PDA

View Full Version : The Mineral Identification Key



True Initiate
06-06-2016, 08:09 PM
In search for the First Matter we are given clues by the masters but we are having difficulty discerning the true first matter. Adepts have described our matter as black, scaly, flaky, crumbly and lamellar like leaves of the book. Stibnite for example lacks all of the required properties.

Habit is the general appearance a mineral tends to have – whether it is found as blocky crystals, long slender ones, or aggregates of some type, etc. If the crystals are glassy but cubic in shape you know they aren’t quartz. If they are rounded like a soccer ball you know they aren’t tourmaline. And so on…

A mineral aggregate composed of scales or flakes may be described as:

Foliated – Looking like overlapping flakes or leaves and easily separable into individual leaves or flakes, usually at least somewhat "wavy" in appearance, such as the chlorite minerals.

Lamellar – Flat, platy, grains thicker than flakes or leaves, but overlapping like foliated, such as molybdenite.

Micaceous – Like foliated, but splits into very thin sheets, like the mica minerals.

A good place to start:

http://www.minsocam.org/msa/collectors_corner/id/mineral_id_keyi8.htm

True Initiate
06-06-2016, 08:22 PM
Fulcanelli writes of the first matter:

http://s33.postimg.org/udz6ia3t7/image.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/udz6ia3t7/)

This is our book of Nature:

http://s33.postimg.org/f9u9mwvyj/image.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/f9u9mwvyj/)

Stibnite for example belongs to the Bladed habit!

http://www.minsocam.org/msa/collectors_corner/id/display/bladed.htm

Galena belongs to the Cubic Habit!

Which shows clearly that Stibnite/Antimony and Galena are the wrong matters altogether!

Another good link for Mineral Habit study:

http://www.geo-logic.org/Minerology/Identifying%20Minerals/Habits%20-%20Forms.htm

True Initiate
06-06-2016, 10:38 PM
I hope in this thread we would be able to shake our old opinions and follow the clues given to us by old masters no matter where those clues lead us.

I have already found some strange stuff going on with a certain mineral that matches almost all of the clues cited by Fulcanelli. If you search for book-like or leaf-like minerals you will likely come across the Mica family of minerals.

This is a perfect representation of book like crystals:

http://s33.postimg.org/knc3jxdyj/Beryl_in_muscovite_micaceous_ca_bestpicturesof.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/knc3jxdyj/)

There are a dozen of Mica minerals but one of them is black called Biotite. From Wikipedia:

When biotite is found in large chunks, they are called “books” because it resembles a book with pages of many sheets.

From other page:

Single large plates or "books" of biotite can grow to considerable size and can make impressive mineral specimens. Weathered tiny crystals of biotite can appear golden yellow with a nice sparkle producing a "fool's Gold" that has fooled many.

If you type Black Mica in Google you will find hundreds of links to sites claiming that Black Mica possess miraculous healing powers?!

True Initiate
06-06-2016, 11:04 PM
Strange article about Black Mica:

Dr. Asao Shimanishi was charged with the task of finding a way to clean up radio-activate waste after the World War II disaster in Japan.

One day in 1968 he was sitting on a beach, admiring a tree growing out of a rock.

There was something very peculiar about this rock, because there was no visible nutrients surrounding it, he wondered how it could be surviving so naturally, he decided to study this rock it was growing out of.

The rock contained biotite, or 'Black Mica', a powerful combination of earth’s naturally occurring minerals, embedded in granite.

He worked with black mica for twenty years, and he discovered that when used in the proper way...
black mica on tree you can use these sulfate minerals to activate water's natural ability to cleanse itself of chemical and natural contaminants unlike anything else known to science... because this material contains a high concentration of ionic sulfate minerals... minerals which have magnetic properties.

True Initiate
06-06-2016, 11:52 PM
I am on a quest to uncover how the people in middle ages called Black Mica or at least what symbol they have used. On this site i found this article:
http://blog.world-mysteries.com/science/the-philosophers-stone-of-alchemy/

...and in the comments section somebody wrote:

Julie Mitchell says

July 18, 2012 at 5:06 pm

Nothing you are claiming here is true. The Stone of Life/Philopher’s Stone/Stone of the Third Eye/Stone of Wisdom is a reference to the Black Mica, the source of all life on this planet. Good job with the disinfo, or did you just not comprehend what the alchemy prophecies meant? I doubt that is the case, since I did an online search a month or two ago and the texts of the alchemy prophecies were readily available. Now there is nothing out there but this crap, which is all meant to deceive.

zoas23
06-07-2016, 01:21 AM
I am on a quest to uncover how the people in middle ages called Black Mica or at least what symbol they have used.

Use google and search for +Rulandus +Mica (without double C)...

You will find that several entries in his lexicon (published in 1612) contain references to Mica.

(I have the printed book, but the online version is more useful to find all the references). You can also use the online version and create a .doc or .pdf archive with the lexicon (copy & paste) and then with some patience use the search tool and find all the references.

This one is nice too: http://www.innergarden.org/en/dict/alchemya.html ... it's somehow a "rulandus" condensed and expanded.

True Initiate
06-07-2016, 01:50 AM
It is nice to see a proof that Black and White Mica were known at the time. I was hoping to see cross-bearing orb as a symbol for mica but hey, you never know!

zoas23
06-07-2016, 06:27 AM
It is nice to see a proof that Black and White Mica were known at the time. I was hoping to see cross-bearing orb as a symbol for mica but hey, you never know!

If you have been reading Rulandus, then you probably noticed the same thing I did (without using much of my brain)... He mentions Mica a lot and after the reference he quotes his source: the Natural History of Pliny ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_History_(Pliny) ). I'm trying to get a copy of the book in Spanish (the Natural History)... not really because of the Mica, but because I think it must be a fascinating book.

elixirmixer
06-08-2016, 07:47 AM
This is a cool thread. A few years ago now when I first started trying to decifer the stone, I was looking for all kind of minerals. I had a huge rock at my front door that I grabbed from Mt Crawford. It was black and flaky, with a golden sheen to it that made me think it had possible gold deposits. I only realised the other day while researching the nav2010 substance (which I have now effectionatly labeled the 'Nav Mundi') that it was black mica.

If only that rock wasn't 500km's away..

But yeah, any alchemist's in Adelaide, Australia, Mt Crawford has black mica. (it also has alot of alluvial gold, aquamarine and other gemstones)

elixirmixer
06-08-2016, 07:52 AM
Might be worth mentioning that if my memory serves me well (which it usually does not) black mica enjoys a good splash in the acetate path.

True Initiate
06-08-2016, 09:00 PM
This is a cool thread. A few years ago now when I first started trying to decifer the stone, I was looking for all kind of minerals.

I am sure there are other minerals besides Black Mica that could fit the descriptions of Fulcanelli but i am having trouble finding them. It is tough!

Awani
06-08-2016, 09:06 PM
...black, scaly, flaky, crumbly and lamellar like leaves of the book...

It can't be allegorically a mineral? Or is it literally a mineral? In your opinion.

Shit could fit the above... but I guess that is more "last" matter than "first".

:cool:

True Initiate
06-08-2016, 10:17 PM
My understanding is the closed book represents the raw mineral matter, straight out of the mine and the open book represents worked on mineral matter. In the end it is not important what i think but what Fulcanelli has written:

http://s33.postimg.org/pz0u1l4jv/image.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/pz0u1l4jv/)

True Initiate
06-11-2016, 09:06 AM
Oh, i forgot to add the other name for black mica is Glitter. I mean like "G" you know!

Kiorionis
06-11-2016, 06:10 PM
Another good thread, TI.
Here is a line of inquiry I have been following for the past while:

http://etc.usf.edu/clipart/61900/61954/61954_oxide_mangan_sm.gif
Black Oxide of Manganese (http://etc.usf.edu/clipart/galleries/1477-rocks).



There is a substance called the black oxide of manganese; it is a very black-looking mineral, but very useful, and when made red-hot it gives out oxygen. Here is an iron bottle which has had some of this substance put into it, and there is a tube fixed to it, and fire ready made, and Mr. Anderson will put that retort into the fire, for it is made of iron, and can stand the heat.

Text from The Chemical History of a Candle (http://hermes.ffn.ub.es/luisnavarro/nuevo_maletin/Faraday_1860_History_Candle.pdf) by Michael Faraday; Lecture IV, paragraph 10.

True Initiate
06-12-2016, 02:08 AM
From Wikipedia:

The origin of the name manganese is complex. In ancient times, two black minerals from Magnesia (located within modern Greece) were both called magnes from their place of origin, but were thought to differ in gender. The male magnes attracted iron, and was the iron ore now known as lodestone or magnetite, and which probably gave us the term magnet. The female magnes ore did not attract iron, but was used to decolorize glass. This feminine magnes was later called magnesia, known now in modern times as pyrolusite or manganese dioxide. Neither this mineral nor elemental manganese is magnetic. In the 16th century, manganese dioxide was called manganesum (note the two n's instead of one) by glassmakers, possibly as a corruption and concatenation of two words, since alchemists and glassmakers eventually had to differentiate a magnesia negra (the black ore) from magnesia alba (a white ore, also from Magnesia, also useful in glassmaking).

It is interesting that Iron was considered male and manganese was believed to be female iron. Makes sense if we are thinking about the Little King or Regulus but the problem is that Crystal Habit is not sheat-like like a book but more of radiating needle like nature similar to Stibnite.

Ghislain
06-12-2016, 08:33 PM
Mica and its use in the construction of Ancient Teotihuacan (http://www.ancient-code.com/mica-and-its-use-in-the-construction-of-ancient-teotihuacan/)

Ghislain

True Initiate
01-28-2018, 11:54 AM
More proof from Fulcanelli. This time from his "Dwellings of the Philosophers":

https://s14.postimg.org/v6xup1bkx/Unbenan.jpg (https://postimages.org/)

True Initiate
01-28-2018, 12:08 PM
Maybe this one?

https://s14.postimg.org/bdqssyz8h/Maybe.jpg (https://postimg.org/image/dib5u20v1/)

Schmuldvich
01-29-2018, 06:05 AM
Fulcanelli writes of the first matter:

http://s33.postimg.org/udz6ia3t7/image.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/udz6ia3t7/)

Where is this quote from? (It's not from "Dwellings Of The Philosophers", or if it is it is a different translation)

The only references to Epiphany in my version of "Dwellings Of The Philosophers" are as follows:

1: https://i.imgur.com/fzNefTt.png
2: https://i.imgur.com/Sr66KhK.png

True Initiate
01-29-2018, 06:18 AM
That one was from "Mysteries of the Cathedrals".

Florius Frammel
01-29-2018, 07:59 AM
Maybe this one?

https://s14.postimg.org/bdqssyz8h/Maybe.jpg (https://postimg.org/image/dib5u20v1/)

What kind of mineral is this? It indeed looks like a book.

Schmuldvich
01-29-2018, 08:02 AM
What kind of mineral is this? It indeed looks like a book.

I believe it is Zinnwaldite.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinnwaldite

True Initiate
01-29-2018, 09:10 AM
I think you are correct, i think this was it.
Of course i don't know exactly which mineral Fulcanelli had in mind but until now i found these to match Fulcanellis descriptions:

1. Graphite including Anthracite coal
2. Biotite or Black Mica
3. Muscovite
4. Zinnwaldite

Guys if you find other minerals that match Fulcanelli's description please share it in my thread.

True Initiate
01-29-2018, 09:17 AM
Look at this beauty. This is Muscovite with garnet intrusion.

https://s17.postimg.org/nzggjhhyn/cc6243-tourmaline-with-garnet-and-muscovite-pakistan-16-05-31-07.jpg (https://postimages.org/)

Again Muscovite books:

https://s17.postimg.org/jeua4fvnj/Muscovite_Mica_Substrates.jpg (https://postimages.org/)

JDP
01-29-2018, 01:44 PM
I think you are correct, i think this was it.
Of course i don't know exactly which mineral Fulcanelli had in mind but until now i found these to match Fulcanellis descriptions:

1. Graphite including Anthracite coal
2. Biotite or Black Mica
3. Muscovite
4. Zinnwaldite

Guys if you find other minerals that match Fulcanelli's description please share it in my thread.

Pyrrhotite can also crystallize in such "leafy" or laminar structures:

https://www.dakotamatrix.com/images/products/pyrrhotite31910a.jpg

There's a number of minerals that can form in such shapes.

Weidenfeld
01-29-2018, 01:52 PM
All so called layer silicates (clay earth) show similar properties or layers. Layer silicates stand for its own class of minerals.

Illen A. Cluf
01-29-2018, 08:19 PM
Look at this beauty. This is Muscovite with garnet intrusion.



Again, don't forget that is must be "very common", and "found everywhere".

Schmuldvich
01-29-2018, 08:37 PM
Again, don't forget that (Starting Matter) this must be "very common", and "found everywhere".

YES!!!

And also not a mineral(!!!)

Do we not know How To Read Alchemy Texts? (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?5465-How-To-Read-Alchemy-Texts)

Our Matter has the attributes and characteristics of a mineral but is not a mineral.

Illen A. Cluf
01-29-2018, 08:43 PM
Our Matter has the attributes and characteristics of a mineral but is not a mineral.

Or - a mineral in a very "confused" state.

Mineral

noun
1. any of a class of substances occurring in nature, usually comprising inorganic substances, as quartz or feldspar, of definite chemical composition and usually of definite crystal structure, but sometimes also including rocks formed by these substances as well as certain natural products of organic origin, as asphalt or coal.
2. a substance obtained by mining, as ore.
3. (loosely) any substance that is neither animal nor vegetable.

Actually, substances such as coal are sometimes considered NOT to be a mineral. Here's a better list of criteria:

To be a mineral a substance must meet five requirements:

1. naturally occurring (not made by humans)
2. inorganic (not produced by an organism)
3. solid
4. a limited range of chemical compositions
5. ordered atomic structure

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/mineral

Here's something interesting. Water is liquid, not solid, so it is not a mineral. BUT a snowflake is solid, is produced naturally, and meets all the criteria. So, guess what? It's a mineral!

See:
https://geology.com/articles/water-mineral/

True Initiate
01-29-2018, 09:22 PM
Yeah, i think Graphite and anthracite coal are the strongest contenders which is funny when you think that every alchemist in the past had a coal below his crucible and which was considered terra damnata, right under his nose. ;)

Golden Chain of Homer has a nice chapter about coal:

https://s10.postimg.org/ykh1n65xh/image.jpg (https://postimg.org/image/ykh1n65xh/)https://s10.postimg.org/swaqwa9at/image.jpg (https://postimg.org/image/swaqwa9at/)https://s10.postimg.org/6kcy2wpmd/image.jpg (https://postimg.org/image/6kcy2wpmd/)https://s10.postimg.org/55bde6w91/image.jpg (https://postimg.org/image/55bde6w91/)

https://s10.postimg.org/9eg3gck2t/image.jpg (https://postimg.org/image/9eg3gck2t/)

Andro
01-29-2018, 09:26 PM
Our Matter has the attributes and characteristics of a mineral but is not a mineral.

Do (for example) body fluids, like blood and urine, have the attributes and characteristics of a mineral?

Illen A. Cluf
01-29-2018, 09:35 PM
Do (for example) body fluids, like blood and urine, have the attributes and characteristics of a mineral?

Not at all. See criteria Number 3 above - it must be a solid to qualify as being a mineral.

z0 K
01-29-2018, 09:50 PM
Yeah, i think Graphite and anthracite coal are the strongest contenders which is funny when you think that every alchemist in the past had a coal below his crucible and which was considered terra damnata, right under his nose. ;)

Golden Chain of Homer has a nice chapter about coal:

https://s10.postimg.org/ykh1n65xh/image.jpg (https://postimg.org/image/ykh1n65xh/)https://s10.postimg.org/swaqwa9at/image.jpg (https://postimg.org/image/swaqwa9at/)https://s10.postimg.org/6kcy2wpmd/image.jpg (https://postimg.org/image/6kcy2wpmd/)https://s10.postimg.org/55bde6w91/image.jpg (https://postimg.org/image/55bde6w91/)

https://s10.postimg.org/9eg3gck2t/image.jpg (https://postimg.org/image/9eg3gck2t/)

You will have better results with bituminous and lignite coal and peat. That's what Fulcanelli et al played with.

Florius Frammel
01-29-2018, 09:53 PM
Or - a mineral in a very "confused" state.

Mineral

noun
1. any of a class of substances occurring in nature, usually comprising inorganic substances, as quartz or feldspar, of definite chemical composition and usually of definite crystal structure, but sometimes also including rocks formed by these substances as well as certain natural products of organic origin, as asphalt or coal.
2. a substance obtained by mining, as ore.
3. (loosely) any substance that is neither animal nor vegetable.

Actually, substances such as coal are sometimes considered NOT to be a mineral. Here's a better list of criteria:

To be a mineral a substance must meet five requirements:

1. naturally occurring (not made by humans)
2. inorganic (not produced by an organism)
3. solid
4. a limited range of chemical compositions
5. ordered atomic structure

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/mineral

Here's something interesting. Water is liquid, not solid, so it is not a mineral. BUT a snowflake is solid, is produced naturally, and meets all the criteria. So, guess what? It's a mineral!

See:
https://geology.com/articles/water-mineral/


You will have better results with bituminous and lignite coal and peat. That's what Fulcanelli et al played with.

What makes you so sure about this?

Schmuldvich
01-29-2018, 10:03 PM
https://s10.postimg.org/atho525qh/image.jpg
-

https://s10.postimg.org/cy2165f2x/image.jpg

-
https://s10.postimg.org/67ljwq7cp/image.jpg

-
https://s10.postimg.org/6x4c93fm1/image.jpg

-
https://s10.postimg.org/y7pnh033d/image.jpg

O you Alchemists! What are you doing?

This coal is what we work with! Faex means dregs. It is the fixed portion of our Matter.

Coal is "pure Sulphur or coagulated Oil". Look! It remains at the bottom of our flask.

When our Matter is prepared it is likened to a mineral due do its new characteristics and outward embodiment.

Without this necessary body our Work goes nowhere!





You will have better results with bituminous and lignite coal and peat. That's what Fulcanelli et al played with.

Listen to what z0 K is saying!

Grok (thanks Andro!) these words. z0 K is giving you clues!

https://i.imgur.com/nDMKR63.png


https://i.imgur.com/wNPfLBH.png


C'mon, Seekers! Can't you SEE! (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?5465-How-To-Read-Alchemy-Texts)

True Initiate
01-29-2018, 10:12 PM
Picture of coal mine. Does it look like a library?

https://s10.postimg.org/57zuekmnt/bitumen_coal.jpg (https://postimages.org/)

Schmuldvich
01-29-2018, 10:29 PM
Picture of coal mine. Does it look like a library?

https://s10.postimg.org/57zuekmnt/bitumen_coal.jpg (https://postimages.org/)

Fantastic picture!

It looks just like our prepared Matter after it has been mined!

True Initiate
01-29-2018, 10:41 PM
The raw matter before preparation also has the same foliated crystal habit!

JDP
01-29-2018, 10:49 PM
Not at all. See criteria Number 3 above - it must be a solid to qualify as being a mineral.

Number 3 is problematic because there are natural liquid substances that can't really be considered anything other than "mineral". Metallic mercury sometimes occurs in nature, and I don't think anyone will consider it "animal" or "vegetable" just because it is a liquid. Common water would also be quite difficult to be considered "animal" or "vegetable". Water existed before organic life. In fact, without it, organic life would likely have never evolved.

Illen A. Cluf
01-29-2018, 11:06 PM
Number 3 is problematic because there are natural liquid substances that can't really be considered anything other than "mineral". Metallic mercury sometimes occurs in nature, and I don't think anyone will consider it "animal" or "vegetable" just because it is a liquid. Common water would also be quite difficult to be considered "animal" or "vegetable". Water existed before organic life. In fact, without it, organic life would likely have never evolved.

As I said, water can be considered as a mineral when it is in a naturally solid state (ice or snow). As for mercury, that one is an oddball indeed. However it is never found naturally as a "pool". It only occurs as very small blobs on top of mercury ores such as cinnabar, where they are lodged in small crevices or pores. I don't make up the definitions - I'm just the messenger.

JDP
01-29-2018, 11:30 PM
As I said, water can be considered as a mineral when it is in a naturally solid state (ice or snow). As for mercury, that one is an oddball indeed. However it is never found naturally as a "pool". It only occurs as very small blobs on top of mercury ores such as cinnabar, where they are lodged in small crevices or pores. I don't make up the definitions - I'm just the messenger.

I know, but whoever made up that definition inserted a very questionable condition in number 3. Water and metallic mercury are liquid and they do not fit well in a "non-mineral" definition.

Florius Frammel
01-30-2018, 07:59 AM
Hi Schmuldvich!
My question was reffering to Fulcanelli. Z0 K was saying he and others played with coal. If I remember right your quote is from the Aurea Catena Homeri. I don't see a reason why "coal" should not be another decknamen like the many others.

Florius Frammel
01-30-2018, 08:06 AM
I know, but whoever made up that definition inserted a very questionable condition in number 3. Water and metallic mercury are liquid and they do not fit well in a "non-mineral" definition.

Those definitions came up much later in history and are therefore not very useful here in my opinion. For example potash is nowadays considered as a mineral / anorganic compound. In former times most people put it in the drawer labelled with "vegetable kingdom".

elixirmixer
01-30-2018, 09:17 AM
I found the prima materia today. I worked it out last night, cryed and prayed, and then got a headlamp, went searching in a deep underground mine, and found the solidified fire.

Thank God for answering my prayers and rewarding my boldness. (Deep cave shafts can be very scary) :)

I will dissolve this in Mercury and rectify it.

Then I shall have the Lapidum.

True Initiate
01-30-2018, 09:21 AM
Can you show us a picture of your prima materia before you dissolve it?

JDP
01-30-2018, 12:14 PM
Those definitions came up much later in history and are therefore not very useful here in my opinion. For example potash is nowadays considered as a mineral / anorganic compound. In former times most people put it in the drawer labelled with "vegetable kingdom".

That's because in those times potash was obtained almost exclusively from organic sources (like the ashes of plants.)

JDP
01-30-2018, 12:30 PM
Hi Schmuldvich!
My question was reffering to Fulcanelli. Z0 K was saying he and others played with coal. If I remember right your quote is from the Aurea Catena Homeri. I don't see a reason why "coal" should not be another decknamen like the many others.

I find that theory quite unlikely. Fulcanelli's very own descriptions of the procedures he employed show that he worked with a method that at one point involved relatively "violent" reactions that would have pretty much vaporized or destroyed the volatile and flammable products contained in coals. At least one of the substances that he employed was a bona fide mineral (meaning a metal-containing mineral, not an organic-derived matter like coal.)

Weidenfeld
01-30-2018, 12:56 PM
There is a German treatise entitled “Fontina Bernhardi Revelata” containing the following description of an interesting matter that could be found in nature:

http://digital.slub-dresden.de/werkansicht/dlf/50984/6/

(..) Discourse of a certain undetermined special subject, as a wonder magnet.
At all places and ends of our whole globe, that is within a fat and loamy ground that is fully impregnated by the fiery salt of nature, or the stars, and that’s why, it draws continuously from the air the salty balsam of life like a strong magnet, is born, influentia astrorum perpetua, a certain subject that owns the shape of potatos. Its colour is greenish grey, is hard like a rock and when it is smashed into pieces it is thoroughly interwoven with sparkling golden asterisks or veins. It is twofold, solar and lunar. That is, because of its solar nature, the right thing and has golden veins; the lunar part, as the female part, has white veins, like silver, however isn’t used. It has no name except that Theophrastus Paracelsus had it named the old Domogorgon; Actually it is the true Magnesia Saturni of the Philosophers with which the Mercurius universalis, or even the Lapis Philosophorum could be attained.
However it is very important to rightly recognize this subject otherwise one wouldn’t get the right one. Pyrite , minera vitrioli, minera martis solaris hassica or the so called Hassian Iron kidneys or ‘Hücken’ (there is no English word for it), which could be found at Allmenroda which is not far from Kassel and many other minerals the like resemble our subject almost in every detail, however aren’t by far: There is no person in the world who might be able to distinguish this subject from the others that resemble in shape - provided it will be revealed by a true friend. It might be examined as much as one wants, there isn’t within any metal although one would strongly expect that it might be full of solid gold due to its appearance; but there is nothing else than an alkaline, salty and mercurial Sulphur embryonatum.

True Initiate
01-30-2018, 01:15 PM
What is the literal translation of the terms Martian regulus? It is the Regulus of Iron!

JDP
01-30-2018, 02:09 PM
What is the literal translation of the terms Martian regulus? It is the Regulus of Iron!

I think you mean "Martial" regulus.

JDP
01-30-2018, 02:26 PM
There is a German treatise entitled “Fontina Bernhardi Revelata” containing the following description of an interesting matter that could be found in nature:

http://digital.slub-dresden.de/werkansicht/dlf/50984/6/

(..) Discourse of a certain undetermined special subject, as a wonder magnet.
At all places and ends of our whole globe, that is within a fat and loamy ground that is fully impregnated by the fiery salt of nature, or the stars, and that’s why, it draws continuously from the air the salty balsam of life like a strong magnet, is born, influentia astrorum perpetua, a certain subject that owns the shape of potatos. Its colour is greenish grey, is hard like a rock and when it is smashed into pieces it is thoroughly interwoven with sparkling golden asterisks or veins. It is twofold, solar and lunar. That is, because of its solar nature, the right thing and has golden veins; the lunar part, as the female part, has white veins, like silver, however isn’t used. It has no name except that Theophrastus Paracelsus had it named the old Domogorgon; Actually it is the true Magnesia Saturni of the Philosophers with which the Mercurius universalis, or even the Lapis Philosophorum could be attained.
However it is very important to rightly recognize this subject otherwise one wouldn’t get the right one. Pyrite , minera vitrioli, minera martis solaris hassica or the so called Hassian Iron kidneys or ‘Hücken’ (there is no English word for it), which could be found at Allmenroda which is not far from Kassel and many other minerals the like resemble our subject almost in every detail, however aren’t by far: There is no person in the world who might be able to distinguish this subject from the others that resemble in shape - provided it will be revealed by a true friend. It might be examined as much as one wants, there isn’t within any metal although one would strongly expect that it might be full of solid gold due to its appearance; but there is nothing else than an alkaline, salty and mercurial Sulphur embryonatum.

One should always be mistrustful of any sources that pretend to have found some strange "unspecified/undetermined" natural subtsance that mysteriously no one else has ever seen or described. Specially in this day and age. Such traps could still work on some of the less informed seekers even as late as the 18th century, but nowadays no one should fall for such an obvious ruse. There is virtually no naturally-occurring substance within man's reach that hasn't already been examined, analyzed and described by mineralogists, geologists, chemists, physicists, etc. Seeking some sort of "wonder matter" in nature that will hold the secret for making the Stone is a fairy tale and a wild-goose-chase. It does not exist already made anywhere. Man-made substances, on the other hand, is a whole different ball game... Each year a bunch of "new" (notice the quotation marks; who is to say that someone did not already know how to make some of these substances but kept it quiet so that he could take advantage of his discovery?) ones are discovered. Nature's "lab" is relatively limited in its output and is therefore very well explored. Man's is virtually limitless and is therefore almost impossible to be very well explored.

Florius Frammel
01-30-2018, 02:37 PM
There is a German treatise entitled “Fontina Bernhardi Revelata” containing the following description of an interesting matter that could be found in nature:

http://digital.slub-dresden.de/werkansicht/dlf/50984/6/

(..) Discourse of a certain undetermined special subject, as a wonder magnet.
At all places and ends of our whole globe, that is within a fat and loamy ground that is fully impregnated by the fiery salt of nature, or the stars, and that’s why, it draws continuously from the air the salty balsam of life like a strong magnet, is born, influentia astrorum perpetua, a certain subject that owns the shape of potatos. Its colour is greenish grey, is hard like a rock and when it is smashed into pieces it is thoroughly interwoven with sparkling golden asterisks or veins. It is twofold, solar and lunar. That is, because of its solar nature, the right thing and has golden veins; the lunar part, as the female part, has white veins, like silver, however isn’t used. It has no name except that Theophrastus Paracelsus had it named the old Domogorgon; Actually it is the true Magnesia Saturni of the Philosophers with which the Mercurius universalis, or even the Lapis Philosophorum could be attained.
However it is very important to rightly recognize this subject otherwise one wouldn’t get the right one. Pyrite , minera vitrioli, minera martis solaris hassica or the so called Hassian Iron kidneys or ‘Hücken’ (there is no English word for it), which could be found at Allmenroda which is not far from Kassel and many other minerals the like resemble our subject almost in every detail, however aren’t by far: There is no person in the world who might be able to distinguish this subject from the others that resemble in shape - provided it will be revealed by a true friend. It might be examined as much as one wants, there isn’t within any metal although one would strongly expect that it might be full of solid gold due to its appearance; but there is nothing else than an alkaline, salty and mercurial Sulphur embryonatum.

Interesting. So we are searching a mineral that looks like pyrite or an other iron containg mineral with properties like the nostoc and no one in the whole world can identify it as the real stuff. So that special pyrite should additionaly have other kind of minerals/elements/ions inside which would not be unusually but as there obviously is more than meets the eye, can only be detected in chemical reactions or treatments of either solving or heating. Either that, or common pyrite needs a very special treatment which no chymist or chemist came up with yet.

Weidenfeld
01-30-2018, 02:45 PM
One should always be mistrustful of any sources that pretend to have found some strange "unspecified/undetermined" natural subtsance that mysteriously no one else has ever seen or described. Specially in this day and age. Such traps could still work on some of the less informed seekers even as late as the 18th century, but nowadays no one should fall for such an obvious ruse. There is virtually no naturally-occurring substance within man's reach that hasn't already been examined, analyzed and described by mineralogists, geologists, chemists, physicists, etc. Seeking some sort of "wonder matter" in nature that will hold the secret for making the Stone is a fairy tale and a wild-goose-chase. It does not exist already made anywhere. Man-made substances, on the other hand, is a whole different ball game... Each year a bunch of "new" (notice the quotation marks; who is to say that someone did not already know how to make some of these substances but kept it quiet so that he could take advantage of his discovery?) ones are discovered. Nature's "lab" is relatively limited in its output and is therefore very well explored. Man's is virtually limitless and is therefore almost impossible to be very well explored.
Yes, that's exactly what I thougt when I stumbled upon this passage. My sole intention was to provide an example how such "remote matters" had been communicated to the reader. Actually there are many examples that describe in a similar way this kind of "one and all matters". For example I remember the author of the book "memorabilia bismuthi" who claimed to have found the matter in certain minerals mainly composed of bismuth.

Weidenfeld
01-30-2018, 02:51 PM
Interesting. So we are searching a mineral that looks like pyrite or an other iron containg mineral with properties like the nostoc and no one in the whole world can identify it as the real stuff. So that special pyrite should additionaly have other kind of minerals/elements/ions inside which would not be unusually but as there obviously is more than meets the eye, can only be detected in chemical reactions or treatments of either solving or heating. Either that, or common pyrite needs a very special treatment which no chymist or chemist came up with yet.
See post from JDP. Almost every author at that time (late 18th cent.) had his own initial subject. The author of the "13 secret letters" hinted to marcasite, others to manna etc.

Dragon's Tail
01-30-2018, 02:55 PM
Haven't seen anyone say it, though many are touching on it, this thing about being a "mineral"
Until fairly recently, taxonomy of naturalists divided everything into Animal, Mineral, or Vegetable.
ergo, anything that isn't an Animal or Vegetable or from same is a mineral in the mind of the ancients. Water, Air (depending on the time period and place), mud, sea salt, etc. Also it depends on where they found it. I don't think they knew much of the origins of hydrocarbons that we now take for granted. While peat is definitely "vegetable" in nature, the fossilized version may or may not have been seen as a derivative. Coal, definitely a mineral. There's likely to be some criss-cross and shady areas, like seashells, but not many. In a lot of ways, the ancient system was less confusing on the matter than modern definitions.

JDP
01-30-2018, 03:10 PM
Haven't seen anyone say it, though many are touching on it, this thing about being a "mineral"
Until fairly recently, taxonomy of naturalists divided everything into Animal, Mineral, or Vegetable.
ergo, anything that isn't an Animal or Vegetable or from same is a mineral in the mind of the ancients. Water, Air (depending on the time period and place), mud, sea salt, etc. Also it depends on where they found it. I don't think they knew much of the origins of hydrocarbons that we now take for granted. While peat is definitely "vegetable" in nature, the fossilized version may or may not have been seen as a derivative. Coal, definitely a mineral. There's likely to be some criss-cross and shady areas, like seashells, but not many. In a lot of ways, the ancient system was less confusing on the matter than modern definitions.

Coals are not really "mineral" either, they are also ultimately derived from organic remains (pure carbon, on the other hand, should be considered "mineral", as it predates organic life.) Some of the "old-timers" knew that such matters were not really "mineral". Weidenfeld (i.e. the 17th-18th century writer on alchemy, not our fellow forum poster), for example, clearly implies that things like coals and petroleum are often considered as products of the mineral kingdom but they are really of the same "nature" as those of the animal and vegetable kingdoms.

True Initiate
01-30-2018, 03:21 PM
What i am hoping to accomplish with this thread are precise observance of mineral habits as described by Fulcanelli and other masters. It doesn't have to be coal at all but it must be a flaky, foliated, layered mineral of black colour with unplesant smell and associated with letter "G".

The best match that i found are Graphite and Glitter (Black Mica).

Dragon's Tail
01-30-2018, 03:25 PM
Coals are not really "mineral" either, they are also ultimately derived from organic remains (pure carbon, on the other hand, should be considered "mineral", as it predates organic life.) Some of the "old-timers" knew that such matters were not really "mineral". Weidenfeld (i.e. the 17th-18th century writer on alchemy, not our fellow forum poster), for example, clearly implies that things like coals and petroleum are often considered as products of the mineral kingdom but they are really of the same "nature" as those of the animal and vegetable kingdoms.

I wonder how deep that rabbit hole goes though. Do you think the Arabs would have felt that way about coal (8th-9th century)? Maybe the differentiation is enough to throw a little extra confusion into the later texts, like a mineral from plant origins, or with a plant signature. Or conversely vegetables that disguise themselves as minerals. I dunno, just tossing that out there for the better read than I.

I will grant you that the similar products wrought from dry distillation may have been an indicator for them, so they definitely had reason to suspect that something was up with coal.

True Initiate
01-30-2018, 03:30 PM
Don't forget that in ancient times Graphite was confused with Galena and Stibnite.

Dragon's Tail
01-30-2018, 03:37 PM
Don't forget that in ancient times Graphite was confused with Galena and Stibnite.

That's another good point True Initiate. So the question, my question which I ponder often, how far back must we go to find the people that first created the stone? There's references to gold-making in China between 200BC to 200AD, Geber is considered by many to be an adept in 8th century middle-east. Before 2000BC the Egyptians were importing goal from down river in seemingly massive quantities, or so the story goes. Then there is of course the Emerald tablet. It seems to me that the most ancient source of genuine gold making, and our knowledge about those time periods, could uncover quite a lot about both the process and the prima. Much will be occulted, as ancient people didn't exactly write everything down that they knew about, but there might be some more clues buried in archaeological digs that weren't considered in the European texts that are so often referred to.

JDP
01-30-2018, 03:45 PM
I wonder how deep that rabbit hole goes though. Do you think the Arabs would have felt that way about coal (8th-9th century)? Maybe the differentiation is enough to throw a little extra confusion into the later texts, like a mineral from plant origins, or with a plant signature. Or conversely vegetables that disguise themselves as minerals. I dunno, just tossing that out there for the better read than I.

I will grant you that the similar products wrought from dry distillation may have been an indicator for them, so they definitely had reason to suspect that something was up with coal.

The Arabs were well-acquainted with such things as naphtha, tars, coals and the like, but I can't remember right now how they classified them. Will have to look it up (al-Razi made a systematic classification of natural substances, so he probably had a place for these substances in his scheme.)

Yes, distillation was a pretty obvious giveaway that these "minerals" were really more like animal and vegetable matters than true minerals, which do not give off such flammable liquid byproducts (incidentally, the above mentioned al-Razi was one of the first writers to describe the distillation of naphtha.)

True Initiate
01-30-2018, 03:54 PM
According to alchemists Adam was the first artist! So it goes back all the way it seems.

Julius Ruska made a nice translation of Al-Razi:

http://juliusruska.digilibrary.de/q220/q220.html

English version:
http://juliusruska.digilibrary.de/q220/q220.e_transl_taylor/q220.e_transl_taylor.pdf

Dragon's Tail
01-30-2018, 08:46 PM
Thanks so much for the links. I just reached the discussion of this text on the wiki when I clicked back over here. Turns out he was credited with a LOT during the Calliphate. It also mentions several times his inability to produce gold from copper and iron, at least publicly. He seems like someone who should be looked up to. Free treatment for all and better received by his peers than some later authors like Paracelsus. I was about to ask if anyone had links to his work. Excellent!

Doesn't say much about his classifications of the natural world, but there's a long list of how discretely he broke up minerals into different classes. Since it's relevant to this thread, I'm copying it here from the wiki page.




Razi classified minerals into six divisions:

1. Four spirits (AL-ARWAH) : mercury, sal ammoniac, sulfur, and arsenic sulphide (orpiment and realgar).
2. Seven bodies (AL-AJSAD) : silver, gold, copper, iron, black lead (plumbago), zinc (Kharsind), and tin.
3. Thirteen stones : (AL-AHJAR) Pyrites marcasite (marqashita), magnesia, malachite, tutty Zinc oxide (tutiya), talcum, lapis lazuli, gypsum, azurite, magnesia, haematite (iron oxide), arsenic oxide, mica and asbestos and glass (then identified as made of sand and alkali of which the transparent crystal Damascene is considered the best),
4. Seven vitriols (AL-ZAJAT) : alum (al-shabb الشب), and white (qalqadis القلقديس), black, red (suri السوري), and yellow (qulqutar القلقطار) vitriols (the impure sulfates of iron, copper, etc.), green (qalqand القلقند).
5. Seven borates : natron, and impure sodium borate.
6. Eleven salts (AL-AMLAH): including brine, common (table) salt, ashes, naphtha, live lime, and urine, rock, and sea salts. Then he separately defines and describes each of these substances, the best forms and colours of each, and the qualities of various adulterations.

Razi gives also a list of apparatus used in alchemy. This consists of 2 classes:

Instruments used for the dissolving and melting of metals such as the Blacksmith's hearth, bellows, crucible, thongs (tongue or ladle), macerator, stirring rod, cutter, grinder (pestle), file, shears, descensory and semi-cylindrical iron mould.
Utensils used to carry out the process of transmutation and various parts of the distilling apparatus: the retort, alembic, shallow iron pan, potters kiln and blowers, large oven, cylindrical stove, glass cups, flasks, phials, beakers, glass funnel, crucible, alundel, heating lamps, mortar, cauldron, hair-cloth, sand- and water-bath, sieve, flat stone mortar and chafing-dish.



Included in his list:
Mercury, Glass, Ashes, Urine, Salt(common and sea-salt)
Coal isn't on the list, and ashes come from coals, so ... maybe not considered.

True Initiate
01-30-2018, 08:59 PM
Here lies the crux of the problem:

2. Seven bodies (AL-AJSAD) : silver, gold, copper, iron, black lead (plumbago), zinc (Kharsind), and tin.

From Wikipedia on Graphite:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphite

Historically, graphite was called black lead or plumbago. Plumbago was commonly used in its massive mineral form. Both of these names arise from confusion with the similar-appearing lead ores, particularly galena. The Latin word for lead, plumbum, gave its name to the English term for this grey metallic-sheened mineral and even to the leadworts or plumbagos, plants with flowers that resemble this colour.

The term black lead usually refers to a powdered or processed graphite, matte black in color.

Lead pencils never contained any lead but the people who made them thought differently.
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/11/why-pencil-lead-is-called-lead/

JDP
01-30-2018, 10:13 PM
Here lies the crux of the problem:

2. Seven bodies (AL-AJSAD) : silver, gold, copper, iron, black lead (plumbago), zinc (Kharsind), and tin.

From Wikipedia on Graphite:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphite

Historically, graphite was called black lead or plumbago. Plumbago was commonly used in its massive mineral form. Both of these names arise from confusion with the similar-appearing lead ores, particularly galena. The Latin word for lead, plumbum, gave its name to the English term for this grey metallic-sheened mineral and even to the leadworts or plumbagos, plants with flowers that resemble this colour.

The term black lead usually refers to a powdered or processed graphite, matte black in color.

Lead pencils never contained any lead but the people who made them thought differently.
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/11/why-pencil-lead-is-called-lead/

No, that was much later usage of that expression. In the context of metallic bodies, to the Latins and Arabs "black lead" was just metallic lead, while "white lead" was metallic tin. The reason for this terminology is based on the fact that these two metals have some similarities, like their softness and low melting points, which made them to be associated with one another, but one key difference between them that served to distinguish them is that lead easily tarnishes (i.e. it becomes of a dark, dull gray color, thus why the "black" appellation) on exposure to the atmosphere while tin remains bright and silvery (thus the "white" appellation.)

elixirmixer
01-30-2018, 11:12 PM
Can you show us a picture of your prima materia before you dissolve it?

I'm having uploading issues ATM however I will see if I can pop down to the library and upload a picture for you guys.

Turns out that Jesus Christ's birth represents the Prima Materia.

Its all there in the "Christmas" symbolism.

I'm very luck to be living in a place called "The LimeStone Coast" and there are over 1000 caves in my area so it didn't take long to find some, and I was given help from someone who knew where to find what I was looking for.

Had to treck the caves myself though, something very cool about "Entering the inner Earth"

Florius Frammel
02-11-2018, 10:33 PM
No, that was much later usage of that expression. In the context of metallic bodies, to the Latins and Arabs "black lead" was just metallic lead, while "white lead" was metallic tin. The reason for this terminology is based on the fact that these two metals have some similarities, like their softness and low melting points, which made them to be associated with one another, but one key difference between them that served to distinguish them is that lead easily tarnishes (i.e. it becomes of a dark, dull gray color, thus why the "black" appellation) on exposure to the atmosphere while tin remains bright and silvery (thus the "white" appellation.)

Actually there also is a third lead called grey lead, plumbum cinereum or bismuth.

True Initiate
02-11-2018, 10:55 PM
Even Uraninite, formerly called pitchblende was mistaken for galena.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uraninite

Uraninite used to be known as pitchblende (from pitch, because of its black color, and blende, a term used by German miners to denote minerals whose density suggested metal content, but whose exploitation, at the time they were named, was either unknown, impossible or not economically feasible). The mineral has been known at least since the 15th century from silver mines in the Ore Mountains, on the German/Czech border.

Saturn/Lead is truly cursed metal by the Gods

JDP
02-11-2018, 11:07 PM
Actually there also is a third lead called grey lead, plumbum cinereum or bismuth.

Yes, but that came later. The ancients did not seem to know bismuth, or at least they did not distinguish it from tin.

elixirmixer
02-12-2018, 01:53 AM
Uranium's final form after complete radioactive breakdown is lead, according to my uni lecturer.

Florius Frammel
02-12-2018, 06:58 AM
Yes, but that came later. The ancients did not seem to know bismuth, or at least they did not distinguish it from tin.

Maybe, but it's not what for example Glauber thought. He believed the parable of the prodigal son is about lead (father) and tin and bismuth (his two sons).

JDP
02-12-2018, 03:50 PM
Maybe, but it's not what for example Glauber thought. He believed the parable of the prodigal son is about lead (father) and tin and bismuth (his two sons).

But Glauber lived in the mid 17th century, by those times bismuth had already been identified as a separate metallic or maybe semi-metallic (due to its brittleness) body. And miners' notions about it being some sort of "bastard" production of lead and/or tin on its way to becoming silver were still lingering around from the previous century.

Florius Frammel
02-12-2018, 04:00 PM
But only because they did not have a name for it that is known to us today doesn't mean it could not had been used. It was definately there and maybe it has a decknamen or is some kind of lead or galena or anything that only adepts can recognize (for example by methods of density examinations) and others confuse.

JDP
02-12-2018, 04:31 PM
But only because they did not have a name for it that is known to us today doesn't mean it could not had been used. It was definately there and maybe it has a decknamen or is some kind of lead or galena or anything that only adepts can recognize (for example by methods of density examinations) and others confuse.

That older generations obviously must have stumbled upon bismuth seems certain (they had also stumbled upon metallic antimony, which they also confused as lead, or some "kind of" lead, or a "bastard" of this metal) the problem is that they did not quite recognize that it was a distinct metal/semi-metal, not some sort of "byproduct", or "species", or "bastard" of lead or tin. One of the first authors who seems to recognize bismuth as a separate metal (but still somehow related to lead & tin, occupying an "intermediate" position between the two) was the 16th century German mineralogist and metallurgist, Georg Bauer. He put the ancient notion that there are only 7 metals into question by in fact using bismuth as an example of an 8th metal.

Florius Frammel
02-12-2018, 04:42 PM
That older generations obviously must have stumbled upon bismuth seems certain (they had also stumbled upon metallic antimony, which they also confused as lead, or some "kind of" lead, or a "bastard" of this metal) the problem is that they did not quite recognize that it was a distinct metal/semi-metal, not some sort of "byproduct", or "species", or "bastard" of lead or tin. One of the first authors who seems to recognize bismuth as a separate metal (but still somehow related to lead & tin, occupying an "intermediate" position between the two) was the 16th century German mineralogist and metallurgist, Georg Bauer. He put the ancient notion that there are only 7 metals into question by in fact using bismuth as an example of an 8th metal.

If that is really the case with ancient alchemists, then they could as well be fooled (themselves) with well made brass-like gold imitations.

JDP
02-12-2018, 05:27 PM
If that is really the case with ancient alchemists, then they could as well be fooled (themselves) with well made brass-like gold imitations.

Not likely. Such alloys are easily distinguished from gold. They tarnish with time and oxidize by simple calcination, while gold doesn't; they are lighter (i.e. less dense), harder & less malleable than gold; they do not resist cupellation, cementation, fusion with sulphur/pyrites or exposure to "sharp" vapors (like vinegar vapors), while gold does (all these tests were already known since ancient times. In the Middle Ages the discovery of the mineral acids would make it even easier than it already was to distinguish gold from imitation alloys.) It is very easy to tell gold apart from all other metals. Silver is a bit "trickier" to distinguish from some imitation alloys, but still pretty easy to do so, certainly within the knowledge of the ancients to do so.

Bismuth was confusing because it is easily fusible, looks sort of like tin, but at the same time it can be used for cupelling, just like lead. To the mind of the ancients and even up to the people of the 16th century it was a bit of a challenge to more clearly distinguish bismuth from lead or tin.

Florius Frammel
02-12-2018, 05:37 PM
Archimedes' principle is known since a very long time. Specialists like the sages should have easily distinguished it from lead and tin.