PDA

View Full Version : Practical Alchemy - An Introduction



Awani
01-03-2009, 01:00 PM
This is a Phoenix-thread (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?t=7) from the old site (http://alchemy-forums.forumotion.com/forum.htm).

Practical Alchemy is not really my field, but it does interest me although I have more questions in this area than answers. I will write a very short introduction and supply a couple of links, but I implore anyone that feels they can add to this introduction to do so.

In short practical alchemy is about transmuting lead into gold, by heating and refining the metal in various chemical processeses – and under certain astrological conditions.

It is an ancient art that was practiced both in Ancient Egypt and China. It arrived on the European shores in the 12th century. Some discoveries were made by the European alchemists such as mineral acids and alcohol, and of course it evolved into what is now known as chemistry.

Well that is as brief as I will be. Feel free to lengthen, revise and deepen this introduction to Practical Alchemy.

Some useful websites:
18th century Chemical Terms List (http://satanicsingles.com/library/18th_century_chemical_terms_list.pdf)
Alchymical survival - some notes on safety in alchemical experiments (http://www.3rd1000.com/alchemy/alch_safety.htm) by Tom McRae
Alchemical processes (http://www.3rd1000.com/alchemy/alchemy_proc.htm)
Dictionary of alchemical substances and processeses (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?t=284)
Book of Salts, The (http://crucible.org/PDF_Files/The%20SALTS%20OF%20LIFE.pdf) by Karen Bartlett (PDF)
Course on Practical Alchemy (http://www.levity.com/alchemy/johnreid.html) by John Reid
Diviner’s Sage (http://crucible.org/salvia_divinorum.htm)
Essential Oil Distiller Operating Instructions (http://crucible.org/essential_oil_distiller_operation.htm)
Gem Elixir Database (http://crucible.org/gem_elixir1.htm)
Herbal Guide to Healing (http://crucible.org/herbal_guide.htm)
Monatomic Elements (Ormes) (http://crucible.org/monatomic_elements.htm)
Planetary Charts (http://www.alchemylab.com/planetary_charts.htm) by Paracelsus
Practical Plant Alchemy - part 1 (http://www.hermetic.com/stavish/alchemy/plant1.html) by Mark Stavish
Practical Plant Alchemy - part 2 (http://www.hermetic.com/stavish/alchemy/plant2.html) by Mark Stavish
Practical Plant Alchemy - part 3 (http://www.hermetic.com/stavish/alchemy/plant3.html) by Mark Stavish
Mechanical Press Operation Instructions (http://crucible.org/PDF_Files/Mech_Press_Instructions.pdf) (PDF)
Sacred Soma of the Alchemists (http://crucible.org/shilajit.htm) by Dr. Michael Hartman
Using Essential Oils (http://crucible.org/oils_using.htm)


Hi deviadah,

I have somewhat a more limited definition of practical Alchemy.

I would state the objectives are as finding:

1. Aurum potabile. The "cure all" medicine which according to Fulcanelli as 'not having one atom of gold'.

2. The Carbuncule. The mystical glowing gem of the Ancients.

3. Stone of Transmutation. There may be more than one definition to this. It could be defined as the Stone which transmutes lead (Pb) or some other base metal into Gold (Au). Or perhaps this involves the transmutation of the Soul and the physical appearance of transmutation is secondary.

I also place limitations as what substance(s) to work on.

"Hence if you know our Art, extract our gold from our Mercury (this is the shorter way), and thus perform the whole operation with one substance (viz., Mercury); if you can do this, you will have attained to the perfection of philosophy. In this method, there is no superfluous trouble: the whole work, from beginning to end, is based upon one broad foundation -- whereas if you take common gold, you must operate on two substances, and both will have to be purified by an elaborate process." - Open Entrance, Philalethes.

I then place anything that doesn't fall into the above as particulars, examples, discoveries, or applications.

Jerry

I have somewhat a more limited definition of practical Alchemy.Well there is no point in beating around the bush... keep it simple and quick. After all we live in an MTV generational world!

I missed that you joined and I hope you can add more to what you've already written. Especially on the Carbuncule (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?t=249).

Anders Hoveland
09-23-2011, 11:06 AM
I want to add my thoughts.

Alchemy is typically considered a grossly inferior "crack-pot" information subject by many chemical scientists. But I have found that there are several reactions in alchemy that are generally too complicated to understand using conventional chemistry perspectives, and there are several alchemical reactions that have never been properly explained in terms of modern chemistry. Although there is much overlap between the reactions in alchemy and those in chemistry, there are many reactions that can mostly only be understood from only one of the schools of thought. The types of reactions in alchemy tend to be different than those in chemistry. Alchemists use more common chemicals and complex natural substances in very complex mixtures, whereas chemists typically deal with a much wider array of chemicals, all containing known and definite compositions. Chemical scientists typically try to avoid conducting reactions where they are not sure what is happening.

Alchemy is the predecessor to modern chemistry. In many ways, the two are just different approaches to experimentation, and in a way, I think these two different methods can complement eachother productively.
The difference between the two methods can be compared to the difference between medical doctors and allopathic doctors.

chrysopoeia
06-30-2012, 05:30 AM
I also just want to add some thoughts.

Alchemy is generally misunderstood. It is certainly not 'crack-pot' information, nor is it inferior. It may seem to have much in common with modern chemistry. Perhaps it seems this way to those seeking to produce gold in test tubes. But it actually has more in common with medicine, psychology and psychiatry. Not to mention other fields. It is the missing link. If you have ever experienced the physical side to alchemy, you will know this to be true.

Krisztian
06-30-2012, 05:57 AM
I want to add my thoughts.

Alchemy is typically considered a grossly inferior "crack-pot" information subject by many chemical scientists. But I have found that there are several reactions in alchemy that are generally too complicated to understand using conventional chemistry perspectives, and there are several alchemical reactions that have never been properly explained in terms of modern chemistry. Although there is much overlap between the reactions in alchemy and those in chemistry, there are many reactions that can mostly only be understood from only one of the schools of thought. The types of reactions in alchemy tend to be different than those in chemistry. Alchemists use more common chemicals and complex natural substances in very complex mixtures, whereas chemists typically deal with a much wider array of chemicals, all containing known and definite compositions. Chemical scientists typically try to avoid conducting reactions where they are not sure what is happening.

Alchemy is the predecessor to modern chemistry. In many ways, the two are just different approaches to experimentation, and in a way, I think these two different methods can complement eachother productively.
The difference between the two methods can be compared to the difference between medical doctors and allopathic doctors.

Gentlemen: For me alchemy is the science of the soul, the acknowledgement of the soul within matter. Chemistry, even for an open-minded chemist, would laugh at such claim.

The materials you're working with in alchemy 'pick up' the signature of the operator, the alchemist. That's why when two people work on making a Stone, having the same recipe, they will arrive at different destinations!

Anyone can be a chemist. They just need to follow a recipe, guidelines, etc. However, no atheist can be an alchemist! I haven't seen an old alchemical manuscript that doesn't refer to the helping hand of God.

chrysopoeia
07-02-2012, 12:16 PM
Yes, it is a science of the soul and the body, for they are inextricably linked. Mind and body are a sacred unity. I too think the recipe is slightly different depending on the person and that you need the helping hand of God.

Eshai
03-18-2015, 11:21 AM
no atheist can be an alchemist
God can be viewed in many ways. While someone may not take the same perspective of God as a "typical alchemist" (whatever that is), I do not think this excludes them from practicing the ways of alchemy.

I myself am an atheist, as well as a student of chemistry, and I enjoy learning about alchemy. Personally, I do not think any of these things are exclusive of one another.

Moreover, at what point does one become an alchemist? At what point does one become a scientist? Is alchemy a secret club, which is so egotistical in its presumption that only those who have been initiated are capable of "knowing"... or is it about a sincere and genuine desire to learn more about the universe and the self (if there is even a distinction)?

The path towards both of these arts, alchemy and science (chemistry), is philosophy. Philosophy is the beginning; a desire to know more. When a person takes his first step upon that path, they are on the path... if only at the beginning. But the journey is what counts, right?

Andro
03-18-2015, 01:34 PM
Eshai ~

People say all sorts of things, often stemming from the way they were brought up/indoctrinated/etc...

Some have actual experience with non-physical realms, but interpreting those experiences and translating them to conveyable concepts can be tricky as well.

My approach is to use what works for me, change what doesn't work, and listen to my inner guidance above everything someone else may say/declare/pontificate.

There is a documented tendency of various degrees of pontificating megalomania in alchemical circles, even if it's 'diplomatically' disguised. It's often accompanied by elusive blanket statements.

However -

I won't say it's not an initiatory path. But it's the same with college, army, corporations, Kindergarten, etc... (on different levels)

There's always that 'secret handshake', or that 'Hidden Hand' (in the case of Alchemy).

I would recommend reading some Hermetic literature. The concept of 'God' (Origin, Tao, etc...) is often not what it's cracked up to be.

Awani
03-19-2015, 12:29 AM
However, no atheist can be an alchemist!

Although I disagree with this statement for mainly ethical, open-minded and brotherly reasons... I do however agree with it.


I myself am an atheist, as well as a student of chemistry, and I enjoy learning about alchemy. Personally, I do not think any of these things are exclusive of one another.

You see it depends on what we class as god or non-atheism... and also what we class as alchemy.

In my case alchemy is an intentional evolution of the self towards a higher spirit/ideal... so far so good... nothing godly about that... but this higher spirit I speak of is a unity with the cosmos and the universe... and the ALL (everything incl. the universe) is alive... and is one BIG thing... one major red thread... this is what some people call God. I cannot achieve this unity, this divine connection if I believe in only reason.

I started out as an atheist and the more I researched the less convinced I became.


But the journey is what counts, right?

You are correct that the most important thing is the quest. And what is the greatest quest? Well it is the Quest for the Holy Grail... the Sacred Pilgrimage...

Anyway you can be whatever you want, and believe whatever you want... but remember atheism is as much a belief as non-atheism. The biggest joke of it all, in my opinion, is that those idiotic fundamentalist Christians in the Deep South of the US of A are probably right... there is Intelligent Design... maybe not how they think it operates, still something is operating...

When you form a personal relationship with the Divine you might notice that what you thought "God" was, was what it wasn't...

All this might sound like hippie mumbo-jumbo, and what the fuck does it have to do with practical alchemy? Well nature is a design... a program... and a program has always been programed. No computer runs on chance.

Conclusion: you can be an atheist and an alchemist at the same time, no problem... but if the purpose of alchemy is for you to reach a higher state of being / existence then you might save some time by throwing atheism out the window. Science knows nothing, and the more it knows the more it knows what it DOES NOT know. For every answer a thousand questions arise. The universe and the mechanics of it are so strange and peculiar that it would be far more logical to assume an intelligent design rather than a random occurrence. In my humble opinion.

“We are asked by science to believe that the entire universe sprang from nothingness, and at a single point and for no discernible reason. This notion is the limit case for credulity. In other words, if you can believe this, you can believe anything.”
― Terence McKenna

:cool:

Ilos
03-19-2015, 02:12 AM
Hey guys,
I have seen many different definitions or thoughts about alchemy, somehow we all tend to define the art in the way as we interpret it but lets just hold on for a moment and think this rationally.

The word chemistry comes from the word Khemet, which was the old name of Egypt or the original name in Egyptian "Khemet" considering the root or the birth place of the art of transmutation and transformation of substances or the matter itself. Now at that time this seemed magical considering the fact that they lacked of insufficient technology to understand phenomenon in a deeper understanding.

For some reason, considering the way that history took place, I believe that the Egyptians tried to spread their knowledge to Persia and from Persia to Grees and than to Rome which they were well knows to posses powerful knowledge and considering the place that they were bringing it from "Khemet" they were probable called "The Khemets".

Now actually The Khemet doesn't mean just A Khemet meaning "THE" as an important Khemetian (Egyptian).

Later on things changed and languages changed and people that were trying to discover how thees things with the chemistry work were called Alchemists meaning; Al-Chemists (The-Chemists) and at that time people used to believe in celestial forces, religion at that time was still a big part in peoples lives and they tried to discover how thees two things actually interact with each other, the visible and the invisible forces and they actually had no doubt that they were apart from one another or that the celestial part doesn't exist I mean even our first teacher Thoth, wrote that as above so below In a way he made the E=mc2 clear for that time.

What I think that, now days, separates us from chemists it is particularly that the modern chemists stopped believing in the celestial forces, they consider the matter as a dead, concrete particle while on the other hand the ones that want to remain with the old teachings and believe in the celestial forces and want to differ, remained alchemists.

Now I know that someone likes to think that alchemy actually branches in different fields like, spirituality, psychology, philosophy, physiology, astrology, etc, etc but thees are just the branches that rained out of the roots, as an alchemist you have to look back in time or look into deep, start from that very first thing, start from the atom, nucleus, understand how thees forces work and how are they interacting with other forces than the branches will adapt in the mind.

Ghislain
03-19-2015, 08:25 AM
How much is too much?

To talk of a practical introduction to Alchemy and what Alchemy is, some want to say it is divine, other use the term rational, I want to use the term logical, but all of these may be correct together.

When an illusionist performs we see magic, but once we know what the illusionist did the magic disappears and we are left with the dissolution to boring logic...the reality.

To compare Alchemy to something else, let's say science, then one would have to have a full understanding of both alchemy and science; there are immense libraries of scientific studies, far too much for any one person to fully understand, and thus you have the different fields of speciality...in my brief encounter with alchemy I would say the same...one could spend all ones life studying the works of just one alchemist.

Could we say that Alchemy is one such field?

Why is it that a lot of "Alchemists" see science as a dirty word, after all, everything you use in the modern world is a direct or indirect result of some scientific understanding. So I would propose that even the divine has a scientific explanation.

When a scientist has that happy accident and makes a new discovery, might he not think that he was aided by the hand of some divine intervention?

So like Biology, Physics and Chemistry, I think that Alchemy is a branch of science, albeit a very much misunderstood branch.

Check out Exploring Life's Origins: A Timeline of Earth's Evolution (http://exploringorigins.org/timeline.html)



Science knows nothing, and the more it knows the more it knows what it DOES NOT know. For every answer a thousand questions arise. The universe and the mechanics of it are so strange and peculiar that it would be far more logical to assume an intelligent design rather than a random occurrence. In my humble opinion.



In a video I posted in a thread started by Dev, "Length of now" (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?4335-Length-of-now&p=37526#post37526) it states that all the matter we can see in the universe today accounts for only 4% of what there is perceived to be. We are only at they beginning of the journey; there is so much more to learn...might have to build some new libraries :)



Ghislain

Eshai
03-20-2015, 04:41 PM
So like Biology, Physics and Chemistry, I think that Alchemy is a branch of science, albeit a very much misunderstood branch.
Interesting. Chemistry, from my perspective, is less a branch of science in itself as other, well defined branches such as biology, physics, toxicology, geology, etc. Chemistry is sometimes regarded as the "central science," meaning that all endeavors of science utilize chemistry for their aims. It appears that alchemy is no different, as the chemistry employed in alchemy is a tool for a greater purpose.


if the purpose of alchemy is for you to reach a higher state of being / existence then you might save some time by throwing atheism out the window
Indeed, reaching a "higher" state of being is not my purpose.

I am one of the Profane.

Ghislain
03-24-2015, 04:53 AM
Eshai, there are many branches of science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branches_of_science)I just wanted to use a few to give the idea. We could look at life as a whole, like a cake, but this could be broken down into its component part such as eggs, flour, butter, sugar...etc...ect...; then further still into the chemical nutrients in the soil...etc..etc... I guess it depends on what point one would like to focus.

The video below is much like the cake...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tq6be-CZJ3w&t=839

Exploring the Universe: Big History 2 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fi30zjQhtWY)

The Sun & The Earth: Big History 3 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=By6CkTN4wkI)

Life Begins: Big History 4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WS712DHfmg)

Note the similarity of Alchemical processes.


Ghislain

Ghislain
03-24-2015, 11:02 AM
Well, I started so I guess I should finish...

The Evolutionary Epic: Big History 5 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92oHNd8vFwo)

Human Evolution: Big History 6 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPggkvB9_dc)

Dev in the vid' above you may be interested on the point made at 10:50 especially 12:26

Migrations and Intensification: Big History 7 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oy2XJMczUNc)

The Modern Revolution: Big History 8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4Zdmd4J7TI)

The Anthropocene and the Near Future: Big History 9 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WpaLt_Blr4)

The Deep Future: Big History 10 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kq1HUTLtNW4)

And so ends the brief history to the beginning of Alchemy ;)

The next big question is, "What is Dark Matter/Energy and what can we do with it?"

Ghislain

KnowledgeSeeker
08-07-2018, 06:42 PM
Can I ask what’s the difference between ‘practical alchemy’ to spagyrics? I mean I tried to learn it by following the steps in some books or sources such as ‘real alchemy’ and alchemist’s handbook but that is apparently seen as spagyrics, which is considered ‘alchemy’ for some reason in public perception.

If somebody can help explain thanks, I want to learn this path and do not necessarily want transmutation as a goal but mainly because alchemy can explore things that contemporary ‘science’ is limited from doing being one of them which is fascinating.

JDP
08-07-2018, 10:17 PM
Can I ask what’s the difference between ‘practical alchemy’ to spagyrics? I mean I tried to learn it by following the steps in some books or sources such as ‘real alchemy’ and alchemist’s handbook but that is apparently seen as spagyrics, which is considered ‘alchemy’ for some reason in public perception.

If somebody can help explain thanks, I want to learn this path and do not necessarily want transmutation as a goal but mainly because alchemy can explore things that contemporary ‘science’ is limited from doing being one of them which is fascinating.

For all its operations alchemy relies on a secret solvent that, so far, only the alchemists have discovered how to prepare and has remained unknown to all other branches of empirical science, and which allows for preparing transmuting "tinctures" (i.e. substances that when projected over much larger amounts of molten metals cause them to change into silver or gold.) Spagyrics uses a wide variety of solvents for its operations, and it cannot produce any transmuting "tinctures" (not that it was ever its objective to begin with.) "Spagyrics" = medicinal "chymistry" (notice the archaic spelling of this last word, not "chemistry".)

KnowledgeSeeker
08-08-2018, 07:07 AM
For all its operations alchemy relies on a secret solvent that, so far, only the alchemists have discovered how to prepare and has remained unknown to all other branches of empirical science, and which allows for preparing transmuting "tinctures" (i.e. substances that when projected over much larger amounts of molten metals cause them to change into silver or gold.) Spagyrics uses a wide variety of solvents for its operations, and it cannot produce any transmuting "tinctures" (not that it was ever its objective to begin with.) "Spagyrics" = medicinal "chymistry" (notice the archaic spelling of this last word, not "chemistry".)Is the objective of people who called themselves alchemists then to find the solvent?

Also if it was so widely used until chemistry replaced it then where would the records of how it was made most likely kept or is it dead until somebody finds it again?

JDP
08-08-2018, 09:27 AM
Is the objective of people who called themselves alchemists then to find the solvent?

Yes, because without it there is no way of making the Stone.


Also if it was so widely used until chemistry replaced it then where would the records of how it was made most likely kept or is it dead until somebody finds it again?

Who says that chemistry "replaced" alchemy? That's the fairy tale that chemists tell themselves and the rest of the world. How can you "replace" an EMPIRICAL FACT???

As for the "records": that's what alchemy books are about: this "water" or solvent, but they never explain how to make it in a 100% clear manner that even simpletons could replicate it. That's the whole point of studying and trying to "crack" alchemical texts. To learn this secret and then apply it to making the Stone or some other alchemical "tincture".

z0 K
08-08-2018, 02:17 PM
In addition to what JDP said Spagyric practices actually discard the key Elements to make the Secret Solvent for the Vegetable Stone by burning the matter into smoke that is allowed to escape into the air.

Florius Frammel
08-08-2018, 02:42 PM
In addition to what JDP said Spagyric practices actually discard the key Elements to make the Secret Solvent for the Vegetable Stone by burning the matter into smoke that is allowed to escape into the air.

One should add that z 0k got this very interesting interpretation by studying the works of the two Hollandus and Ripleius. There are quite some hints about this practice in Junius' book too. I couldn't find any backing up of this theory in the works of other alchemists like Basil Valentine however.

Edit: Sorry! All is good! z 0k wrote about the vegetable stone. I read his lines too quick and thought he was talking about "the" stone.

Kiorionis
08-08-2018, 03:33 PM
What’s the difference, FF?

Florius Frammel
08-08-2018, 04:16 PM
What’s the difference, FF?

At this current point of my knowledge, I'd say at least there is one difference in the making. But having neither made the one nor the other, I don't really know.
I know what z 0k is doing though, because I bought his book ;)

z0 K
08-08-2018, 05:16 PM
At this current point of my knowledge, I'd say at least there is one difference in the making. But having neither made the one nor the other, I don't really know.
I know what z 0k is doing though, because I bought his book ;)

Thanks FF.

I would say the difference between the Vegetable Stone and the Elixir (or Transmutation Stone) is that the One Matter Only premise is literally valid for the Vegetable Stone. The Secret Solvent for the Vegetable Stone is compounded from the Elements extracted from the herb of choice or combination of herbs.

The Starting Matter premise for the Transmutation Stone is not so simple. The Secret Solvent in one approach is still derived from the Elements received and reduced in the destructive distillation of vegetable matter. The Secret Solvent is made from the Water and Air received which has a very small amount of Fire in it after purification because you cannot ever completely separate out Fire from Water or Air from Water or Fire. When the purified Earth is dissolved into that Secret Solvent then digested and later incubated the Vegetable Quintessence is produced if done right.

Following this premise for the Transmutation Stone the Secret Solvent is further compounded by adding the Fire of the herb extracted from the Elements received in the dry distillation. This Secret Solvent with the Fire in it is not for human consumption.

Then it gets more complicated. Either Au or Ag are prepared into a calx which is dissolved into the Secret Solvent which is then "cooked" into a dry red powder that would be the Transmutation Stone. Or Au or Ag is dissolved into the Secret Solvent without any previous processing. Loads of experimental possibilities have to be explored in the lab to get it right. To get there one must know how to fish out the Air from the Water (Mercury), and the Fire from the (Sulfur) tar and purify them. Many ways are given by the philosophers. Hollandus Work of the Vine is the best example for the Secret Solvent and Au with Vegetable Mercury starting at chapter 41.

Personally, I don't see how one could get the Secret Solvent as described by the alchemists from any minerals other than mineralized biomass. If someone has I would like to hear about it.

Florius Frammel
08-08-2018, 05:41 PM
BTW z 0K,

do you think it's possible to do some kind of microscale version of your experiments? One needs huge amounts of 'biomass" to follow your instructions which look like to be a huge load of work and time (and money) too. Respect for this alone!

JDP
08-08-2018, 05:45 PM
In addition to what JDP said Spagyric practices actually discard the key Elements to make the Secret Solvent for the Vegetable Stone by burning the matter into smoke that is allowed to escape into the air.

But those spagyric practices are in fact derived/inspired from those of alchemy: it is the alchemists themselves who keep directing to gradually increase the fire until the distilling vessel is very hot and their compound (which is not really any "one thing only" in the real, literal sense, but a mixture/composite of several things that will end up forming "one thing" in the operations; I think you know this well but don't want to fully admit it) fully decomposes. A typical, standard example of such descriptions by the alchemists (taken from Ripley's "Book of Accurtations"):

Take the Green Lyon without dissolution in Vinegar (as sometime the Custom is) put in a large Earthen Retort, which can endure the Fire, and distil it the same way as you distil Aqua fortis, putting a Receiver under it, and luting the joint well, that it may not respire; then distil first with a gentle Fire, till you see white fumes appear, then change the Receiver, stopping it well and distil with a great Fire so as Aqua fortis is distilled, thus continuing twenty-four hours, and if you continue the Fire the space of eight Days, you will see the Receiver always full of white fumes, and so you will have the Blood of the Green Lyon, which we call Secret Water, and Acetum accerimum, by which all Bodies are reduced to their first Matter, and the Body of Man preserved from all infirmities.

Anyone who has distilled "aqua fortis" knows very well what Ripley is plainly referring to and describing. You gradually increase the heat until at the end the retort/cucurbit/alembic is glowing hot and everything in such mixtures that produce this acid has been decomposed by the violent fire and have given off all the volatile products/byproducts. So, no, the spagyrists and chymists were not doing something that the alchemists weren't doing themselves when it comes to this general modus operandi. They in fact totally adopted these methods from the alchemists. The reason why "spagyrics" never discovered the secret solvent is because its practitioners never hit upon the right combinations for it to be able to be prepared (not that they were really looking for it in the first place, though, since their objectives were different; they were interested in confecting all kinds of medicines, not transmuting "tinctures"), and if any of them did, they certainly kept it quiet and took advantage of the discovery (in other words, these fortunate "spagyrists" became "alchemists".)

z0 K
08-08-2018, 06:41 PM
BTW z 0K,

do you think it's possible to do some kind of microscale version of your experiments? One needs huge amounts of 'biomass" to follow your instructions which look like to be a huge load of work and time (and money) too. Respect for this alone!

It is a huge load of work and time and money. The lab says "Feed me!" If you do not start with enough biomass you will not get much Quintessence in the end. Some herbs yield better than others. People have had good results with Lemon Balsam, Celandine, and vegetable peppers. The best yield I've found so far is with Cannabis. You don't have to grow your own. You can buy quality organic herbs on line. Wood soot from a good chimney gives the most Sal Armoniac but you have to burn tons of wood to get the soot. Since taking the Quintessence for over two years now I'm off blood pressure meds, prostate meds and in the process of reducing thyroid meds to zero. You can't get those results with anything else I know of.

Schmuldvich
08-08-2018, 06:59 PM
It is a huge load of work and time and money. The lab says "Feed me!" If you do not start with enough biomass you will not get much Quintessence in the end. Some herbs yield better than others. People have had good results with Lemon Balsam, Celandine, and vegetable peppers. The best yield I've found so far is with Cannabis. You don't have to grow your own. You can buy quality organic herbs on line. Wood soot from a good chimney gives the most Sal Armoniac but you have to burn tons of wood to get the soot. Since taking the Quintessence for over two years now I'm off blood pressure meds, prostate meds and in the process of reducing thyroid meds to zero. You can't get those results with anything else I know of.

How much "wood soot" from your chimney did it take you to make the amount of 'Sal Armoniac' exhibited in your videos?

Have you tried experimenting with mud/clay, blood, urine, sweat, sperm, salt-water, or tears to produce what you call 'Sal Armoniac'? Any good results with any of these?

z0 K
08-08-2018, 07:09 PM
But those spagyric practices are in fact derived/inspired from those of alchemy: it is the alchemists themselves who keep directing to gradually increase the fire until the distilling vessel is very hot and their compound (which is not really any "one thing only" in the real, literal sense, but a mixture/composite of several things that will end up forming "one thing" in the operations; I think you know this well but don't want to fully admit it) fully decomposes. A typical, standard example of such descriptions by the alchemists (taken from Ripley's "Book of Accurtations"):

Take the Green Lyon without dissolution in Vinegar (as sometime the Custom is) put in a large Earthen Retort, which can endure the Fire, and distil it the same way as you distil Aqua fortis, putting a Receiver under it, and luting the joint well, that it may not respire; then distil first with a gentle Fire, till you see white fumes appear, then change the Receiver, stopping it well and distil with a great Fire so as Aqua fortis is distilled, thus continuing twenty-four hours, and if you continue the Fire the space of eight Days, you will see the Receiver always full of white fumes, and so you will have the Blood of the Green Lyon, which we call Secret Water, and Acetum accerimum, by which all Bodies are reduced to their first Matter, and the Body of Man preserved from all infirmities.

Anyone who has distilled "aqua fortis" knows very well what Ripley is plainly referring to and describing. You gradually increase the heat until at the end the retort/cucurbit/alembic is glowing hot and everything in such mixtures that produce this acid has been decomposed by the violent fire and have given off all the volatile products/byproducts. So, no, the spagyrists and chymists were not doing something that the alchemists weren't doing themselves when it comes to this general modus operandi. They in fact totally adopted these methods from the alchemists. The reason why "spagyrics" never discovered the secret solvent is because its practitioners never hit upon the right combinations for it to be able to be prepared (not that they were really looking for it in the first place, though, since their objectives were different; they were interested in confecting all kinds of medicines, not transmuting "tinctures"), and if any of them did, they certainly kept it quiet and took advantage of the discovery (in other words, these fortunate "spagyrists" became "alchemists".)

Your remarks are strange considering what said. The fact is that Spagyric chymists these days teach to burn up the herbs in the open air thinking they have already gotten the Solvent or plant Mercury from the herb which they teach is ethanol. That is I believe derived from a misunderstanding of Hollandus for one to begin with.

Your quote from Ripley is great. I know it well. He clearly says to catch everything that evolves from the dry distillation of the Green Lyon. I have done just what he says there with several herbs. You get exactly what he describes. He uses aqua fortis as a comparison. I use a kiln to achieve the heat he is referring to. And I have received exactly what he descirbes: white fume, Blood of the Green Lyon which has the Secret Water (Secret Solvent) and Acetum accerimum (in the Water, but you have to be careful how it affects the armoniac). He then says after the comma, those things he described receiving from the fire are the means "by which all Bodies are reduced to their first Matter and the Body of Man preserved from all infirmities."

I don't understand why you decided to ignore the fact that Spagyrists do not follow the teachings of the alchemists as I said. They deliberately burn off the Secret Solvent Elements into the air thinking they are returning some spirit to the earth. It is sad and ironic that they are in fact returning the Spirit of the Secret Solvent to the earth and out of their control.

They could get it back from the earth by collecting dew but that is a huge work. Now is a good time to do it here on the West Coast because the air is full of smoke from all the biomass burning in the forests. We have one season here anymore and that is Fire Season!

Florius Frammel
08-08-2018, 07:44 PM
reducing thyroid meds to zero. You can't get those results with anything else I know of.

THC and CBD are said to help in similar ways. From what I've read I think you keep those substances until the end right?

theFool
08-08-2018, 08:05 PM
Your quote from Ripley is great. I know it well. He clearly says to catch everything that evolves from the dry distillation of the Green Lyon. I have done just what he says there with several herbs. You get exactly what he describes. He uses aqua fortis as a comparison. But the herbs probabaly are not the "Green Lyon". Herbs could just mimick the colors, as aqua fortis does. Just my opinion.

JDP
08-08-2018, 08:10 PM
Your remarks are strange considering what said. The fact is that Spagyric chymists these days teach to burn up the herbs in the open air thinking they have already gotten the Solvent or plant Mercury from the herb which they teach is ethanol. That is I believe derived from a misunderstanding of Hollandus for one to begin with.

Your quote from Ripley is great. I know it well. He clearly says to catch everything that evolves from the dry distillation of the Green Lyon. I have done just what he says there with several herbs. You get exactly what he describes. He uses aqua fortis as a comparison. I use a kiln to achieve the heat he is referring to. And I have received exactly what he descirbes: white fume, Blood of the Green Lyon which has the Secret Water (Secret Solvent) and Acetum accerimum (in the Water, but you have to be careful how it affects the armoniac). He then says after the comma, those things he described receiving from the fire are the means "by which all Bodies are reduced to their first Matter and the Body of Man preserved from all infirmities."

I don't understand why you decided to ignore the fact that Spagyrists do not follow the teachings of the alchemists as I said. They deliberately burn off the Secret Solvent Elements into the air thinking they are returning some spirit to the earth. It is sad and ironic that they are in fact returning the Spirit of the Secret Solvent to the earth and out of their control.

They could get it back from the earth by collecting dew but that is a huge work. Now is a good time to do it here on the West Coast because the air is full of smoke from all the biomass burning in the forests. We have one season here anymore and that is Fire Season!

I am not sure which "spagyrists" are you referring to, but I am referring to the actual ones from the 16th-17th centuries. The typical "analysis by fire" that the "chymists" from those times practiced consisted in putting the matter to be "analyzed" inside a distilling vessel (retort, cucurbit, alembic, etc.) and then giving it a gradually increasing fire until the vessel was glowing hot and no more volatile products were given off. That technique, I repeat, is lifted straight from the alchemists. With this technique, those chymists/spagyrists "analyzed" virtually all common substances available to the mankind of those times. But they never discovered anything like the secret solvent by manipulating simple naturally occurring substances by themselves.

JDP
08-08-2018, 08:13 PM
But the herbs probabaly are not the "Green Lyon". Herbs could just mimick the colors, as aqua fortis does. Just my opinion.

The "Green Lyon" is nothing but yet another "deckname" for the secret compound/composite/mixture of the alchemists. This "thing" cannot be found anywhere in nature. It has to be made on purpose. Man's intelligent and purposeful intervention is absolutely required. Nature does not make any such thing on its own.

z0 K
08-08-2018, 08:28 PM
THC and CBD are said to help in similar ways. From what I've read I think you keep those substances until the end right?

THC and the cannabinoids and terpenes were integrated into the Quintessence ingressing into the fixed salts through several rotations.

I've been taking synthetic thyroid hormone since 2010, when the deficiency was diagnosed. At that time I was already using medical Cannabis and have continued to do so. Tinctures, smoking and ingesting Cannabis did not have the effect I am getting now with the thyroid using the Cannabis Quintessence.

z0 K
08-08-2018, 08:31 PM
How much "wood soot" from your chimney did it take you to make the amount of 'Sal Armoniac' exhibited in your videos?

Have you tried experimenting with mud/clay, blood, urine, sweat, sperm, salt-water, or tears to produce what you call 'Sal Armoniac'? Any good results with any of these?

One pound of soot.

No

Kiorionis
08-08-2018, 08:35 PM
The "Green Lyon" is nothing but yet another "deckname" for the secret compound/composite/mixture of the alchemists. This "thing" cannot be found anywhere in nature. It has to be made on purpose. Man's intelligent and purposeful intervention is absolutely required. Nature does not make any such thing on its own.


I disagree. The ‘Green Lion’ is a product of Nature, and the alchemist is unable to make it in the external lab.

z0 K
08-08-2018, 08:38 PM
But the herbs probabaly are not the "Green Lyon". Herbs could just mimick the colors, as aqua fortis does. Just my opinion.

Take an herb such as Celandine (mentioned by Ripley and recommended by Hollandus) treat it as the Green Lyon in JDP's quote. Process it as Ripley outlines using only the matters you get from the distillation. See if that doesn't transform your opinion into your experience.

z0 K
08-08-2018, 08:54 PM
I am not sure which "spagyrists" are you referring to, but I am referring to the actual ones from the 16th-17th centuries. The typical "analysis by fire" that the "chymists" from those times practiced consisted in putting the matter to be "analyzed" inside a distilling vessel (retort, cucurbit, alembic, etc.) and then giving it a gradually increasing fire until the vessel was glowing hot and no more volatile products were given off. That technique, I repeat, is lifted straight from the alchemists. With this technique, those chymists/spagyrists "analyzed" virtually all common substances available to the mankind of those times. But they never discovered anything like the secret solvent by manipulating simple naturally occurring substances by themselves.

Yes, I too have many of those olde Chymystry bookes and am aware of what you are talking about. If you are willing to consider YWorth and Bolnest to be chymysts so do I. Bolnest for one buries the process for the solvent produced in more than one way in his various processes upon plants and animals and minerals. YWorth definitely had the Secret Solvent which he details the method in his Processus Mysterii Magni Philosophicus or An Open Entrance to the great Mysteries of the Ancient Philosophers.

theFool
08-08-2018, 08:59 PM
And I have received exactly what he descirbes: white fume, Blood of the Green Lyon which has the Secret Water (Secret Solvent) and Acetum accerimum (in the Water, but you have to be careful how it affects the armoniac). He then says after the comma, those things he described receiving from the fire are the means "by which all Bodies are reduced to their first Matter and the Body of Man preserved from all infirmities." z0 K, how could you know that what you call "Secret Water" is the Secret Solvent? According to your earlier quote:


Then it gets more complicated. Either Au or Ag are prepared into a calx which is dissolved into the Secret Solvent which is then "cooked" into a dry red powder that would be the Transmutation Stone. Or Au or Ag is dissolved into the Secret Solvent without any previous processing. the Secret Solvent has to dissolve gold and silver. Have you seen that? Why do you call the substance Secret Solvent.

z0 K
08-08-2018, 10:14 PM
z0 K, how could you know that what you call "Secret Water" is the Secret Solvent? According to your earlier quote:

the Secret Solvent has to dissolve gold and silver. Have you seen that? Why do you call the substance Secret Solvent.

The only way I could know is to make the stuff and see what it does. It makes the Vegetable Stone when used upon the purified Earth (fixed salts). I have said recently that I have not taken it to the calx of metals yet. The reason I stated being that the Secret Solvent had to be concentrated. Which is also the process of the Mercury Duplex. That requires preparing more experimental ratios of our Fire, Water, and Air. The natural pondus of Elements works with the Vegetable Stone but not with the Transmutation Stone as I understand the process. With one concentration stainless steel can be resolved into a light green whitish crystalline salt. Copper goes down easily into beautiful deep blue crystals.

Do you have an alternative proposition as to the origin of the Mercury of the Philosophers? I'd like to hear it.

I starting calling it Secret Solvent in homage to JDP.

JDP
08-08-2018, 11:32 PM
I disagree. The ‘Green Lion’ is a product of Nature, and the alchemist is unable to make it in the external lab.

Keep thinking. That must be why in hundreds of years of accumulated empirical experience by a drove of "puffers", "spagyrists" and "chymists" no one ever found one such natural matter that can perform what the alchemists describe.

tAlchemist
08-08-2018, 11:48 PM
Keep thinking. That must be why in hundreds of years of accumulated empirical experience by a drove of "puffers", "spagyrists" and "chymists" no one ever found one such natural matter that can perform what the alchemists describe.

This is a common thing people do. "If I don't have it and he doesn't have it, you DEFINITELY don't have it".

You need to know what the stone is before you can create it.

JDP
08-08-2018, 11:53 PM
Yes, I too have many of those olde Chymystry bookes and am aware of what you are talking about. If you are willing to consider YWorth and Bolnest to be chymysts so do I. Bolnest for one buries the process for the solvent produced in more than one way in his various processes upon plants and animals and minerals. YWorth definitely had the Secret Solvent which he details the method in his Processus Mysterii Magni Philosophicus or An Open Entrance to the great Mysteries of the Ancient Philosophers.

Since you are familiar with those old "chymistry bookes" you already know that those guys took practically all commonly available natural substances at hand in those times and submitted them to "analysis". It doesn't look to me like any single natural matter they examined "by fire" yielded the exact same thing the alchemists describe. Some do have some RESEMBLANCE, but they are not an exact match, specially after you keep reading what the alchemists say those products/byproducts of the distillation of their "matter" do.

If it is true what some historians say, that Y-Worth was the man behind that "Cleidophorus Mystagogus" pseudonym, it looks to me like he was just a boasting chymist pretending to be an "adept" who rambles on and on about empirical impossibilities ("unspecified matter" and the like theoretical fantasies that never took anyone anywhere.) Bolnest was a more sober person, and he certainly worked with several substances, not "one only", to make the form of the alchemical "water" that takes the appearance of "a clear, milky, crystalline, and silver liquor". Mercury (yes, common metallic mercury) was one of them (read his "Medicina Instaurata", the section regarding the "mercury" of the alchemists. He makes no secret whatsoever that he is totally convinced that common metallic mercury enters the operations to produce the white/milky/silvery "liquor" of the alchemists.)

JDP
08-09-2018, 12:03 AM
This is a common thing people do. "If I don't have it and he doesn't have it, you DEFINITELY don't have it".

We are not talking about the experience of just one person here, but the accumulated experience of a whole bunch of experimenters through the centuries. A very different case. It sounds very highly suspicious that in all those centuries none of these tireless people, obsessed with investigating everything that fell into their hands, encountered any such naturally occurring matter that perfectly matches the descriptions of the alchemists.


You need to know what the stone is before you can create it.

Tell that fairy tale to the first person who discovered the Stone. He sure could not possibly have known what it was, yet he accidentally discovered it nonetheless. Empirical facts do not give a hoot if you "know" what they are, they just will keep on existing quite undisturbed by what you "think" about them. It's just like gravity: no one really knows what it actually is, but we all know how real it is alright. Gravity doesn't give a rat's ass about what we think "it" is, "it" will continue to be what "it" has always been no matter what we believe.

Schmuldvich
08-09-2018, 12:47 AM
This is a common thing people do. "If I don't have it and he doesn't have it, you DEFINITELY don't have it".

This is literally the premise of JDP's entire crusade on this message board.

Read through his posts and roughly 99% (:o) of his post use this only argument.

JDP hasn't figured it out, no one before JDP has figured it out, therefore no one else will figure it out. Right here is this guy's monument of logic...admitted and relentlessly preached...since his arrival.

tAlchemist
08-09-2018, 03:37 AM
It sounds very highly suspicious that in all those centuries none of these tireless people, obsessed with investigating everything that fell into their hands, encountered any such naturally occurring matter that perfectly matches the descriptions of the alchemists.

What made you come to that conclusion? If I had the stone and I don't know about you but I'm not gonna post it on worldstarhiphop or make a big deal about it by proclaiming it out to the World.

There are many texts that talk about One Matter, and virtually all if not most texts that talk about nature.

Does One Matter not sound natural to you?


Tell that fairy tale to the first person who discovered the Stone. He sure could not possibly have known what it was, yet he accidentally discovered it nonetheless.

If you can obtain the stone accidentally, then why is it that no one has reportedly made it yet? There are many individuals, many people out in the World right now, many people who have passed away, if the stone could be made accidentally than surely out of EVERYONE's trial and error, the stone would have made its way to mainstream right now.

Accidentally. If i may, why is it called the Philosophers' Stone?

JDP
08-09-2018, 05:00 AM
This is literally the premise of JDP's entire crusade on this message board.

Read through his posts and roughly 99% (:o) of his post use this only argument.

JDP hasn't figured it out, no one before JDP has figured it out, therefore no one else will figure it out. Right here is this guy's monument of logic...admitted and relentlessly preached...since his arrival.

Apparently the fact that I am speaking not just of my own but of the COLLECTIVE EXPERIENCE OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE THROUGHOUT HISTORY flies over your head rather easily! :)

JDP
08-09-2018, 05:25 AM
What made you come to that conclusion? If I had the stone and I don't know about you but I'm not gonna post it on worldstarhiphop or make a big deal about it by proclaiming it out to the World.

The fact that chymists, spagyrists and chemists have written down the results of their investigations on natural matters very clearly and without any intention of misleading anyone. Do you know anything about "official" science and how it works? Apparently you don't. Open and clear communication has been its norm since several centuries ago. Alchemists were quite a different "tribe". They were elitists and did not want just about anyone to easily figure out what they knew. Very different mindset.


There are many texts that talk about One Matter, and virtually all if not most texts that talk about nature.

Yes, and such texts are misleading as hell! The fact that such claims have been around for hundreds of years and never led anyone anywhere should already tell you that something is just not quite right with these mantras. Plus even as far back as the times of the Alexandrian alchemist Zosimos, the "one matter only" ruse was already being exposed as a trap and seekers being warned against it. Once again, it should give you a "hint" that something is not quite right with such a naive claim.


Does One Matter not sound natural to you?

Yes, totally unrealistic. It is extremely naive to really expect that any one single natural matter can possibly display everything that the alchemists describe. If you don't trust your own empirical experience on this, I direct you again to the accumulated collective one of thousands of chymists, spagyrists and chemists who through the last 400 years have investigated just about every known natural substance there is at man's reach, and their descriptions of what you can obtain from them do not match everything the alchemists say about their "matter".


If you can obtain the stone accidentally, then why is it that no one has reportedly made it yet? There are many individuals, many people out in the World right now, many people who have passed away, if the stone could be made accidentally than surely out of EVERYONE's trial and error, the stone would have made its way to mainstream right now.

Because it is much more difficult to discover things in the way more complex world of reactions between substances than there is about single naturally occurring substances, most of which have already been studied and cataloged since a long time ago. Even today new discoveries are still being made in this department. How many discoveries do you hear anymore about single naturally occurring substances, though? Very, very few. The natural world has been proved to death already. Nothing like the "matter" of the alchemists has ever been found there. And rest assured it will never be. That's because their "matter" is really neither "natural" nor "one thing only". It is artificial (i.e. made thanks to man's intervention) and made from the interaction of several substances.


Accidentally. If i may, why is it called the Philosophers' Stone?

Because the alchemists had a penchant to pretend to be "philosophers". In reality they were empiricists. Their discovery was simply the product of trial and error, which was then passed down in their writings (but not in a totally clear manner), and not because their fanciful theoretical musings really led them anywhere. You can very justifiably say that the alchemists discovered what they discovered IN SPITE OF their theories/speculations, not because of them. In their minds, it was more prestigious to be a "philosopher", though. It was the mentality of those times.

tAlchemist
08-09-2018, 08:23 PM
The fact that chymists, spagyrists and chemists have written down the results of their investigations on natural matters very clearly and without any intention of misleading anyone. Do you know anything about "official" science and how it works? Apparently you don't.

Sorry, I didn't know you had to be apart of the ''official'' science organization to be considered a puffer, spagyrists, or a chemist.




Yes, and such texts are misleading as hell! The fact that such claims have been around for hundreds of years and never led anyone anywhere should already tell you that something is just not quite right with these mantras. Plus even as far back as the times of the Alexandrian alchemist Zosimos, the "one matter only" ruse was already being exposed as a trap and seekers being warned against it. Once again, it should give you a "hint" that something is not quite right with such a naive claim.

Not quite. I can look at that situation as the same thing that's happening today. People considering One Matter to be ''colourful philosophy'' without actually understanding the concept.

I guessing you don't think EVERY single book is alchemical I'm assuming, right? Then surely, the people who were considering One Matter to be a trap, I could argue that they were the same ones who didn't understand the approach themselves, just like how people TODAY even without actually attempting the One Matter approach, are saying it's a dead end!

What makes those days different than today in regards to ''exposing One Matter ruse''?




Yes, totally unrealistic. It is extremely naive to really expect that any one single natural matter can possibly display everything that the alchemists describe. If you don't trust your own empirical experience on this, I direct you again to the accumulated collective one of thousands of chymists, spagyrists and chemists who through the last 400 years have investigated just about every known natural substance there is at man's reach, and their descriptions of what you can obtain from them do not match everything the alchemists say about their "matter".

Investigation is one thing, but doing it correctly is another. I suppose we could ''investigate'' every single natural substance in hopes to create a new life form of some kind.. but certain life forms require suitable and strict environments in order to develop and then mature, and this is not just because of their extreme sensitivity in their ever-so fragile state.

Even the Emerald Tablet says to handle the matter ''gentle and with great ingenuity''.




Because it is much more difficult to discover things in the way more complex world of reactions between substances than there is about single naturally occurring substances, most of which have already been studied and cataloged since a long time ago. Even today new discoveries are still being made in this department. How many discoveries do you hear anymore about single naturally occurring substances, though? Very, very few. The natural world has been proved to death already. Nothing like the "matter" of the alchemists has ever been found there.

In my opinion, lots of people have handled the matter in it's base state, but not knowing what it was, tossed it away, not knowing of its potential. Although, this is not one and the same as having ''found'' the matter, to have found something is to be able to identify that something you were looking for, so I agree to this extent, virtually no one has found the matter because they didn't know what it is that they were looking for, except probably a luminous bright red rock. The ones who DID find the matter kept silent, knowing it's great great potential :)


Because the alchemists had a penchant to pretend to be "philosophers". In reality they were empiricists. Their discovery was simply the product of trial and error, which was then passed down in their writings (but not in a totally clear manner), and not because their fanciful theoretical musings really led them anywhere. You can very justifiably say that the alchemists discovered what they discovered IN SPITE OF their theories/speculations, not because of them. In their minds, it was more prestigious to be a "philosopher", though. It was the mentality of those times.

To each their own I guess... I thought Hermes and Paracelsus were quite the philosophers.

elixirmixer
08-09-2018, 09:06 PM
I agree, and disagree, with the "One matter only" thing. Here is why:

The one matter only philosophy is a theoretical 'perfect' scenario. It is only possible under perfect conditions. Some Alchemists did not have the capacity to employ this theoretically perfect experiment. Hence why some Alchemists used other, similar, methods, and eventually said 'its not just one matter' because those students of the Art, wernt just using one matter. They may have used two, or three, to make the work more accessible to themselves.

Take the Archaeus for example. We start with water, one thing. Then we introduce air, which putrifies the water and gives us Gurr. So out of supposedly 'one thing' we are actually employing multiple things. Some writing about the Archaeus in code could say "we start with one thing" but fail to mention that they introduce a second thing, air, which makes a third thing, gurr. And this is where, this continued debate will forever circle, because it is simply a matter of perspective as to what "One Matter" actually means.

Some people started with ONE thing; and then introduced other things. There is never any way to make the stone from one thing only EXCEPT under the ABSOLUTE perfect conditions; which for some is just too difficult to achieve (however; still possible IMO)

That is how the cookie crumbles. And it will forever continue crumbling in that very same way, never to be any different; because dispite all of our practical attempts, successes and failures; the hypothetical perfect Stone will always continue to exist IN THEORY; as is the nature of hermetisium.

theFool
08-09-2018, 09:41 PM
Take an herb such as Celandine (mentioned by Ripley and recommended by Hollandus) treat it as the Green Lyon in JDP's quote. Process it as Ripley outlines using only the matters you get from the distillation. See if that doesn't transform your opinion into your experience. In the distant past, I 've had experiences in destructive distillation of wood chips and some other matters (that's is why I have an opinion on this subject). I've seen at least two different matters producing a white smoke and the oil, but it was nothing inexplicable to chemistry. Those signs are very common it seems.

Now, in your case, if you distill herbs, they have a "woody" part. This part will give the white smoke and an oil as wood would do. Destructive distillation of wood is also a well studied theme by scientists. We can see here the products it gives (https://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Destructive+Distillation+of+Wood). Amongst them there is acetic acid and what Glauber was calling "wood acid" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyroligneous_acid). Those things can dissolve some metals but of course not in the way an alcemical solvent is suposed to do. So, I think you have not ruled out the possibility of those acids existing in your distillate. Besides, there could be other chemicals in there which dissolve the metals. From what you said, the concentrated distillate can dissolve steel and copper. I'm not surprised by steel, but the copper is usually difficult to dissolve in those acids (except maybe an oxidizer is added). Gold probably will not dissolve no matter how much you concentrate them. So, I think the most inexplicable observation you have is the dissolution of copper, but I wouldn't be surprised if chemistry finds out in the future that the combination of acids and the rest of wood distillate substances can attack this too.
Can you make the white fume and the oil from the ashes of the herbs alone? Well, that would be interesting.

Your experiments with soot seem much more promising to me!

Anyway, you could also set aside the critique and continue the normal course of the experiments. What you share openly here is a rare thing to see and I appreciate your efforts!

JDP
08-09-2018, 10:17 PM
Sorry, I didn't know you had to be apart of the ''official'' science organization to be considered a puffer, spagyrists, or a chemist.

Chymists and spagyrists were 16th-18th century scientists, and chemists still are. They recorded the results of their investigations clearly (except in the case of transmutational chymistry, for which they often employed methods to mislead the "unworthy" and make them waste their time and money, an attitude they obviously derived from the similar one of the alchemists.)


Not quite. I can look at that situation as the same thing that's happening today. People considering One Matter to be ''colourful philosophy'' without actually understanding the concept.

The "concept" is very clear: fool the "unworthy" by tricking them into believing that it is really "one thing only" (quantitatively) and don't explain to them in clear terms that this supposed "one thing" is in fact a COMPOSITE of several put together by the alchemist himself. There is nothing else to this. It is nothing but a dirty trick, no matter how many excuses the more honest alchemists try to make up for those members of their "tribe" who liberally used it, and which ended up costing legions of seekers a lot of pain and sorrow, since they never found any such "one matter" anywhere in a natural setting. And how could they, really? Nature itself DOES NOT MAKE THE STONE, so even if nature knew how to concoct this "matter" it would have no use for it. It doesn't take a rocket scientist, then, to easily predict that no one will ever find any such thing already made for their convenience "somewhere" outside of an alchemist's lab.


I guessing you don't think EVERY single book is alchemical I'm assuming, right? Then surely, the people who were considering One Matter to be a trap, I could argue that they were the same ones who didn't understand the approach themselves, just like how people TODAY even without actually attempting the One Matter approach, are saying it's a dead end!

Nice try, but when even such well-recognized authorities like Zosimos (quoted over and over and universally revered as a great authority on the subject by Alexandrian, Byzantine and Arabic alchemists for centuries) or "Theodorus Mundanus" (who even demonstrated the reality of the Stone to Dickinson and Boyle) clearly explain what the REAL meaning of this "one matter only" trap is, then you have to be on the alert not about what they explain, but about what the other lesser writers claim. Plus empirical reality is on their side too (for reasons already explained to you, but that you keep trying to brush aside), not on the "one matter only" pushers.


What makes those days different than today in regards to ''exposing One Matter ruse''?

Maybe because those days were the "golden age" of alchemy, while today the subject is widely misunderstood by the majority.


Investigation is one thing, but doing it correctly is another. I suppose we could ''investigate'' every single natural substance in hopes to create a new life form of some kind.. but certain life forms require suitable and strict environments in order to develop and then mature, and this is not just because of their extreme sensitivity in their ever-so fragile state.

Even the Emerald Tablet says to handle the matter ''gentle and with great ingenuity''.

I am talking about applying the same techniques of distillation that the alchemists employed on their "matter" (see the quoted example from one of Ripley's texts) but on single natural substances. The spagyrists, chymists and even chemists did that to death for centuries. They called that technique "analysis by fire", and they lifted it straight from the alchemists. No one ever found any such natural "one matter" that fully matches the descriptions of the alchemists, though.


In my opinion, lots of people have handled the matter in it's base state, but not knowing what it was, tossed it away, not knowing of its potential. Although, this is not one and the same as having ''found'' the matter, to have found something is to be able to identify that something you were looking for, so I agree to this extent, virtually no one has found the matter because they didn't know what it is that they were looking for, except probably a luminous bright red rock. The ones who DID find the matter kept silent, knowing it's great great potential :)

Again, the Stone doesn't give a hoot about what you think "it" is, not anymore than the Amazon river gave a hoot about what early explorers might have thought about it, yet nonetheless they discovered it. It is what it is, and it doesn't care what you think of it. You need to learn to distinguish between theories/speculation/conjectures and EMPIRICAL FACTS.


To each their own I guess... I thought Hermes and Paracelsus were quite the philosophers.

So were Plato and Aristotle, that doesn't mean they knew anything about making the Stone. Alchemy is not "philosophy", no matter how much most of its practitioners fancied themselves as such. It's an empirical science on which has been projected a series of theoretical beliefs in order to try to "explain" it and give it a supposedly more "dignified" character.

elixirmixer
08-10-2018, 12:17 AM
The one matter only saga, can arrise for multiple reasons. None of the Sages said that this one matter is some type of homogeneous substance did they?

If you consider that what they could be refering to as one matter, is in fact.... say.... 'light'... and that 'light' condenses into all matter.... you can see where im going with this.

'Spirit' is another example. ..

Lets have a look at 'The Golden Chain of Homer'. It talks about the impregnation of waters with 'fire' and that this fire through putrifaction becomes embodied and becomes nitre and salt, and then it speculates that nitre and salt reflux in the earth and becomes specified and become sulfur and arsenic respectively.

So, along this way of thinking, i could put sulfur and arsenic in a crucible, and some spiritually minded hypies could speculate that i was working with "One Matter" since their philosophies could revolve around the notion that these two substances actually come from One Matter aka 'Fire' or 'Spirit' or 'Light'.....

...... and because of this reason (that the philosophies of the time could speculate that all things are derived from the One Thing) this debate will truly and undoubtedly never find a finishing point. Because it is not necessarily that they were trying to trick us (even though some may have been) but that these philosophers actually believed they were working with ONE THING, as the Emerald Tablet suggests.

So whether you believe you can, or you believe you can't; ElixirMixer is right - Mr. Churchill

theFool
08-10-2018, 06:48 AM
Do you have an alternative proposition as to the origin of the Mercury of the Philosophers? I'd like to hear it. Here is some guessing (which of course can change in future): According to literature, the Mercury exists in almost every mineral and plant. Liberating it and capturing it pure is the riddle. Simply trying to distill it out from one matter will not do the trick. As JDP has mentioned, this process has already been tried on almost every known single matter by chemists. So, probably something must be mixed with the matter or other process performed. It would not be surprising to find it already premixed somewhere in nature but in general it is not found. Soot could be a good candidate. It is not natural but manmade.

Florius Frammel
08-10-2018, 06:59 AM
Soot resembles the look of pulverized antimony ore (or Antimony(III) Sulfide - Sb2S3) a lot.

JDP
08-10-2018, 10:31 AM
Here is some guessing (which of course can change in future): According to literature, the Mercury exists in almost every mineral and plant. Liberating it and capturing it pure is the riddle. Simply trying to distill it out from one matter will not do the trick. As JDP has mentioned, this process has already been tried on almost every known single matter by chemists. So, probably something must be mixed with the matter or other process performed. It would not be surprising to find it already premixed somewhere in nature but in general it is not found. Soot could be a good candidate. It is not natural but manmade.

Though soot is interesting, and technically an artificial substance (though it appeared to be made from "one matter" to people of older times, since they did not fully understand the role that our atmosphere plays in combustion; this was fully clarified by Lavoisier and his followers in the late 18th century), it has been well investigated by the 16th-18th century "chymists" and then later by the chemists. The first clear description of the "analysis by fire" of soot seems to be the one by the French chymist Blaise de Vigenere in his Discourse on Fire and Salt (late 16th century.) Here is a very brief description by John French of what is obtained from soot:

HOW TO MAKE AN OIL AND WATER OUT OF SOOT

This may be distilled per descensum or by retort as thus, viz., take of the best soot (which shines like jet) and fill with it a glass retort coated or earthen retort to the neck. Distill it with a strong fire by degrees into a large receiver, and there will come forth a yellowish spirit with a black oil which you may separate and digest.

So two basic products are obtained: a "yellowish spirit" (i.e. a "watery" liquid) and a "black oil". Now compare that to the descriptions of the distillation of the alchemists' "matter", like the ones found in Ripley's works, for example. Does it sound to you that they are a perfect match? It certainly does not! The "matter" of the alchemists when submitted to the same modus operandi gives several products/byproducts (it depends on the substances and manner of preparation used to make this "matter"):

1- A white water, spirit or oil
2- A red water, spirit or oil
3- A solid sublimate (usually described as being white in color)
4- A burning "spirit" (often compared to common spirit of wine, i.e. our alcohol)
5- A sediment/feces/caput-mortuum left behind in the distillation flask (most often described as being "black" or "dark".)

PS: the older alchemists often used methods by which the "waters/spirits/oils" were not separated and instead an apparently single "water" was obtained, which was then further operated upon to imbue it with the "sulphur/tincture/soul" of the "body", which would be the "hidden redness" inside the "white/silvery/milky water" (the texts of alchemists like Ibn Umail and al-Iraqi are full of interesting comments and information regarding these older methods.)

elixirmixer
08-10-2018, 02:08 PM
Putrifaction.

Putrifaction is "The Gate".

Putrifaction is your "Introduction to Alchemy".

Putrifaction IS the way that the.... (?)spirit (?) ... lets say... becomes available to the Alchemist.

Done.

Moving on........

Florius Frammel
08-10-2018, 03:10 PM
Though soot is interesting, and technically an artificial substance (though it appeared to be made from "one matter" to people of older times, since they did not fully understand the role that our atmosphere plays in combustion; this was fully clarified by Lavoisier and his followers in the late 18th century), it has been well investigated by the 16th-18th century "chymists" and then later by the chemists. The first clear description of the "analysis by fire" of soot seems to be the one by the French chymist Blaise de Vigenere in his Discourse on Fire and Salt (late 16th century.) Here is a very brief description by John French of what is obtained from soot:

HOW TO MAKE AN OIL AND WATER OUT OF SOOT

This may be distilled per descensum or by retort as thus, viz., take of the best soot (which shines like jet) and fill with it a glass retort coated or earthen retort to the neck. Distill it with a strong fire by degrees into a large receiver, and there will come forth a yellowish spirit with a black oil which you may separate and digest.

So two basic products are obtained: a "yellowish spirit" (i.e. a "watery" liquid) and a "black oil". Now compare that to the descriptions of the distillation of the alchemists' "matter", like the ones found in Ripley's works, for example. Does it sound to you that they are a perfect match? It certainly does not! The "matter" of the alchemists when submitted to the same modus operandi gives several products/byproducts (it depends on the substances and manner of preparation used to make this "matter"):

1- A white water, spirit or oil
2- A red water, spirit or oil
3- A solid sublimate (usually described as being white in color)
4- A burning "spirit" (often compared to common spirit of wine, i.e. our alcohol)
5- A sediment/feces/caput-mortuum left behind in the distillation flask (most often described as being "black" or "dark".)

PS: the older alchemists often used methods by which the "waters/spirits/oils" were not separated and instead an apparently single "water" was obtained, which was then further operated upon to imbue it with the "sulphur/tincture/soul" of the "body", which would be the "hidden redness" inside the "white/silvery/milky water" (the texts of alchemists like Ibn Umail and al-Iraqi are full of interesting comments and information regarding these older methods.)

Especially the older alchemists seemed to have dealt a lot with common mercury. The solid sublimate, white in color (your #3) therefore is most likely Mercury Chloride then.
Following this theory we already might have two components of the initial mixture: Common Mercury and common salt.

John of Rupescissa adds Roman Vitriol (Iron Sulfate) and Saltpeter in addition to those two matters above. Have you ever tried these?

JDP
08-10-2018, 04:38 PM
Especially the older alchemists seemed to have dealt a lot with common mercury. The solid sublimate, white in color (your #3) therefore is most likely Mercury Chloride then.
Following this theory we already might have two components of the initial mixture: Common Mercury and common salt.

John of Rupescissa adds Roman Vitriol (Iron Sulfate) and Saltpeter in addition to those two matters above. Have you ever tried these?

Such mixtures would give nitric and hydrochloric acids, plus whatever parts of mercury get combined with these and then sublimed.

Florius Frammel
08-10-2018, 04:46 PM
Such mixtures would give nitric and hydrochloric acids, plus whatever parts of mercury get combined with these and then sublimed.

With the obvious potential to dissolve gold with this aqua regia..

z0 K
08-10-2018, 04:52 PM
Though soot is interesting, and technically an artificial substance (though it appeared to be made from "one matter" to people of older times, since they did not fully understand the role that our atmosphere plays in combustion; this was fully clarified by Lavoisier and his followers in the late 18th century), it has been well investigated by the 16th-18th century "chymists" and then later by the chemists. The first clear description of the "analysis by fire" of soot seems to be the one by the French chymist Blaise de Vigenere in his Discourse on Fire and Salt (late 16th century.) Here is a very brief description by John French of what is obtained from soot:

HOW TO MAKE AN OIL AND WATER OUT OF SOOT

This may be distilled per descensum or by retort as thus, viz., take of the best soot (which shines like jet) and fill with it a glass retort coated or earthen retort to the neck. Distill it with a strong fire by degrees into a large receiver, and there will come forth a yellowish spirit with a black oil which you may separate and digest.

So two basic products are obtained: a "yellowish spirit" (i.e. a "watery" liquid) and a "black oil". Now compare that to the descriptions of the distillation of the alchemists' "matter", like the ones found in Ripley's works, for example. Does it sound to you that they are a perfect match? It certainly does not! The "matter" of the alchemists when submitted to the same modus operandi gives several products/byproducts (it depends on the substances and manner of preparation used to make this "matter"):

1- A white water, spirit or oil
2- A red water, spirit or oil
3- A solid sublimate (usually described as being white in color)
4- A burning "spirit" (often compared to common spirit of wine, i.e. our alcohol)
5- A sediment/feces/caput-mortuum left behind in the distillation flask (most often described as being "black" or "dark".)

PS: the older alchemists often used methods by which the "waters/spirits/oils" were not separated and instead an apparently single "water" was obtained, which was then further operated upon to imbue it with the "sulphur/tincture/soul" of the "body", which would be the "hidden redness" inside the "white/silvery/milky water" (the texts of alchemists like Ibn Umail and al-Iraqi are full of interesting comments and information regarding these older methods.)

Seems to me your general premise that all natural things of vegetable, animal and mineral origin have been investigated by the chymysts and chemists and they say nothing about finding Mercury of the Philosophers and such is merely your personal conclusion based upon your scholarly book reading assumptions. Case in point your example of John French and that terse description of soot distillation.

Seems like you prefer to believe French's description of what you get from soot over what I have reported and documented in photo and video. That's your choice for sure. However looks to me like he was describing a sloppy operation where the soot was heated too fast. That's just my opinion based upon what I have received from soot distillation using modern electric control of heating. I use a modified kiln controlled with Variac transformer. I can adjust the heat by single degrees and hold it there for days if necessary.

I love it when you use Ripley for an example. And no, Ripley's description of the Elements received does not look like a match with French's. Yet when distilled properly soot gives:

1. A white oily water (if you like that description instead of clear), pH 12, reeking of Armoniac. That oily water turns yellow, then a beautiful transparent red oil appears when the Fire in it is separated out and concentrated.

2. A solid sublimate white in color, Ripley's rime, Sal Armoniac

3. The "white" water is a powerful "burning spirit" for sure. It is the Spirit of Philosophical Wine that I work with whether I get if from soot or some other vegetable matter including a compost of garbage piled up in a corner as many used to have in their kitchens.

4. A black caput-mortuum that delivers a beautiful citrine fixed salt.

My opinion about many of those old chymists is not the same as yours. It is obvious to me that many of them were alchemists. I say this for one because as I said Bolnest lays out all the details to make the Secret Solvent in pieces some in the vegetable section, some in the animal section and some in the mineral section.

We've argued this before. You seem to think for some reason that an alchemist could not or would not work publically as a chymyst so as not to be associated with the plethora of puffers and frauds that were giving the Royal Art a bad name. Of course an alchemist working as a chymyst would be able to describe the products of various laboratory processes in detail yet never say anything about the alchemical Elements derived from them. That would be giving the Secret away to the common to the profane.

JDP
08-10-2018, 05:38 PM
Seems to me your general premise that all natural things of vegetable, animal and mineral origin have been investigated by the chymysts and chemists and they say nothing about finding Mercury of the Philosophers and such is merely your personal conclusion based upon your scholarly book reading assumptions. Case in point your example of John French and that terse description of soot distillation.

Seems like you prefer to believe French's description of what you get from soot over what I have reported and documented in photo and video. That's your choice for sure. However looks to me like he was describing a sloppy operation where the soot was heated too fast. That's just my opinion based upon what I have received from soot distillation using modern electric control of heating. I use a modified kiln controlled with Variac transformer. I can adjust the heat by single degrees and hold it there for days if necessary.

I love it when you use Ripley for an example. And no, Ripley's description of the Elements received does not look like a match with French's. Yet when distilled properly soot gives:

1. A white oily water (if you like that description instead of clear), pH 12, reeking of Armoniac. That oily water turns yellow, then a beautiful transparent red oil appears when the Fire in it is separated out and concentrated.

2. A solid sublimate white in color, Ripley's rime, Sal Armoniac

3. The "white" water is a powerful "burning spirit" for sure. It is the Spirit of Philosophical Wine that I work with whether I get if from soot or some other vegetable matter including a compost of garbage piled up in a corner as many used to have in their kitchens.

4. A black caput-mortuum that delivers a beautiful citrine fixed salt.

My opinion about many of those old chymists is not the same as yours. It is obvious to me that many of them were alchemists. I say this for one because as I said Bolnest lays out all the details to make the Secret Solvent in pieces some in the vegetable section, some in the animal section and some in the mineral section.

We've argued this before. You seem to think for some reason that an alchemist could not or would not work publically as a chymyst so as not to be associated with the plethora of puffers and frauds that were giving the Royal Art a bad name. Of course an alchemist working as a chymyst would be able to describe the products of various laboratory processes in detail yet never say anything about the alchemical Elements derived from them. That would be giving the Secret away to the common to the profane.

There are more detailed descriptions than those of French. Here is the referred to first clear description of the distillation of soot, by Blaise de Vigenere:

Take then the Soote of Chimney, but of that which shall mount highest in a very long Chimney pipe, and in the very top, where it must bee most subtill, thereof fill a great Cornue, or an Alembic two parts of three, then apply thereunto a great recipient, which you wrap about with linnen wet with fresh water. Give fire by small quantities, the water and the oil will distill together, although the water ought in order to issue out first. After that, all these two liquors shall passe through the Recipient, and when nothing else shall arise, increase your fire with faggot stickes well dryed, or other like, continuing it for 8 or 10 houres, so long that the earths which shall rest in the bottome bee well calcined: but for that they are in small quantity put to more Soote, and continue it as aforesaid, untill you have earth enough which you shall take out of the Alembic, which you shall put into a little earthen pot, of Parris, not smoothed, or in a little hollow pot. The water and oile, which you shall have distilled may be easily separated by a glasse fonnell, where the water will swimme above the oile: This done you shall rectify your water by Balneum Marić, by redistilling of it two or three times; for oile doth not mount by this degree of fire but by Sand; keepe them asunder upon the earths, that shall be calcined within the said pot or cruset, put their water thereon a little warme stirring it with a spit, so long till the Salt which shall therein bee revealed by the fires action, do totally dissolve it selfe into this Water; withdraw it by distillation, and the Salt shall bee left you in the bottome, of the nature of Salarmoniac, so that by pressing it, it will elevate it selfe. But of this more plainely hereafter in its owne place, when we shall speake of Salt. Of Earthes wee need not take much care, for wee must seeke for the best in the Ashes, as also fixed Salt. So by the meanes of Water, extracted out of ashes (we will here a little passe from Soote, a little better to declare the subject of Earthes.)

It is very similar to John French's more concise description, and it certainly does not match very well with the descriptions of the alchemists. I have never seen any such "analysis by fire" descriptions, and not just for soot but also for any single naturally occurring substance, that can be called a completely satisfactory match with the distillation of the "matter" of the alchemists.

theFool
08-10-2018, 05:39 PM
Seems like you prefer to believe French's description of what you get from soot over what I have reported and documented in photo and video. That's your choice for sure. However looks to me like he was describing a sloppy operation where the soot was heated too fast. I would like to add that John French's book resembles to me like a collection of anecdotal recipes of the time which probably he haven't tried them all to see with his own eyes. It is possible that the process of soot distilation is described oversimplified because the original recipe reached French's ear a bit "diluted". If he knew that soot is the prime matter, he would not devote only two lines to it.

z0 K
08-10-2018, 10:10 PM
There are more detailed descriptions than those of French. Here is the referred to first clear description of the distillation of soot, by Blaise de Vigenere:

Take then the Soote of Chimney, but of that which shall mount highest in a very long Chimney pipe, and in the very top, where it must bee most subtill, thereof fill a great Cornue, or an Alembic two parts of three, then apply thereunto a great recipient, which you wrap about with linnen wet with fresh water. Give fire by small quantities, the water and the oil will distill together, although the water ought in order to issue out first. After that, all these two liquors shall passe through the Recipient, and when nothing else shall arise, increase your fire with faggot stickes well dryed, or other like, continuing it for 8 or 10 houres, so long that the earths which shall rest in the bottome bee well calcined: but for that they are in small quantity put to more Soote, and continue it as aforesaid, untill you have earth enough which you shall take out of the Alembic, which you shall put into a little earthen pot, of Parris, not smoothed, or in a little hollow pot. The water and oile, which you shall have distilled may be easily separated by a glasse fonnell, where the water will swimme above the oile: This done you shall rectify your water by Balneum Marić, by redistilling of it two or three times; for oile doth not mount by this degree of fire but by Sand; keepe them asunder upon the earths, that shall be calcined within the said pot or cruset, put their water thereon a little warme stirring it with a spit, so long till the Salt which shall therein bee revealed by the fires action, do totally dissolve it selfe into this Water; withdraw it by distillation, and the Salt shall bee left you in the bottome, of the nature of Salarmoniac, so that by pressing it, it will elevate it selfe. But of this more plainely hereafter in its owne place, when we shall speake of Salt. Of Earthes wee need not take much care, for wee must seeke for the best in the Ashes, as also fixed Salt. So by the meanes of Water, extracted out of ashes (we will here a little passe from Soote, a little better to declare the subject of Earthes.)

It is very similar to John French's more concise description, and it certainly does not match very well with the descriptions of the alchemists. I have never seen any such "analysis by fire" descriptions, and not just for soot but also for any single naturally occurring substance, that can be called a completely satisfactory match with the distillation of the "matter" of the alchemists.

Yes I'm well aware of Blaise de Vigenere's work with Soote and JG Toeltius, Coelum Reseratum Chymicum as well.

The excerpt you provided from Vigenere certainly indicates that he was collecting the alchemical Elements from the destructive distillation of chimney soot. And what did he get:

1. a Water
2. an oil
3. Salarmoniac, Ripley's rime, Sal Armoniac
4. an Earth

First he separated the Water from the oil by funnel and then purified the water by BM distillation just as Hollandus teaches for the Vegetable work. Then he extracts the black Earth with the Water which Hollandus teaches in the Work of the Vine. Then he extracts the Salarmoniac as he calls it which is mixed in with the water soluble fixed salts. He then sublimes the Sal Armoniac from the fixed salts. Hollandus teaches the same operation. Sure looks to me like Blaise de Vigenerer was more alchemist than chymyst.

JDP
08-10-2018, 10:51 PM
Yes I'm well aware of Blaise de Vigenere's work with Soote and JG Toeltius, Coelum Reseratum Chymicum as well.

The excerpt you provided from Vigenere certainly indicates that he was collecting the alchemical Elements from the destructive distillation of chimney soot. And what did he get:

1. a Water
2. an oil
3. Salarmoniac, Ripley's rime, Sal Armoniac
4. an Earth

First he separated the Water from the oil by funnel and then purified the water by BM distillation just as Hollandus teaches for the Vegetable work. Then he extracts the black Earth with the Water which Hollandus teaches in the Work of the Vine. Then he extracts the Salarmoniac as he calls it which is mixed in with the water soluble fixed salts. He then sublimes the Sal Armoniac from the fixed salts. Hollandus teaches the same operation. Sure looks to me like Blaise de Vigenerer was more alchemist than chymyst.

I don't know about Hollandus and the dubious claims about the "Vegetable Stone" (if it doesn't transmute, then it is NOT any kind of alchemical "Stone" or "tincture"; maybe it was some sort of spagyric medicine), but I do know that it does not match the descriptions in a bunch of alchemy books, like those of Ripley, where the products/byproducts enumerated in my earlier post are all obtained IN THE SAME DISTILLATION OPERATION, not by further manipulations. Some of them can afterwards be separated by further operations, but the products/byproducts are all produced in the same operation, which if you do not change the receiver while they are being produced, obviously will end up mingling or gathering together (except the less volatile ones that might remain attached to other parts of the distilling apparatus.)

Also, the "oil" obtained by the distillation of the alchemical "Adrop", "Green Lion", "Sericon", "Azoquean Vitriol", etc. is red, not black.

Furthermore, the products/byproducts of soot also do not seem to have the exact same properties of the products/byproducts of the distillation of the alchemists' "matter".

Vigenere was a chymist, he did not know how to make the Stone. Like many of his "tribe", he also had a tendency of letting his imagination and enthusiasm run a bit wild. He makes many dubious claims and sees "great secrets" pretty much everywhere, even in very mundane and common operations, like such simple distillations of single substances.

elixirmixer
08-10-2018, 11:20 PM
The Hollandus 'Vegetable' stone does claim to transmute base metals into gold. I highly doubt it is actually a 'vegetable' stone. I believe the term vegetable, refers the the philosophers stone in its 'vegetative' state, the "Regimen of Venus"

Dragon's Tail
08-11-2018, 01:44 AM
He makes many dubious claims and sees "great secrets" pretty much everywhere, even in very mundane and common operations, like such simple distillations of single substances.


We should all be so lucky. A child peering into the sky for the first time sees far more than an adult trying to hide from a hot sun.

Kiorionis
08-11-2018, 02:49 AM
We should all be so lucky. A child peering into the sky for the first time sees far more than an adult trying to hide from a hot sun.

Well said :)

JDP
08-11-2018, 03:53 AM
We should all be so lucky. A child peering into the sky for the first time sees far more than an adult trying to hide from a hot sun.

Noble sentiments, but highly unrealistic. A child peering into the sky for the first time is mesmerized by the pretty scenery but doesn't have the faintest clue of what he is really looking at. An adult doesn't have that sense of wonder but actually knows what it is (unless he is an utter ignoramus.) One lives in a fantasy world, the other one lives in reality.

Which takes us back to the topic: many of the "wonders" some of these chymists were so fascinated with were really quite mundane and not any such "secrets". I find that in such cases the alchemists were more pragmatic and rejected such things as "sophistical & false", but at the same time they also had a tendency of denying just about everything regarding transmutation that did not have to do with alchemy and its methods. More than a few of the chymical transmutation processes that they labelled as "false" in fact actually work. It is the opposite side of the coin.

z0 K
08-11-2018, 06:38 PM
I don't know about Hollandus and the dubious claims about the "Vegetable Stone" (if it doesn't transmute, then it is NOT any kind of alchemical "Stone" or "tincture"; maybe it was some sort of spagyric medicine), but I do know that it does not match the descriptions in a bunch of alchemy books, like those of Ripley, where the products/byproducts enumerated in my earlier post are all obtained IN THE SAME DISTILLATION OPERATION, not by further manipulations. Some of them can afterwards be separated by further operations, but the products/byproducts are all produced in the same operation, which if you do not change the receiver while they are being produced, obviously will end up mingling or gathering together (except the less volatile ones that might remain attached to other parts of the distilling apparatus.)

Also, the "oil" obtained by the distillation of the alchemical "Adrop", "Green Lion", "Sericon", "Azoquean Vitriol", etc. is red, not black.

Furthermore, the products/byproducts of soot also do not seem to have the exact same properties of the products/byproducts of the distillation of the alchemists' "matter".

Vigenere was a chymist, he did not know how to make the Stone. Like many of his "tribe", he also had a tendency of letting his imagination and enthusiasm run a bit wild. He makes many dubious claims and sees "great secrets" pretty much everywhere, even in very mundane and common operations, like such simple distillations of single substances.

Wow! You don't know about Hollandus. And because of that his claims are dubious. You've apparently never read his Work of the Wine and prefer to embarrass yourself with pontifications. Who elected you the Pope of Alchemy to decide what alchemists "claims" are dubious? Your "opinions" are not facts. Citing text is no substitute for working them in the lab.

And another popish judgment from you: "Vigenere was a chymists, he did not know how to make the Stone." Did he tell you that that last time you saw him?

Then you judge him to be a member of some tribe. By your popish declaration he is demoted from alchemist down to chymist and then even lover in status worthy of little respect he is now to be the maker of many dubious claims.

I do believe you are engaged in Necromancing the Stone. You will never make the Philosophers Stone by belittling alchemists that don't see it your way.

JDP
08-11-2018, 06:56 PM
Wow! You don't know about Hollandus. And because of that his claims are dubious. You've apparently never read his Work of the Wine and prefer to embarrass yourself with pontifications. Who elected you the Pope of Alchemy to decide what alchemists "claims" are dubious? Your "opinions" are not facts. Citing text is no substitute for working them in the lab.

And another popish judgment from you: "Vigenere was a chymists, he did not know how to make the Stone." Did he tell you that that last time you saw him?

Then you judge him to be a member of some tribe. By your popish declaration he is demoted from alchemist down to chymist and then even lover in status worthy of little respect he is now to be the maker of many dubious claims.

I do believe you are engaged in Necromancing the Stone. You will never make the Philosophers Stone by belittling alchemists that don't see it your way.

I find Hollandus' works quite "peppered" with nonsense claims, but then again so are many other alchemical works. My judgement here was more based on YOUR statements about what you say you have been able to replicate by allegedly following his instructions. So, it was YOU who said that the "vegetable stone" you prepared by following him doesn't transmute. That by itself IMMEDIATELY DISQUALIFIES whatever is it that you have concocted as the "Stone" of the alchemists. And I don't need to explain why, anyone well acquainted with alchemical literature knows why. From the oldest surviving alchemical texts transmutation and the Stone go hand-in-hand. Any supposed "tincture" that does not transmute = NOT alchemical.

Vigenere never claims he was an "adept" and his work doesn't give the slightest impression that he actually knew how to prepare the Stone either. His style, ideas and claims are typical of those of the "chymists". The alchemists generally rejected anything that does not have to do with the secret solvent or "water" and the transmuting "tinctures" made with it. Vigenere does not fit into this mold at all. He quite clearly approvingly refers to several transmutation processes that have ZERO to do with the secret solvent and the Stone.

elixirmixer
08-11-2018, 09:40 PM
Hollandus' work is seriously encrypted. It would take some very thorough research imo to be able to crack the code of his works.

Do you, JDP, have some kind of deck-name decoding system for 'the five salts of the hand of philosophy'?

JDP
08-11-2018, 09:53 PM
Hollandus' work is seriously encrypted. It would take some very thorough research imo to be able to crack the code of his works.

Do you, JDP, have some kind of deck-name decoding system for 'the five salts of the hand of philosophy'?

It is difficult to say in this type of texts that give so many "recipes". It could be any of the following cases:

1- The author is just a poser, charlatan or speculator pretending to be an "adept" and is just talking nonsense, all of the processes he gives are false and can't produce any alchemical "tincture"

2- The author is a genuine alchemist and has purposefully inserted false processes amidst some real clues/hints of the genuine substances and processes used in alchemy

3- The author is a genuine alchemist and is actually giving genuine processes, but has withheld or "camouflaged" the "key" to make them work, viz. the secret solvent (this is in fact the opinion of Weidenfeld, who takes the processes in Hollandus' books quite literally, EXCEPT some of the key ingredients in them, like "vinegar" or "spirit of wine", for example, which are code-words for the secret solvent; if you attempt to replicate the processes without using this key substance and instead used the common substances known under such names, you will obviously fail)

Schmuldvich
08-12-2018, 12:10 AM
Putrifaction.

Putrifaction is "The Gate".

Putrifaction is your "Introduction to Alchemy".



Putrifaction IS the way that the.... (?)spirit (?) ... lets say... becomes available to the Alchemist.

Done.

Moving on........

Well said, Elixirmixer!

Sadly this post is being ignored.

Philalethes recognizes this as well...


https://i.imgur.com/yFWw4AL.jpg




I believe the term vegetable, refers the the philosophers stone in its 'vegetative' state

Also this!



We should not ignore these gems Elixirmixer is giving us!

Seraphim
08-12-2018, 04:01 PM
Thanks Elixirmixer and Schmuldvich. This quote by Morienus feels relevant. :)


When it has thus Putrefied and been cleansed, the whole operation is done, with the aid of Great God Most High.

Florius Frammel
08-15-2018, 07:32 PM
John French: HOW TO MAKE AN OIL AND WATER OUT OF SOOT

This may be distilled per descensum


Anyone really tried this almost forgotton method? I would be very interested to learn how to do this with soot!

z0 K
08-15-2018, 10:28 PM
Anyone really tried this almost forgotton method? I would be very interested to learn how to do this with soot!

That way is a lot of trouble with the mess of material (soot) clogging the barrel of the flask in the furnace building up pressure that will blow out the lute. That method will work best in a modified kiln with the reaction flask exit port being drilled into the bottom of the kiln. It is much better and less hassle to distill horizontally. The distillates exit the furnace out the barrel without any debris falling into the receiver. You cannot use descensum distillation with wet matter. I bought a second kiln with the idea to modify it for descensum distillation as well as for routine calcination.

When I started to work on retort designs for descensum there were a lot of technical problems I foresaw like how to keep the dry matter from falling down into the receiver. If the screen is fine enough to prevent material from falling through it will also clogg with soot and tar causing a smoky blowout.

I was able to get satisfactory results with soot distillation by inserting the mouth of 250mL flask into the mouth of a one gallon jug and heating the flask over a direct flame on a kitchen stove like this: Philosophers Spirit of Wine
(http://www.alchemylife.org/Pages/PhiloSpiritWine/PhiloSpiritWine.html)

Florius Frammel
08-16-2018, 05:52 AM
Thanks!

For liquids I think I read somewhere that they simply hanged a piece of cloth in it. The different components of a mixture soak in with different velocity. Under the cloth a bowl or flask is placed wherein the cloth is hanged to get the different fractions.

If I remeber correctly this method was as well called "distillation per descensum".

But as soot isn't liquid, French probably meant the other method you described. Would have been too easy. ;)

Concerning your last described experiment: Have you sealed your setup (the one with the 250ml flask in the mouth of an one gallon jug) hermetically/airtight?

theFool
08-16-2018, 08:15 AM
For liquids I think I read somewhere that they simply hanged a piece of cloth in it. The different components of a mixture soak in with different velocity. Under the cloth a bowl or flask is placed wherein the cloth is hanged to get the different fractions.

If I remeber correctly this method was as well called "distillation per descensum"
This is "distillation per filter" or something like that. (Here a description: http://www.alchemywebsite.com/lully_experiments.html )

z0 K
08-16-2018, 10:04 PM
Thanks!

For liquids I think I read somewhere that they simply hanged a piece of cloth in it. The different components of a mixture soak in with different velocity. Under the cloth a bowl or flask is placed wherein the cloth is hanged to get the different fractions.

If I remeber correctly this method was as well called "distillation per descensum".

But as soot isn't liquid, French probably meant the other method you described. Would have been too easy. ;)

Concerning your last described experiment: Have you sealed your setup (the one with the 250ml flask in the mouth of an one gallon jug) hermetically/airtight?

The flasks were wrapped with drywall paper tape to fill the gap between the jug mouths and the flask mouths making a tight seal so no vapors escaped. You have to rotate the flask when the vapors thin as direct heat of the gas stove burner heats the bottom of the flask hotter than the top.

JDP
08-17-2018, 12:01 AM
The flasks were wrapped with drywall paper tape to fill the gap between the jug mouths and the flask mouths making a tight seal so no vapors escaped. You have to rotate the flask when the vapors thin as direct heat of the gas stove burner heats the bottom of the flask hotter than the top.

Or you could just use a hand-held propane torch and heat the top of the flask whenever needed.

Florius Frammel
08-17-2018, 05:42 AM
The flasks were wrapped with drywall paper tape to fill the gap between the jug mouths and the flask mouths making a tight seal so no vapors escaped. You have to rotate the flask when the vapors thin as direct heat of the gas stove burner heats the bottom of the flask hotter than the top.

I guess you were using especially thick walled glassware right? Weren't you afraid of an explosion using tightly sealed setups when heating material that produce vapors when heated strongly?

Kiorionis
08-18-2018, 03:42 PM
You cannot use descensum distillation with wet matter. I bought a second kiln with the idea to modify it for descensum distillation as well as for routine calcination.

When I started to work on retort designs for descensum there were a lot of technical problems I foresaw like how to keep the dry matter from falling down into the receiver. If the screen is fine enough to prevent material from falling through it will also clogg with soot and tar causing a smoky blowout.

Perhaps a variation of this design will work better?

https://image.ibb.co/bGOG2e/7_C94_E80_F_2365_493_E_83_E2_7_EE6_DE1_B2270.jpg
-photo taken from Rasa Shastra by Andrew Mason

z0 K
08-18-2018, 04:46 PM
I guess you were using especially thick walled glassware right? Weren't you afraid of an explosion using tightly sealed setups when heating material that produce vapors when heated strongly?

No, just cheap borosilicate glass. The receivers are much larger than the reaction flasks and they are sitting in a dish of water to cool them helping prevent the pressure from rising. The paper seal is tight enough to keep the vapors in the receiver but will fail if pressure in the system becomes too great. Before that happens an observant operator will put a cold water soaked cloth on the receiver to cool it further.

z0 K
08-18-2018, 04:48 PM
Perhaps a variation of this design will work better?

https://image.ibb.co/bGOG2e/7_C94_E80_F_2365_493_E_83_E2_7_EE6_DE1_B2270.jpg
-photo taken from Rasa Shastra by Andrew Mason

Looks pretty complicated to make compared to a horizontal distillation train. I like to keep things as simple as possible.

Kiorionis
08-19-2018, 03:20 PM
Haha true. This setup is for the extraction of Mercury from Gold, however. It is probably a lot safer than a horizontal train when it comes to mercury fumes though.

But I agree, simplicity is much easier to deal with.

Seraphim
08-19-2018, 07:30 PM
Literally looks how the Sages describe. That's a lot of cow dung. :D

https://image.ibb.co/bNS0he/download.jpg