Definitions
by Barry Carter

Since David Hudson first spoke of the materials that he rediscovered people have been trying to come up with ways to define them. Hudson called these materials "ORME" or "ormus" and he claimed that they were the same as the biblical manna and showbread. He referred to them as the "white powder of gold" and the "Philosopher's Stone" but some of these terms were clearly used as subcategories of ORME, the generic name that he used in his patent.

Some people have attempted to redefine these terms in such a way as to imply that some subcategories of the material that Hudson described are inferior to other subcategories. It appears that they may have done this to try to enhance the value of their own product while diminishing the value of the products of others.

I believe that the following definition is the most appropriate at this time:

ORME, ormus and m-state all are generic terms which apply to any normally metallic elements in a spectroscopically "invisible" non-metallic form. These terms apply regardless of which method was used to obtain them or the relative effectiveness of the element.

 By definition, the words "ORMUS" and "ORME" refer to exactly the same state of matter. I think we should take a clue from the people who originated these terms when defining them. David Hudson, in his 1995 Dallas lecture, equated the terms by saying that they both mean the "Golden Tree of Life":
"Now if that isn't heavy enough for you, when I found out that the name for the golden tree of life was the ORME, ormus or ormes."

He made this equivalence even more evident in other lectures which have not been transcribed. In a couple of these lectures David Hudson talks about writing a book about these materials and his discovery of them. He says that the title of this book will be "Ormus". Titling a book about these materials "Ormus" very much sounds to me like he was open to using this term when referring to these materials. Here is a quote from his Global Sciences lecture:
"There is a book being written on it, it will be out in about 8 to 9 months also.  It will be called ORMUS, it will be in all bookstores, we are not sure it will be published by one of the big publishing houses, if not, we will publish it ourselves.  It will be a biography, it will be the story of my life and my quest for the Holy Grail and the acquisition of it."

It is also clear that Hudson was applying the term ORME to the natural form of these elements. This is particularly evident in his patents where he actually tried to patent the natural ORME form of these elements:
"More particularly, this invention relates to the separation of the aforesaid transition and noble metal elements from naturally occurring materials in their orbitally rearranged monoatomic forms, and to the preparation of the aforesaid transition and noble metal elements in their orbitally rearranged monoatomic forms from their commercial metallic forms."

Later in his patent he specifically states that the ORMEs have a natural form:
"During efforts to effect quantitative analytical separations of transition metals from naturally occurring materials, it was discovered that ORMEs exist naturally and are found in salts with alkali metals and/or alkaline earth metals, all of which are coupled with waters of hydration and normally found with silica and alumina."

"ORMEs exist naturally" is a very unambiguous statement.

This is stated again later in the patent:
"The ORMEs of this invention exist in nature in an unpure form in various materials, such as sodic plagioclase or calcidic plagioclase ores.  Because of their non-metallic, orbitally rearranged monoatomic form, ORMEs are not detected in these ores as the corresponding "metals" using conventional analysis and, accordingly, until the present invention were not detected, isolated or separated in a pure or substantially pure form.  Their presence in the nonmetallic form explains the inconsistent analysis at times obtained when analyzing ores for metals whereby the quantitative analysis of elements accounts for less than 100% of the ore by weight."
While I was researching this article, I spoke with one of Hudson's chemists. I asked him what term David Hudson uses to refer to these elements in their natural form and his answer was "ORMEs".

There is even a hint that David Hudson thinks that the Essene's Sodium Burn method is a good method for obtaining ORMEs. Ron Talmage wrote the following after a talk with David Hudson:
"David stated that 'the sodium burn method was on the right track' David also stated that the big problem with this method was the contaminates [sic] generated by the containers used in the sodium burn method. David stated that the originator of the Sodium Burn method was a very astute person, but that that individual had not worked for him."

David Hudson was referring to the gentleman that we call the Essene. I learned how to make the white precipitate from the Essene on May 18, 1997. He called all of the white precipitates from various sources "m-state". These sources included the white precipitate from the Wet Method on ocean water or Dead Sea salt and the white precipitate from the Sodium Burn on metallic gold and black sand. He also referred to David Hudson's products as m-state and, when I told him of the substances that Jim made from metal using ozone we both spoke of these substances as being m-state materials. The Essene also applied this term to these elements in their natural forms; i.e. in rock and ocean water. Since he coined the term "m-state" I think that it is reasonable to accept his usage of the term.

Some have objected to the claims that trap water and sea water precipitate contain ORMUS because David Hudson did not say that they contained ORMEs.

David Hudson said that even distilled water contained these substances and that "if you distill water thinking you are getting high purity water, it goes with the water". He added: "There is something else besides H2O in the water."

Here is the entire quote, from Hudson's Portland workshop, about ORMUS in distilled water:
"This little zero point frequency I showed you between the positron and the electron; if you follow that right up the electromagnetic spectrum, it agrees with the molecular frequency of hydrogen dioxide, or water. So there is an affinity for this material and water. That's why it is normally taken in water. When you come to understand that your body is, in fact, mainly water. That, literally, this material when you distill water it distills with the water as the oridide, the iridide, the ruthidide. Just like chlorine. And so if you distill water thinking you are getting high purity water, it goes with the water. And it literally changes the bond angles of the water. That one iridium atom controls 56 waters of hydration around itself. And all the bond angles of all 56 waters are altered when iridium is present. I haven't carefully studied the research work of people working with water but I strongly suspect that their water isn't completely pure and they are finding that the bond angles can be changed. There is something else besides H2O in the water."

In his UFO Congress lecture David Hudson said that "gold out of sea water was the white powder gold". You can listen to this passage at:

http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/tw/seawatergold.mp3

Arthur has assayed his Liquid Chi product and claims that the fully dried precipitate is over 16% ORMUS. When this precipitate is still wet in the Liquid Chi product, the ORMUS percentage will be much lower because in a consumable product you have to include the water when figuring your percentages. The percentage of a substance in a wet consumable product is measured differently than the percentage of that substance in a dried precipitate using a metallurgical assay. You can read more about this below.

Whatever generic terms we apply to these substances may also have to apply to the "oil" form as described by Jim, Kevin, Gary H. and David Hudson.

In his patent, David Hudson made a distinction between ORMEs and S-ORMEs. He claimed that the ORMEs existed in nature and tried to patent them. The S-ORMEs, according to Hudson's patent, were a refined form of the ORMEs which were capable of certain superconductive behaviors.

Jim based his magnetic trap on the theory that S-ORMEs also exist in nature and that all one has to do is to bump up their energy levels a bit by spinning them in a magnetic field and they will exhibit superconductive behaviors like levitation.

In early November of 2003 I had the opportunity to visit with a scientist, named Kevin, in Australia. Kevin discovered that it is possible to extract the oil of the precious elements from bore (well) water and from the air using diethyl ether on magnetic trap product. The simplest explanation for this phenomenon is that S-ORMEs do, in fact, exist in nature as Jim predicted when he built his first traps. Kevin once wrote:
"David Hudson's interpretation disallows by omission the thousands of alchemists experiences and writings over the last 2500 years, who refer to the Peter Pan like Mercury [life force or chi] in the air as the centerpiece of the praxis. I would ask anyone following this thread to not be hoodwinked into thinking that the DH interpretation of the Philosopher's Stone says it all. It falls far short. Again, I say the precipitate family has interesting properties. It may be a good starting point in the evolutionary bit, not an end."

In his 1999 Dallas lecture David Hudson gives a fairly good description of his first encounter with the substances he was later to name ORMEs. In this story he tells about how he placed activated charcoal in the water from a volcanic hot spring and was able to get a bead of the precious metal elements when he had these charcoal pieces fire assayed.

In another lecture, Hudson describes the loaded charcoal as being full of an oily substance. Jim also noticed an oily (Jim called it "snotty") substance in his charcoal briquettes. Like David Hudson, Jim claims that he has taken bits of water soaked charcoal and extracted metallic gold from them. I heard Jim talk about this in 1989, six years before either of us heard of David Hudson.

During one of my early visits with the Essene, he spoke of how he had taken a natural source of m-state iridium and made a levitating disk from it. This would also suggest that his use of the term "m-state" included the superconducting form that Hudson called S-ORMEs. The Essene never demonstrated this to me so I cannot confirm it from my own experience. Of course David Hudson has not demonstrated his levitating material to us either. I guess we just have to take their word for this claim.

Jim is the only person I know who has demonstrated the levitation of ORMUS gold to me. I had some of this in my possession for over a year and was able to demonstrate it to dozens of people. I also was able to videotape the demonstration so it could be shared with everyone.

Just prior to my first visit with the Essene we set up a "private" email list to evaluate and promote various ORMUS production methods. The folks on this list (about 60 people) agreed to the following wording of the ORMUS method document after nearly a year of experimentation and discussion:
"Since Hudson has patented his process for obtaining and identifying these elements, we would like to suggest that the terms ORMUS and m-state be used when referring to this state of matter."

It was our intention to honor Hudson by using his term "ORMUS" and to honor the Essene by using his term "M-State". Both of these terms were originally used to cover all of these elements as they occur in a non-metallic form in nature.

The first person to suggest that Hudson's materials might not be monatomic is a gentleman who wished to be known only as Gary. Gary, who died in 1998, worked for a very large aerospace corporation and described his scientific background thus: "I have a background in physics, electronics, and know a few things about chemistry and the elements."

You can read what Gary had to say on this subject at:

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

and at:

http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/research/paranorm.htm

Another scientist, a professional chemist, who also did not wish to be identified, wrote the following:
"I agree that D.H. deserves credit for discovering this material, but we should use terms that describe what we really have to avoid confusion in the future.  What we are really working with here are valence coupled diatomic elements, so they should be called something along that line so that people do not try to visualize a nonexistent monatomic structure.  ORME was very misleading to me and I[f] Gary hadn't pointed out that they are actually diatomic, I could have never passed go.  In this regard, I think Gary deserves just as much credit as Hudson."

This gentleman was quite insistent that we not use the acronym "ORME" in describing these materials but was okay with using the terms "m-state" and "ORMUS".

For these and other reasons we rejected the use of the acronym ORME (which stands for Orbitally Re-arranged Monoatomic Element) since David Hudson and his scientific consultants have not provided any conclusive scientific evidence, that these materials are orbitally re-arranged or monatomic, to the public.

Of course this does not prevent Hudson and others from using terms like "G-ORME" or "S-ORME" to refer to specific forms of the ORMUS elements. It also does not prevent the Essene from using specific terms to refer to things like m-iridium, M-1, M-3 or C-11. In fact, I am sure that a lot of new terms will be coined to refer to specific forms of the ORMUS materials.

While we have not seen any clear evidence that these materials are monatomic, diatomic or something else we still need some way to distinguish them from their metallic form. I do think that there is enough accumulated evidence to say that these elements in the ORMUS form do not respond to most types of spectroscopic analysis in the same way as they do in their metallic form. If there is a single defining physical property for the ORMUS elements it would have to be this spectroscopic ambiguity. It sometimes even looks like they are something else when they are assayed spectroscopically.

Some of the best work we have in the area of spectroscopic analysis is the work that August did. August compared the x-ray fluorescence of metallic gold, m-state gold made using the sodium burn, Dry Method precipitate and ocean water precipitate.

You can see August's XRF workup on Wet Method precipitate at:

X-Ray Fluorescence on M-3 Source Sand, M-3 and Sea Water Precipitate by August
http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/tw/XRFM3Sea.htm

In his conclusion on that page August states:
"Analysis of Ocean ppt monatomic content:
Strong likelihood of monatomic gold.  Expected blunted spectral line in the correct position."

August's work suggests that these substances exist in nature and are not spectroscopically visible in the expected way.

In summary, it appears that there is a class of materials which do not show up in regular spectroscopic assay. David Hudson called these materials ORME which suggests that they are monatomic and the Essene called them m-state which also suggests that they are monatomic. The scientists that I mentioned above and other scientists and lay people agreed that we should not try to impose Hudson's way of thinking on the world by using the acronym for Orbitally Rearranged Monoatomic Elements when David Hudson himself never provided any scientific evidence that these elements were monatomic. We decided to honor David Hudson by using a term that he suggested, "ORMUS" and to use the Essene's term "m-state" (which could stand for "manna state" as easily as monatomic state) when referring to these materials in a generic way.

* I am going to use an analogy to help folks understand the concept of concentration of ORMUS in sea water precipitate.

Imagine that there are some rocks with 2400 ounces of ORMUS per ton of rock. This would be ten percent ORMUS, a much larger amount than what you would get from eating an equivalent amount of sea salt. Which form do you think would be more bioavailable?

Now, imagine that it is possible to extract the ORMUS from this rock and make it into a more concentrated form, let's say you can make it into a white powder. We don't know what the concentration of ORMUS is in this white powder but let's say it is 100%. If we sold the white powder we would put a label on the bottle saying that the recommended dose was 2 milligrams per day and that this would be delivered at the rate of 1,000,000 parts per million (100%) to the body.

But a problem arises and we find that this white powder cannot all be dissolved in stomach acid and that its effectiveness against cancer and other diseases is greatly diminished when it is not all dissolved. Our experiments have revealed that the m-iridium in this powder (which constitutes 32.91% of the ORMUS in the powder) and m-gold (which constitutes 0.49% of the ORMUS in the powder) are not soluble in stomach acid. Fortunately we have also found that if the process for concentrating this rock source ORMUS is stopped just before it is dried into a partially insoluble white powder it remains soluble in stomach acid and retains its effectiveness in the treatment of cancer.

So we decide to make this ORMUS available in 100 ml eyedropper bottles as an unprecipitated solution at pH 4. Since it is dissolved in an HCl/water mix we call this the "chloride form". But now we have a problem with the label on the bottle. We can no longer say that this liquid is 100% ORMUS and we must change the dose to reflect the amount of water and HCl that has not been removed from the product by washing, drying and "annealing" the precipitate.

Let's say that one liter of the "chloride form" will make 100 grams of the dried and "annealed" white powder. (This amount is a wild guess and may be higher or lower in reality.) Now we have to change the label of the eyedropper bottle to reflect the new concentration of ORMUS in the bottle. Since a liter of the "chloride form" weights a little more than a thousand grams we now have to say that the percent of ORMUS in the chloride solution is less than one tenth of the percentage that was in the white powder. I want to keep the math easy here so let's say that now we only have 10% ORMUS in the bottle and we have to change the recommended dose to 20 milligrams (or .02 ml, since we are working with a liquid now).

The dose, .02 ml, is equivalent to about .4 drops (assuming 20 drops per milliliter or gram). This would make it quite difficult for most people to figure out how to get the appropriate dose of this liquid.

Also, in tests of this liquid on actual cancer patients, it is discovered that taking the pH 4 liquid is quite painful for many of the patients who have been on chemotherapy because the acid liquid burns the open sores in their mouths. So now we decide to further dilute the acid solution by a factor of ten with distilled water. This makes the solution much less acidic and gives us a more reasonable dose of 4 drops per day.

Unfortunately we must now change the label on our bottle to reflect the new dilution of ORMUS present in the bottle. Now we must say that only 1% of the liquid in the bottle is ORMUS.

I think that this not-really-hypothetical scenario is quite similar to the situation with the sea water precipitate. Though you can get a white powder by drying out the precipitate and you can assay this powder to find that it is over 30% unassayable, extensive testing on plants has shown that the precipitate looses almost all benefits when it is dried out.

This is not surprising since David Hudson's chemist assayed several plant products and animal products for their ORMUS content and found that this ORMUS content was primarily m-rhodium and m-iridium. You can see a chart with these percentages at:

http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/health/sources.htm

If plants take up and utilize primarily m-rhodium and m-iridium at the levels suggested in this chart then making the m-iridium less soluble in water would make it less bioavailable for the plants. I think we can safely presume that the same would be true for human utilization of the ORMUS iridium in the dried powder of the sea water precipitate.

The water also may provide other benefits purely due to its proximity to the ORMUS precipitate. EML has shared some experiments on this forum where he suspended a vial of his strong trap water inside a larger volume of regular water and the effects of the trap water were reported to have been transferred to the regular water by several people who drank it.

When running an assay on the dried ORMUS powder, made from his rock source material, Hudson's chemists may have found that it was 100% pure nothing but, in order for this ORMUS material to be really useful they found that it must be in the un-dried "chloride form".

When a sample is assayed using AAS or ICP-MS you start with a liquid sample. The spectroscopy results typically do not include the water as a component of the assay. Have another look at Don's assays of the Dead Sea water (linked below). You will notice that hydrogen and oxygen do not even have columns in the assay.

It is common practice to not include water in assays of mined materials. The assay is an assay of the dissolved solids in the water and does not include the water itself. David Hudson is one of the first persons to migrate this assay convention from the metal assay to ORMUS assay practice. One example of this is the following claim from Hudson's first Dallas lecture in 1995:

"What I am telling you, last night, is that over 5%, by dry matter weight, of your brain and nervous tissue, is made up of rhodium and iridium in the high-spin state."

Since David Hudson basically inspired the entire ORMUS movement I think it is a good idea to stick with the assay convention that he established, if for no other reason than to be able to use the percentages he provided as a basis of comparison.

Hudson said that there is over 5% ORMUS in the brain by dry matter weight. Arthur says that there is an average of 32% ORMUS in his product by dry matter weight. Both claims equally match the mining assay convention that Hudson established for ORMUS.

But, there is another assay convention that Hudson never really had to deal with. This is the convention of quantifying the nutrient content of a product for human consumption. This measurement convention lists the specific mineral content as a measured portion of the total weight of the product. This is what Arthur has provided on his web site. (I don't believe that Hudson or those who produced his product ever provided this information.)

Don Nance has converted sea water to metal using a method that the Essene described. Before he converted the sea water to metal it assayed as being only 372,817 parts per billion metal or 0.037% metal. After conversion it assayed as being 365,485,433 parts per billion metal or 36.549% metal.

You can read about Don's assay results at:

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

The actual assays can be downloaded at:

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

These assays measured:
a 191,590,168 fold increase in silver,
a 155,725 fold increase in gold,
a 685,714 fold increase in cobalt,
a 776,333 fold increase in copper,
a 3,844,000 fold increase in nickel,
a 125 fold increase in platinum,
and a 1,500 fold increase in palladium.

David Hudson said his rock source material was about 10% ORMUS/ORME (though he never provided an assay of it). Don Nance has demonstrated that dried Dead Sea precipitate is over 36% ORMUS/ORME using a professional assay that he has made available to the ORMUS community.