res no problem)

$55 from here:

http://research.uiowa.edu/vpr/units/hrmsf.htm

To figure out how any atoms in the stuff are arranged you would be looking at X-ray spectoscopy more precicelsy stuff involveing using the material being tested in the form of a powder. This is somewhat more complex.

No idea how much that would cost.

chemical tests are a waste of time since we have no idea how monatomic gold is meant to react chemicaly (ok that isn't true but it appears people are claiming it doesn't undergo standad metalic bonding).

[Filip Sandor]

Mass spec would be the way to go since it measures the weights (ok charge mass ratio) of the atoms. Gold weighs in at 196.96655 atomic mass units so high res mass spec would give results that were pretty much certain for showing that the sample was in fact gold (ok you could get away with low res no problem)

$55 from here:

http://research.uiowa.edu/vpr/units/hrmsf.htm

To figure out how any atoms in the stuff are arranged you would be looking at X-ray spectoscopy more precicelsy stuff involveing using the material being tested in the form of a powder. This is somewhat more complex.


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

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

[LTC8K6]

White powder gold, eh?

I have seldom seen so much woo....

[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]

[QUOTE=geni;1283249]Gaseous gold is probably diatomic.[QUOTE]

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]

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 (http://www.oddworldz.com/filipsandor/scraps/wps1.jpg)
http://www.oddworldz.com/filipsandor/scraps/wps1.jpg
Pic2 (http://www.oddworldz.com/filipsandor/scraps/wps2.jpg)
http://www.oddworldz.com/filipsandor/scraps/wps2.jpg

[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.

[Filip Sandor]

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

I don't see how you being a foreigner falsifies David's claims? And yes, I have considered that David Hudson might have been lying.

The testing I want to do on the material is really mostly so I can say "yes, the sample I have in my posession has been tested in a lab by professionals, so I know I have something unique" and have the papers to back it up. I trust David Hudson was not lying about the powder. Due to the extent of information her covered in his many lectures (many hours long) it seems unlikely to me that he was making it all up. Nearly all of his lectures are made up of technical data and information about his research. His character throughout the lectures is also consistent and distinct. After you listen to it for a while, you get a feel for what he feels and notice he has a very distinct character which doesn't suit the character of a con at all. Of course my opinion is subjective, but then you should really do your own research. If you would like the audio of Hudson's lectures I got no problems sharing it.

[KingMerv00]

I don't see how you being a foreigner falsifies David's claims? And yes, I have considered that David Hudson might have been lying.

The testing I want to do on the material is really mostly so I can say "yes, the sample I have in my posession has been tested in a lab by professionals, so I know I have something unique" and have the papers to back it up. I trust David Hudson was not lying about the powder. Due to the extent of information her covered in his many lectures (many hours long) it seems unlikely to me that he was making it all up. Nearly all of his lectures are made up of technical data and information about his research. His character throughout the lectures is also consistent and distinct. After you listen to it for a while, you get a feel for what he feels and notice he has a very distinct character which doesn't suit the character of a con at all. Of course my opinion is subjective, but then you should really do your own research. If you would like the audio of Hudson's lectures I got no problems sharing it.

If you pay to have it identified I recommend that you:

1) Don't tell the lab what you think it is.

2) Send them a 5 samples of white powder but claim they are all unkown. Only one is your mystery substance. The other four should be flour, sugar, etc. (only if the price is reasonable of course).

Then you can be sure there was no bias in the testing and that they didn't just make up the results.

3) Ask for spectroscopy. Bet you a million bucks it will work.

[geni]

I don't see how you being a foreigner falsifies David's claims? And yes, I have considered that David Hudson might have been lying.

Well you see it means that conspircoy thoeries rather fall apart.


The testing I want to do on the material is really mostly so I can say "yes, the sample I have in my posession has been tested in a lab by professionals, so I know I have something unique" and have the papers to back it up. I trust David Hudson was not lying about the powder.

Why?


Due to the extent of information her covered in his many lectures (many hours long) it seems unlikely to me that he was making it all up.

Why? It is a lot less effort to make stuff up about chemical bonding than talk about the real thing. Point groups, schrodinger equations, various bits of quantum physics with allowed and non allowed transitions, relitivity (it's a bit hard to explain why Hg is a liquid without that), Trust me makeing it up is a lot easyer.


Nearly all of his lectures are made up of technical data and information about his research.

Would this be the same information that appears on his website? Ok then.

M-state is a meanless term in orbital chemistry.

He goes on about orbitally rearranged monoatomic elements. Well lets have a look at what that could mean:

A theretical monoatmic gold atom in it's ground state has an electron arangement of [Xe] 4f14 5d10 6s1

Now energy levels being what they are the stuff in the f orbital is going nowhere so we are onlu worried about the d and s orbitals:

5d10 6s1

As you can see this gives us 10 paired electrons in the d orbitals (because there are only 5 d orbitals) and 1 unparied electron in the s orbital. This is the ground state of gold. Any other state requires energy to get into and more energy in order to stay there.

So how could this be orbitally rearranged? Well the orbitals themselves are going nowhere since their existance is defined by the schrodinger equations. So how about moveing the electrons around? Well you can but that would involve pumping energy into the sytem energy which it would quickly lose (this is one of the key principles behind emission spectroscopy). Where can the electrons go? well I can shove that S electron into a P orbital but that doesn't change the number of unpaired electrons (which rather knocks out all that talk of high spin states). I could bost the f electrons into a g orbital (l+1) which would give us more unpaired electrons but the system would not be remotely stable and would dump the energy to return to the ground state.


His character throughout the lectures is also consistent and distinct. After you listen to it for a while, you get a feel for what he feels and notice he has a very distinct character which doesn't suit the character of a con at all.


How do you know that doesn't just make him a fairly good conman?


Of course my opinion is subjective, but then you should really do your own research. If you would like the audio of Hudson's lectures I got no problems sharing it.


I know quite a bit about electron orbitals. I have already come to my conclusion.

Of course I could try another aproach. the price of gold today is $492.62 per troy oz:
http://www.galmarley.com/

That is $15.84 a gram.

this site claims to be selling the stuff at what works out as 3$ a gram:

http://www.whitepowdergold.com/

Something doesn't ad up.

[geni]

If you pay to have it identified I recommend that you:

1) Don't tell the lab what you think it is.

2) Send them a 5 samples of white powder but claim they are all unkown. Only one is your mystery substance. The other four should be flour, sugar, etc. (only if the price is reasonable of course).

Then you can be sure there was no bias in the testing and that they didn't just make up the results.

If he is going to a uni lab that shouldn't be required.


3) Ask for spectroscopy. Bet you a million bucks it will work.

There are material that wont show up on IR. KBr for example. Mass spec seems the safest course.

[Filip Sandor]

If he is going to a uni lab that shouldn't be required.

There are material that wont show up on IR. KBr for example. Mass spec seems the safest course.

I'm going for MS since it's the most reliable test I can carry out at this time. By the way, whatever the outcoume I'm not going to hide anything, I truly can't see any reason why I should. I think chances are pretty good there will be some foreign particles in there that might have made it in during processing, so I expect the MS analysis will pick up some things. The big question is, whether we can perform some simple chemistry tests to see if the apparent quantities (based on the mass of the entire sample) of whatever shows up on MS are actually there.

[Vitnir]

I discussed this with a collegue and learned that ICP-MS which was the tecnique I thought of first might not be the best. If this german lab used ICP-MS perhaps they could only detect atoms with a bit higher mass, atoms like C, O and Si isn't easily analysed and if the claims are bogus 98 % of this powder might well be composed of these element and account for that you can eat the stuff without dying suddenly.

[KingMerv00]

There are material that wont show up on IR. KBr for example. Mass spec seems the safest course.

I wasn't suggesting one type of spec. over another. I have never analyzed gold but surely it it is detectable at some wavelength.

Mass Spec. is certainly the best single test I can think of.

[Ziggurat]

There was still 98% of the sample there, which did not read in the spectroscopic analysis.

If this stuff is gold, then regardless of what's happening chemically, it must by definition still have gold nuclei. To determine this unambiguously, then, the best technique would not be standard spectroscopy, but neutron activation analysis. You irradiate the sample with neutrons, some of which get absorbed and turn the material radioactive. The radioactive isotopes will have characteristic decay modes which you can then observe. Because this is a purely nuclear technique, it doesn't matter what strangeness might or might not be going on: if it's really gold, it should show up as gold.

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.


I can tell you rather categorically that it cannot be from fear of losing their jobs. And I know this because it's been rather dramatically disproven already. The guys who discovered high temperature superconductors worked for IBM, and they were messing around with a project that they weren't even supposed to be working on, and could never have gotten permission for anyways. Their discovery was completely out of the blue, unexpected and unexplained (in fact, we STILL don't have a theory to explain it). But it was real, it was reproducible, and it was good science. They didn't lose their jobs, they became celebrities. If the science behind this stuff is real, then losing their jobs is the last thing anyone needs to worry about.

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!!

That's the first I've ever heard about the DOD being involved in patents, and I'm inclined to suspect it's an urban myth. But while I don't know much about patent law, I DO know a thing or two about superconductivity. And I can tell you quite categorically that you're wrong about why it isn't more widespread, and the main reason is that the required temperatures are still too low to be used in anything for consumers. Nobody wants to buy something that requires liquid nitrogen to keep it cold. The high-Tc materials are also all ceramics, which means that a) in pure form, they're brittle and hard to make wires from and b) they're actually very BAD conductors at higher temperatures. Those obstacles have nothing to do with patent law, they have to do with fundamental physical and material limits.

[LTC8K6]

Must be homeopathic gold...

I notice that the white powder platinum, which is made with 99.99% pure platinum is $150.00 an ounce.

[LTC8K6]

How to make the stuff:

http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/ormus/ormus2.htm

[LTC8K6]

Apparently all you need is a pyramid and a gold coin...

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

[Ziggurat]

Apparently all you need is a pyramid and a gold coin...

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

I glanced at that page, and saw this little bit:

"Oh, by the way, the white and red powders are both supposed to be superconductors at room temperature, though I don't have a large enough sample yet to test. "

If it really was a superconductor, any size would be sufficient. Superconductors are perfect diamagnets, so all you'd have to do is sprinkle some above a permanent magnet and watch it levitate. Room-temperature superconductivity is trivial to test for, and the first person to demonstrate it (a rather easy and unambiguous test) would get fantanstically wealthy fantastically fast.

[Rof]

If it really was a superconductor, any size would be sufficient. Superconductors are perfect diamagnets, so all you'd have to do is sprinkle some above a permanent magnet and watch it levitate.

I thought the Meissner effect wasn't always found in superconductors (e.g. some of the high-Tc ones found in the 80's).

Though I wonder if they've ever bothered to stick an ohmmeter across a sample to test the ordinary kind of conductivity, given how much hand-waving "theory" and little actual evidence those pages show.

[Ziggurat]

I thought the Meissner effect wasn't always found in superconductors (e.g. some of the high-Tc ones found in the 80's).

No, they still have it - in fact, by definition you can't have superconductivity without it. Something with zero resistance but no Meissner effect would be called a perfect conductor (or an ideal conductor), not a superconductor. There are no known materials like that, though.

What you may be thinking of is the fact that the high-Tc superconductors are all type-II (there are conventional type-II superconductors as well), which means that in a large magnetic field, instead of expelling it quite completely, they form vortices which allows the magnetic field to pierce the material in a few spots (the center of the vortices are no longer superconducting). This can produce some interesting behavior, but you'll still get diamagnetic repulsion. Type-I superconductors don't form vortices. If the magnetic field is high enough, both type I and type II superconductors will revert to their normal, non-superconducting state.

Here's a neat little page with some info about what can happen with vortices (which can also be formed by cooling a type-II superconductor in a weak magnetic field):

http://www.fys.uio.no/super/levitation/

[geni]

I wasn't suggesting one type of spec. over another. I have never analyzed gold but surely it it is detectable at some wavelength.

Mass Spec. is certainly the best single test I can think of.


I seem to recall that metal metal bonding results in bands of electron orbitals with the result that wouldn't so much get peaks as a mess.

[geni]

so any volenteers to write the skepticwiki aricle on monoatomic gold?

[Soapy Sam]

Filip- Pardon if I repeat others'comments. I have not read the second page of this thread as it seemed to be getting rather wooly about half way down the first.
All equipment to do the following can be found in your nearest high school. Go sweet talk a chemistry teacher.
1. Platinum group metals are neither light nor fluffy.
2. They do not dissolve in water, at least not in your lifetime.
3. They have known specific gravities.
You need no mass spectrometer.
1. Get a battery , a flashlight bulb and a bit of wire. Pile up your powder and see if it conducts electricity. That rules out about 90% of white , powdery covalent compounds right there. It would almost certainly be metallic.
2. Your electric heater would not melt any platinate element.Not even close. A Good propane blowlamp can. They cost about $10.
Splash out another $10 on a really good high range thermocouple and measure the melting point.
3. Weigh a sample. You need an accurate balance, so either find a science teacher as advised, or a trustworthy cocaine dealer.
Now fill a teacup with water to the brim. Add a drop of liquid detergent and stir. Put the teacup on a saucer. Top up with water to the brim. Drop your weighed sample in. The more the better. Water will spuill into the saucer. You have to collect this and measure it very precisely.
You now know how much water a given weight of material displaces.

You may now run down the street wrapped in a bath towel.

When you get back, you will know the density and melting point. This is enough to identify most materials.

[Filip Sandor]

Filip- Pardon if I repeat others'comments. I have not read the second page of this thread as it seemed to be getting rather wooly about half way down the first.

Actually it was white and fluffy from the start.. I think it looks much heavier on the pictures I posted because of the chuncks but in fact those chunks blow around really easily like a light ping-pong ball like object (except it isn't round).

All equipment to do the following can be found in your nearest high school. Go sweet talk a chemistry teacher.

The way the teachers are here in BC I don't think they have the time or willingness to help, but a good idea none-theless which I might even try. I attempted to contact a physics teacher at UBC to get some info on who to talk to there about mass spectrosopy, but no reply now for two days. If I have time tomorrow maybe I will go up in person.

1. Platinum group metals are neither light nor fluffy.

This stuff is fluffy.

2. They do not dissolve in water, at least not in your lifetime.

This stuff doesn't dissolve, but if forms a suspension.

3. They have known specific gravities.
You need no mass spectrometer.

I'm working on it.

1. Get a battery , a flashlight bulb and a bit of wire. Pile up your powder and see if it conducts electricity. That rules out about 90% of white , powdery covalent compounds right there. It would almost certainly be metallic.

Apparently you can't just stick a battery to it, you have to do some resonance tuning of the voltage you're pumping into or something like that.. I don't remember now.

2. Your electric heater would not melt any platinate element.Not even close. A Good propane blowlamp can. They cost about $10.
Splash out another $10 on a really good high range thermocouple and measure the melting point.

I haven't tried this yet, good idea.

3. Weigh a sample. You need an accurate balance, so either find a science teacher as advised, or a trustworthy cocaine dealer.
Now fill a teacup with water to the brim. Add a drop of liquid detergent and stir. Put the teacup on a saucer. Top up with water to the brim. Drop your weighed sample in. The more the better. Water will spuill into the saucer. You have to collect this and measure it very precisely.
You now know how much water a given weight of material displaces.

This would be tough because the material forms a very fine suspension in water upon mixing and there is not enough of it to make such an experiment economical, I would need to add a good deal of the powder to get an accurate reading since I can't possibly fill the water 'perfectly' to the brim, some powder will be required to break the surface tension. It's too light.

Thanks for the suggestions though! :thumbsup: