PDA

View Full Version : Saturn & Blackness | Lead & Galena



elixirmixer
01-02-2018, 03:04 AM
JDP, I believe that you were the one who taught me, that Galena = Saturn = Our Blackness.

I wonder what they were blackening?

JDP
01-02-2018, 07:29 AM
JDP, I believe that you were the one who taught me, that Galena = Saturn = Our Blackness.

I wonder what they were blackening?

I think you might be misremembering a bit here. Plus doesn't your own comment pretty much invalidate the possibility that "our blackness/Saturn" could be galena, which is ALREADY BLACK BY ITSELF, WITHOUT DOING ANYTHING TO IT? Think about it. Why were the alchemists so concerned about "blackening" their compound then? You have answered your very own query! Galena was NOT "our Saturn/Lead/Magnesia/Adrop/Atrop/Sericon/Azoquean-Vitriol/etc."

Florius Frammel
01-02-2018, 08:21 AM
Maybe Lead is our Lead. After the reaction with Sulfur you get vulgar Galena. Then you could do the separation. Of course you would get lead and sulfur again, so you have to combine it again. An appropriate explanation of the symbol of the ouroboros. ;)

Sorry, don't want to offend, just kidding!

JDP
01-02-2018, 08:33 AM
Maybe Lead is our Lead. After the reaction with Sulfur you get vulgar Galena. Then you could do the separation. Of course you would get lead and sulfur again, so you have to combine it again. An appropriate explanation of the symbol of the ouroboros. ;)

Sorry, don't want to offend, just kidding!

But even lead was considered "black", due to the "dull" surface hue it gets when it is exposed to the atmosphere. For centuries it was in fact called "black lead" to distinguish it from "white lead" (i.e. tin, which does not tarnish as easily as lead and thus remains bright and silvery.)

Florius Frammel
01-02-2018, 12:44 PM
Alexander von Bernus (some claim he was an adept) writes that nitric acid is definately involved in the beginning. He backs this with the often used "azo" like in azoth. Even nowadays some chemicals containing nitrogen atoms are somehow labeled as "azocompounds".
Further the origin of nitric acid is saltpeter. This word speaks for itself.
Further he says nitric acid is the winged dragon eating the dragon without wings. You sure know the symbol.
The question now could be, what is it that gives a black product in a reaction with nitric acid.

JDP
01-02-2018, 07:43 PM
Alexander von Bernus (some claim he was an adept) writes that nitric acid is definately involved in the beginning. He backs this with the often used "azo" like in azoth. Even nowadays some chemicals containing nitrogen atoms are somehow labeled as "azocompounds".
Further the origin of nitric acid is saltpeter. This word speaks for itself.
Further he says nitric acid is the winged dragon eating the dragon without wings. You sure know the symbol.
The question now could be, what is it that gives a black product in a reaction with nitric acid.

I'm afraid that von Bernus was wrong on that one. "Aqua fortis" was unknown to the ancients (it was discovered sometime during the Middle Ages; the first to clearly describe its preparation was the Latin author whose works circulated under the name of "Geber", who lived in either Italy or Spain around the late 13th century AD), so it is hardly necessary in making the Philosophers' Stone. Where aqua fortis (specially in its more arcane "gradatory" varieties) is very useful indeed is in some "particulars", specially the ones having to do with directly producing gold from silver.

Dragon's Tail
01-02-2018, 08:25 PM
I'm afraid that von Bernus was wrong on that one. "Aqua fortis" was unknown to the ancients (it was discovered sometime during the Middle Ages; the first to clearly describe its preparation was the Latin author whose works circulated under the name of "Geber", who lived in either Italy or Spain around the late 13th century AD), so it is hardly necessary in making the Philosophers' Stone. Where aqua fortis (specially in its more arcane "gradatory" varieties) is very useful indeed is in some "particulars", specially the ones having to do with directly producing gold from silver.

Not to be confused with Jabir ibn Hayyan.. I assume. Is this the pseudo-Geber that you are referring too? There's too many alchemists with that name.

JDP
01-02-2018, 09:02 PM
Not to be confused with Jabir ibn Hayyan.. I assume. Is this the pseudo-Geber that you are referring too? There's too many alchemists with that name.

Yes, the Latin author from the late 13th century AD, not the older Arabic one from around the 8th-9th century AD. The older alchemists were acquainted with some acids, but mostly of organic origin. "Oil of vitriol" was already known before aqua fortis. In the mid 13th century Al-Qazwini mentions fumes of an "oily nature" coming from heated vitriol, which heat up water when they come in contact with it. This is obviously a description of the production of sulfuric acid by strongly heating metallic vitriols and condensing the "fumes" given off, and then making them react with water.

elixirmixer
01-02-2018, 11:36 PM
I noticed that nitric acid makes organic matters (herbs) turn black and literally reacts and dissolves them. Its pretty cool to watch actually and I did wonder at the time whether this was associated with anything important.

Warmheart
01-03-2018, 07:19 AM
I think that we need to use less "chemical" substances and more Natural ones. As I see it, all those acids, etc., only destroy.

Florius Frammel
01-03-2018, 07:33 AM
Getting the black with oil of vitriol is easy.

https://youtu.be/poDBrGIyTEk

Warmheart
01-03-2018, 11:05 AM
Getting the black with oil of vitriol is easy.

https://youtu.be/poDBrGIyTEk
Dehydration by Sulfuric Acid, so it turns black like any hydrocarbon compound.

As Basilius Valentin was saying in his 12 Keys, our first materials are presumably everywhere. And as I see it, he strongly advises against using any kind of vulgar acids in his very first Key.

I think that while we deal with chemical compounds we miss something important in the big picture.

Florius Frammel
01-03-2018, 01:25 PM
http://www.antiarte.it/adramelekteatro/newpag5.jpg

The reaction between sugar and sulfuric acid reminds me of the above picture. Sorry the bad quality, I couldn't find a better one online.
On the man it is written: "Qui in Merdam seminat, Merdam et metet" - "He who sows shit, also reaps shit."

I think it is in Gebers Liber transformationis. Another circle closed :D

JDP
01-03-2018, 10:33 PM
Dehydration by Sulfuric Acid, so it turns black like any hydrocarbon compound.

As Basilius Valentin was saying in his 12 Keys, our first materials are presumably everywhere. And as I see it, he strongly advises against using any kind of vulgar acids in his very first Key.

I think that while we deal with chemical compounds we miss something important in the big picture.

This argument is relatively modern, and hardly valid. When you read the invectives of the old alchemists against the "sophists", "fools", "Geber's Cooks", "puffers", "multipliers", etc., the substances these "unworthy" investigators were working with in order to try to make the Stone were in fact mostly naturally-occurring substances (including the "shit" itself that you keep mentioning in some of your posts), as the industry of those times heavily relied on naturally-occurring matters, unlike our modern industry which more heavily relies on artificial substances. Yet they kept on failing to attain the Stone nonetheless, even though they worked with the same raw materials available to the alchemists themselves. So whether a substance is "natural" or "artificial" won't really make much a of a difference between success and failure in this endeavor. That is not what sets alchemy and chemistry apart. It is figuring out the right substances, their proportions and what operations to perform on them (so they can generate the proper alchemical byproducts) that sets this difference. Those guys who kept failing back then as much as those who do so right now in our days, simply failed to stumble upon the right combination of substances, their proper proportions and the proper operations to submit them to, while those who succeeded are the ones who stumbled upon them. Call it a combination of wits (some seekers were smarter and more clever than others), hard work, persistence (some seekers would give up after a few failures, while others would never give up no matter how much they failed), and a dose of good luck. There is nothing else to it. No "mystery" here. No need to invoke uncorroborated "supernatural" nonsense, no "ignotum per ignotius" here. Simple reality suffices to explain why many failed and comparatively few succeeded. It is human nature. Nothing else. No mysterious "psychic forces", no Bearded Man in the Sky with nothing better to do than capriciously deciding who succeeds and who does not, no elusive "Spiritus Mundi" paradoxically supposedly found "everywhere", no "Abracadabra" and "Hocus-Pocus", no Tooth-Fairy... just human nature at play, like everything else appertaining to all human activities. Some people have a talent for music, others for math, others for baking, others for painting, others for chemistry, others for being thieves, others for medicine, etc. Same with alchemy. Some people have what it takes to unravel the subject and eventually succeed in finding the right substances and operations, while a lot of others do not.

Dragon's Tail
01-03-2018, 11:37 PM
This argument is relatively modern, and hardly valid. When you read the invectives of the old alchemists against the "sophists", "fools", "Geber's Cooks", "puffers", "multipliers", etc., the substances these "unworthy" investigators were working with in order to try to make the Stone were in fact mostly naturally-occurring substances (including the "shit" itself that you keep mentioning in some of your posts), as the industry of those times heavily relied on naturally-occurring matters, unlike our modern industry which more heavily relies on artificial substances. Yet they kept on failing to attain the Stone nonetheless, even though they worked with the same raw materials available to the alchemists themselves. So whether a substance is "natural" or "artificial" won't really make much a of a difference between success and failure in this endeavor. That is not what sets alchemy and chemistry apart. It is figuring out the right substances, their proportions and what operations to perform on them (so they can generate the proper alchemical byproducts) that sets this difference. Those guys who kept failing back then as much as those who do so right now in our days, simply failed to stumble upon the right combination of substances, their proper proportions and the proper operations to submit them to, while those who succeeded are the ones who stumbled upon them. Call it a combination of wits (some seekers were smarter and more clever than others), hard work, persistence (some seekers would give up after a few failures, while others would never give up no matter how much they failed), and a dose of good luck. There is nothing else to it. No "mystery" here. No need to invoke uncorroborated "supernatural" nonsense, no "ignotum per ignotius" here. Simple reality suffices to explain why many failed and comparatively few succeeded. It is human nature. Nothing else. No mysterious "psychic forces", no Bearded Man in the Sky with nothing better to do than capriciously deciding who succeeds and who does not, no elusive "Spiritus Mundi" paradoxically supposedly found "everywhere", no "Abracadabra" and "Hocus-Pocus", no Tooth-Fairy... just human nature at play, like everything else appertaining to all human activities. Some people have a talent for music, others for math, others for baking, others for painting, others for chemistry, others for being thieves, others for medicine, etc. Same with alchemy. Some people have what it takes to unravel the subject and eventually succeed in finding the right substances and operations, while a lot of others do not.

At least not from our perception. Some of the oldies may have felt certain things to be caused by supernatural forces due to their own shortcomings, a gripe I have with modern day people that try to pretend they are "scientists" but refuse to look at any of the details involved, because it requires work on their part to truly understand, but that's a rant for another time.

The more I work with plants however, the more I think many of these texts are fluffed up intentionally with "known" reactions and explanations just to throw of off the scent of the simplest of courses. Why does Hollandus need to babble on for 20 pages about making wine? He's including a bunch of extra processes, but in essence, the discourse demonstrates how to make wine, or SV. Not exactly uncommon knowledge now, and it was likely less so in his time. 18th century sailors used to make distilled liquors every time they hit a beach for shore leave. Analogy at best in some cases (I think Hollandus was actually describing another process in code), lies and nonsense in others. The authors I've read so far also seem to contradict themselves quite often, another clue.

Sorry if this sounds harsh, but I just wrote a page in my lab notebook about how everything shown or demonstrated to me so far is poo (except for some wonderful tips buried in this forum), rewrote the first couple lines of the Emerald Tablet, and now have a completely new understanding of it based on what I actually see and taste in my crucibles.

I'm on your side, I think, JDP that sometimes potash is potash and it doesn't matter where it comes from, but I also think there are still many things hidden in the natural world that aren't really discussed in modern science, mainly because nobody is willing to foot the bill to examine them with the big machines. Can't say I blame them. Like how we have a list of 4000 chemicals in cigarette smoke, but other plant byproducts get lumped into "some pyrolignious acids, carbon dioxide, and tar stuff." Tearing apart the chemical makeup of smoke from other plants doesn't benefit truth.org's agenda, hehe.

Florius Frammel
01-04-2018, 08:40 AM
An interesting vulgar candidate would be Bismuth. It is known since ancient times and because of it's properties was often confused and/or labelled as antimony, arsenic, lead or tin. It can show interesting colors, in thin layers it shows semi-conductivity and is slightly radioactive though less dangerous/poisenous as for example lead or other heavy metals.

Another thought: I am quite sure that Kirchweger in his aurea catena homeri often refers to pyrite or fools gold as the thing to look after in coals.