PDA

View Full Version : Spagiric Curiousity



Esche
08-02-2018, 03:35 AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartshorn#/media/File:Silz_cerf22.jpg



Various substances were made from hartshorn shavings :


Oil of hartshorn is a crude animal oil obtained from the destructive distillation of male red deer bones or horns.

Salt of hartshorn refers to ammonium carbonate, an early form of smelling salts obtained by dry distillation of oil of hartshorn.

Spirit of hartshorn (or spirits of hartshorn) is an aqueous solution of ammonia. Originally, this term was applied to a solution manufactured from the hooves and horns of the red deer, as well as those of some other animals. The aqueous solution was colorless and pungent, consisting of about 28.5 percent ammonia. It was used chiefly as a detergent, for removing stains and extracting certain vegetable coloring agents, and in the manufacture of ammonium salts. Later, the term was applied to the partially purified similar products of the action of heat on nitrogenous animal matter generally. Finally, the term was applied to any aqueous solution of ammonia.

Uses
Medicine

Hartshorn jelly or a decoction of burnt hartshorn in water was used to treat diarrhea. The coal of hartshorn, called calcinated hartshorn, was used as an absorbent, as well as in the treatment of dysentery. Salt of hartshorn (ammonium carbonate) was used as a sudorific for treatment of fevers, and as a smelling salt.[2] Hartshorn was used to treat insect bites,[3] sunstroke,[4] stye,[5] and snakebites.

z0 K
08-04-2018, 02:25 AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartshorn#/media/File:Silz_cerf22.jpg



Various substances were made from hartshorn shavings :


Oil of hartshorn is a crude animal oil obtained from the destructive distillation of male red deer bones or horns.

Salt of hartshorn refers to ammonium carbonate, an early form of smelling salts obtained by dry distillation of oil of hartshorn.

Spirit of hartshorn (or spirits of hartshorn) is an aqueous solution of ammonia. Originally, this term was applied to a solution manufactured from the hooves and horns of the red deer, as well as those of some other animals. The aqueous solution was colorless and pungent, consisting of about 28.5 percent ammonia. It was used chiefly as a detergent, for removing stains and extracting certain vegetable coloring agents, and in the manufacture of ammonium salts. Later, the term was applied to the partially purified similar products of the action of heat on nitrogenous animal matter generally. Finally, the term was applied to any aqueous solution of ammonia.

Uses
Medicine

Hartshorn jelly or a decoction of burnt hartshorn in water was used to treat diarrhea. The coal of hartshorn, called calcinated hartshorn, was used as an absorbent, as well as in the treatment of dysentery. Salt of hartshorn (ammonium carbonate) was used as a sudorific for treatment of fevers, and as a smelling salt.[2] Hartshorn was used to treat insect bites,[3] sunstroke,[4] stye,[5] and snakebites.

You are on to something here. Sal Armoniac spirit of Azoth. You can get it from plants and animals but not metals.

Esche
08-04-2018, 03:20 AM
You are on to something here. Sal Armoniac spirit of Azoth. You can get it from plants and animals but not metals.

It's for this reason that is a spagyric curiousity. I don't knew any animal path in spagyric works, before I was thinking in fat of sheep, ambergris, bones of serpent calcination (wich is phosphorescent), blood of serpents wich is used as magic and mythical Elixir of Life, and so many others. Is comom sense that the standard source of salt armoriac is the distillation of urine, when I saw in biscuits and cookies this compound I discover the reason why I don't like pretty well some blends.

Florius Frammel
08-04-2018, 04:23 AM
You are on to something here. Sal Armoniac spirit of Azoth. You can get it from plants and animals but not metals.

Sorry to correct you here, but Salammoniac is in fact a mineral (rare).

I guess you mean Baker's ammonia (NH4CO3 mostly) which can be made out of hartshorn. This compound however can easily be converted into Salammoniac.

Weidenfeld
08-04-2018, 11:22 AM
Sorry to correct you here, but Salammoniac is in fact a mineral (rare).

I guess you mean Baker's ammonia (NH4CO3 mostly) which can be made out of hartshorn. This compound however can easily be converted into Salammoniac.
Here is not meant common Salammoniac but Sal Harmoniacum, completely different from the latter one , a decknamen for something else, it is often mentioned in Lull's manuscripts (often cited in Weidenfeld‘s Secret Spirit of Wine) .....

Florius Frammel
08-04-2018, 11:51 AM
Here is not meant common Salammoniac but Sal Harmoniacum, completely different from the latter one , a decknamen for something else, it is often mentioned in Lull's manuscripts (often cited in Weidenfeld‘s Secret Spirit of Wine) .....

Is it still somehow connected to hartshorn?

z0 K
08-04-2018, 03:12 PM
Sorry to correct you here, but Salammoniac is in fact a mineral (rare).

I guess you mean Baker's ammonia (NH4CO3 mostly) which can be made out of hartshorn. This compound however can easily be converted into Salammoniac.

I said that Sal Armoniac could not be obtained from metals. I never said there was no mineral sources of it. I said Sal Armoniac is a spirit of Azoth. That "spirit" loves Nitrogen. Armoniac is not the chemicals ammonium carbonate or ammonium chloride. Those molecules of chemistry are the "carriers" of Azoth Armoniac when viewed from an alchemical perspective.

To see the difference prepare Sal Armoniac from a plant of your choice and then compare it with ammonium bicarbonate from the store using one then the other in preparing a Quintessence.

The Armoniac from Hartshorn when prepared properly delivers Sal Armoniac Spirit to use as you would vegetable Sal Armoniac.

Esche
08-04-2018, 06:11 PM
There is no vegetable source of armoriac salt, or it do exists?

The salt armoriac (not the ammonium salts from Hartshorn) is known since ancient egypt as the salt
of Amon, wich is the volatile salt from urine. In the case the salt extracted from plants is generally potassium carbonate rarely potassium nitrate or even an acid, wich is in general the alkali salt or the fix salt from plants. The wormwood was the commom herb well known for this operations, and it salt was used in substitution of table salt. Another lost plant, the "potash" (I cannot find anymore nothing about it), originally named the potassium carbonate and also the mineral nowadays.

On the caput of this thread the text makes refference to the dry distillation of the hartshorn oil, wich is not so far a dry distillation, hey it's an oil. What happens? the oil is volatilized and the salt remains as feces, or the salt is volatilized and the oil ramains. A question of so hard difficulty wich only could be solved by the hard task to prepare the oil with horns or bones of hartshorn.

"Fare volatile fixum et fixum volatile".

Esche
08-04-2018, 06:56 PM
About the burdock (Articum lappa, gaeilic Mac-an-Dogha), in the book "Gaelic name of plants (Scotish and Irish)" we see:

"Dogha also means burnt or singed. It was formely burned to procure from its ashes a white alkaline salt, as good as the best potash".

Esche
08-04-2018, 08:38 PM
There is no vegetable source of armoriac salt, or it do exists?

The salt armoriac (not the ammonium salts from Hartshorn) is known since ancient egypt as the salt
of Amon, wich is the volatile salt from urine. In the case the salt extracted from plants is generally potassium carbonate rarely potassium nitrate or even an acid, wich is in general the alkali salt or the fix salt from plants. The wormwood was the commom herb well known for this operations, and it salt was used in substitution of table salt. Another lost plant, the "potash" (I cannot find anymore nothing about it), originally named the potassium carbonate and also the mineral nowadays.

On the caput of this thread the text makes refference to the dry distillation of the hartshorn oil, wich is not so far a dry distillation, hey it's an oil. What happens? the oil is volatilized and the salt remains as feces, or the salt is volatilized and the oil ramains. A question of so hard difficulty wich only could be solved by the hard task to prepare the oil with horns or bones of hartshorn.

"Fare volatile fixum et fixum volatile".


I'm wrong on this setence, a mistaken was done between the ammonium salts here. The well known Ammon Salt from egyptian sources is the ammonium chloride (NH4Cl) wich have others mineral sources like the burn of charcoal and sublimated vulcanic fumes. The volatile salt, wich is the urine salt is the NH4CO3 (ammonium carbonate). Perhaps the first is the fixed form of the second. Both have uses in alchemy and in culinary recipes.

Schmuldvich
08-04-2018, 10:02 PM
Esche, is this information coming from your personal experience in the lab, or are you copy-pasting information you are gathering from somewhere else?

Esche
08-04-2018, 11:25 PM
Esche, is this information coming from your personal experience in the lab, or are you copy-pasting information you are gathering from somewhere else?


I am a disaster in spagyrics operations. In my las two essays on the preparation of volatile salt all glass had brocken with a lightning flash, in the salt extration I get a small layer of the salt from acacia leaves but this was not a profitable match. Relying with my limits to burn ammount of leaves in an apartment or to distill the pestilence from urine I give up front it to not cause any throuble with my neibhors. I feel so enclousured, then, my only choice is buying comercial chemicals, wich I"m at now programming to do. Infortunately, in my city I can't find almost nothing more, all lab glass store and chemical sources are closed here, and I have to pay fee for shippment.

I conclude that the Ammon salt (NH4Cl) is the fixed form of volatile salt (NH4CO3), just because the first it's not volatile, however, when a source cite the term "armoriac salt" I'm still continue in doubt what between both salts. At the time of these experiments, I don't know what herb is pretty indicated or prescribed to salt extration, at now I have ensurance of sources for it, but I'm still limited by the apartment walls.

Schmuldvich
08-05-2018, 12:55 AM
I am a disaster in spagyrics operations. In my las two essays on the preparation of volatile salt all glass had brocken with a lightning flash, in the salt extration I get a small layer of the salt from acacia leaves but this was not a profitable match. Relying with my limits to burn ammount of leaves in an apartment or to distill the pestilence from urine I give up front it to not cause any throuble with my neibhors. I feel so enclousured, then, my only choice is buying comercial chemicals, wich I"m at now programming to do. Infortunately, in my city I can't find almost nothing more, all lab glass store and chemical sources are closed here, and I have to pay fee for shippment.

I conclude that the Ammon salt (NH4Cl) is the fixed form of volatile salt (NH4CO3), just because the first it's not volatile, however, when a source cite the term "armoriac salt" I'm still continue in doubt what between both salts. At the time of these experiments, I don't know what herb is pretty indicated or prescribed to salt extration, at now I have ensurance of sources for it, but I'm still limited by the apartment walls.

Thank you for sharing, Esche.

z0 K gave great information earlier.

The storebought chemicals are just not the same as Sal Armmoniac that is prepared from our Matter. Spagyrically speaking, this is seen as neither an acid or an alcali and has special characteristics that makes it unique to our Art.




https://i.imgur.com/a7MNi5d.png

Esche
08-05-2018, 02:36 AM
Thank you for sharing, Esche.

z0 K gave great information earlier.

The storebought chemicals are just not the same as Sal Armmoniac that is prepared from our Matter. Spagyrically speaking, this is seen as neither an acid or an alcali and has special characteristics that makes it unique to our Art.




https://i.imgur.com/a7MNi5d.png


If I'm not mistaken in the interpretation of the main thoughts present in the text, a comercial salt could be "rectified" conjoined with tartaric salt by an acid solution wich allows its recovering most pure and authentic (perhaps the acetic acid). I cannot understand the mean through wich both salts is separated one from each other, the text says "by violence of the fire". How to distinguish both salts?

Schmuldvich
08-05-2018, 05:30 AM
If I'm not mistaken in the interpretation of the main thoughts present in the text, a comercial salt could be "rectified" conjoined with tartaric salt by an acid solution wich allows its recovering most pure and authentic (perhaps the acetic acid). I cannot understand the mean through wich both salts is separated one from each other, the text says "by violence of the fire". How to distinguish both salts?

In the quote Boerhaave is speaking specifically of a special kind of salt, something unique; he calls it Sal Ammoniac (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?5701-Our-Whiteness-Regeneration) in the above passage.

Fulcanelli and many others speak of it as well while adding their own insight.

It is especially intriguing how this salt is detailed in "The Six Keys Of Eudoxus":




"So, in the Art, you can have no success if you do not in the first work purify the Serpent, born of the Slime of the earth; it you do not whiten these foul and black faeces, to separate from thence the white sulphur, which is the Sal Amoniac of the Wise, and their Chaste Diana, who washes herself in the bath; and all this mystery is but the extraction of the fixed salt of our compound, in which the whole energy of our Mercury consists.

The water which ascends by distillation carries up with it a part of this fiery salt, so that the affusion of the water on the body, reiterated many times, impregnates, fattens, and fertilizes our Mercury, and makes it fit to be fixed, which is the end of the second Work."

Once you begin working with this salt and the Spirit Of Wine (Philosophically speaking) it becomes clear how versatile and the number of characteristics and properties this salt embodies, further substantiating what Boerhaave was discussing in the above quote.

Working with ammonium chloride and ammonium carbonate does not yield the same results, although (again Philosophically speaking) calling this salt Ammonium Carbonate would be a fitting decknamen for this salt being that we understand its origin and properties.

You mentioned burdock earlier. Looking at a picture of burdock up close, can we see how an Alchemist could use this to describe a certain aspect of our Art?



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

In fact, Boerhaave speak of burdock as well in his "New Method Of Chemistry"



https://i.imgur.com/GomYvq7.png

Does it make sense why he mentions burdock in this book?

JDP
08-05-2018, 09:39 AM
In the quote Boerhaave is speaking specifically of a special kind of salt, something unique; he calls it Sal Ammoniac (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?5701-Our-Whiteness-Regeneration) in the above passage.

Fulcanelli and many others speak of it as well while adding their own insight.

It is especially intriguing how this salt is detailed in "The Six Keys Of Eudoxus":




"So, in the Art, you can have no success if you do not in the first work purify the Serpent, born of the Slime of the earth; it you do not whiten these foul and black faeces, to separate from thence the white sulphur, which is the Sal Amoniac of the Wise, and their Chaste Diana, who washes herself in the bath; and all this mystery is but the extraction of the fixed salt of our compound, in which the whole energy of our Mercury consists.

The water which ascends by distillation carries up with it a part of this fiery salt, so that the affusion of the water on the body, reiterated many times, impregnates, fattens, and fertilizes our Mercury, and makes it fit to be fixed, which is the end of the second Work."

Once you begin working with this salt and the Spirit Of Wine (Philosophically speaking) it becomes clear how versatile and the number of characteristics and properties this salt embodies, further substantiating what Boerhaave was discussing in the above quote.

Working with ammonium chloride and ammonium carbonate does not yield the same results, although (again Philosophically speaking) calling this salt Ammonium Carbonate would be a fitting decknamen for this salt being that we understand its origin and properties.

You mentioned burdock earlier. Looking at a picture of burdock up close, can we see how an Alchemist could use this to describe a certain aspect of our Art?



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

In fact, Boerhaave speak of burdock as well in his "New Method Of Chemistry"



https://i.imgur.com/GomYvq7.png

Does it make sense why he mentions burdock in this book?

Because he was just a "chymist" and his treatise deals with most substances known to the "chymistry" of those times (early 18th century.) Naturally, then, his book also deals with a whole bunch of plants. It has been explained to you over and over, again and again, that Boerhaave was NOT any kind of "alchemist" or "adept", yet you keep on quoting him as such, when his texts are in fact not saying what you think they are saying. That guy did NOT know how to make the Stone, and he never claimed to know either.

JDP
08-05-2018, 09:52 AM
If I'm not mistaken in the interpretation of the main thoughts present in the text, a comercial salt could be "rectified" conjoined with tartaric salt by an acid solution wich allows its recovering most pure and authentic (perhaps the acetic acid). I cannot understand the mean through wich both salts is separated one from each other, the text says "by violence of the fire". How to distinguish both salts?

The text is actually by a well-known early 18th century "chymist", not an "alchemist", and he is just describing how ammonium compounds were prepared back then, as well as some of the "chymical" theories of the time (like the "acid & alkali" theory) regarding how salts formed. As usual, Schmuldvich tries too hard to read much more into texts than there actually is. Just look at how he thinks alchemical texts supposedly should be read, as if they were some sort of "cabalistic" riddle from cover to cover. Boerhaave's chymical treatises are in fact even more literal than the majority of the text of just about any alchemical treatise, where the only time you really have to be on your guard is regarding the actual names of the substances being used to generate the Stone. Here is where things get tricky and the alchemists employ several tactics, specially the use of a barrage of "decknamen", to try to make it as difficult and confusing as possible for what they considered as "unworthy" people to figure out.

Esche
08-05-2018, 04:43 PM
From "The Six Keys Of Eudoxus": "So, in the Art, you can have no success if you do not in the first work purify the Serpent, born of the Slime of the earth; it you do not whiten these foul and black faeces, to separate from thence the white sulphur, which is the Sal Amoniac of the Wise, and their Chaste Diana, who washes herself in the bath; and all this mystery is but the extraction of the fixed salt of our compound, in which the whole energy of our Mercury consists. The water which ascends by distillation carries up with it a part of this fiery salt, so that the affusion of the water on the body, reiterated many times, impregnates, fattens, and fertilizes our Mercury, and makes it fit to be fixed, which is the end of the second Work."

The alchemical language here used in the body of the text are encripting the extration & volatilization of the plant salt, as well it role in the alchemical Opus. The term "purify the Seerpent" makes reference to the burnt of the vegetable matter; then "it you do not whiten these foul and black faeces", makes referece to the calcination of it ashes; then "to separate from thence the white sulphur" makes reference to the lixiviation of the ashes; and "... who washes herself in the bath" makes reference to the coagulation of the white salt;

The last term:" The water which ascends by distillation carries up with it a part of this fiery salt, so that the affusion of the water on the body, reiterated many times, impregnates, fattens, and fertilizes our Mercury, and makes it fit to be fixed, which is the end of the second Work."

This term is about the volatilization of the salt (perhaps he find a source of a double salt as encripted in "which is the Sal Amoniac of the Wise, and their Chaste Diana") and it operational role in the preparation of the mercury to the Magistery ("the affusion of the water on the body, reiterated many times, impregnates, fattens, and fertilizes our Mercury").

Some alchemists had decribed this work in so many forms, calling it "eagles", however, in the opposite direction - the water with the salt (already volatilized) is distilled from the mercury, and they called it "water of mercury".

Esche
08-05-2018, 05:07 PM
The text is actually by a well-known early 18th century "chymist", not an "alchemist", and he is just describing how ammonium compounds were prepared back then, as well as some of the "chymical" theories of the time (like the "acid & alkali" theory) regarding how salts formed. As usual, Schmuldvich tries too hard to read much more into texts than there actually is. Just look at how he thinks alchemical texts supposedly should be read, as if they were some sort of "cabalistic" riddle from cover to cover. Boerhaave's chymical treatises are in fact even more literal than the majority of the text of just about any alchemical treatise, where the only time you really have to be on your guard is regarding the actual names of the substances being used to generate the Stone. Here is where things get tricky and the alchemists employ several tactics, specially the use of a barrage of "decknamen", to try to make it as difficult and confusing as possible for what they considered as "unworthy" people to figure out.

Returning to chemical salts, even the text treating about chemical salts from Boerhaave and it "preparation" by that path, the general idea came from alchemical bases given by Roger Bacon when he quotes, in similar words "alchemy is the Art of separation of the compounds of a body, and then, reunite again in a most percefect and pure body". I believe there is none problem if this theory was applied in defense of the preparation of salts by the present "modus operandis" (acid-alkali).

In pure chemical, the storebought salts or any chemicals came to us with the electrosphere in chaos. Just because, beyond the factoring path, any agitation of the flask could desencadeate series of electron changes (oxi-red) with plastic by the atrict, as example. The instability appears like wich happens with crude gold, the last two electron shells are instable then by all dissolution of the gold ore in and by the employment of a reduction agent (sodium cianyde) the last shell is stabilized by two electrons from zinc, wich causes the coagulation of pure gold. Perhaps this explain the searching of alchemists for reducing substances.


"Solve et coagula"

z0 K
08-05-2018, 08:48 PM
That excerpt of Six Keys of Eudoxus is from an abbreviated translation compared to the one at scribd.com on the net which I prefer.

That excerpt is from the Third Key:


Be assured therefore, that there shall be no goodly success in this our art, but that in the first working, you do purge the serpent born of the alluvium of the earth, bleach these faeces feculent and swart, that therefrom you separate the white sulphur, the sal armoniac of the wise, which is their chaste Diana who in the basin shall lave herself. All this mystery is but of the extraction of the fixed salt from our composite in which consists the energy entire of our Merucry. The water, which rises by distillation carries up with it a portion of this fiery salt; such that the affusion of the water upon the body several times over reiterated, impregnates, fertilises, and fecundates our Mercury, and renders it a proper fixation; the which is the term of the second working: Finer exposition of which truth can I not find, but in these words of Hermes: "When I saw that I had made that water, to commence gradually to thicken, and harden I rejoiced for I knew of a certainty, I should find that, whereafter I did seek."

The process is describing the destructive distillation of biomass with attention to the matters received from the destruction. He gives out a great secret: sal armoniac is our white sulphur, salt of the wise according to Hollandus and others. Secondly he reveals that chaste Diana is in fact sal armoniac. And to make her chaste one shall wash her in the basin or waters received or water of the clouds: distilled water.

Then he moves on to another subject from the same process saying all this mystery is but the extraction of the fixed salt from our composite. The entire energy of our Mercury is to extract the fixed salt with our white sulfur: To sublime them.

Then he describes purification of the waters and the relationship of sal armoniac to the waters which is also the preparation of the simple Mercury. That Mercury (our Water) after purification through several reiterations impregnates, fertilises, and fecundates our Mercury (our Earth or fixed salt) rendering it into a proper fixation or Quintessence or white stone.

The quote from Hermes describes the transition of Armoniac waters into Sal Armoniac. I have seen this many times as it is part of the process of fishing Armoniac out of the chaos of foul tarry waters born out of the alluvium of the earth. When it thickens it becomes an oily looking milky white liquid.

Our Mercury is a decknamen for the Elements and Principles collected and purified each by itself or all together as the Stone. The Stone is Our Mercury, Our Sulfur, Our Earth, Our Air, and Our Water, separately or various combinations along the way until it is realized that the Philosophers Stone is in fact Our Mercury. Our Mercury comes from one thing biomass and the hope of the Philosophers Stone is within.

JDP
08-05-2018, 10:43 PM
That excerpt of Six Keys of Eudoxus is from an abbreviated translation compared to the one at scribd.com on the net which I prefer.

That excerpt is from the Third Key:



The process is describing the destructive distillation of biomass with attention to the matters received from the destruction. He gives out a great secret: sal armoniac is our white sulphur, salt of the wise according to Hollandus and others. Secondly he reveals that chaste Diana is in fact sal armoniac. And to make her chaste one shall wash her in the basin or waters received or water of the clouds: distilled water.

Then he moves on to another subject from the same process saying all this mystery is but the extraction of the fixed salt from our composite. The entire energy of our Mercury is to extract the fixed salt with our white sulfur: To sublime them.

Then he describes purification of the waters and the relationship of sal armoniac to the waters which is also the preparation of the simple Mercury. That Mercury (our Water) after purification through several reiterations impregnates, fertilises, and fecundates our Mercury (our Earth or fixed salt) rendering it into a proper fixation or Quintessence or white stone.

The quote from Hermes describes the transition of Armoniac waters into Sal Armoniac. I have seen this many times as it is part of the process of fishing Armoniac out of the chaos of foul tarry waters born out of the alluvium of the earth. When it thickens it becomes an oily looking milky white liquid.

Our Mercury is a decknamen for the Elements and Principles collected and purified each by itself or all together as the Stone. The Stone is Our Mercury, Our Sulfur, Our Earth, Our Air, and Our Water, separately or various combinations along the way until it is realized that the Philosophers Stone is in fact Our Mercury. Our Mercury comes from one thing biomass and the hope of the Philosophers Stone is within.

The fact that he clearly says "our composite" should already give the hint that this is NOT a naturally-occurring matter. It is NOT really "one thing" and it is NOT made by nature either. It is a composite of several substances, and it is made by the alchemist himself. The distillation of naturally-occurring plant and animal matters and the products/byproducts given off by such operations is already found relatively clearly described even as far back as some Jabirian texts. The alchemists of this school knew how to prepare certain substances or "spirits" that can be employed, but by themselves they will never make the Stone. Organic matters simply do NOT contain any appreciable amounts of the necessary heavy metals for the task. For this the mineral "kingdom" is indispensable. Evidently the secret of alchemy does not reside in such relatively simple basic operations with naturally-occurring organic matters, which had already been relatively plainly described even as far back as the 8th-9th century AD (Jabir ibn Hayyan and his school), otherwise it would have been "officially" discovered a long time ago, folks. The "composite" of the alchemists is a certain mixture that CANNOT be found in nature, and for obvious reasons (heavy metals are usually toxic to living organisms.) Discovering how and out of what this "Magnesia" (to use one of the most popular code-words used by the older alchemists) is composed is the biggest stumbling block in alchemy, the one that has kept the majority of seekers "lost" for centuries and centuries. It is here that even the plainest, clearest, most sincere and honest alchemists adopt a more obscure, vague and enigmatic style, since it is the key of the whole thing.

Esche
08-05-2018, 11:37 PM
The fact that he clearly says "our composite" should already give the hint that this is NOT a naturally-occurring matter. It is NOT really "one thing" and it is NOT made by nature either. It is a composite of several substances, and it is made by the alchemist himself. The distillation of naturally-occurring plant and animal matters and the products/byproducts given off by such operations is already found relatively clearly described even as far back as some Jabirian texts. The alchemists of this school knew how to prepare certain substances or "spirits" that can be employed, but by themselves they will never make the Stone. Organic matters simply do NOT contain any appreciable amounts of the necessary heavy metals for the task. For this the mineral "kingdom" is indispensable. Evidently the secret of alchemy does not reside in such relatively simple basic operations with naturally-occurring organic matters, which had already been relatively plainly described even as far back as the 8th-9th century AD (Jabir ibn Hayyan and his school), otherwise it would have been "officially" discovered a long time ago, folks. The "composite" of the alchemists is a certain mixture that CANNOT be found in nature, and for obvious reasons (heavy metals are usually toxic to living organisms.) Discovering how and out of what this "Magnesia" (to use one of the most popular code-words used by the older alchemists) is composed is the biggest stumbling block in alchemy, the one that has kept the majority of seekers "lost" for centuries and centuries. It is here that even the plainest, clearest, most sincere and honest alchemists adopt a more obscure, vague and enigmatic style, since it is the key of the whole thing.


Entirely agreement. However, is necessary to say: "The secret of this Art stay in the nature of Saturn". "wolf, grey-wolf, black dragon, venomous serpent"...etc."

So many studants are searching for the Philosopher's Stone through spagirycs operations and in real this is the way, wich is the first work to learn how an invisible compound came from one matter (in this case a substance, on the other, an element) by the action of fire. So diligently, recalling it or removing it, then rectifying it by the action of the fire until the last collor appears.

Now we need the "Aurora Consurgens" facsimile to ilustrate.

Dragon's Tail
08-06-2018, 03:05 AM
The "composite" of the alchemists is a certain mixture that CANNOT be found in nature, and for obvious reasons (heavy metals are usually toxic to living organisms.) Discovering how and out of what this "Magnesia" (to use one of the most popular code-words used by the older alchemists) is composed is the biggest stumbling block in alchemy, the one that has kept the majority of seekers "lost" for centuries and centuries.


I might be wrong, it's late and I've been locked in my writing cave, but I don't think anyone in this thread is inferring "one matter" to do the whole operation. Maybe they are.

In either case, ruling out plant matter, or one ingredient made from biomass (or several) as PART of the original construction is a possibility, as is a mixture of any number of substances. Therefore it isn't without merit to examine the vegetal and animal kingdoms as well as the mineral. It's also silly to say that vinegar or ethanol can't possibly be part of the process unless you know the proper mixture already. There are too many unknowns in the equations.

I'm convinced that the operations in the texts are out of place just as much as the deck names they used for ingredients. I know I'm the outlier on that one, but there's a whole bunch of speculation around here and only a few people presenting the work they are doing.

Denial of anything without offering an alternative is silly. Do you think that black shale (the flinty serpent, the black snake) is an ingredient worth study? What about vitriol? By themselves, certainly not, or as you said it would have been discovered, but since we don't know the combination of substances-well, I don't anyway-then it would be foolish of me to say that it cannot be made from X,Y, and Z.

Even the "one matter" idea can be spouted without revealing something "added and then removed." Some catalyst. Perhaps the nature of the "crucible" itself (the Chinese seem to make quite a fuss about construction of a proper crucible).

JDP
08-06-2018, 03:57 AM
I might be wrong, it's late and I've been locked in my writing cave, but I don't think anyone in this thread is inferring "one matter" to do the whole operation. Maybe they are.

In either case, ruling out plant matter, or one ingredient made from biomass (or several) as PART of the original construction is a possibility, as is a mixture of any number of substances. Therefore it isn't without merit to examine the vegetal and animal kingdoms as well as the mineral. It's also silly to say that vinegar or ethanol can't possibly be part of the process unless you know the proper mixture already. There are too many unknowns in the equations.

I'm convinced that the operations in the texts are out of place just as much as the deck names they used for ingredients. I know I'm the outlier on that one, but there's a whole bunch of speculation around here and only a few people presenting the work they are doing.

Denial of anything without offering an alternative is silly. Do you think that black shale (the flinty serpent, the black snake) is an ingredient worth study? What about vitriol? By themselves, certainly not, or as you said it would have been discovered, but since we don't know the combination of substances-well, I don't anyway-then it would be foolish of me to say that it cannot be made from X,Y, and Z.

Even the "one matter" idea can be spouted without revealing something "added and then removed." Some catalyst. Perhaps the nature of the "crucible" itself (the Chinese seem to make quite a fuss about construction of a proper crucible).

If you read the post I was replying to, you will see that was the claim being made. Plus the author of the text in question makes it very clear elsewhere that the Stone is in fact made from the interaction of several substances and even bothers to explain the actual meaning of the "one matter" ruse:

It is easy to deliver you from that Doubt by this comparison; in the same manner as Juices extracted from divers Herbs, depurated from the Faeces, and incorporated together, make but one Confection of one only and self same Species; so the Philosophers, with Reason, call their prepared Matter, one only and self Thing, although we are not ignorant that it is a natural Compound of certain Substances from one same Root, and of one same Kind, making together one whole compleat Homogeneity; in this Sense the Philosophers do all agree, though some say, their Matter is compounded of two Things, and others of three; though some write, that it consists of four, and some of five; and others again that it is but one only Thing: They are all equally in the right, because divers Things of one and the same Kind naturally and intimately united, even as several Waters distilled from Herbs, and mingled together, do indeed constitute but one only self-same Thing; and this is done in our Art, and so much more fundamentally, as the Substances that make up the philosophical Compound, differ less among themselves, than sorrel Water differs from lettuce Water.

This is very clear: the author explains that the reason why some have pretended that "one matter only" is used to make the Stone is because all of the substances used in making it supposedly (according to their fanciful theories) are of "one species" or "kind", so though technically it is actually made by making a composite of several substances, they can (supposedly) count as "one" due to their (purely suppositious) same "species/root/nature/kind". He uses the example of "waters" or "juices" extracted or distilled from different herbs/plants as an analogous example of the same point of view. Though they are in fact distilled/extracted from several herbs/plants, you can (supposedly) count them as "one", since they are all herbs/plants (the author's ridiculous flimsy excuse to try to justify the misleading lies of other alchemists, even though he knows that they in fact used several substances to prepare the Stone.) Don't think too hard and deep on such excuses. The kind of alchemists he is referring to were nothing but a bunch of misleading sadistic bastards who used their fanciful theories about matter as a pretext to "legitimize" (in their heads) purposefully misleading those they considered "unworthy" by in fact telling them a big lie camouflaged as a supposed "philosophical truth": you need only "one thing/matter" from beginning to end, which is not the case in actual reality even by a huge stretch. A lie is a lie no matter how much you try to sugar-coat it. And even theoretically, they had no valid excuse, because they in fact used substances that cannot really be considered of the same "species/root/nature/kind", as they used both organic and inorganic substances in their operations. Metals/minerals cannot deliver the "humid" products they describe, but organic substances by themselves do not have the "dry" metallic "sulphurs/tinctures/dyes" which are also necessary for the production of the Stone.

z0 K
08-06-2018, 05:56 PM
The fact that he clearly says "our composite" should already give the hint that this is NOT a naturally-occurring matter. It is NOT really "one thing" and it is NOT made by nature either. It is a composite of several substances, and it is made by the alchemist himself. The distillation of naturally-occurring plant and animal matters and the products/byproducts given off by such operations is already found relatively clearly described even as far back as some Jabirian texts. The alchemists of this school knew how to prepare certain substances or "spirits" that can be employed, but by themselves they will never make the Stone. Organic matters simply do NOT contain any appreciable amounts of the necessary heavy metals for the task. For this the mineral "kingdom" is indispensable. Evidently the secret of alchemy does not reside in such relatively simple basic operations with naturally-occurring organic matters, which had already been relatively plainly described even as far back as the 8th-9th century AD (Jabir ibn Hayyan and his school), otherwise it would have been "officially" discovered a long time ago, folks. The "composite" of the alchemists is a certain mixture that CANNOT be found in nature, and for obvious reasons (heavy metals are usually toxic to living organisms.) Discovering how and out of what this "Magnesia" (to use one of the most popular code-words used by the older alchemists) is composed is the biggest stumbling block in alchemy, the one that has kept the majority of seekers "lost" for centuries and centuries. It is here that even the plainest, clearest, most sincere and honest alchemists adopt a more obscure, vague and enigmatic style, since it is the key of the whole thing.

I do believe your stubborn position to argue and rail against the one matter premise of the sages at every opportunity is blinding you to alternate understandings of their words. The composite he is referring to is the one you make out of the Elements received in the destructive distillation of biomass. What you have written in response is as usual a bunch of negative "blah-blah" that is not helping anyone in anyway. I have challenged you to prove me wrong by dry distilling some biomass of your choice and see what you get.

Jumping to heavy metals in your argument is really employing the "straw man" tactic to avoid addressing my statements head on. I have stated on many occasions that for the elixir of metals one will prepare either Au or Ag as the Earth for the Secret Solvent. I will admit that I have not done that yet prepare the calx of Au or Ag. The reason being that the simple Mercury or Secret Solvent has to be concentrated and the manner to do it I am still investigating. Though the simple Mercury or Secret Solvent is sufficient to make the Vegetable Stone.

Your ALL CAPS and underlined words do not hide the FACT that your position is nothing more than personal opinions based upon your assumptions not backed up by labwork. For instance that quote in blue and underlined you posted from the Six Keys of Eudoxus:


It is easy to deliver you from that Doubt by this comparison; in the same manner as Juices extracted from divers Herbs, depurated from the Faeces, and incorporated together, make but one Confection of one only and self same Species; so the Philosophers, with Reason, call their prepared Matter, one only and self Thing, although we are not ignorant that it is a natural Compound of certain Substances from one same Root, and of one same Kind, making together one whole compleat Homogeneity; in this Sense the Philosophers do all agree, though some say, their Matter is compounded of two Things, and others of three; though some write, that it consists of four, and some of five; and others again that it is but one only Thing: They are all equally in the right, because divers Things of one and the same Kind naturally and intimately united, even as several Waters distilled from Herbs, and mingled together, do indeed constitute but one only self-same Thing; and this is done in our Art, and so much more fundamentally, as the Substances that make up the philosophical Compound, differ less among themselves, than sorrel Water differs from lettuce Water.

and your opinion about what it means clearly demonstrates that you have no practical experience with the simple mercury or Secret Solvent. You seem to prefer to call the sages liars because you are unable to set your opinion aside and let experimentation be the proof of the validity of the premise.

What the Keys say in the quote above is true as I have verified in my lab. To paraphrase:

Juices extracted from diverse herbs, depurated from the Faeces and incorporated together do make one Confection (Composition) of only one and self same Species. So the Philosophers with Reason call their prepared Matter, one only and self Thing. They were not ignorant that it is the natural Compound (Confection) of certain Substances from one same Root, and of one same Kind (Biomass), making together one whole compleat Homogeneity: in this Sense the Philosophers do all agree, though some say their Matter is compounded of two Things, and others of three; though some write, that it consists of four or five and others again that it is but one only Thing: They are all equally in the right, because you can get your Elements from any species of biomass. Some yield better than others especially with Armoniac. So you can get our Water, Air, Fire and Earth: four things from four different species of biomass or just one. Since the composition and confection of those Elements can be seen as the confection and composition of just two Principles: Mercury and Sulfur as some of the sages have said is valid. Or you can say that you get three Principles: Mercury, Sulfur and Salt from the Elements which is also valid with the Philosophers. And if you count the Elements and Principles each as a Thing then the count goes to six or seven.

Hell, your argument to Dragon's Tail about that quote looks to be a hateful rage against the Sages themselves. You cannot argue with them except in the lab. I have no argument with them. I've seen the proof of what they say in the lab.

JDP
08-06-2018, 07:30 PM
I do believe your stubborn position to argue and rail against the one matter premise of the sages at every opportunity is blinding you to alternate understandings of their words. The composite he is referring to is the one you make out of the Elements received in the destructive distillation of biomass. What you have written in response is as usual a bunch of negative "blah-blah" that is not helping anyone in anyway. I have challenged you to prove me wrong by dry distilling some biomass of your choice and see what you get.

Jumping to heavy metals in your argument is really employing the "straw man" tactic to avoid addressing my statements head on. I have stated on many occasions that for the elixir of metals one will prepare either Au or Ag as the Earth for the Secret Solvent. I will admit that I have not done that yet prepare the calx of Au or Ag. The reason being that the simple Mercury or Secret Solvent has to be concentrated and the manner to do it I am still investigating. Though the simple Mercury or Secret Solvent is sufficient to make the Vegetable Stone.

Your ALL CAPS and underlined words do not hide the FACT that your position is nothing more than personal opinions based upon your assumptions not backed up by labwork. For instance that quote in blue and underlined you posted from the Six Keys of Eudoxus:



and your opinion about what it means clearly demonstrates that you have no practical experience with the simple mercury or Secret Solvent. You seem to prefer to call the sages liars because you are unable to set your opinion aside and let experimentation be the proof of the validity of the premise.

What the Keys say in the quote above is true as I have verified in my lab. To paraphrase:

Juices extracted from diverse herbs, depurated from the Faeces and incorporated together do make one Confection (Composition) of only one and self same Species. So the Philosophers with Reason call their prepared Matter, one only and self Thing. They were not ignorant that it is the natural Compound (Confection) of certain Substances from one same Root, and of one same Kind (Biomass), making together one whole compleat Homogeneity: in this Sense the Philosophers do all agree, though some say their Matter is compounded of two Things, and others of three; though some write, that it consists of four or five and others again that it is but one only Thing: They are all equally in the right, because you can get your Elements from any species of biomass. Some yield better than others especially with Armoniac. So you can get our Water, Air, Fire and Earth: four things from four different species of biomass or just one. Since the composition and confection of those Elements can be seen as the confection and composition of just two Principles: Mercury and Sulfur as some of the sages have said is valid. Or you can say that you get three Principles: Mercury, Sulfur and Salt from the Elements which is also valid with the Philosophers. And if you count the Elements and Principles each as a Thing then the count goes to six or seven.

Hell, your argument to Dragon's Tail about that quote looks to be a hateful rage against the Sages themselves. You cannot argue with them except in the lab. I have no argument with them. I've seen the proof of what they say in the lab.

The quote is very clear, and it does not say by any means what you claim (i.e. "it's just a distillation of biomass".) The author plainly says that it is actually a mixture of substances, but just because they are supposedly of the same "kind" or "species" then he tries to justify the obvious misleading statement by many alchemists that it is "one matter/thing". The example of the "juices" of plants/herbs is just a more mundane and "vulgar" example of the same thing he is explaining regarding the "matter" of the alchemists: his argument is that if you take several "juices" of several plants/herbs and mix them up into an (apparently) homogeneous liquid, you can call that "one thing/matter", even though it is really composed out of several separate things. This is "philosophical" BULLSHIT, plain and simple; in reality it is still simply just a mixture of different plant "juices", nothing else, the "argument" he is conjuring up to try to excuse the "one matter/thing" nonsense is really nonsense itself. It's about as ridiculous as if I peed in your Coke and then told you to "drink it, buddy, don't worry about that urine in there, it's all become "one matter only", everything has become a homogeneous new whole!" Methinks that you would not be very convinced by such a mendacious "argument" and would refuse to drink the pee-laced Coke, because you know perfectly well that it is really just a mixture of Coke and urine and not some kind of new "one matter only"! The author is desperately trying to excuse the "one matter/thing" blatant malicious and misleading lie of many of his "colleagues", nothing else. But he himself is obviously more honest than those misleading a-holes he is trying to make-up excuses for, so his comments explaining the topic are still very commendable, even if his attempts at excusing such dishonest behavior are faulty. No amount of tap-dancing around that fact is going to get you out of what your very own referred author plainly explains and implies himself: IT IS NOT REALLY ANY "ONE MATTER" IN THE TRUE SENSE BUT A MIXTURE OF SEVERAL SUBSTANCES BROUGHT INTO "ONE" BY THE ALCHEMIST HIMSELF. So he is NOT describing or referring to a simple distillation of what you call "biomass" (which is about as vague as it can possibly get, BTW, as the definition of that word includes pretty much every organic matter there is, as I showed in another thread.)

And by the way, it is you who keeps bringing up the "one matter" fallacy. I hardly ever bring it up unless someone else does. And my purpose for addressing it when I spot it is to warn unwary seekers not to fall for this old and very blatant trap, that, ironically, even some of the authors you incorrectly think are promoting it in fact actually expose this "philosophical" trick for what it really means: viz. the work starts with several substances conjoined and made to react and become "one thing" in appearance during the preparatory operations, and not really "one matter" from the very start, AS EVEN YOUR VERY OWN PREVIOUSLY QUOTED AUTHOR VERY PLAINLY EXPLAINS! I already saw how you also tried to manipulate and twist the very clear statements explaining pretty much the same thing in Ripley's Liber Secretissimus, so I am truly amazed and surprised at how blinded you seem to have become by this "one matter only" blatant fallacy that you even try to twist and bend the words of the more honest texts that explain that it is not really any such thing but A MIXTURE OF SUBSTANCES (AND NO, I DON'T MEAN ONE THAT IS REALLY MADE BY NATURE, I.E. WITHOUT MAN'S HELP/INTERVENTION, LIKE "BIOMASS", BUT ONE THAT NATURE ITSELF WOULD NEVER MAKE ON ITS OWN WITHOUT MAN'S INTERVENTION.)

And if you think the alchemists weren't capable of lying through their teeth... get ready for a rude awakening! Complaints about their throngs of tricks and deceits to send "unworthy" people into blind alleys are legion, many by their fellow alchemists themselves! (and thank goodness for these more honest and sincere authors for explaining and exposing the misleading statements of their more dishonest "peers".)