On a more serious and structured approach to m-state elements science (for convenience abbreviated as m-science and consisting of m-physics, m-chemistry, m-pharmacology also said to be non-local pharmacology, etc.), the first thing to have clear is the terminology. Since the discoveries of David Radius Hudson today, this seems to characterize the evolutionary background of ORMEs and influence certain approaches. Already some time ago, we mentioned in an article on this blog the need to distinguish orbitally rearranged m-state elements (ORMEs according Hudson’s proprietary acronym) from the ORMUS (issued by Barry Carter et alia), more specifically diatomic clusters of manifested minerals but often merely a trademark. The fact is that such a terminology derives from a fundamental need, which is namely a formal distinction due to patent issues.
The Patent and Trademark issue
Everybody know that a Patent is an exclusive right granted for an invention, which is a product or a process that provides, in general, a new way (innovation character) of doing something, or offers a new technical solution to a problem. In order to be patentable, the invention must fulfill certain conditions. Patent legal status data are an important component of patent information because they are used to determine, e.g.
- whether examination of a patent application is still pending;
- whether the application has been withdrawn or was rejected;
- whether a patent has been granted and is still valid; or
- whether a granted patent has expired, lapsed or been revoked.
As such, they play an essential role, e.g., in technology transfer since they answer the question which technology is still protected and where, or whether it will soon become freely available to the public (described as entry into “the public domain” in expert terms).
Legal status data need to be up-to-date to allow correct conclusions. However, given that the legal status of patents is linked to legal events or actions, the status changes over time and therefore poses particular problems to the availability and reliability of up-to-date information. That is a general rule. However, each Country has its own rules for the acceptance or rejection of a patent application. David Hudson, for example, saw his application refused by USPTO, but on the contrary it was accepted in Australia, UK and other countries. Today, thanks to the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) this would have been much easier. The Treaty - to which the U.S. adhere - was done at Washington on June 19, 1970, amended on September 28, 1979, modified on February 3, 1984, and on October 3, 2001, but in force from April 1, 2002.
Thirty-two years because this legislation becomes effective. This shows that things are never that simple as we can imagine, especially when it need to harmonize the regulations of the various Countries avoiding conflicts. Who think that we are all ‘brothers’ and we all should ‘love each other’, is just naive and motivated by utopian ideals, when at stake are billions of dollars interests or more specifically national security issues. This explain because several problems take time to be resolved in a fairly manner and because certain choices are more attributable to bureaucratic and private interests than not to some “extraterrestrial conspiracy”. Thus, the term ORMUS, as well as certain well known precipitation processes by NaOH, derives properly from the need to distinguish the products and processes patented by Hudson from the other most marketable methods. If many of those who have dealt with this topic have well-known laws related to intellectual property, surely they would have noticed that Hudson patent a process but he do not patent a molecule, nor a particle, much less a state of matter. Similarly he could not patent terminology, at most he could register a trademark for commercial and marketing purposes. However, research conducted by us in more than 30 years of experience in this field revealed that a distinction between ORMEs and ORMUS is absolutely substantial, in terms of composition, structure and characterization of m-state matter. Indeed, there is an objective difference between the product obtained by the application of the method contained in the various Hudson’s patents, and what is commonly produced through acid/base reactions from ocean water, other sea salts (fossilized or not) and sedimentary rocks today available as raw matter. As well as there is a very strong distinction between the home made product (viz all the precipitation processes) and other exotic technologies for the direct separation of m-state elements in isolate or fermionic form (Jenner, Garber, Meyer).
In this article, we'll stick to quibble about the types of m-state elements compounds in relation to the nomenclature, leaving aside the pharmacological characteristics and efficacy (Emax). We will consider the topic starting from a structural point of view and the production methodology. The truth of Science as touchstone for a reconsideration of terminology. Barry Carter, one of the prominent lecturers and scholars in Hudson’s ORMEs write in one of his articles around the net:“These materials have been called ORMEs, monoatomic gold, white gold, white powder gold, ORMUS, m-state, AuM, microclusters, and manna. David Hudson calls the materials he found Orbitally Rearranged Monoatomic Elements or ORMEs. He also refers to them as monoatomic elements in a high-spin state. Since Hudson has patented his process for obtaining and identifying these elements, and since it has not been conclusively established whether these materials are monatomic or diatomic, it is recommended that the terms ORMUS and m-state be used when referring to these materials”. (B. Carter, Quest for the Philosopher’s Stone, in Subtle Energies website; http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/ormus/ormus.htm). From these words we see that terminological fundamental option would seems to be exclusively dependent on two factors:
1. the patent issues, that would prevent the use of a proprietary acronym, although not registered.
2. the lack of a clear validation about the true monatomic or diatomic structure of these elements.
The point is another, or that nobody (except us in Chymia)to date ever tried to make clear by measurement the physical nature of the m-state matter. Many have pursued on a position of convenience, or relying on the fact that m-state elements are elemental metals in a different atomic state. This concept is based on a number of very feeble theories, not based on spin and matter structure characterization. Among these theories is that m-state elements would be manifested as elemental metals and therefore can be detected using ICP-MS (without prejudice to inconsistency of those who says otherwise immediately after). But elemental metals are NOT m-state elements, nor are minerals. There is another theory, or that monatomic state is very close to the Bose-Einstein condensates (BEC). Theory partially acceptable, except that the m-state elements cannot be ONLY BEC for a specific reason. A BEC is a state of matter of a dilute gas of bosons cooled to temperatures very near absolute zero (0 K or −273.15 °C). Under such conditions, a large fraction of the bosons occupy the lowest quantum state, at which point quantum effects become apparent on a macroscopic scale. These effects are called macroscopic quantum phenomena and cannot subsist at room temperature.
There are some who say that the monatomic state is made up of pure non-local entity, made of the same material of the strings. Now, the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) predicts the existence of spin ½ fermions called neutralinos that are the fermionic superpartners of the neutral gauge bosons and Higgs scalars. Neutralinos would have a high mass but interact very weakly with other particles. They could make up a significant portion of the mass density of the Universe without emitting light, so that makes them good candidates for the mysterious source of dark matter in the Universe.
String theories require supersymmetry, so in principle, if neutralinos were discovered to make up cosmic dark matter, that would be good. But if supersymmetry were unbroken, fermions and bosons would be exactly matched in the Universe, and that's not the way things are. The really hard part of any supersymmetric theory is to break the supersymmetry without losing all the advantages of having had the supersymmetry to begin with.One of the reasons particle and string physicists have liked supersymmetric theories is that they predict zero total vacuum energy, because the fermion and boson vacuum energies cancel each other out. When supersymmetry is broken, the fermions and bosons don't exactly match any more, the cancellation doesn't occur any more. Then there is the old story of abundance in seawater, more choice of convenience that nothing else. Barry Carter claim: “All of these m-state elements are quite abundant in seawater. They also seem to be present in most rock, fresh water and in the air. According to David Hudson’s research, these elements in their m-state may be as much as 10,000 times more abundant than their metallic counterparts. There also may be other elements that occur naturally in the m-state” (op. cit.). With this, the precipitation process with NaOH, which would make the m-state elements visible, even in crystallized form. Now, we should ask the following:
- How is possible state this abundance if nobody has ever characterized this new state of matter?
- How is possible even state that abundance is "10,000 times more abundant than their metallic counterparts" when several ORMEs investigators argue that mass spectrometry is inadequate for the characterization of these elements being in a different atomic state? … and even when to strengthen this denial is David Hudson himself?
- Now I remember…, ICP-MS supporters said that it can be used to detect heavy metals and said they are the manifestation form of m-state elements. But if so ... because the sea water is so low in these heavy metals, with respect to the mineral forms and some prehistoric sediments (eg, Azomite)?
In his Patent text, Hudson says (emphasis by me): Attempting to quantify the number of electrons remaining in an ORME is extremely difficult due to the electrons lost to oxidation, thermal treatment, and the inability, except from theory, to quantify electron pairs using electron quanta. It is established, however, that the ORME does not have valence electrons available for standard spectroscopic analysis such as atomic absorption, emission spectroscopy or inductively coupled plasma spectroscopy."Moreover, x-ray fluorescence or x-ray diffraction spectrometry will not respond the same as they do with T-metals in standard analysis. The existence of an ORME, while not directly identifiable by the aforesaid standard analyses, can be characterized by infrared (IR) spectra by a doublet which represents the bonding energy of the electron pairs within the ORME. The doublet is located at approximately 1427 and 1490 cm-1 for a rhodium ORME. The doublet for the other ORMEs is between about 1400 and 1600 cm-1 (...)"Detection of doublets does not provide an analytical method for the identification of ORMEs per se, but rather detects the presence of the electron pair or pairs which all specifically prepared ORMEs possess and which T-metals do not possess under any condition. It is the existence of the doublet that is critical, not its exact location in the IR spectra. The location can shift due to binding energy, chemical potential, of the individual element in the ORME, the effect of adsorbed water, the variances of the analytical instrument itself, or any external magnetic field.” (D.R. Hudson, Theory of ORMEs formation, in British Patent #GB2,219,995A). This, however, was already justified in the beginning. David Hudson fact put his hands on when he says: “When instrumental analysis such as atomic absorption, x-ray fluorescence, or emission spectroscopy is performed on solutions containing transition metals, these analyses are based on electronic transitions. The fact that d orbital electron overlap occurs in the metal-metal bonded salt allows an analysis of many of the same characteristic emissions as the metal itself”. (D.R. Hudson, Background of Invention, op. cit.).
Beyond many forced contradictions both chemical and physical (eg m-state elements are not transition metals), product of a marginal knowledge of these sciences by the author, what catches the eye is the sentence where he states:
“The existence of an ORME, while not directly identifiable by the aforesaid standard analyses, can be characterized by infrared (IR) spectra by a doublet which represents the bonding energy of the electron pairs within the ORME.” (D.R. Hudson, op. cit.).
This statement inform about a fundamental element, namely that Hudson’s ORMEs are surely diatomic, or in spite of the common theory, they still form detectable bonds. As you can see the confusion is really great and somewhere strongly contradictory, and all because it was never made a deep study of the monatomic matter structure from a condensed matter physics point of view, as it suited to do and how Chymia scientists did. By the way, the diatomic manifestation is typical of all the m-state elements separated by chemical method. From our researches, that one day we’ll detail carefully but on this blog have already been partially exposed, the m-state elements are detectable through the characterization of the spin anomaly and nuclear superdeformation. This technology, of course, is not accessible to everyone, and only few laboratories in the world have it. Furthermore, there is not totally standard technology for perform these measurements. Chymia itself had to modify existing technology to make it suitable for the study of the m-state matter structure. From these researches we found that:
- m-state matter is actually a hybrid between the fermionic state and the Bose-Einstein condensates. The m-state matter is NEVER in the metallic state or atomic, but always in a hybrid state in which the atomic nuclei are superdeformed, such as to generate a nuclear spin speed higher than a conventional atom. This also determines:
- m-state matter is represented by clusters of atoms unbound together but apparently subsisting only in isolated groups. These groups differ in structure and polarity depending on the elements or groups of elements involved. 3. m-state matter specify itself as m-state elements, that are "mirrors" of the corresponding chemical periodic elements, but with different electronic configuration and structural identity. It is as these elements be revealed in a different state of matter. This new structural identity means that they cannot be detected by conventional analytical MS, but only by their atomic characteristics with special spectrometers, analyzers and accelerators used and/or modified to detect exotic matter. 4. m-state matter can be studied using the tools of condensed matter physics and quantum chemistry. Therefore, their behavior follows a quantum thermodynamic and only in part the classical thermodynamic. This means that their chemical separation lead a non isolate monatomic state, but always a diatomic state with half-monatomic characters. 5. m-state elements can be isolated in pure state, but only extracting them from metal or mineral vapors in ionized plasma state, separating and purifying by means of accelerators. Chemical methods can only give m-state elements in diatomic form, impure and unstable over time.
- different matter identity, non-totally atomic, non-totally bosonic, non-totally fermionic;
- superconductivity, both up to 8-9 C above standard ambient temperature (+28.235 C), and at temperatures slightly higher than -200 C (-191.400 C), with resistivity equal to 0.000.
In all likelihood, the affirmation that sea water is richer in m-state elements than any other mineral or metal, or again every organic structure, is founded only on ideological and convenience choices, especially constructed with the purpose of an easier raw matter availability, because the full industrial exploitation of Hudson’s patented methods are limited by three main factors:
- The key patent, an intellectual property legal issue, so that the process described by Hudson may not be industrially applied if not recognizing a royalty to the rightful author.
- An economic aspect, translated as greater abundance of this raw material compared to other sources. It’s more abundant Ocean water and Sea salts than not precious metals. Moreover, the first two can be easily and cost-effectively processed. The Hudson’s method in fact would not only be unenforceable for patent reasons but also because it is not cost-effective like the use of sea water (and sometimes water source). Precious metals are much rarer and quite expensive and needs high energy and relevant tech because m-state elements results isolated and made stable. We don’t forget that about the Hudson’s papers was crafted the urban legend according to the author hidden important steps
- A series of claims derived from the modern school, that - after Hudson - developed accordingly a series of alternative production methods by precipitation-based reaction. In fact, the scholar distinction between Wet and Dry Way borrowed from ancient Alchemy (but even there as the result of a misinterpretation of the classical Authors), is the product of a conceptual forcing and not the result of the application of David Hudson’s methods.
By the way, it is true that m-state elements are present in sea water (m-state elements can easily form polar bond with water molecule if rightly disposed), as well as in sea salt, but it is not true that their concentration is greater than in minerals and metals. The concentration of m-state elements varies with the age of the matrix which contains them. So, minerals and metals are definitely the oldest matrices on Earth's surface. Lava stone, i.e. appears to be one of the richest sources, although the chemical separation of m-state elements in a stable form is very difficult. This would be also demonstrated by the fact that volcanic lava contain a very high quantity of mRu, mIr, mOs, bonded with their respective stable isotopes and for this reason, difficult to be separate as isolated monatomic entities.The difficulty arises from the fact that the isotopes in lava are separated selectively depending on the temperature regions, and being the molten lava a heterogeneous mass with different gradients of heat, the whole thing is quite complex. However, the sea water can return interesting concentrations if treated with technologies of isotopic fractionation, separating the deuterium fractions, and then exalting the content of m-state elements. This requires a very sophisticated and expensive technology in terms of industrial exploitation.
For a terminological reconsiderationProgress of particle physics, nuclear physics and atomic physics has resulted in discoveries of new elementary particles and atoms. Their names – quark, gluon, lepton, graviton, neutrino, Higgs boson, Mendelevium, etc. – are traditionally given by those people who first discovered them and often include surnames of classical scientists.
Another group of physics terminology terms, exciton, magnon, phonon, plasmon, phason, polaron, roton etc., refers to quasiparticles – quanta of corresponding excitations (spin, heat, plasma, polarization waves), which do not exist separately and were imagined by theoretists to consistently describe properties of solids and liquids.
In m-Science does not exist yet a codification as in chemistry or physics, or a specific nomenclature to describe this exotic matter and its derivatives. Same, there isn’t yet a connection symbology (mathematical or physical) to express relations. To symbolize singular m-state elements, the use of IUPAC chemical symbols is certainly useful. Putting a m before the symbol of the corresponding element, you already can distinguish something different but things get complicated when m-state elements starts to be included in complex formulas or short isotopes forms. Yes, because contrarily to the common sense, m-state elements CAN form bonds. These are not conventional chemical bonds, but in any case they can manifest affinity and then "label" molecules or other elements in isotopic form. Even more complex becomes the management of terms as ORMEs and ORMUS, often confused one with another, and extrapolated from their proper attributive context. The point is that we are in the era of the Internet and the monopoly of Google requires the use of keywords to gain visibility. Then the whole game is played within an equation forming a linguistic frequency algorithm in which e.g.: if the word ORMUS is more indexed, then it will be used indifferently to describe the m-state elements as isolated and or specified matter, the derivative products, and regardless their monatomic or diatomic form.
In a purely utilitarian perspective, it’s important that customer find the website and buy the product. Yes, but what product? In the public opinion this does not cause immediate confusion, common sense acknowledge the most used term, but putting everything on the same plane trigger a boomerang effect. When science intervenes deeply and begins to shed light on things, then inconsistencies appears. How to solve this? simply clarifying the precise contextualization of the two terms ORMEs and ORMUS. It goes without saying that everyone will use the more indexed keywords in the proper AdWords campaign, but in the descriptive texts we should specify clearly if what we provide is pure m-state elements (or group of elements) or not. This is in full respect of the consumer and the scientific honesty.
The Terms in details
ORMEs and ORMUS are terms, nomenclature hypothesis issued from a series of reasons we’ve try to clarify above. They designate two different conditions in which the m-state matter is manifested.
Because the m-state matter is manifested, it is necessary that the process of extraction of m-state elements follow specific rules inextricably linked to the physical nature of the same m-state matter. In this section, we will tackle the anatomy of the two terms, so as to provide an accurate picture of two different conditions, but this without express an evaluation on the effectiveness of one result over the other.
We will analyze both terms on the basis of three elements:
- Origin – How the term issues
- True Synonymy - Synonyms most suitable, excluding unfit.
- Process affinity - Aspects connected to the production process.
- Matter state notation - Note that in a more exact distinguishes the object of the term.
- The term “ORMEs”
It’s the acronym of Orbitally Rearranged Monatomic Elements, the official term coined by David Radius Hudson (but never registered) to distinguish his discovered elements characterized by a particular - but not so totally new - state of matter in which atoms exist as isolated entities, without a specific charge, unable to form bonds and characterized by high-spin. This is, according to Hudson, the monatomic state of matter. True Synonymy: m-state elements, monatomic elements, monatomic gold.
This term can now be used freely, as not registered. The point of distinction is made in the exact attribution of the term to the physical reality of the named entity, specifically the monatomic elements in isolated form and not diatomic. It assumes a distinctive value when applied to m-state elements in simple monatomic clusters or groups of different monatomic clusters in which one or more elements are identified as separate entities within the single solution or the solid medium. Process affinity: The term ORMEs fit perfectly to monatomic identity by its specific selectivity, which is demonstrated by:
- The Hudson's method - is based on destructive acid reaction (aqua regia) on metallic gold and subsequent chemical purifications. The chlorinated Au and Na complex is then treated by annealing at a later time, and the m-state elements are separated with specific differentiation chemical processes.
- The Jenner-Meyer process - it is totally different and proprietary from the one described in a) and characterized by the extraction of m-state elements, from a high energy plasma cloud obtained by laser volatilization of 99.9999 Au pellets enriched by a blend of specific minerals. Once extracted, the m-state elements compose a heterogeneous and complex m-state dense ionic cloud, that is subjected to a process of selective m-state elements separation and purification by means of a matrix replacement process, conducted by means of two modified medical accelerators.
Matter state notation: it is correct to use the term m-state, where m stands for monatomic.
- The term “ORMUS”
The origin is more complex and often has historical references to biblical characters or other events borrowed from Judeo-Christian mythology. From this, are derived many urban legends about the origin of this product, from the ancient Egyptians (the white powder found by archaeologists in the Great Pyramid) and ancient civilizations, including Atlantis heritage to the more fancy alien interference. These interpretations, although some preserve a fund of authenticity (ancient Egypt and related alchemical knowledge), should be considered carefully because they lack of scientific verification. Of course, they are in any case a great platform to understand the great impact of this matter on humankind thought and cultural background. True Synonymy: white gold, white powder gold, manna.
This term is more attributable to the finished product, usually diatomic, which is not m-state matter as isolated entity, or even m-state elements as monatomic matter like the one we can shoot along our cyclotrons’ external transport beam lines. ORMUS would be that which contains the ORMEs, or m-state elements, but in diatomic form and not pure monatomic.Process affinity: ORMUS category describe all those products made with different methods from the ones described in David Hudson’s patents and in Jenner-Meyer process. In special way, it fit with all those processes that use acid/base reactions performed according the philosophy of Wet Way and Dry Way, on ocean water and sea salts. In these processes the main active compound is NaOH or other lye mixes used as precipitants, that give rise to abundant sedimentation of Mg and Ca complex salts to which are grafted m-state elements in a more dense diatomic form. Matter state notation: In this case, it would be more correct to use the term d-state, where d stands for diatomic.
Conclusion It would require a greater cohesion between all producers of m-state elements and ORMUS supplements, such as the creation of a new science specialization and strong market niche to represent them and walk together towards the acquisition of standards and full recognition of the product in the world of complementary medicine.
We are aware that another limiting factor is certainly the absence of rules of product labeling, except those commonly available for dietary supplements. But there we need to specify the presence of minerals and not of m-state elements, because they are not yet been recognized by the academic science. No matter, at least in this phase, the production processes by the manufacturers.
Of course, it’s implied that everything should be conducted respecting GMP standards and HACCP for better sterility and at least a food quality of the final product.
In short, the road to official acknowledgement by worldwide health Agencies is still long but at Chymia we're working hard for this, in order to provide standards for the benefit of whole community, so to open official clinic experimentation for improve humankind.