PDA

View Full Version : Vinegar toil



Axismundi000
09-01-2017, 08:31 AM
One thing I have discovered over the last 9 months is the sheer quantity of wine-vinegar production required. I make a barrel load of wine 25-28 litres and 4 months later it is vinegar. Double freeze then filter I get about 5 litres but it isn't that strong. So the quantity of acetate produced is low. It would take years to make sizeable amounts of acetate unless I did 5-10 barrels of vinegar each time which for the average household is not practical. It seems to me that only the owner of a vineyard can realistically adopt the acetate approach and take it all the way to the stone.

Using an air bubbler in the barrel can speed up vinegar production however the sheer volume of wine to vinegar to freezing and then the step of sweating or vacuum distilling to get high conc acetic acid. The scale of production is on the level of a small business venture.

The fact that nobody on this forum has ever pointed out this issue; the sheer scale of required volumes, suggests few of if any here have ever started practically investigating this approach.

JDP
09-01-2017, 10:39 AM
One thing I have discovered over the last 9 months is the sheer quantity of wine-vinegar production required. I make a barrel load of wine 25-28 litres and 4 months later it is vinegar. Double freeze then filter I get about 5 litres but it isn't that strong. So the quantity of acetate produced is low. It would take years to make sizeable amounts of acetate unless I did 5-10 barrels of vinegar each time which for the average household is not practical. It seems to me that only the owner of a vineyard can realistically adopt the acetate approach and take it all the way to the stone.

Using an air bubbler in the barrel can speed up vinegar production however the sheer volume of wine to vinegar to freezing and then the step of sweating or vacuum distilling to get high conc acetic acid. The scale of production is on the level of a small business venture.

The fact that nobody on this forum has ever pointed out this issue; the sheer scale of required volumes, suggests few of if any here have ever started practically investigating this approach.

The reason why nobody points it out is because I don't think anyone who has tinkered with acetates feels that such huge quantities of them are needed. You can work with smaller sample sizes (and you still will eventually realize that you can't make the Stone or the secret solvent by working with them alone.) Plus since there is no difference between working with home-made vinegar and vinegars or acetic acid already conveniently prepared and/or concentrated for you by a well-established large-scale industry, no one that I know of is inclined to take the trouble of producing their own vinegar from scratch.

black
09-01-2017, 10:45 AM
Hi Axis

I'm just wondering what you use all this wine vinegar for ?

Axismundi000
09-01-2017, 11:46 AM
The reason why nobody points it out is because I don't think anyone who has tinkered with acetates feels that such huge quantities of them are needed. You can work with smaller sample sizes (and you still will eventually realize that you can't make the Stone or the secret solvent by working with them alone.) Plus since there is no difference between working with home-made vinegar and vinegars or acetic acid already conveniently prepared and/or concentrated for you by a well-established large-scale industry, no one that I know of is inclined to take the trouble of producing their own vinegar from scratch.

A telling comment, why on earth would I go to such trouble as brewing my own wine, fermenting my own vinegar and vacuum distilling it below 90c. Or I could even buy metal acetate and not bother with any of the above. I'm focussing on practical issues of vinegar making and the 'spiritual' reasons for doing so which you do not believe in anyway JDP. So I'm not going to go deeply into when a vinegar has philosophical characteristic and when these are lacking. I agree with Dubuis theory of vegetable life, you may choose to now criticise this JDP, understand I do not care what you think about that. I wonder if people on this forum have only tried acetate work with commercial acetates or purchased acetic acid which is why they have never encountered this issue of sheer volume of vinegar required to be made. Also in my opinion without a vinegar that has a philosophical nature to to how it is made, it is small wonder that little Alchemical progress is achieved.

I appreciate your practical observations JDP my feeling is you do get your hands dirty in the lab. I have to admit I seem to be forming a general prejudice here that in the vernacular a number of posters are 'bullshitters' and do very little meaningful actual practical Alchemical research. For example not understanding the scale required to make sufficient vinegar. If this was realised and people felt it was unnecessary, that you can just buy it why has this not been previously mentioned? Because some people basically don't do much apart from talk about Alchemy books so they haven't investigated and wouldn't know?

Axismundi000
09-01-2017, 11:50 AM
Hi Axis

I'm just wondering what you use all this wine vinegar for ?

I use the acetic acid of vinegar to react with a mineral carbonate or oxide to form a metal acetate. I mention briefly in the post to JDP why I think it is necessary to have correctly made vinegar rather than just buying glacial acetic acid or a metal acetate from a commercial supplier.

The essence of my post initial is that it isn't really practical unless you have a vineyard or own a brewing business and can set aside a section for vinegar making.

black
09-01-2017, 12:26 PM
I use the acetic acid of vinegar to react with a mineral carbonate or oxide to form a metal acetate. I mention briefly in the post to JDP why I think it is necessary to have correctly made vinegar rather than just buying glacial acetic acid or a metal acetate from a commercial supplier.

The essence of my post initial is that it isn't really practical unless you have a vineyard or own a brewing business and can set aside a section for vinegar making.

I spent many years working with the mineral / metallic acetates.
Initially I just used glacial acetic acid and with each experiment
only about 30 to 50 ml each time.

You can do a lot of work in the lab with several liters.
All good experience.

As for the Philosophical Vinegar ....I think Basil Valentine writes
about it a bit in his Triumphal Chariot of Antimony.

It's always a good read....there's always something new to find
each time.

Axismundi000
09-01-2017, 12:55 PM
Did you make your own 'natural' vinegar Black? Shop bought or purchased glacial acetic acid makes an acetate no problem, but it lacks what could be called a philosophical nature. It's good to hear about your practical experiences.

Luxus
09-01-2017, 12:57 PM
One thing I have discovered over the last 9 months is the sheer quantity of wine-vinegar production required. I make a barrel load of wine 25-28 litres and 4 months later it is vinegar. Double freeze then filter I get about 5 litres but it isn't that strong. So the quantity of acetate produced is low. It would take years to make sizeable amounts of acetate unless I did 5-10 barrels of vinegar each time which for the average household is not practical. It seems to me that only the owner of a vineyard can realistically adopt the acetate approach and take it all the way to the stone.

Using an air bubbler in the barrel can speed up vinegar production however the sheer volume of wine to vinegar to freezing and then the step of sweating or vacuum distilling to get high conc acetic acid. The scale of production is on the level of a small business venture.

The fact that nobody on this forum has ever pointed out this issue; the sheer scale of required volumes, suggests few of if any here have ever started practically investigating this approach.

You are trying to make the vinegar of the sages, the secret solvent ?

So what is your process?

If I were trying to make wine vinegar I would start with wine then dilute it so the alcohol concentration wouldn't be too strong to kill the bacteria. Then I would add a culture of the bacteria and consider using a heating belt set at whatever temp is optimal for these bacteria, oh and I would probably use an air stone too...good idea!

black
09-01-2017, 01:26 PM
Did you make your own 'natural' vinegar Black? Shop bought or purchased glacial acetic acid makes an acetate no problem, but it lacks what could be called a philosophical nature. It's good to hear about your practical experiences.

The glacial acetic acid I used was purchased from a chemical supply store.

I think you may be onto something when you say a Philosophic Nature.

If you have read The Triumphal Chariot....you may recall Dr Kirkringus commenting
on Basils Spirit of Wine and then offering his own special ....(KM) menstrum.

If this is the case with the Spirit of Wine it may also ring true for the Vinegar ?

Dragon's Tail
09-01-2017, 01:30 PM
I've tinkered with strengthening vinegar, via a fractioned freezing process, but freezing alone will only get you to 50-60% most likely, so to make half a gallon of that requires 10 gallons or more. One "use" of it while making might be to add thermal mass to your deep freezer.

I only used store-bought white vinegar, and after screwing around with it for a while, I dropped a couple pennies in there and left it on my desk. Some copper acetate is just another member of my little curio collection now, and it looks cool in a lab. You're right in saying that it's quite a process, and paired with the curing time of wine it is a ton of trouble. Do you grow your own grapes too?

Axismundi000
09-01-2017, 04:28 PM
You are trying to make the vinegar of the sages, the secret solvent ?

So what is your process?

If I were trying to make wine vinegar I would start with wine then dilute it so the alcohol concentration wouldn't be too strong to kill the bacteria. Then I would add a culture of the bacteria and consider using a heating belt set at whatever temp is optimal for these bacteria, oh and I would probably use an air stone too...good idea!

I'm just making natural vinegar because I think commercially obtainable vinegar will lack a subtle energy which is needed in Alchemy. I have a vinegar mother from the previous batch and I leave a little vinegar behind. I put in some wine to half fill the container which is open to the air. About 2 weeks later I top it up with more wine so there is always an element of alcohol dilution and vinegar already present.

After 4 months decant barrel and double freeze the vinegar then filter the final 5 litres or so that is collected. This can be vacuum distilled or used as is, the quantity of vinegar derived from 12 initial wine making demijohns filled to 2/3 is small. So unless I multiply this whole operation by 5-10 times and take over my whole house with these it will take a few years. Practically not feasable and presumably nobody here on this forum has encountered this issue so apart from playing about with acetates a bit nobody has really embarked on this particular work?

Axismundi000
09-01-2017, 04:30 PM
I've tinkered with strengthening vinegar, via a fractioned freezing process, but freezing alone will only get you to 50-60% most likely, so to make half a gallon of that requires 10 gallons or more. One "use" of it while making might be to add thermal mass to your deep freezer.

I only used store-bought white vinegar, and after screwing around with it for a while, I dropped a couple pennies in there and left it on my desk. Some copper acetate is just another member of my little curio collection now, and it looks cool in a lab. You're right in saying that it's quite a process, and paired with the curing time of wine it is a ton of trouble. Do you grow your own grapes too?

I live in Wales which is not a grape growing region so I purchase them as cheaply as possible in bulk amounts when I'm going to do a batch.

Axismundi000
09-01-2017, 04:35 PM
The glacial acetic acid I used was purchased from a chemical supply store.

I think you may be onto something when you say a Philosophic Nature.

If you have read The Triumphal Chariot....you may recall Dr Kirkringus commenting
on Basils Spirit of Wine and then offering his own special ....(KM) menstrum.

If this is the case with the Spirit of Wine it may also ring true for the Vinegar ?

I make Kerkrings menstruum for various uses. I shall take another look at the text thank you for your observations black.

Luxus
09-01-2017, 05:13 PM
I'm just making natural vinegar because I think commercially obtainable vinegar will lack a subtle energy which is needed in Alchemy. I have a vinegar mother from the previous batch and I leave a little vinegar behind. I put in some wine to half fill the container which is open to the air. About 2 weeks later I top it up with more wine so there is always an element of alcohol dilution and vinegar already present.

After 4 months decant barrel and double freeze the vinegar then filter the final 5 litres or so that is collected. This can be vacuum distilled or used as is, the quantity of vinegar derived from 12 initial wine making demijohns filled to 2/3 is small. So unless I multiply this whole operation by 5-10 times and take over my whole house with these it will take a few years. Practically not feasable and presumably nobody here on this forum has encountered this issue so apart from playing about with acetates a bit nobody has really embarked on this particular work?

Have you tried adding an aquarium heater to speed-up the growth of the bacteria?

If you are perplexed why others on this forum are not producing huge quantity's of wine vinegar its because some believe alchemy has absolutely nothing to do with or utilise wine vinegar in anyway, therefore they would have no interest in making it.

I have heard there are some people who make wine vinegar and think they can use it to dissolve gold, they have thought this due to misunderstanding the wording of some writers who talk about their vinegar or sharp vinegar.

Schmuldvich
09-01-2017, 05:32 PM
If you are perplexed why others on this forum are not producing huge quantity's of wine vinegar its because some believe alchemy has absolutely nothing to do with or utilise wine vinegar in anyway, therefore they would have no interest in making it.

I have heard there are some people who make wine vinegar and think they can use it to dissolve gold, they have thought this due to misunderstanding the wording of some writers who talk about their vinegar or sharp vinegar.

Quoted for truth. So many people here realize that the Sages were not writing openly and used many of their words metaphorically. I have a feeling Axis is one of these people.

Remember, our Art is like making wine, similar to making wine, but not the same as or actually having anything to do with actually making wine.









"Medulla Alchymiae" by George Ripley, 1476

(This Work is not to be done all at once, but by little and little at a time, till it goes through with it in the Color of Blood; then will it precipitate into a Red Pouder, called by the Philosophers Sericon: Dissolve it with as much of Our Vegetable Sal Anatron, the space of an hour, then set it in balneo, in a long Receptory, till it be cleanly dissolved, and becomes as it were a fine Wine, which with the very softest heat, make it to Evaporate, and Congeal, so will you have a pure Stone, and of subtil parts.

Axismundi000
09-01-2017, 05:54 PM
Have you tried adding an aquarium heater to speed-up the growth of the bacteria?

If you are perplexed why others on this forum are not producing huge quantity's of wine vinegar its because some believe alchemy has absolutely nothing to do with or utilise wine vinegar in anyway, therefore they would have no interest in making it.

I have heard there are some people who make wine vinegar and think they can use it to dissolve gold, they have thought this due to misunderstanding the wording of some writers who talk about their vinegar or sharp vinegar.

Already mentioned air bubblers I decided not to go into heat vs mildew growth. Doubtless there are some who are not looking at acetates it is after all only one approach. However I notice a number of threads on acetate work on this forum and a number of posters here on this thread have played around with commercial vinegars and acetic acids. Therefore your suggestion that people are not interested in this acetate Alchemy work is clearly not correct, there is clearly a degree of interest and I suspect you know this already. The fact that hardly anyone has mentioned the scale of vinegar production required means that few if any have got around to trying it with anything apart from commercial stuff otherwise it would have been mentioned previously wouldn't it? This is either because they have found another approach but all such researchers decided not to mention it on the forum (unlikely acetate was mentioned after all). Alternatively it's because the Lab work is a bit sparse for diverse reasons e.g. Raising a family, work commitments, lack of lab space and gear etc etc.

As for what you have heard people believe, that has no relevance, beliefs are legion, it is what people are prepared to show that can be checked that is relevant.

Dragon's Tail
09-01-2017, 05:55 PM
I'm just making natural vinegar because I think commercially obtainable vinegar will lack a subtle energy which is needed in Alchemy. I have a vinegar mother from the previous batch and I leave a little vinegar behind. I put in some wine to half fill the container which is open to the air. About 2 weeks later I top it up with more wine so there is always an element of alcohol dilution and vinegar already present.

After 4 months decant barrel and double freeze the vinegar then filter the final 5 litres or so that is collected. This can be vacuum distilled or used as is, the quantity of vinegar derived from 12 initial wine making demijohns filled to 2/3 is small. So unless I multiply this whole operation by 5-10 times and take over my whole house with these it will take a few years. Practically not feasable and presumably nobody here on this forum has encountered this issue so apart from playing about with acetates a bit nobody has really embarked on this particular work?

Not sure that I follow exactly how you are multiplying the procedure, but when you freeze distil, you can still capture more. You can take the secondary fractions, and rework both of them over and over. I.e. take the less concentrated and freeze distill again, and add the pure to the pure already collected. Unless you rectify the process several times, it's (my opinion) useless to toss it in a still. You need to go for at least 50% concentration so that the distillation temperatures are separated as much as possible. You can test concentration by pH.

Again, not sure of your multiplication process, so you might/probably already know this, but I thought it might be helpful to point out for the thread.

Axismundi000
09-01-2017, 06:06 PM
Quoted for truth. So many people here realize that the Sages were not writing openly and used many of their words metaphorically.

I have a feeling Axis is one of these people.

The sages write many things that are indeed metaphorical. We are talking here simply about making vinegar and how it needs to be made as naturally as possible in my view. But you need a lot and nobody before me has mentioned this. Therefore I conclude Schmuldvich that you are nothing more than an armchair Alchemists I mean if you read 4 Alchemical books a day and then meditate as you have mentioned previously how could you be anything else? The number of stoners I have met in my life who just talk utter bollocks like this 'the sages'. But hey I could be completely wrong Schmuldvich you really could be a totally enlightened Alchemist I guess I will never know.

Luxus
09-01-2017, 06:16 PM
Already mentioned air bubblers I decided not to go into heat vs mildew growth. Doubtless there are some who are not looking at acetates it is after all only one approach. However I notice a number of threads on acetate work on this forum and a number of posters here on this thread have played around with commercial vinegars and acetic acids. Therefore your suggestion that people are not interested in this acetate Alchemy work is clearly not correct, there is clearly a degree of interest and I suspect you know this already. The fact that hardly anyone has mentioned the scale of vinegar production required means that few if any have got around to trying it with anything apart from commercial stuff otherwise it would have been mentioned previously wouldn't it? This is either because they have found another approach but all such researchers decided not to mention it on the forum (unlikely acetate was mentioned after all). Alternatively it's because the Lab work is a bit sparse for diverse reasons e.g. Raising a family, work commitments, lack of lab space and gear etc etc.

As for what you have heard people believe, that has no relevance, beliefs are legion, it is what people are prepared to show that can be checked that is relevant.

Yes I am aware there are people working with vinegar, actually read someone describing it as the wet path earlier today. It is all good in the end anyway as long as the product is useful to you in some way.

Axismundi000
09-01-2017, 06:22 PM
I'm not sure I get what you mean Dragon's Tail. Once my barrel of wine (it's a 25ltr plastic thing) has soured to vinegar I fill plastic bottles 2/3 crush them down to allow for ice expansion and put them in the freezer. Once they are frozen after say a week I think, i open the bottle lid and turn upside down into a container so that the vinegar drains out leaving behind water-ice. This drain off is put in more plastic bottles in the same way as before and put in the freezer again, after a week it is drained off in the same way as before. If I bottle this drain off liquid and re-freeze it the liquid will not freeze. Are you saying the ice left behind in previous bottles should be thawed, re-frozen and do another drainoff to catch any residual vinegar left behind. It's possible a little could be gained but not much I think. If you were talking about distillation I vacuum distil (below 90C) with a vigreaux column so the vinegar and water separates in one distillation run so I do not have several partial fractions that need re-distilling.


As shown on first post of this thread:
http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?5131-Vinegar-distillation

Schmuldvich
09-01-2017, 06:37 PM
The sages write many things that are indeed metaphorical. We are talking here simply about making vinegar and how it needs to be made as naturally as possible in my view. But you need a lot and nobody before me has mentioned this.

Therefore I conclude Schmuldvich that you are nothing more than an armchair Alchemists I mean if you read 4 Alchemical books a day and then meditate as you have mentioned previously how could you be anything else? The number of stoners I have met in my life who just talk utter bollocks like this 'the sages'. But hey I could be completely wrong Schmuldvich you really could be a totally enlightened Alchemist I guess I will never know.

Ha! I am not an Alchemist.

Do you think you are an Alchemist?

Very few people on this site are worthy of such a title; z0 K is one of the few here who has a decent understanding and solid foundation of what he does in the lab and still I would not call him an Alchemist---a skilled spagyricist maybe.

More than anyone here z0 K has shared his work and graciously explained his labwork, albeit he is closed off to questions and will not even respond privately (which leads me to believe he does not have things 100% figured out, but certainly is on the right track).

I am not enlightened, nor am I a Sage. I simply have a better understanding of Alchemy than most members on this website still wandering through the labyrinth lost as a bat. I appreciate all who share their words and works on this website including you. Axis, you are one of the most reliable posters here; you do not bullshit and your posts are based in fact, practical experience, and not just theory.

This is commendable and it is always a pleasure to read what you have to say. Your tone is funny and I love seeing you get all worked up and defensive (it's amusing). All of your posts have a point, you are keen to converse and answer questions, and you never talk out of your ass like so many members here do.

I find your discovery of the amount of wine required to make vinegar enlightening and very practical. Thank you for sharing!

Axismundi000
09-01-2017, 06:49 PM
Ha! I am not an Alchemist.

Do you think you are an Alchemist?

Very few people on this site are worthy of such a title; z0 K is one of the few here who has a decent understanding and solid foundation of what he does in the lab and still I would not call him an Alchemist---a skilled spagyricist maybe.

More than anyone here z0 K has shared his work and graciously explained his labwork, albeit he is closed off to questions and will not even respond privately (which leads me to believe he does not have things 100% figured out, but certainly is on the right track).

I am not enlightened, nor am I a Sage. I simply have a better understanding of Alchemy than most members on this website still wandering through the labyrinth lost as a bat. I appreciate all who share their words and works on this website including you. Axis, you are one of the most reliable posters here; you do not bullshit and your posts are based in fact, practical experience, and not just theory.

This is commendable and it is always a pleasure to read what you have to say. Your tone is funny and I love seeing you get all worked up and defensive (it's amusing). All of your posts have a point, you are keen to converse and answer questions, and you never talk out of your ass like so many members here do.

I find your discovery of the amount of wine required to make vinegar enlightening and very practical. Thank you for sharing!

So you are basically saying you are a troll Schmuldvich :- "Your tone is funny and I love seeing you get all worked up and defensive (it's amusing)."

People like you are part of the online ecology Schmuldvich, the only thing that 'works me up' as you put it is that if I were younger I could have been drawn in by your self assured arrogance and mistakenly believed you knew something. Snake oil sellers and false sages are a hazard and it is an inconvenient chore, even a duty to contend with such as you from time to time. It's a feeling similar to the necessity of cleaning the toilet occasionally, odious but not really a thing to get worked up about.

JDP
09-01-2017, 07:16 PM
A telling comment, why on earth would I go to such trouble as brewing my own wine, fermenting my own vinegar and vacuum distilling it below 90c. Or I could even buy metal acetate and not bother with any of the above. I'm focussing on practical issues of vinegar making and the 'spiritual' reasons for doing so which you do not believe in anyway JDP. So I'm not going to go deeply into when a vinegar has philosophical characteristic and when these are lacking. I agree with Dubuis theory of vegetable life, you may choose to now criticise this JDP, understand I do not care what you think about that. I wonder if people on this forum have only tried acetate work with commercial acetates or purchased acetic acid which is why they have never encountered this issue of sheer volume of vinegar required to be made. Also in my opinion without a vinegar that has a philosophical nature to to how it is made, it is small wonder that little Alchemical progress is achieved.

I appreciate your practical observations JDP my feeling is you do get your hands dirty in the lab. I have to admit I seem to be forming a general prejudice here that in the vernacular a number of posters are 'bullshitters' and do very little meaningful actual practical Alchemical research. For example not understanding the scale required to make sufficient vinegar. If this was realised and people felt it was unnecessary, that you can just buy it why has this not been previously mentioned? Because some people basically don't do much apart from talk about Alchemy books so they haven't investigated and wouldn't know?

This idea that you are entertaining has also been held by others ("Rubellus Petrinus", for example) and it has led them nowhere. No matter how "old fashioned" a way they prepare their vinegars, "aqua fortises", saltpeters, reguli of antimony, etc. the end result is always the same: failure. That's because these substances that they think will somehow make the Stone are just the wrong substances, that simple. It has nothing to do with how you obtain them. That is not going to make any important difference. As I recommended to you in other threads, you can learn a lot from other people's mistakes, and save yourself a lot of time and expenditure. People who think that they must make things from scratch the "old fashioned" way in order for alchemy to work have overlooked a fundamental flaw in their theory: the countless seekers who kept failing over and over, and again and again in past centuries in fact worked with those "old fashioned" prepared products, and they still kept on failing. What makes you think that you will have better success than them? When an ancient, medieval or early modern "puffer" who was trying to make the Stone by dissolving metals in vinegar made his frustrated attempts he was not working with our modern acetic acid, he was working with vinegar made the "old fashioned" way. It did not make the slightest difference. They totally failed to achieve what the alchemists describe. That is not because they were working with a common vinegar prepared "the wrong way", it is because they working on the wrong solvent in the first place. Vinegar will not do anything "radical" to metals, not matter how you prepare it. It is NOT the secret solvent of alchemy. No matter how you prepare it, it will not do the "trick". Common vinegar is just common vinegar, no matter if prepared in the old or modern ways.

Schmuldvich
09-01-2017, 07:31 PM
This idea that you are entertaining has also been held by others ("Rubellus Petrinus", for example) and it has led them nowhere. No matter how "old fashioned" a way they prepare their vinegars, "aqua fortises", saltpeters, reguli of antimony, etc. the end result is always the same: failure. That's because these substances that they think will somehow make the Stone are just the wrong substances, that simple. It has nothing to do with how you obtain them. That is not going to make any important difference.

As I recommended to you in other threads, you can learn a lot from other people's mistakes, and save yourself a lot of time and expenditure. People who think that they must make things from scratch the "old fashioned" way in order for alchemy to work have overlooked a fundamental flaw in their theory: the countless seekers who kept failing over and over, and again and again in past centuries in fact worked with those "old fashioned" prepared products, and they still kept on failing.

What makes you think that you will have better success than them? When an ancient, medieval or early modern "puffer" who was trying to make the Stone by dissolving metals in vinegar made his frustrated attempts he was not working with our modern acetic acid, he was working with vinegar made the "old fashioned" way. It did not make the slightest difference. They totally failed to achieve what the alchemists describe. That is not because they were working with a common vinegar prepared "the wrong way", it is because they working on the wrong solvent in the first place.

Vinegar will not do anything "radical" to metals, not matter how you prepare it. It is NOT the secret solvent of alchemy. No matter how you prepare it, it will not do the "trick". Common vinegar is just common vinegar, no matter if prepared in the old or modern ways.

Do you still not yet realize that the Ancients spoke esoterically and interpreting their words literally is foolish, Axis?

Are you not to this point yet?

...Working with vinegar will teach you a lot about chemistry, and you will get more familiar with labwork and your glassware, but it will get you nowhere with Alchemy.

Is understanding Alchemy your main goal?



So you are basically saying you are a troll Schmuldvich :- "Your tone is funny and I love seeing you get all worked up and defensive (it's amusing)."
You misunderstand my words.

My goal is never to work you up (or anyone else for that matter). In threads, such as the "Evocation" thread, you got all in a huff and super defensive when Warmheart was warming elixirmixer's heart with his warm heartfelt words that you did not agree with. Another example is in the post before this one where you chose to type the paragraph about 'cleaning the toilet'. Your tone is amusing, your attitude is funny, yet your posts are valuable. I'll take that over someone talking out of their ass any day!

Axismundi000
09-01-2017, 07:34 PM
I appreciate your comments JDP and I think you mean well. I do not think vinegar is the 'secret solvent' I think it is vinegar and it can form acetate with mineral oxides and carbonates especially.

A similar problem arose on the Spagyric menstruum thread also. I think some posters decide I mean a thing based on what they have a view of; even though I haven't written anything like what they suggest I am meaning. On the Spagyric menstruum thread the view was that I thought Alcohol was the special Alchemical menstruum when in fact I was talking in terms of basic openly defined Spagyrics and not Alchemy at all. To repeat: I do not think vinegar is some special Alchemical solvent I think it is vinegar. As I have clearly indicated I am testing out Dubuis theory of vegetable life which may or may not be valid and this is completely different to the preconceptions posters have and then attach to me even though I have not indicated anything like these preconceptions. In psychological terms it could be said that these various muppets are projecting which would explain why they say a thing about my views that is not found in what I have written.

So you could be right JDP but I have not seen online or in published form empirical evidence about this vegetable life idea, so I must check for myself. I discover that the quantities and volumes involved are quite high and this has never been mentioned so I wonder if anyone here has a clue about this apart from small scale tests with purchased vinegar etc which would not work if Dubuis theory is correct.

Dragon's Tail
09-01-2017, 07:37 PM
hmm. I haven't tried vacuum distillation (still thinking about how to pull a vacuum without breaking anything and on a tight budget).

But yes, capture the residual vinegar from the ice. There is still a lot of product in there. Your distillation method might be better with mine, does it produce glacial?

If I were to do it today, I would freeze no less than five bottles, pour off and fill a fifth, then melt and refreeze the ice, and repeat at least once, maybe twice. Then take the bottles of the follow-up refreezes and do the same procedure as the first, and add the liquid portion from this step back to the original freezings. I would then refreeze and repeat the whole process with the collected acetic. This will get it pretty pure without putting anything in a retort or distillation setup. Water and vinegar don't separate very easily. Glacial must be over 90% if I recall correctly, maybe 95%, and this is possible in the lab, but it requires a good bit of labor and lots of repeated steps. I haven't produced glacial yet, but if I were going to go through the trouble again, I would want as efficient a process as possible, playing into what you said about the need to collect so much. Why not waste as little as possible?

Axismundi000
09-01-2017, 07:52 PM
I appreciate your suggestion Dragon's Tail I will give it a try when my next barrel load is ready see if it increases yield appreciably.

Yes I get above 90% vinegar conc certainly, the vinegar is left behind, I let the system cool, equalise pressure empty receiving flask, remove vigreaux column then vacuum distil across the vinegar leaving sediment behind temp again below 90C to fit with Dubuis vegetable life theory.

Axismundi000
09-01-2017, 07:57 PM
Do you still not yet realize that the Ancients spoke esoterically and interpreting their words literally is foolish, Axis?

Are you not to this point yet?

...Working with vinegar will teach you a lot about chemistry, and you will get more familiar with labwork and your glassware, but it will get you nowhere with Alchemy.

Is understanding Alchemy your main goal?



You misunderstand my words.

My goal is never to work you up (or anyone else for that matter). In threads, such as the "Evocation" thread, you got all in a huff and super defensive when Warmheart was warming elixirmixer's heart with his warm heartfelt words that you did not agree with. Another example is in the post before this one where you chose to type the paragraph about 'cleaning the toilet'. Your tone is amusing, your attitude is funny, yet your posts are valuable. I'll take that over someone talking out of their ass any day!

As you wrote previous Schmuldvich:"Your tone is funny and I love seeing you get all worked up and defensive (it's amusing)."

Your words are clear Schmuldvich you openly indicate your intent to goad and clearly state you do this for amusement. By your own admission you are a troll, the abundant obnoxious cockroach of the internet and forums.

Schmuldvich
09-01-2017, 08:34 PM
As you wrote previous Schmuldvich:"Your tone is funny and I love seeing you get all worked up and defensive (it's amusing)."

Your words are clear Schmuldvich you openly indicate your intent to goad and clearly state you do this for amusement. By your own admission you are a troll, the abundant obnoxious cockroach of the internet and forums.

I appreciate the kind word, but I assure you I am not a troll. Again, to be clear, my goal is never to get anyone worked up. My goal here is to elicit fruitful discussion.

If you go back and read what I wrote with open eyes, "Your tone is funny and I love seeing you get all worked up and defensive (it's amusing).", you will see that I do not do this for my amusement, nor is my intent ever to goad. I use my words carefully, precisely, and methodically; reading them one more time might help you understand.

To be clear, I am amused when you get worked up by others which happens often (I never attempt to work you up). You present yourself as such a feeble individual online and get defensive ultra easily (which I find amusing; reading your defensive responses). I sit back, watch you get worked up, get amused, and learn from you. You are one of the most valuable members on this website.

You still misunderstand my words, Axis.



Did you miss my question in the last post when I asked, "Do you still not yet realize that the Ancients spoke esoterically?"

This is basic facet of Alchemy you must understand if you are to succeed, but I still don't think you get it.

Axismundi000
09-01-2017, 09:00 PM
A brief review of your posts on various threads Schmuldvich leads me to the certain conclusion that if I were to try and follow your advice ( read 4 Alchemy books a day and meditate). Assume you had some kind of Spiritual Mastery or grace and you were not simply bullshitting and patronising. Accept in some way I deserved to be trolled by you ( ref: you like to try and work me up it amuses you). Well I think any person who accepted these things from you and tried to actually implement them would lapse into failure in all aspects of their life due to complete lack of self worth. You on the other hand would have to some degree propped up and fed your narcissism and then would move on to troll and patronise new subjects attempting to feed psychologically on them. My personal view is that the narcissism and disconnect is clear because you are obviously just kind of 'playing on the internet'. You don't display on-line any feelings ( pretend or otherwise) you simply continue your game, make statements, paste a bit of text, challenge on broad issues for which there is no simple answer and then make a collection of grandiose and judgemental pronouncements.

The occult including Alchemy will always be plagued by such wounded malignant people and the Internet and trolling has allowed for new modes of expressing this.

People like you Schmuldvich are in my view the price I must pay for being on an ostensibly free forum, nothing in life is really free I guess.

Schmuldvich
09-01-2017, 09:16 PM
A brief review of your posts on various threads Schmuldvich leads me to the certain conclusion that if I were to try and follow your advice ( read 4 Alchemy books a day and meditate). Assume you had some kind of Spiritual Mastery or grace and you were not simply bullshitting and patronising. Accept in some way I deserved to be trolled by you ( ref: you like to try and work me up it amuses you). Well I think any person who accepted these things from you and tried to actually implement them would lapse into failure in all aspects of their life due to complete lack of self worth. You on the other hand would have to some degree propped up and fed your narcissism and then would move on to troll and patronise new subjects attempting to feed psychologically on them. My personal view is that the narcissism and disconnect is clear because you are obviously just kind of 'playing on the internet'. You don't display on-line any feelings ( pretend or otherwise) you simply continue your game, make statements, paste a bit of text, challenge on broad issues for which there is no simple answer and then make a collection of grandiose and judgemental pronouncements.

What do you wish to accomplish working with vinegar?

Do you understand the Sages were speaking Philosophically when referring to vinegar?







You still misinterpret my words...


you like to try and work me up it amuses you

...Never once did I say this and my past two posts have been dedicated to informing you of your erroneous interpretation of my words. I cannot say it any clearer than I already have:




I do not do this for my amusement, nor is my intent ever to goad


I am amused when you get worked up by others which happens often (I never attempt to work you up). You present yourself as such a feeble individual online and get defensive ultra easily (which I find amusing; reading your defensive responses)


You misunderstand my words.

My goal is never to work you up (or anyone else for that matter).

...Again, my intent is not to goad you, or anyone else, or to get you worked up. I fail to see how or why you do not comprehend this. Perhaps you are projecting or upset and blinded by anger.



When you work with vinegar in the lab, what do you plan to do with the vinegar you produce?

Axismundi000
09-01-2017, 09:30 PM
Well the thing is Schmuldvich if you add vinegar to a high purity mineral carbonate or oxide you will generally get an acetate. This is what I am doing with vinegar and this whole thread started with me identifying that home brewed vinegar is a large undertaking if a reasonable quantity of acetate is required. I suggested that this issue of scale has not been mentioned on this forum previous because few if any here had actually gone past basic testing with commercial product with this acetate approach.

Schmuldvich do you think you are actually capable of engaging with the practical experimental issues I have raised like JDP, black and Dragon's Tail have? Will you be able to resist the temptation to paste loads of Alchemical stuff make grandiose pronouncements and value judgements of others, figuratively tapping your nose knowingly?

Schmuldvich
09-01-2017, 09:36 PM
Schmuldvich do you think you are actually capable of engaging with the practical experimental issues I have raised like JDP, black and Dragon's Tail have? Will you be able to resist the temptation to paste loads of Alchemical stuff make grandiose pronouncements and value judgements of others, figuratively tapping your nose knowingly?
Most likely not.

I will continue to post excerpts from legitimate Alchemy texts and I will incessantly ask questions that spur fruitful discussion.



Well the thing is Schmuldvich if you add vinegar to a high purity mineral carbonate or oxide you will generally get an acetate. This is what I am doing with vinegar and this whole thread started with me identifying that home brewed vinegar is a large undertaking if a reasonable quantity of acetate is required. I suggested that this issue of scale has not been mentioned on this forum previous because few if any here had actually gone past basic testing with commercial product with this acetate approach.
Nice! I wish you the best! Thank you for answering my question.


When you obtain your acetate from vinegar, how do you plan to use it?

How long do you think it will take you to obtain the amount you would like to work with?

Axismundi000
09-01-2017, 09:55 PM
Your driving need to establish control is another clear indicator Schmuldvich but because this is online rather than person to person my view is purely conjectural.

My thinking is that I shall just relax this vinegar making, let it run over several years rather then going into some kind of major production. Perhaps I shall use it with copper oxide to form an acetate which when distilled gives what Dubuis calls radical vinegar the use of which I haven't decided over. It will be fun to do though. There are a number of things running in the Lab currently so I have plenty to do.

Normally I would now threaten your need to control by asking what you are doing in your lab Schmuldvich but I can't be f**king bothered.

Dragon's Tail
09-01-2017, 10:23 PM
I appreciate your suggestion Dragon's Tail I will give it a try when my next barrel load is ready see if it increases yield appreciably.

Yes I get above 90% vinegar conc certainly, the vinegar is left behind, I let the system cool, equalise pressure empty receiving flask, remove vigreaux column then vacuum distil across the vinegar leaving sediment behind temp again below 90C to fit with Dubuis vegetable life theory.

Cool, let me know if it helps. In the meantime maybe I will get over my own bs and learn to hook up a vacuum line. It's something I want to do, I just want to be sure, as it's a new lab procedure for me and I don't want to mess anything up or break anything. I also don't want to chuck away a lot of money as it's in short supply at the moment.

Wish you the best with your experiment.

Axismundi000
09-01-2017, 10:31 PM
You must have a cold trap Dragon's Tail otherwise it all just goes upstream to the pump possibly damaging it. I use a reserviour flask with a carbon filter also, my current quest is to find a decent stop valve to isolate the distillation train the ones I have found don't allow vacuum as high as my pump delivers.

I'm always happy to chat lab nerd stuff Dragon's Tail.

Axismundi000
11-19-2017, 10:11 PM
Perhaps I should have put this in the initial post.

20 litres of wine at say 17% alcohol from turboyeast gives 3.4 litres of alcohol within the volume of liquid. Sour this wine to vinegar you get a quarter of that Alcohol content becoming acetic acid: 850ml. So with wastage you could get as little as 500 ml (half a litre) pure acetic acid from 20 litres of wine.

You need about 4-5 litres of pure acetic acid to turn 500 grams ( approx) of mineral to acetate. So that’s 320 - 400 litres of wine initially brewed to make sufficient vinegar to make one kilo of mineral into acetate, 16-20 barrels (20litres per barrel) of wine brewed. So to make a moderate amount of mineral into acetate for dry distilling you need to dedicate your garage or a whole room into wine and vinegar brewing or take years just brewing on a smaller scale until you are ready.

As I mentioned previous the fact that nobody here has mentioned the scale of the task implies no one has done this acetate work. So when people talk about moving on from acetate Alchemy or that it is a false path I frankly do not see how this can be asserted, because i wonder who here has actually given it a go?

Dragon's Tail
11-19-2017, 11:49 PM
Thanks, that's incredibly insightful. Your numbers sound right to me, 15-20% or so wine should translate to 5% (roughly) acetic concentration, or at least that would be my first guess. I haven't worked the numbers, just seems like what the little bugs naturally put out.

1/2 a kilo of metal compound converted actually sounds like a lot, as acetate is a fairly heavy ion, roughly 60g/mol or about the same as iron? So it seems like that 1/2 kilo of metallic mineral could easily make a kilo of metallic acetate, depending on the metal. I don't know the relative weight of antimony, I'll have to check a chart later. Still, compared to the amounts that I normally work with...my biggest flask at the moment is a 1L, so I'm typically dabbling with less than half a litre of tincture, depending on how sure of myself I am, and how many distillations I feel like doing at the first step. I have gotten pretty good a minimizing losses while scraping up salts :D

I think you are right though, if someone were to make their own vinegar for "serious" acetate work (i.e. following recommended formulas and such) it would be a pain to produce it. Wonder if they just cheat and buy a couple litres of glacial. Perhaps that leads to the failures you mention? Either way, I'm not convinced that ridiculous amounts of starting material are needed to "test" something and see if it is leading anywhere. I could very well be wrong, as I hear a lot of talk about amounts needed to multiply or use the stone or a specific tincture, but tiny amounts of such precious goods would be enough to convince me before I jumped up, said "ah ha," and started brewing all that wine.

Thanks for the awesome info, and for putting all of this into perspective so well. Crunching the numbers really emphasizes your point.

Axismundi000
11-20-2017, 12:53 AM
You make a good point about the actual acetate. I think 1 kilo of mineral would give at least two kilos of acetate which helps. My thinking is after the initial dry distil to work with the products using one of those small essential oil distilling kits. Even so starting with a good quantity would help overcome setbacks because if you fluffed a part of the work you still have material to try again with also ready at that stage.

Iím getting my vinegar ready by 4 months instead of 6 by using those low performance fish tank aerators that are cheap and quiet to bubble air through the wine. Also if room temperature is an issue you can get low wattage heating pads and straps from home brew suppliers.

Dragon's Tail
11-20-2017, 01:07 AM
Awesome. Just out of curiosity, would you care to share what you plan on starting with as your metallic compound? I'm assuming lead or galena. If not that's cool too. I'm just hoping to see some pictures when you make something awesome!! :)

Edit: Scrolled up and saw that you were discussing copper earlier.

Axismundi000
11-20-2017, 01:31 AM
I think one reason people like lead is because as an acetate it produces more products when dry distilled compared to the others. I’m against it personally and I think that lead caused the demise of Sir Isaac Newton but there have been no tests on his remains to verify this. Copper is possibly better because all it does is have fungicide effects.

When I have completed work I intend to show it.

black
11-20-2017, 01:38 AM
Hi Axis

Are you following a specific Old Masters work with this acetate process ?

Do you view this as spageric or alchemic ?

What do you hope to get from these acetates ?

Schmuldvich
11-20-2017, 02:13 AM
I think one reason people like lead is because as an acetate it produces more products when dry distilled compared to the others.

When I have completed work I intend to show it.

Awesome!! Looking forward to seeing your results!

I suspect the reason why so many people chose lead was due to a misinterpretation/misunderstanding of the genuine Alchemy texts.

elixirmixer
11-20-2017, 02:20 AM
A little tip for vinegar production. Due to the fact that it requires air-ration(?) And the fact that the acetobacteria usually sits on the top, one way to massivly decrease production times of alcohole-to-aceto, is to inject air directionally, so that it creates a permanent vortex in the wine, ensuring that the flow is effectivly 'dumping' the culture INTO the wine, this now increases surface area to help facilitate the reaction.

You'll find that in future years, after the illuminati have shit themselves and died, all of our technology will be in torsion shaped spiral donuts, as its the shape of the magnetic flux, therefore the path of absolute least resistent for all energy forms.

If you work this out properly, you will DRASTICALLY reduce production times.

This is how the USA created enough penicillin to enter the second world war.

elixirmixer
11-20-2017, 02:30 AM
Awesome!! Looking forward to seeing your results!

I suspect the reason why so many people chose lead was due to a misinterpretation/misunderstanding of the genuine Alchemy texts.

And other alchemical tracts which literally encourage the dry distillation of lead acetate such as John French's Art of distillation. This man clearly did not understand Hollandus' work of Saturn. However, people have encouraged these oils regardless due to their planetary signatures.

elixirmixer
11-20-2017, 02:34 AM
As an example, Axis uses his metallic oils in his magic mirror to assist in ceremonial evocations.

He also made a promise to his wife not to drink anything stupid ;);):p

And finally ill add: i cheated and bought glacial.

black
11-20-2017, 03:51 AM
And other alchemical tracts which literally encourage the dry distillation of lead acetate such as John French's Art of distillation. This man clearly did not understand Hollandus' work of Saturn. However, people have encouraged these oils regardless due to their planetary signatures.

Hey Mr. Mixer

Do you think John French got it wrong ?

Or do you think he was a real alchemist ?

Axismundi000
11-20-2017, 07:56 AM
Hi Axis

Are you following a specific Old Masters work with this acetate process ?

Do you view this as spageric or alchemic ?

What do you hope to get from these acetates ?

Iím not sticking to a formulaic understanding of one text because it seems to me that there are actually several methods to do this. For example sericon which whilst about lead can apply to any mineral acetate I think or crystals. If you write out a flow chart on paper you find different methods and steps from different authors. This is in part why I think large quantities are needed to start with to run several in parallel.

I consider this work Alchemical and I will take it as far as Godís grace permits.

Axismundi000
11-20-2017, 08:00 AM
Elixirmixer if you achieve an Alchemical product with glacial you should definitely show it with some degree of detail because this would hugely reduce the undertaking for this acetate approach. It would really help massively if just buying glacial worked. Thanks for the vortex suggestion, this indicates a stirrer rather than a bubbler.

black
11-20-2017, 08:19 AM
I’m not sticking to a formulaic understanding of one text because it seems to me that there are actually several methods to do this. For example sericon which whilst about lead can apply to any mineral acetate I think or crystals. If you write out a flow chart on paper you find different methods and steps from different authors. This is in part why I think large quantities are needed to start with to run several in parallel.

I consider this work Alchemical and I will take it as far as God’s grace permits.

Thanks for the reply Axis.

I can see the process alluding to be Alchemic.

I fully agree with the God's grace bit.

JDP
11-20-2017, 01:37 PM
I think one reason people like lead is because as an acetate it produces more products when dry distilled compared to the others. I’m against it personally and I think that lead caused the demise of Sir Isaac Newton but there have been no tests on his remains to verify this. Copper is possibly better because all it does is have fungicide effects.

When I have completed work I intend to show it.

Having distilled the two mentioned metallic acetates (and several others) myself, I can once again tell you that the one that gives the most different byproducts is zinc acetate. It seems to be the only one of the common metal acetates that not only gives volatile liquid byproducts but also solid ones. This fact makes it necessary to employ distillation vessels with wider necks, side-arms and condensers, to make room for these volatile solid byproducts so that they do not block the distillation apparatus, otherwise you might risk a shattering of the distillation vessel due to accumulating pressure.

JDP
11-20-2017, 01:38 PM
Hey Mr. Mixer

Do you think John French got it wrong ?

Or do you think he was a real alchemist ?

John French was obviously not an alchemist. He was a spagyrist.

JDP
11-20-2017, 01:56 PM
I suspect the reason why so many people chose lead was due to a misinterpretation/misunderstanding of the genuine Alchemy texts.

Indeed. The whole "mystery" regarding this rests on a simple analogy. Some of the oldest code-names for the composite matter that will generate the Stone are "Lead", "Saturn" and "Molybdochalkos" (Greek for "lead-copper"; the Arabic-speaking alchemists of the Middle Ages LOVED this ancient Greek code-word for the secret mixture and Arabicized it to "Abar-Nuhas".) The reference to "lead" and "Saturn" comes from the association of this God/planet/metal to the color black. The secret mixture of raw matters from which the Stone is made turns black (among several other key-signs) during its manipulations in the fire, thus prompting some mischievous alchemists to have associated it with lead (i.e. the so-called black metal, due to the "dull" surface hue it acquires when exposed to the air for some time.) Countless misguided seekers, or "puffers", over the centuries did not understand any of these subtle traps, though, and they actually worked with metallic lead, submitting it to all kinds of processes. They never discovered how to make the Stone, but some of the more hard-working and clever ones actually discovered that silver can in fact be made from lead by some of these methods they discovered in their failed attempts to make the Stone.

Axismundi000
11-20-2017, 01:57 PM
Having distilled the two mentioned metallic acetates (and several others) myself, I can once again tell you that the one that gives the most different byproducts is zinc acetate. It seems to be the only one of the common metal acetates that not only gives volatile liquid byproducts but also solid ones. This fact makes it necessary to employ distillation vessels with wider necks, side-arms and condensers, to make room for these volatile solid byproducts so that they do not block the distillation apparatus, otherwise you might risk a shattering of the distillation vessel due to accumulating pressure.

I do appreciate you input JDP, please do continue to tell me(once again) as you feel necessary. Seriously I am not trying to be sarcastic, comment appreciated.

JDP
11-20-2017, 02:07 PM
I do appreciate you input JDP, please do continue to tell me(once again) as you feel necessary. Seriously I am not trying to be sarcastic, comment appreciated.

If you want to test it yourself, try to use distillation vessels and connectors with wider joints, like 45/50, for example. You want to give plenty of room for the sublimates to condense on, so that they do not block the passage of any gases/vapors. If you don't have access to such wider distillation vessels & connectors, then distill smaller amounts of the zinc acetate at a time to minimize the possibility of the sublimates blocking the passage of other byproducts.

black
11-20-2017, 02:16 PM
John French was obviously not an alchemist. He was a spagyrist.

Are you suggesting that because of his work with lead and vinegar he ...was obviously not an alchemist ?

JDP
11-20-2017, 03:09 PM
Are you suggesting that because of his work with lead and vinegar he ...was obviously not an alchemist ?

Not only that, but because of his whole book, which is about spagyrics. He also never said he knew how to make the Stone. How could he then qualify as an "alchemist"???

black
11-21-2017, 02:15 AM
Not only that, but because of his whole book, which is about spagyrics. He also never said he knew how to make the Stone. How could he then qualify as an "alchemist"???

I have noticed other writers with a similar style to John French, one in
particular....Dr. Glauber....also speaking about Vinegars and lead, etc, etc.

Would you place him also in the class of Spagyrist / chymist and not
an Alchemist ?

Basil Valentine was another that was into Vinegars .....do you think his
works have any Alchemic merit ?

JDP
11-21-2017, 03:43 PM
I have noticed other writers with a similar style to John French, one in
particular....Dr. Glauber....also speaking about Vinegars and lead, etc, etc.

Would you place him also in the class of Spagyrist / chymist and not
an Alchemist ?

Yes, Glauber was very obviously a chymist and a spagyrist, not really an "alchemist". He never claimed to know how to make the Stone, though he claims to have been successful at a whole bunch of other types of transmutations by other methods. Most of these claims of his are total baloney and empty boasts, designed to frustrate most seekers after transmutation by making them waste their time and money on false processes, but sometimes he drops a few "gems" of empirical truth in the middle of this chaos. His books are veritable "minefields" of lies & empty boasts with the occasional morsels of truth sprinkled here and there. Very tough for the novice and inexperienced investigator to make his way through such a maze. Most people will give up after only a few failures. Many chymists other than Glauber also used the same technique. Becher, for example: Friedrich Roth-Scholtz tested the processes found in some of his books, and he could only find a comparative handful of true ones that gave positive results (he implies that more than 2/3 of Becher's "Chymischer GlŁcks-Hafen", one of the largest compendiums of chymical processes ever published, are false processes.) This tactic of burying a few morsels of truth among an ocean of lies was very well known to most 17th-18th century chymists. For example, Bergner (an assayer by profession, so very well acquainted with the subject of testing for gold and silver, which makes Vladimir Karpenko's absurd claims about him and his supposed ignorance of what "impurities" are simply laughable and not supported by Bergner's very obvious and clear awareness of the subject in his very own work) also bitterly complains about the huge amount of lies and false processes that he had to sift through to find just a few processes that gave positive results (Bergner basically implies that he could fill a whole large volume with all the false processes he tested through all the years he was involved in the subject of transmutation.) Transmutational "chymistry" is a VERY DIFFICULT subject to investigate, almost as hard as alchemy (proper) itself. It takes a very special kind of relentless, persistent and tireless empirical investigator who is not afraid to spend large amounts of time and money in a quest that requires to sift through piles of lying "garbage" to find a comparative few little "treasures" of truth hidden in there.


Basil Valentine was another that was into Vinegars .....do you think his
works have any Alchemic merit ?

But Basil Valentine is quite different than the previously mentioned authors: unlike them, this one very persistently and openly says that he knows how to make the Stone and several other transmuting "tinctures", and he says that without the secret solvent (which he often calls "Spirit of Mercury", among other code-names) such things are not possible to be achieved. So yes, he does fully qualify as an "alchemist".

elixirmixer
11-21-2017, 10:43 PM
I just get a feeling while reading his book that this man (John French) did not perform even half of the processes in his own book, its more of a compilation he made by reading through other books.

He was a recipe collector. I actually ordered a copy of the original version that has the additional chapters on calcination at the end but unfortunatly ive misplaced them and cannot access another copy. Might jhave to re-order it and publish it here where it belongs... unless someone else has it?

Andro
11-21-2017, 11:03 PM
John French - The Art of Distillation (http://tikaboo.com/library/The%20Art%20of%20Distillation.pdf)

Not sure if it has those chapters at the end...

Schmuldvich
11-21-2017, 11:19 PM
Do you think John French got it wrong ?

Or do you think he was a real alchemist ?


John French was obviously not an alchemist. He was a spagyrist.


Are you suggesting that because of his work with lead and vinegar he ...was obviously not an alchemist ?


Not only that, but because of his whole book, which is about spagyrics. He also never said he knew how to make the Stone. How could he then qualify as an "alchemist"???


I just get a feeling while reading his book that this man (John French) did not perform even half of the processes in his own book, its more of a compilation he made by reading through other books.

He was a recipe collector.

No.


Have you read any of French's work? The guy is most definitely an Adept.

He did not write with the normal vainglorious words of his predecessors, instead he employed the use of acroamatic cipher (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?4982-EM-s-P.S.-Thread&p=50626#post50626) in his writings. Masters did not write openly (http://i.imgur.com/yrg5wQA.png) and preferred to deliver their teachings in veiled speech while still delivering Truth, ala Boerhaave (check out "A New Method Of Chemistry"). If you do not believe John French to be an Alchemist, I can only assume you assume the same for Herman Boerhaave, which is absolutely foolish! Both men knew our Art well and were clearly Initiates.

...We must first learn how to read Alchemical texts before giving our opinion.


Did you read the introduction of "The Art Of Distillation" (1650) by John French? It will help you understand.








"The Art Of Distillation" by John French, 1650

As long as I have sense or reason, I shall improve them to the honor of the art, especially that of alchemy.









"The Art Of Distillation" by John French, 1650

In the perfection of this art, I mean the accomplishing of the Elixir, is the sulphur of philosophers set at liberty, which gratifies the releasers thereof with three kingdoms, viz. Vegetable, Animal, and Mineral. And what cannot they do, and how honorable are they, that have the command of these? They may commend lead into gold, dying plants into fruitfulness, the sick into health, old age into youth, darkness into light.









"The Art Of Distillation" by John French, 1650

Now for the effecting of this I shall besides what I have advised in the Epistle to the Reader, say only this: court the mother, and you win the daughter. Prevail with nature, and the fair Diana of the philosophers is at your service. Now, if you cannot prevail with nature for the fairest of her daughters, viz. the mercury of philosophers, yet she has other daughters of wonderful beauty also, as are the essences and magisteries of philosophers which also are endowed with riches, honor, and health, and any of these you may more easily prevail with their mother nature for. This art of alchemy is that solary art which is more noble than all the other six arts and sciences, and if it did once thoroughly shine forth out of the clouds whereby it is eclipsed, would darken all the rest (as the sun does the other six planets) or at least swallow up their light. This is that true natural philosophy which most accurately anatomizes nature and natural things, and visually demonstrates the principles and operations of them.









"The Art Of Distillation" by John French, 1650

I crave to adumbrate something of that art (alchemy) which I know you will be willing, for the public good, to promote.


...From the introduction alone (written November 25, 1650) the man spills out his intention and explains to us why he wrote his book, to adumbrate the Art of Alchemy. Are his intentions not clear...?









"The Art Of Distillation" by John French, 1650

When I considered what a multitude of artists there is in this nation, from many of which more and better things might be expected than from myself, I was at a nonplus in my resolutions, fearing it might be accounted an unpardonable presumption in me to undertake that which might be better performed by others. But for the avoiding of this aspersion, be pleased to understand that I present not this to the world under any other notion than of a rough draft (which indeed is the work of the more unskillful and, therefore, of myself without exception) to be polished by the more expert artist.

I rejoice as at the break of day after a long and tedious night to see how this solary art of alchemy begins to shine forth out of the clouds of reproach which it has for a long time undeservedly laid under. There are two things which have eclipsed it for a long time, viz., the mists of ignorance and the specious lunary body of deceit.

Arise, O Sun of truth, and dispel these interposed fogs, that the Queen of arts may triumph in splendor!



...In the preface, we continue to read his words that "visually demonstrate the principles" of our Art. He does not claim to be an expert, nor does he claim that he is a Master, yet he continually presents ciphered blips of wisdom to the diligent Seeker whose eyes are opened and can see Truth through superficial words the man penned.









"The Art Of Distillation" by John French, 1650

That which I cannot allow of in them is their strict observation of the quadruplicity of humours and their confining themselves to such crude medicines which are more fit to be put into spagyrical vessels for a further digestion than into men's bodies to be fermented therein.

Certainly, if men were less ignorant, they would prefer cordial essences before crude juices, balsamical elixirs before phlegmatic waters, and mercury of philosophers before common quicksilver. But many men have so little insight in this art that they scarce believe anything beyond the distilling of waters and oil, and extracting of salts; nay, many that pretend to philosophy, and would be accounted philosophers, are so unbelieving that, as says Sendivogius, although he would have intimated the true art to them word by word, yet they would by no means understand or believe that there was any water in the philosophers sea.









"The Art Of Distillation" by John French, 1650

If you should discover to them the process of the Philosopher's Stone, they would laugh at your simplicity, and I will warrant you never make use of it.



...Can we not see the Truth in this book? We haven't even starting quoting the actual book itself; we are still in the preface here. Do we only read the letter of the words, rather than the spirit of what is being said?









"The Art Of Distillation" by John French, 1650

I know I shall incur the displeasure of some, but they are sophisticating, cheating mountebanks who indeed deserve to be bound to the peace, because many men, I dare swear, through their means go in danger of their lives. Better it is that their knavery should be detected, than a noble art through their villany be clouded and aspersed.

Now we must consider that there are degrees in this art, for there is the accomplishment of the elixir, itself, and there is the discovery of many excellent essences, magisteries, and spirits, etc., which abundantly recompence the discoverers thereof with profit, health, and delight.









"The Art Of Distillation" by John French, 1650

Is it not possible for them that pass through many philosophical preparations to unfold at last the riddles and hieroglyphics of the philosophers?









"The Art Of Distillation" by John French, 1650

There are, says Sendivogius, without doubt many men of a good conscience both of high and low degree (I speak knowingly) that have this medicine and keep it secretly.









"The Art Of Distillation" by John French, 1650

A faithful well experienced master will teach you more in the mysteries of alchemy in a quarter of a year than by your own studies and chargeable operations you will learn in seven years. In the first place, therefore, and above all things apply yourself to an expert, faithful, and communicative artist, and account it a great gain.









"The Art Of Distillation" by John French, 1650

As for my part, I have here communicated upon the account of a bare acceptance only what I have with many years of pains, much reading, and great costs known. There is but one thing which I desire to be silent in, as touching the process thereof. As for the thing itself to be prepared, what it is I have elsewhere in this treatise expressed. And the preparing of that is indeed a thing worth of anyone's knowing, and which perhaps hereafter I may make known to some.









"The Art Of Distillation" by John French, 1650

I hope this will be occasion to set the more expert artist on work, for the communicating their experiences to the world. One thing, let me desire you to take notice of, viz. whereas every process is set down plain, yet all of them must be proceeded in secundum artem alchymistae (which art indeed is obtained by experience) and therefore many that work according to the bare process effect not what they intend, and the reason is this, because there was some art of the alchemist wanting.



https://i.imgur.com/XhqnS53.jpg



All of the above is straight from only the introduction and preface.

Reading the whole book will repeatedly show you that he wrote on Alchemy and knew what he was talking about.

JDP
11-22-2017, 12:11 AM
No.


Have you read any of French's work? The guy is most definitely an Adept.

He did not write with the normal vainglorious words of his predecessors, instead he employed the use of acroamatic cipher (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?4982-EM-s-P.S.-Thread&p=50626#post50626) in his writings. Masters did not write openly (http://i.imgur.com/yrg5wQA.png) and preferred to deliver their teachings in veiled speech while still delivering Truth, ala Boerhaave (check out "A New Method Of Chemistry"). If you do not believe John French to be an Alchemist, I can only assume you assume the same for Herman Boerhaave, which is absolutely foolish! Both men knew our Art well and were clearly Initiates.

...We must first learn how to read Alchemical texts before giving our opinion.


Did you read the introduction of "The Art Of Distillation" (1650) by John French? It will help you understand.





























...From the introduction alone (written November 25, 1650) the man spills out his intention and explains to us why he wrote his book, to adumbrate the Art of Alchemy. Are his intentions not clear...?










...In the preface, we continue to read his words that "visually demonstrate the principles" of our Art. He does not claim to be an expert, nor does he claim that he is a Master, yet he continually presents ciphered blips of wisdom to the diligent Seeker whose eyes are opened and can see Truth through superficial words the man penned.

















...Can we not see the Truth in this book? We haven't even starting quoting the actual book itself; we are still in the preface here. Do we only read the letter of the words, rather than the spirit of what is being said?













































https://i.imgur.com/XhqnS53.jpg



All of the above is straight from only the introduction and preface.

Reading the whole book will repeatedly show you that he wrote on Alchemy and knew what he was talking about.

The fact that French had an interest in the subject, and frequently misuses the word "alchemy" (like the majority of Paracelsians and Helmontians did) to include the VULGAR spagyrical preparations he collects in his book, does not make him an "alchemist" even by a remote stretch of the imagination. You should take your own advice and actually read the book. It doesn't take much to see the obvious difference between an author like him and real alchemists, like say, Ripley or Thomas Norton, whose works are genuinely alchemical and thus revolve around the issue of the secret solvent or "water", something that French knew rather little about. Also, elixirmixer's "hunch" is quite correct. It is painfully obvious that French has not bothered to even try a good number of the SPAGYRICAL processes he collected in his book from other sources, like that ridiculous claim that you can get a "water" from metallic mercury simply by gradually dropping portions of it into a red-hot retort. Had he bothered to put it to the test, he would have seen it obviously does not work and would likely not have included such a blatantly phony claim. In fact, even French himself honestly admits it right in the title-page of his book:

"The Art of Distillation or A Treatise of the Choicest Spagyrical Preparations Performed by Way of Distillation, Being Partly Taken Out of the Most Select Chymical Authors of Several Languages and Partly Out of the Author's Manual Experience..."

JDP
11-22-2017, 12:23 AM
John French - The Art of Distillation (http://tikaboo.com/library/The%20Art%20of%20Distillation.pdf)

Not sure if it has those chapters at the end...

A complete scan of the original book can be found here:

http://sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=french_distill&PagePosition=1

It does not seem to differ from the transcription.

Schmuldvich
11-22-2017, 12:57 AM
The fact that French had an interest in the subject, and frequently misuses the word "alchemy" (like the majority of Paracelsians and Helmontians did) to include the VULGAR spagyrical preparations he collects in his book, does not make him an "alchemist" even by a remote stretch of the imagination. You should take your own advice and actually read the book. It doesn't take much to see the obvious difference between an author like him and real alchemists, like say, Ripley or Thomas Norton, whose works are genuinely alchemical and thus revolve around the issue of the secret solvent or "water", something that French knew rather little about. Also, elixirmixer's "hunch" is quite correct. It is painfully obvious that French has not bothered to even try a good number of the SPAGYRICAL processes he collected in his book from other sources, like that ridiculous claim that you can get a "water" from metallic mercury simply by gradually dropping portions of it into a red-hot retort. Had he bothered to put it to the test, he would have seen it obviously does not work and would likely not have included such a blatantly phony claim.

I have read the entire book and most every other Alchemy treatise publicly available. I have not read as much as you have, but I have read (and seen) enough to comprehend the decknamen of the Sages and understand the spirit of what they were writing. Most authors did not write openly (like John French); to attempt to learn from their face value words is asinine, and to think that such egregious 'recipes' found in "The Art Of Distillation" are meant to be taken literally is ridiculous. Such books were not written to average plebs, they were written to Sons of the Art (those with a fundamental understanding of Alchemy).

One must first learn how to read Alchemical texts before their significance can be properly comprehended.


Is the first words of Chapter 1 not open enough to understand what is being written about? Are these words not a "summary of Philosophy"...solve et coagula?








"The Art Of Distillation" by John French, 1650

I shall not stand here to show where the art of distillation had its origin, as being a thing not easily to be proved and, if known, yet little conducing to our ensuing discourse. But let us understand what distillation is, of which there are three principal and chief definitions or descriptions:

1. Distillation is a certain art of extracting the liquor, or the humid part of things by virtue of heat (as the matter shall require) being first resolved into a vapor and then condensed again by cold.

2. Distillation is the art of extracting the spiritual and essential humidity from the phlegmatic, or of the phlegmatic from the spiritual.

3. Distillation is the changing of gross thick bodies into a thinner and liquid substance, or separation of the pure liquor from the impure feces.


The sages have always endeavored to hand down to posterity the revelation of the spirit disguised in the form of the words and parables of the sacred texts.

These texts are syntheses of Knowledge whose basis is always the same, though adapted to the times and to the state of consciousness of a people or peoples.

The means adopted for transmitting this teaching are manifold, comprising legends, tales, and customs, as well as monuments, statues, and temples. Thus, up to the end of the Middle Ages, the Christian tradition assigned specific attributes to a given Saint, sculpted or painted, and these attributes are a veritable scripture revealing what cannot be said in plain words. Temples—whether Hindu, Egyptian, Jewish, Christian, or Moslem—are always conceived according to a canon that respects certain elements which explain the teaching. In Egypt, in India, as well as later, in the Gothic period of Christian cathedrals, the temple was a book revealing an "esoteric" teaching.

Esotericism should not be understood as a rebus or a secret writing, but rather as the "spirit of the letter"—that is to say, that which cannot be transcribed clearly, not because there is any desire to conceal it, but because of the "cerebral" intellect's inaptitude for comprehending it.

The character of the means of transcription of this esotericism should therefore be such that it addresses the faculties of the reader; the latter will read and understand it depending on his own faculties, whether normal or superior (intuition, spatial vision). Each will see in the parable or in the architecture of the true temple, what he can see: utility, aesthetics, myth and legend, philosophical principle, or vision of material and spiritual genesis.


-"Summary of Principles", by Rene Schwaller de Lubcicz









"The Art Of Distllation" by John French, 1650

Before you take yourself to the work, propound to yourself what you seek, and enter not upon the practice until you are first well versed in the theory. For it is much better to learn with your brain and imagination than with your hands and costs, and especially study nature well, and see if your proposals are agreeable to the possibility thereof.

Diligently read the sayings of true philosophers, read them over again and again and meditate on them, and take heed that you do not read the writings of imposters instead of the books of the true philosophers. Compare their sayings with the possibility of nature, and obscure places clear ones, and where philosophers say they have erred, do beware, and consider well the general axioms of philosophers, and read so long until you see a sweet harmony, and consent in the sayings of them.

Imagine not high things, but in all things imitate nature, viz. in matter, in removing what is heterogeneous, in weight, in color, in fire, in working, in slowness of working, and let the operations not be vulgar, nor your vessels. Work diligently and constantly.









"The Art Of Distllation" by John French, 1650


TO EXTRACT A WHITE MILKY SUBSTANCE FROM THE RAYS OF THE MOON

Take a concave glass and hold it against the moon when she is at the full in a clear evening. Let the rays thereof being united fall upon a sponge, and the sponge will be full of a cold milky substance which you may press out with your hand and gather more. De-La-Brosse is of the opinion that this substance is of the substance of the moon, but I cannot assent to him in that. Only this I say, if this experiment were well prosecuted, it might produce, for ought I know, such a discovery which might be the key to no small secrets.









"The Art Of Distllation" by John French, 1650


THE PROCESS OF THE PHILOSOPHERS STONE ACCORDING TO PONTANUS

Take the [one] matter and grind it with a physical contrition as diligently as may be. Then set it upon the fire and let the proportion of fire be known, viz., that it only stir up the matter, and in a short time that fire without any other laying on of hands will accomplish the whole work, because it will putrefy, corrupt, generate, and perfect, and make to appear the three principal colors: black, white, and red. And by the means of our fire, the medicine will be multiplied if it be joined with the crude matter, not only in quantity but also in virtue. Withall, they might therefore search out this fire (which is mineral, equal, continual, vapors not away, except it be too much stirred up; partakes of sulphur, is taken from elsewhere than from the matter; pulls down all things, dissolves, congeals, and calcines, and is artificial to find out, and that by a compendious and near way without any cost, at least very small, is not transmuted with the matter because it is not of the matter). And you shall attain your wish, because it does the whole work, and is the key of the philosophers which they never revealed.









"The Art Of Distllation", page 27, by John French, 1650

Do not interpret all things you read according to the literal sense, for philosophers when they wrote anything too excellent for the vulgar to know, expressed it enigmatically that the sons of Art only might understand it.




...What more needs to be written?

Axismundi000
11-22-2017, 01:14 AM
This is absurd you are now regurgitating the same argument I presented on another thread as a rebuttal to your view that reading books was the primary way forward. I suggested that it was only through guidance of the Divine that any understanding practical or theoretical could be achieved a view you disagreed with. Now you give pretty much the same standpoint I put forward in that thread here. I return to my strong suspicion that this is some form of intellectual game playing for you Schmuldvich, nothing more.

http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?5450-Project-The-Standardization-of-Spagyric-Medicine/page2

Posts number 6-12.

Hellin Hermetist
11-22-2017, 01:30 AM
Masters did not write openly (http://i.imgur.com/yrg5wQA.png) and preferred to deliver their teachings in veiled speech while still delivering Truth, ala Boerhaave (check out "A New Method Of Chemistry"). If you do not believe John French to be an Alchemist, I can only assume you assume the same for Herman Boerhaave, which is absolutely foolish! Both men knew our Art well and were clearly Initiates.



Can you copy and paste in this thread the work of Boerhaave as well, so anyone can study it? Its only 700 pages.

Schmuldvich
11-22-2017, 01:42 AM
Can you copy and paste in this thread the work of Boerhaave as well, so anyone can study it? Its only 700 pages.


https://i.imgur.com/msR3By7.jpg

Here ya go!

Download: https://www.mediafire.com/file/4ittv2919ohc4ya/1753%20Boerhaave%20-%20New%20Method%20Of%20Chemistry.pdf

Axismundi000
11-22-2017, 01:55 AM
Thank you for the book. I didnít have a copy.

JDP
11-22-2017, 08:03 AM
I have read the entire book and most every other Alchemy treatise publicly available. I have not read as much as you have, but I have read (and seen) enough to comprehend the decknamen of the Sages and understand the spirit of what they were writing. Most authors did not write openly (like John French); to attempt to learn from their face value words is asinine, and to think that such egregious 'recipes' found in "The Art Of Distillation" are meant to be taken literally is ridiculous. Such books were not written to average plebs, they were written to Sons of the Art (those with a fundamental understanding of Alchemy).

One must first learn how to read Alchemical texts before their significance can be properly comprehended.


Is the first words of Chapter 1 not open enough to understand what is being written about? Are these words not a "summary of Philosophy"...solve et coagula?








The sages have always endeavored to hand down to posterity the revelation of the spirit disguised in the form of the words and parables of the sacred texts.

These texts are syntheses of Knowledge whose basis is always the same, though adapted to the times and to the state of consciousness of a people or peoples.

The means adopted for transmitting this teaching are manifold, comprising legends, tales, and customs, as well as monuments, statues, and temples. Thus, up to the end of the Middle Ages, the Christian tradition assigned specific attributes to a given Saint, sculpted or painted, and these attributes are a veritable scripture revealing what cannot be said in plain words. Temples—whether Hindu, Egyptian, Jewish, Christian, or Moslem—are always conceived according to a canon that respects certain elements which explain the teaching. In Egypt, in India, as well as later, in the Gothic period of Christian cathedrals, the temple was a book revealing an "esoteric" teaching.

Esotericism should not be understood as a rebus or a secret writing, but rather as the "spirit of the letter"—that is to say, that which cannot be transcribed clearly, not because there is any desire to conceal it, but because of the "cerebral" intellect's inaptitude for comprehending it.

The character of the means of transcription of this esotericism should therefore be such that it addresses the faculties of the reader; the latter will read and understand it depending on his own faculties, whether normal or superior (intuition, spatial vision). Each will see in the parable or in the architecture of the true temple, what he can see: utility, aesthetics, myth and legend, philosophical principle, or vision of material and spiritual genesis.


-"Summary of Principles", by Rene Schwaller de Lubcicz
































...What more needs to be written?

You must not be very well acquainted with the "chymical" literature of the 17th and 18th century if you actually think that people like John French and Boerhaave were actually "alchemists". I would not accept even Kunckel, Glauber or Becher as such, and those guys were much more involved in the subject of transmutation than French or Boerhaave ever were! Just compare such works and the plethora of different processes they concern themselves with and those of genuinely alchemical texts, like those of Maier or Khunrath, for example. There is no confusing them. Alchemical literature is more enigmatic and secretive, using and abusing such things as "decknamen", and denouncing all "recipes" regarding transmutation as false (a generalization which is actually wrong, BTW; some of those "recipes" DO WORK, but they are not for making the Stone, but to the fanatic mentality of the alchemists any process deviating from the Stone was synonymous with falsity) and it gravitates around the preparation of the Philosophers' Stone, the only thing the bulk of alchemists were interested in. There is just no comparison with chymical works like French's or Boerhaave's. Even the works of transmutational "chymists" like Glauber, Becher and Kunckel are NOT really "alchemical". The style and scope of such works is very easy to set apart from authentically alchemical literature. Many of these writers themselves in fact made the distinction between "chymistry" and "alchemy". Rest assured that practically no one in the 17th-18th century would have considered French, and even less such a well-known chymist as Boerhaave, as "alchemists".

Many of those quotes from French's book are actually not his own writing but things he just copied from other works (and he gladly admits it, BTW, he even clearly says so in the title-page of his book), like Pontanus or Sendivogius (which he translated into English, BTW.) It doesn't mean that he himself necessarily understood their meaning or had actually put them to the test to see if they were actually true.

And also, some of what you quoted are in fact FALSE processes similar to the ones I was referring to before, like that ridiculous bit about extracting a "milky substance" from the "rays of the moon". Notice the obvious SPECULATIVE tone of French's ruminations ("might" do this, "might" do that... SHOULDA, COULDA, WOULDA!) after he mentions one of his sources regarding this PHONY BALONEY claim. It is painfully obvious that French himself NEVER performed such a bizarre operation (in fact, no one has, because it is PHONY BALONEY invented by some charlatan to make inexperienced people waste their time and money on fanciful fantasies that have no basis in empirical reality.)

JDP
11-22-2017, 02:31 PM
I just get a feeling while reading his book that this man (John French) did not perform even half of the processes in his own book, its more of a compilation he made by reading through other books.

He was a recipe collector.

Spot-on.


I actually ordered a copy of the original version that has the additional chapters on calcination at the end but unfortunatly ive misplaced them and cannot access another copy. Might jhave to re-order it and publish it here where it belongs... unless someone else has it?

I have looked into this, and it turns out that it is not the original edition but the fourth edition that contains the extra two sections. You can find a scan of it here:

https://books.google.com/books?id=NoxmAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Art+of+Distillation:+...+To+which+is+Added+ in+this+Fourth+Impression,+Sublimation+and+Calcina tion&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwio_-qKrdLXAhWowVQKHaxXBs4Q6AEIJjAA#v=onepage&q=The%20Art%20of%20Distillation%3A%20...%20To%20wh ich%20is%20Added%20in%20this%20Fourth%20Impression %2C%20Sublimation%20and%20Calcination&f=false

But don't hold your breath, though. The content of the extra 2 sections is pretty much the same uncritical collection of random "recipes" mostly taken from other chymical and spagyrical sources as the original edition, typical John French stuff and modus operandi. As usual, he is mostly interested in medicinal applications of such chymical/spagyrical products. John French = a "vulgar chymist" & spagyrist more or less interested in alchemy, nothing else. I would not even consider him a "transmutational chymist", a la Glauber, Becher, Orschall, Kunckel, Kellner, Creiling, etc. (unlike John French, these chymists do devote a great deal of their works to transmutation, and all of them openly proclaim to have succeeded in achieving transmutations by several methods, but do not claim to have succeeded in making the Stone.) Not even close. So let alone an "alchemist"!!!

Schmuldvich
11-22-2017, 11:23 PM
You must not be very well acquainted with the "chymical" literature of the 17th and 18th century if you actually think that people like John French and Boerhaave were actually "alchemists".

Either that...or...we read treatises differently and see things through different Eyes.

AGAPDOTAJDP you are my favorite poster here and one of the few worthwhile people on this message board (shoutout to Krisztian, z0 K, Chasm, Dwellings, black, Axismundi, Zoas, Dragon's Tail, Andro, and Kiorionis too http://i.imgur.com/G5HEc3p.gif), but your perception has not yet caught up to your intellect.

Eventually you will realize that when reading these treatises, we are not to read the literal words penned, but are meant to read into the spirit of the words (again I urge you to comprehend the significance of what is called acroamatic cipher (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?4982-EM-s-P.S.-Thread&p=50626#post50626)).

Only the lowest of the low rubes and oblivious fools read the words in these magnificent works literally. One of the first steps in succeeding in our Art is learning how to read Alchemical texts.


http://i.imgur.com/ZpfwfFS.jpg






If you recall what an acid does in your school science labs... no, not chemical theory but more the 'classical physics', the practical application, the observable effect - it fizzes, bubbles, foams and dissolves many things.

What about snow. It is white, light in weight, comes 'from above', gently falls down, has a 'flaky' appearance, is very pure, rests on top of things, and so on.

Eagles, although they are just another bird, do have a 'nostalgic' or 'majestic' quality overlaid on them, mostly in America. As a side note, I might point out that in The Secret Teachings of All Ages by Manly P. Hall (a 33rd degree mason at the time and very knowledgeable man), the original eagle was actually a Phoenix.

Thus, when looking at an eagle, it flies high, makes it's nest in mountains, has a white head dress, is strong (being a larger bird), and also comes down to the ground to find food then returns to the mountains and so on.

Now. If we take the qualities, characteristics and attributes of these real world items, we can find a better understanding of the alchemical equivalents like eagles, acids, snow on mountains, rains, toads, leavening, fermentation, and so on. They are usually not literal but are described a particular (or several) qualities derived from the literal because that is what we can more tangibly see and understand with our primary senses. We then overlay them onto our alchemical symbols.

For example, when we read of 'the eagles' in our work, go look at what an eagle bird does in the real world. It rests 'high up', and 'comes down; to pick something up (usually food) then returns back up into the mountain, usually to feed it's chickens. Over time the chickens get stronger and stronger as a result of these 'cycles' that the parent eagle is doing. It comes down, picks up something, flies back up to the mountain then repeats this. These repeating cycles of the bird is 'strengthening' chicken in this case.

In Our Work (did you notice the capitals?) we have Our Eagles which symbolically is the same. Something is 'picked up' from 'below' and caries up gently with our 'evaporation'. It then rests on the 'mountain' at the top of our flask only to drip or flow down again, and so the cycles repeat.

Same with an acid. We have all seen real acids fizz, bubble and foam on many materials. Well, at one particular stage of my Work, (during the Eagles actually), when the stuff above drips down from above or runs down the side of the flask, when it reaches the matter, "earth", below, it fizzes, bubbles and foams, just like an acid. However, I have NEVER used any sort of acid in my main Work.

Thus, research, even a little, what the literal substance, plant, animal and so on does in the real world, then overlay these qualities, characteristics and attributes onto your Work and you might find that thing will make a lot more sense.







Just compare such works and the plethora of different processes they concern themselves with and those of genuinely alchemical texts, like those of Maier or Khunrath, for example. There is no confusing them.

Neither French nor Boerhaave wrote literally. To take their words literally is absolutely foolish and inexcusably stupid. In the above quote do you really actually think he was talking about a 'sponge' or actual substance of 'milk'...NO! These are metaphors.



Alchemical literature is more enigmatic and secretive, using and abusing such things as "decknamen", and denouncing all "recipes" regarding transmutation as false. There is just no comparison with chymical works like French's or Boerhaave's.
Some Alchemical literature is more enigmatic and secretive, while others such a French and Boerhaave present Truth in plain words shrouded in direct lies to baffle the uninitiated reader. FlightOfFire put it so well in his post.



And also, some of what you quoted are in fact FALSE processes similar to the ones I was referring to before, like that ridiculous bit about extracting a "milky substance" from the "rays of the moon". It is painfully obvious that French himself NEVER performed such a bizarre operation.
YES! Of course these are false processes! Only a fool would take such processes literally instead of comprehending the spirit of what was being said.

JDP
11-22-2017, 11:51 PM
Either that...or...we read treatises differently and see things through different Eyes.

AGAPDOTAJDP you are my favorite poster here and one of the few worthwhile people on this message board (shoutout to Krisztian, z0 K, Chasm, Dwellings, black, Axismundi, Zoas, Dragon's Tail, Andro, and Kiorionis too http://i.imgur.com/G5HEc3p.gif), but your perception has not yet caught up to your intellect.

Eventually you will realize that when reading these treatises, we are not to read the literal words penned, but are meant to read into the spirit of the words (again I urge you to comprehend the significance of what is called acroamatic cipher (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?4982-EM-s-P.S.-Thread&p=50626#post50626)).

Only the lowest of the low rubes and oblivious fools read the words in these magnificent works literally. One of the first steps in succeeding in our Art is learning how to read Alchemical texts.


http://i.imgur.com/ZpfwfFS.jpg













Neither French nor Boerhaave wrote literally. To take their words literally is absolutely foolish and inexcusably stupid. In the above quote do you really actually think he was talking about a 'sponge' or actual substance of 'milk'...NO! These are metaphors.



Some Alchemical literature is more enigmatic and secretive, while others such a French and Boerhaave present Truth in plain words shrouded in direct lies to baffle the uninitiated reader. FlightOfFire put it so well in his post.



YES! Of course these are false processes! Only a fool would take such processes literally instead of comprehending the spirit of what was being said.

Dude, just read the works of contemporary "chymists". There is NOTHING remotely "alchemical" about John French's or Boerhaave's works. This last one even spent OVER 15 YEARS patiently distilling & re-distilling HUNDREDS OF TIMES and "cooking" metallic amalgams inside glass flasks EVEN FOR YEARS to test some of the claims he had read and TOTALLY LITERALLY INTERPRETED, just to see if the mercury would really "coagulate" into a solid metal (hopefully silver or gold):

http://www.encyclopedia.com/people/medicine/medicine-biographies/herman-boerhaave

Boerhaave’s attitude toward alchemy was somewhat ambiguous; he did not dogmatically deny a priori the possibility of the transmutation of metals, but examined it in a series of painstaking experiments that lasted over a period of many years. He purified his mercury specimens by forcing them through leather and then washing them in seawater. In one experiment, he used a fulling mill to shake a specimen of mercury, enclosed in a glass bottle, for a period of eight and one-half months; he then distilled it sixty-one times. Other specimens of mercury were variously heated for fifteen and one-half years, boiled 511 times, or mixed with gold and then distilled 877 times. Gold remained gold, and mercury, mercury; he did, however, obtain mercury with the specific weight of 14.1 as the result of one of these year-long experiments. These experiments were published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London (1734–1736).

He finally stopped these naive experiments after an accident caused by a clumsy lab assistant ruined one of these amalgam experiments that had been going on for YEARS, and also because he plainly saw that in all these trials NOTHING happened to the mercury and it remained the same inert metal it was at the start of the experiments. Now, does this sound to you like something a genuine alchemist would fall for??? Nope, it certainly doesn't. Rest assured these guys were nothing but chymists, interested in the subject of alchemy and transmutation, sure, like most other chymists of the time, but still NOT "alchemists" by any stretch of the imagination. These guys NEVER figured out how to make the Stone. Rest assured of it. Again, just compare their works with those of genuine alchemists. Very easy to tell them apart.

Dragon's Tail
11-23-2017, 02:29 AM
AGAPDOTAJDP you are my favorite poster here and one of the few worthwhile people on this message board (shoutout to Krisztian, z0 K, Chasm, Dwellings, black, Axismundi, Zoas, Dragon's Tail, Andro, and Kiorionis too http://i.imgur.com/G5HEc3p.gif), but your perception has not yet caught up to your intellect.


Aw, shucks. I'm not sure how "worthwhile" I am other than repeatedly demonstrating things that don't create the stone, fiddling with herbs, and posing thinking points as they come to me.

I'm afraid, however that this post has gone waaaay off topic. Nothing being discussed here is furthering the production of acetic through natural means.

I was however considering the fact that certain chemicals are used in helping alcohol yeast survive longer to generate higher alcohol content in wine. I don't recall the exact ingredients, but I have a feeling that some can be found in plant ashes, possibly the ashes of yeast husks. More alky means more vinegar, assuming that the bacteria could also survive the increasingly acidic conditions. When I've caught wild acetobacter in a glass before, it ended with really low strength vinegar, of course, I didn't "feed" them, even after I spotted the mother and realized what was happening. Any ideas for "natural" means of stabilizing the wine making process? A concentration of raw vinegar of even a couple percent could be huge in the reduction of raw work. Concentrating acetic is a pain in the butt, and not energy efficient.

Axismundi000
11-29-2017, 09:06 AM
This could be useful:

With a fish tank aerator and a pet warming pad underneath I am getting completed vinegar in less than a week. So the vinegar is now taking less time to make than the wine unless I use the fastest possible turbo yeast for the wine. So in practical terms half an hour to an hour of wine making every other day leading to a ‘conveyer belt’ of vinegar fermenting in just one barrel and from there to the freezer. This has become a manageable undertaking. The quantity of vinegar required for acetate research is now feasable with regular piecemeal activity rather then the ridiculous scale of activity it previously seemed to require. The crux is not needing loads of barrels of fermenting wine and vinegar around. Just one barrel with pad and aerator for vinegar and 8 demijohns for the wine.

Dragon's Tail
11-29-2017, 02:17 PM
This could be useful:

With a fish tank aerator and a pet warming pad underneath I am getting completed vinegar in less than a week. So the vinegar is now taking less time to make than the wine unless I use the fastest possible turbo yeast for the wine. So in practical terms half an hour to an hour of wine making every other day leading to a ‘conveyer belt’ of vinegar fermenting in just one barrel and from there to the freezer. This has become a manageable undertaking. The quantity of vinegar required for acetate research is now feasable with regular piecemeal activity rather then the ridiculous scale of activity it previously seemed to require. The crux is not needing loads of barrels of fermenting wine and vinegar around. Just one barrel with pad and aerator for vinegar and 8 demijohns for the wine.

Wait.. how fast is your wine fermenting? Where can find this turbo yeast? lol.

Sounds like the vinegar production problem is solved, now purifying it. Don't know where you're at, but around here it's getting close to them temps were it can be left outside at night. At least for the first couple pour offs. Vinegar purification would def be easier in the frozen months.

Axismundi000
11-29-2017, 06:32 PM
Using specific vodka making turboyeast you can get about 90% of ferment complete within 2 days. You must get double size demijohns at least and fill no more than 1/4 - 1/3 otherwise the grape pulp will rise up block the airlock and blowout, pebbledash your ceiling. The yeast company recommend no airlock for this reason, what they expect you to use instead I cannot say.

The last batch of vinegar I have done of only 15 litres is finished at PH 3-4 after 36 hours approx, this morning it was PH 4-5, time to bottle and freeze. The flavour of the vinegar is not very strong I don’t know how that will impact the Alchemy. Cheaper vinegar brands add flavour and aroma to vinegar forced in this way I have discovered. For food slowly adding glasses of wine to a wooden barrel over 6 months or so produces a wonderful vinegar. However I am not seeking a delicious food vinegar, I just want loads of naturally made acetic acid.