FerndalePalooza!30% Off Pairing Mead and Food!
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 31

Thread: Philospher's mead

  1. Default Philospher's mead

    This is a little experiment I'm conducting regarding a completely new type of yeast energizer that should decrease fermentation time signifcantly and improve flavor and body. The secret is in a group of metallic elements and the hydroxides thereof and their unique ability to enter in the m-state of matter. I'll try not to bore you with all the chemistry and physics behind them, but m-state elements are essential to life. It was noted in the "hard water" thread that when you use hard water, the yeast ferment better. This is possibly because hard water has not been stripped of its minerals, and particuarly the m-state elements that are naturally present in ground water. So to test this hypothesis, I've taken a sample of magnesium hydroxide and various m-state hydroxides like m-rhodium, m-gold, m-iridium, and m-palladium, and added approximately a quarter gram to a 1 liter batch of cyser. These aren't toxic like their metallic states; as a matter of fact your brain is an astounding 5% by mass of m-state rhodium, whereas metallic rhodium is quite toxic. I may add more later on. Assuming 1 liter is about 4 glasses of mead, and the standard oral dosage of m-state as a dietary supplement is about 1 pinch, this amount should be sufficient. I don't want to add too much because the magnesia will neutralize the acid if i do.

    PS: The name, "philospher's mead", is derived from the fact that m-state elements are commonly referred to as the philosphers stone, due to the relatively rapid (a few hundred years) non-radioactive decay that eventually results in the formation of a stable isotope of m-state gold. Though I'm not quite sure if this truly is the same alchemical relic it's named after, it sure makes for a more attractive name than "m-state element mead" :P

  2. #2

    Default Re: Philospher's mead

    Sounds interesting, keep us posted, and please do a side by side comparison with maybe fermaid K, and a control batch without nutrients. All from the same must of course.


  3. Default Re: Philospher's mead

    Well i think the data is already starting to speak for itsself. i pitched the yeast around a quarter past 5 today, and now, about half an hour later, the cyser's already bubbling away with only a little less vigour thatn my ginger capsicumel has. In addition it is foaming alot more than the ginger cap, and they both used the same yeast. The controls are, as expected, not as strongly fermenting.

  4. Default Re: Philospher's mead

    Yay pseudoscience. Yer being had, but whatever.

    What are the controls btw?

  5. Default Re: Philospher's mead

    Yikes, Hudson's folly has made its way into meadmaking. I really mean no offense, but the "science" behind m-state elements is not very well accepted.

    From a microbiological standpoint, I definitely agree that metallic elements are growth factors. It is true that "hard" water will contain trace amounts of these elements, therefore it would be better base for fermentations. However, I don't see the advantage of m-state metallic elements over typical metallic salts.


  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    The OC

    Default Re: Philospher's mead

    I'm with Homebrew on this one. I haven't run across any empirical evidence, or industry studies that support m-state elements in the science and art of wine/meadmaking.

    I'd be very curious as to your recipe and the composition of your nutrients.


    Is it tasty . . . precious?

  7. Default Re: Philospher's mead

    you've got to understand one BIG thing if you really want to understand this: not everything you read online is correct. You've got to go to the source, to the people, to the books. That's were I've been. For example, when my father was diagnosed with prostate cancer I had a discussion with his doctor about possible non-invasive procedures, m-state therapy included. Now this is a very well educated man mind you, one of the best specialists on prostate cancer in the state. What he told me was that this is a very feasable choice of therapy. The only reason why it has not gained more mainstream interest is the fact that it is hard to observe and manipulate, making it unpredictable and impossible by our current chemical techniques to create a standardized medication. Essentially: it needs more study. And that's just what I intend to do. So before anyone goes off calling it a "pseudoscience" just be aware that it's not "psuedo", just understudied. Just like transistors were when they first came out.
    The recipe was simple: 1/3 cup honey, unfiltered organic apple juice to make roughly 1 liter, cinnamon and allspice, and pasteur champagne yeast.
    The control is just a regular fermentation, no nutrient except what is naturally present. The second is with approximately 1/4 gram of nutrient consisting of roughly 40% magnesium hydroxide, 60% mixed m-state elements, approximately 20% of which is gold and rhodium. These estimates are based on an incomplete assay of the substance; i need to repeat the assay to make sure my numbers are straight.

  8. #8

    Default Re: Philospher's mead


    I've never heard of m-state matter, or its reputed uses, so I cannot comment on that at all. However, I applaud your creative inquiries into this process. We've recently had people exploring lots of "pseudoscientific" routes in their mead making, with some very interesting results.

    Please post about your progress -- I, for one, will be reading it with interest.


  9. Default Re: Philospher's mead

    will do lostnbronx

    one thing I almost forgot:
    there are several factors that come to play here that are potential sources of error: 1) no sulfite was added nor will be added to either; the only sulfite present will be that which the yeast naturally produces. 2) both control and variable will be kept a considerable distance away from any electromagnetic devices. 3)both carboys will be opened on only very few occasions, but will be kept closed at all other times and will not be tasted until either racking or when fermentation is complete. 4) racking will be done away from any electromagnetic devices 5) an extra effort will be made to prevent contact with light.
    In past experiments with m-states, and particularly with this batch of m-states, there was a significant mass reduction and the spontaneous formation of metallic particles when this type of electromagnetism-free environment with minimal air exposure was not kept.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    The OC

    Default Re: Philospher's mead

    Hey Palecricket,

    Bottom line is that I seldom believe most things I read online until I can reference them against other sources whose origins are not the internet. Regardless, the m-state elements are still not widely used/embedded in the wine/mead industry. Given that the mead industry lags behind winemaking in the number of studies, and the amount of money spent on those studies, I still see no qualitative or quantitative studies that bear out what you are saying. If I had, I'd have been all over it myself.

    I have no aversion to new methodologies, techniques or nutrients, however I don't see anyone, anywhere funding research on this stuff. I note that you reference past experiments with m-states, I'd really like to see documentation on your (or whoever conducted the experiments) controls, environment, testing methodologies, the equipment used for elemental quantification and what the expected vs actuals were.

    Unlike Homebrew my experience is only in Clinical Microbiology/Medical Technology so I don't consider myself to be as well versed on fermentation kinetics as he is. I do a lot of reading on fermentation and fermentation research by the wine industry and anything else I can find that is backed by sound research and documentation. While mead is different that wine in many ways, yeast and ideal yeast fermentation environment concepts cross-apply.

    During my time in the clinical environment we were funded on several research projects so I am very familiar with different quantitative and qualitative research and testing methodologies. I guess what I'm looking for is some kind of breakdown of your findings in a scientific manner. That would help to educate me about your approach, your elements and what benefits you expect to find vs. the benefits/detriments of the actuals.


    Is it tasty . . . precious?

  11. #11

    Default Re: Philospher's mead

    Agreed. Take me "to the source, to the people, to the books" as you say. I'm not saying you're right or wrong, all i'm saying is that if the literature is out there, show it to us. I'm very interested in the substances you're talking about, both from a homebrewing standpoint and a medical one.

  12. Default Re: Philospher's mead

    I'm guessing Oskaar and Joe are going to be polite, so, I'll just have to do the debunking myself.

    "m-state elements" and "orbitally rearranged monoatomic elements" are so deep down into pseudoscience that I think its passed into the occult.

    Everything about them that I can find are referenced on pseudoscience and occult websites, most of them attempting to sell the products at outrageous prices (25-100 dollars for .1 pounds). Amusingly, at the prices they're asking, its still cheaper than the metallic elements (300 dollars a troy for gold, 3000 a troy for platinum?). If what they were actually selling you was what they claimed, I bet my bank's "life force" would really benefit from me purchasing crates of m-state elements, reprocessing, and selling the metallic precious metals. I cannot find any reference to m-state elements, ORME, or ORMUS on any "reputable" scientific site. Except for one forum thread where people were laughing at ORME webpages. Here's a quick synopsis of what I can gather...
    David Baldwin was a farmer. He found some dirt on his farm, and with "millions of dollars of his own research" discovered that the dirt was composed of these precious metals in their "m-states." This was back in the 1960's, when pyramid power and crystals were apparently bigger things. These m-state elements are everywhere - the dirt on his farm, sea water, etc. Oh, and I can't forget, 5% of your brain is m-state rhodium. I mean... forgetting the fact that there is no rhodium in your brain... Anyhow, these m-state metals have miraculous properties such as, exhibiting antigravity (so... palecricket... did you actually add .25g, or perhaps, 1g that weighed .25g?), superconductivity (explained as the atomic ORMEs have an atomic temperature near 0K because they're single atoms, and so they superconduct. Though gold isn't a superconductor at any temperature.), magical healing (it energizes the body... or something), etc. M-state elements need to be kept free of electromagnetic fields and light, or else they'll revert to m-state gold (yay, transmutation?).
    There's the obligatory list of magical cures:
    Alzheimer’s disease
    Bipolar disorder
    Heart disease
    Multiple sclerosis
    Muscular dystrophy

    And then the literature just devolves into occult dribble. This is apparently because somehow these m-state elements are linked to the philosopher's stone (gold, transmutation, and the elixir of life?), and through that alchemy. Wham, next thing you know, the literature is babbling about psycho-physiology, interpretations of Sumerian history, Sacred Geometry, and Atlantis. I really couldn't read any further lest my wills to live and make mead (both of which are important) be sucked from my psyche and devoured by this delusional tripe.


    Essentially, this has so many warning signs of a pseudoscience that it makes the Illuminati look legit. 1) One person doing all of the research themselves initially. 2) complete lack of peer review publications. 3) all the literature is on quack websites. ALL. 4) It invokes alchemy for god's sake. 5) A complete disregard for accepted psychics, chemistry, biology, and psychology. 6) A failure to state a paradigm, hypothesis, model, or theory of its own. 7) Making claims beyond what can even be construed to be the theory (Sacred Geometry? Curing AIDs?). Magical healing claims. 9) Extrodinary claims, and all its good for is being sold over the internet to cure cancer? What about the superconductivity at room temperature? 10) The numbers don't add up (m-state gold 10 times cheaper than metallic gold?). 11) Sekrat Propritary Production Method!!!
    Don't even claim that its just "misunderstood" or "needs to be studied more" since the effects are "hard to observe." Its had well over 40 years to be studied, and all of the quack websites make it clear that its very easy to observe such things. Unless of course, you mean, actual effects. Well, hard to observe effects will often always stay hard to observe, since they are what we call "sampling errors." Please go read up on say, N-rays, and polywater.

    Oh, and palecricket, m-state elements loose their effectiveness when kept in a liquid solution. I doubt you could classify the mead as "philosopher's mead." Just perhaps, m-state liquid mead? I think the yeast are using up all your precious m-state energies.

    BTW, m-palladium is highly toxic when taken with alcohol, and I recall you saying that you added some in your first post... might not want to drink it.

  13. #13

    Default Re: Philospher's mead


    Thanks for the links, these are some of the funniest articles I've read in a long time. And to think our own David Baldwin discovered m-state elements... I'm sure you meant David Hudson .

    Think I'll take m-11 to completely heal my body, then m-copper to live forever (my investments should be substantial enough by the time I'm ready to snuff it that I'll buy a rhodium mine, eat it, and go out in a flash of light like he claims the ancient pharaoh's did.)


  14. Default Re: Philospher's mead

    Was a control batch done with fermaid? That would be a good reference.

  15. Default Re: Philospher's mead


    My opinion is based on a degree in Microbiology and another in Chemistry plus 13 years working as a research scientist, not on something that I read on the internet. The work I do requires me to keep up on scientific progress. I have never come across any peer reviewed research supporting m-state elemental theories. In addition, none of the dozens of workshops, seminars and conventions that I have attended here and overseas included a single person willing to publically defend the theories of m-state elements. (Although, I did run across some magic fungus called "Philosopher's Stones" during my last trip to Amsterdam )

    I would not have been able to complete a lot of the projects that I work on without being able to think outside the box, so I am in no way opposed to radical thinking. However, that thinking has to be tempered with a bit of realism and tangible evidence.

    All that aside, I am sorry to hear about your father and I wish him a complete recovery.


  16. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Independence, KY and Greenacres, FL

    Default Re: Philospher's mead

    To add my two cents. I think what palecricket1 is doing is commendable. He is experimenting. Why should we take a position on such matters when our perceptions are lacking any real context. Just because the wine industry hasn't moved into this area proves nothing. Where is the evidence against it if it has not been tried with mead. It may prove to be nothing or it may prove to be something but we will get no where by discouraging experimentaion by 'debunking' no matter what our personal beliefs. So I say, Go for it Palecricket1 and keep us posted of your experiences. Should we be found the ignorant ones, it would be no surprise to me. And should it not work out, thats okay also because that is what this forum is all about. Experimenting and learning.

    Regards Joe

  17. #17

    Default Re: Philospher's mead

    Quote Originally Posted by Jmattioli
    I think what palecricket1 is doing is commendable.
    I do too, but man those links were funny.


  18. Default Re: Philospher's mead

    Joe, science is only meaningful when done in the context of an established paradigm. Basically it works like this: a protoscience receives a universal paradigm and becomes an established science. The paradigm guides further research directing it and interpreting it. Work proceeds within this context filling in the details and data. The data gathered would otherwise be without direction or meaning. The paradigm illustrates areas of interest as well. That is not to say the paradigm is correct, but it is our best theory and model to explain the body of data. It will be modified, and it may be superceeded by another paradigm. No scientific theory or model will precisely describes reality, but it is still necessary to work within it. I stress, work outside of it lacks meaning. If there are anomalous results you won't even know so because you have no idea what the data is data of.

    M-state elements as palecricket believes them do not exist. He is working within the realm of pseudoscience. The experiment he's performing, even if he has set up proper controls, and enough repetitions of data to be statistically meaningful, is only evidence of corrolation, and is meaningless. Thus, it is at worst, pseudoscience or parascience, and at best protoscience. I hesitate to call it a protoscience science though. Besides, as we know m-state elements don't exist, we must wonder just what it was he put into the mead. He will need to properly chemically analyze them in order to gather data the rest of us can draw on and repeat.

    When my mother was diagnosed with cervical cancer she underwent surgery, chemotherapy, radiation. She also tried herbal therapy, feng-sui, and watched way too much John Edwards and Dr. Phil for my comfort. But if it made her feel better... In anycase, with your father, follow the doctor's recommended treatment, and if it makes you feel better give him some of those m-state elements, but don't replace medicine with snakeoil.

  19. #19

    Default Re: Philospher's mead

    What was the opine of the scientific community when antimatter was first theorized in the late 19th century? and how many years passed between the first theory and the observation of the positron?

    I understand, these are not the same thing or in any way related. The point I'm making is, just because the scientific community isn't looking or researching something, does not mean it can not or does not exist.

    As cold fusion events demonstrate, modern science is ruled by conformity, not the search for scientific truth. If you challenge the beliefs of your peers in the scientific community, you are not going to get published. This is how today's system of conventional "scientific Research") suppresses the emergence of new ideas and new theories that could produce true breakthroughs in our understanding of health, medicine, science and the nature of the universe.

    The science that's published in medical and scientific journals today may indeed be solid science, but it in no way represents all of the good scientific research being conducted today. There are independent thinkers, scientists, pioneers and outright scientific rebels who are doing extraordinary research, yet never get published. Even worse, their research gets systematically ridiculed by the old school guardians of the scientific community. One of the most obvious examples of this is the team of Fleischmann and Pons, who are, of course, the fathers of "cold fusion," which is now better known as "low-energy nuclear reactions."

    Cold fusion is still laughed at by people in the mainstream who are too ignorant to realize that cold fusion experiments are being replicated and conducted in laboratories all around the world this very minute, most notably in Japan. Low-energy nuclear reactions are quite real. These reactions, which use a palladium catalyst and heavy water, are being used to generate excess heat in laboratories as you read this. In other words, cold fusion is quite real.

    If you think back to 1989 and look at the way this issue was suppressed, you realize that the credibility of cold fusion was destroyed by scientists who had career and ego investments in the theories of hot fusion. These were scientists who had published papers or invested their careers in multi-billion dollar experiments trying to generate free electricity from hot fusion. Thus, the idea that two chemists could create cold fusion with a tabletop experiment was viewed as outrageous. Rather than examining the evidence with an open mind and try to understand and replicate what was going on, they sought to destroy it.

    This ego-fueled suppression of cold fusion was quite successful, to the point where, today, if you mention cold fusion to anyone who is steeped in conventional medicine or science, they will laugh at you and say, "Cold fusion is a joke, just like medical quackery." But of course, the big joke is on them, because cold fusion does indeed exist, and it has been proven time and time again.

    You can see pictures of a modern cold fusion experiment running at the physics department of Purdue university at - http://www.physics.purdue.edu/neutron/LENR.html -

    The reason why cold fusion was difficult to prove back in 1989 is because, during those times, the experimenters were only able to replicate these low-energy nuclear reactions in 30 percent of the experiments. So if a laboratory ran ten experiments, they would obtain low-energy nuclear reactions in three of those ten cases. According to the hot fusion defenders, this was proof enough that cold fusion was a fraud.

    Of course, it is scientific insanity to suggest that just because something happens three out of ten times, it doesn't exist at all. Three out of ten times is pretty good for an emerging science that is experimental in nature and very poorly understood. With refinement and additional experiments, that number could doubtlessly have been increased to six or seven out of ten, and perhaps eventually ten out of ten.

    Nevertheless, cold fusion was discredited. Today, more than 15 years later, it remains discredited and virtually unknown in the Western world. Meanwhile, Fleischmann and Pons are busy working for private corporations who will, without a doubt, one day release industrial or consumer versions of low-energy nuclear reactors that will provide free energy to households, businesses and even entire communities at very little cost.

    There are now over 400 scientific papers on cold fusion, most of which are now available at - http://www.lenr-canr.org/ - the leading cold fusion community website. This site provides excellent reading on the history of cold fusion as well as the many challenges still being faced in this search for genuine scientific understanding.

    The suppression of cold fusion is just one example of how our modern scientific community operates more like a group of high priests than seekers of genuine scientific understanding. As a result, the science we live with today only represents a small fraction of the true scientific knowledge available to mankind. Much of the good science conducted over the last hundred years has been suppressed (cold fusion is just the beginning of this story). It has largely been concealed to protect either the financial interests of certain corporations or the ego interests of certain individuals or scientific groups.

    In the world of so-called "evidence-based medicine," the defenders of conventional medicine, which include the American Medical Association, medical schools and conventionally trained doctors, also want to protect their territory. They want to remain in control over all medical decisions and health-related interactions with patients. Yet, they have very few qualifications for actually doing so. For example, medical schools don't even teach basic nutrition, and doctors graduate from medical schools and residence training with practically no understanding of nutrition (see related ebook on nutrition) whatsoever. They have no real qualifications to talk to patients about disease prevention through healing foods, or to talk about how to live a healthy life through intelligent food choice. These are the basics of health, yet they are almost entirely ignored by modern medicine.

    Many of the most promising healing modalities are not just ignored by conventional medicine; they are in fact ridiculed. Homeopathy comes to mind. Homeopathy is discredited simply because the defenders of conventional medicine have no understanding of the mechanism by which homeopathic remedies work. It's similar to saying that there is no such thing as infectious disease because we can't see any germs (which was once the official position of science-based medicine). Of course, once the microscope was invented, germs could be seen, and the acceptance of the scientific validity of infectious disease soon followed.

    Some day, there will be instruments that can measure the vibrational nature, or what is called the "memory," of water. When those instruments are available, homeopathy will seem to be common sense, but today it is considered fringe science or quackery by the defenders of conventional medicine because they don't see how it could possibly work. They leave no room in their belief systems for the possibility that something could operate outside their current understanding. As long as there is no microscope for seeing homeopathic energy, the stodgy, egoistic defenders of evidence-based medicine will call it quackery. Of course, this is the same thinking that once called the germ theory quackery.

    Anything that's based on evidence is also subject to the distortions and belief systems of old-guard scientists and doctors who currently control the intellectual topography in which this evidence is framed.

    The violet wand, a Nikola Tesla invention: a handheld Tesla coil connected to a gas discharge tube intended to be applied to the skin. His invention was an electrotherapy device.

    To this day, Tesla's invention is called quak medicine. While modern equipment which does exactly the same thing is used for treating nerve pain.


  20. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    The OC

    Default Re: Philospher's mead

    Quote Originally Posted by Oskaar
    snip. . .I guess what I'm looking for is some kind of breakdown of your findings in a scientific manner. That would help to educate me about your approach, your elements and what benefits you expect to find vs. the benefits/detriments of the actuals . . . snip
    Like I said below, I'm open to new methodologies, techniques and ideas; and I do like to see some evidence that I'm not tossing my money down the chipper/shredder. It wasn't so long ago that no one would have bought a $20 bottle of wine fermented in a stainless steel vat with several palates of hardwood tossed in and having oxygen blown through it during primary fermentaion. But now, a considerable number of winemakers are moving that way in order to defray the costs of cooperage each year . . . try a bottle of Columbia Crest Two Vines Shiraz (we get them here in So Cal for $4.99 a bottle) it's not going to shut down the high end wine market, but it's awfully tough to beat it in the price range (unless you can get your hands on some Primitivo from Italy!)

    To me if it improves your meadmaking, I say go for it and let the evidence speak for itself. However, I also say that when one researches from a subjective viewpoint, the results will be subjective. I don't mind "Guinea Pigging" a batch if you'll post up your exact recipes. The proof is in the pudding.


    Is it tasty . . . precious?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts