Patrons of the Sacred Art

OPEN TO REGISTER: Click HERE if you want to join Alchemy Forums!

+ Reply to Thread
Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Results 71 to 78 of 78

Thread: The Mineral Identification Key

  1. #71
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,913
    Blog Entries
    65
    Uranium's final form after complete radioactive breakdown is lead, according to my uni lecturer.
    Join me; on a voyage of stupidity, and self discovery: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=vccZSHroTG4

  2. #72
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    722
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    Yes, but that came later. The ancients did not seem to know bismuth, or at least they did not distinguish it from tin.
    Maybe, but it's not what for example Glauber thought. He believed the parable of the prodigal son is about lead (father) and tin and bismuth (his two sons).

  3. #73
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,002
    Quote Originally Posted by Florius Frammel View Post
    Maybe, but it's not what for example Glauber thought. He believed the parable of the prodigal son is about lead (father) and tin and bismuth (his two sons).
    But Glauber lived in the mid 17th century, by those times bismuth had already been identified as a separate metallic or maybe semi-metallic (due to its brittleness) body. And miners' notions about it being some sort of "bastard" production of lead and/or tin on its way to becoming silver were still lingering around from the previous century.

  4. #74
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    722
    But only because they did not have a name for it that is known to us today doesn't mean it could not had been used. It was definately there and maybe it has a decknamen or is some kind of lead or galena or anything that only adepts can recognize (for example by methods of density examinations) and others confuse.

  5. #75
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,002
    Quote Originally Posted by Florius Frammel View Post
    But only because they did not have a name for it that is known to us today doesn't mean it could not had been used. It was definately there and maybe it has a decknamen or is some kind of lead or galena or anything that only adepts can recognize (for example by methods of density examinations) and others confuse.
    That older generations obviously must have stumbled upon bismuth seems certain (they had also stumbled upon metallic antimony, which they also confused as lead, or some "kind of" lead, or a "bastard" of this metal) the problem is that they did not quite recognize that it was a distinct metal/semi-metal, not some sort of "byproduct", or "species", or "bastard" of lead or tin. One of the first authors who seems to recognize bismuth as a separate metal (but still somehow related to lead & tin, occupying an "intermediate" position between the two) was the 16th century German mineralogist and metallurgist, Georg Bauer. He put the ancient notion that there are only 7 metals into question by in fact using bismuth as an example of an 8th metal.

  6. #76
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    722
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    That older generations obviously must have stumbled upon bismuth seems certain (they had also stumbled upon metallic antimony, which they also confused as lead, or some "kind of" lead, or a "bastard" of this metal) the problem is that they did not quite recognize that it was a distinct metal/semi-metal, not some sort of "byproduct", or "species", or "bastard" of lead or tin. One of the first authors who seems to recognize bismuth as a separate metal (but still somehow related to lead & tin, occupying an "intermediate" position between the two) was the 16th century German mineralogist and metallurgist, Georg Bauer. He put the ancient notion that there are only 7 metals into question by in fact using bismuth as an example of an 8th metal.
    If that is really the case with ancient alchemists, then they could as well be fooled (themselves) with well made brass-like gold imitations.

  7. #77
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,002
    Quote Originally Posted by Florius Frammel View Post
    If that is really the case with ancient alchemists, then they could as well be fooled (themselves) with well made brass-like gold imitations.
    Not likely. Such alloys are easily distinguished from gold. They tarnish with time and oxidize by simple calcination, while gold doesn't; they are lighter (i.e. less dense), harder & less malleable than gold; they do not resist cupellation, cementation, fusion with sulphur/pyrites or exposure to "sharp" vapors (like vinegar vapors), while gold does (all these tests were already known since ancient times. In the Middle Ages the discovery of the mineral acids would make it even easier than it already was to distinguish gold from imitation alloys.) It is very easy to tell gold apart from all other metals. Silver is a bit "trickier" to distinguish from some imitation alloys, but still pretty easy to do so, certainly within the knowledge of the ancients to do so.

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

  8. #78
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    722
    Archimedes' principle is known since a very long time. Specialists like the sages should have easily distinguished it from lead and tin.

+ Reply to Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts