Patrons of the Sacred Art

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

+ Reply to Thread
Page 25 of 27 FirstFirst ... 15 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 LastLast
Results 241 to 250 of 261

Thread: Short Dry Path (Ars Brevis)

  1. #241
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,824
    Mod Note: Off-topic content removed. Reason: Arguing/debating an administrative intervention.
    __________________________________

    That is, assuming the glass was intended to prevent/slow down evaporation. But what if this is an erroneous assumption? What if this "glass" plays a completely different role here? And for the more erudite among us, what does Fulcanelli (for example) has to say about glass?
    In this context of the "brief/dry way", apparently nothing. He never clearly addresses the issue of how you are supposed to prevent the secret solvent from volatilizing at such high temperatures.
    Last edited by Andro; 4 Weeks Ago at 09:35 PM.

  2. #242
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North America
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Andro View Post
    Correct, I moved that post to its rightful topic-related thread/location, as opposed to going into detailed practical discussions on someone's introduction thread. Introduction threads are just that, an opportunity for new members to tell us a bit about themselves, as well as an opportunity for everyone else to meet and greet those who are new. If you want to go into specifics, just quote something from the intro thread that you want to address, and reply on the topic-relevant thread that best fits the bill. This makes the forum easy to read, search and navigate for everyone.


    That is, assuming the glass was intended to prevent/slow down evaporation. But what if this is an erroneous assumption? What if this "glass" plays a completely different role here? And for the more erudite among us, what does Fulcanelli (for example) has to say about glass?
    "Schmeider described the stone that Boetticher obtained from Lascaris as a substance having the appearance of a fire-red colored glass. "

    "Finally, the X is the Greek hieroglyph for glass, purest of all matters, affirms the masters of the art, and the one nearest to perfection."

    "IV. This luminous and crystalline salt, first being of the Divine Body, in a second stage, will form as a coppery glass. It is our copper or brass, and the green lion."

    "The Sibyll, when asked what a Philosopher was, replied: 'It is a man, 1 who knows how to make glass.' "

  3. #243
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    5,321
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Illen A. Cluf View Post
    "Schmeider described the stone that Boetticher obtained from Lascaris as a substance having the appearance of a fire-red colored glass. "

    "Finally, the X is the Greek hieroglyph for glass, purest of all matters, affirms the masters of the art, and the one nearest to perfection."

    "IV. This luminous and crystalline salt, first being of the Divine Body, in a second stage, will form as a coppery glass. It is our copper or brass, and the green lion."

    "The Sibyll, when asked what a Philosopher was, replied: 'It is a man, who knows how to make glass.' "
    Thank you

  4. #244
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    I actually didn't, one of the moderators moved the post here. I originally posted it in the thread you opened, where you were talking about the subject already.
    Oh ok sorry, I didn't know it was moved by a mod. But "talking about the subject already" is a bit much, I only said I am comparing variants of the dry path. And I am.

    I didn't select anything, I just answered that your propositions won't work in practice.
    But that depends entirely on what specific practical operation you are talking about, with what materials and at what temperatures. You can't just dismiss a method of operation completely because it doesn't fit one specific procedure with a specific material. And since you haven't specified at all what materials you're working with nor at which temperatures, I can't very well propose anything that might be suitable to the specific implementation you consider so problematic. If you would care to specify I might be able to think along and see if I can suggest a solution that might work in your specific situation.

    Anyone who has worked with the sulfides of arsenic and antimony, as well as lead-glasses, will naturally be highly skeptical of the claims being made there. Either the author is lying or he is grossly exaggerating the gold yield.
    Perhaps. Although he does say the yield varies a lot, it is not much, "it is by no means the brassfounders work" (= the Stone as described by Helveticus in "the Golden Calf"), and it is not at all the arcanum of Myriam. But it is "profitable" in that the yield is more than the cost. But we won't know until we replicate it and check it.

    It is true that some "gradating glasses" can in fact be produced that make silver yield some gold, but nothing like this author claims. The amount of gold obtained is always very inferior to both the weight of the "gradating glass" and the silver employed. Nothing "alchemical" in the true sense is produced in such operations. This type of "gradating glass" operations are totally "chymical". No alchemical "tincture" (i.e. that can transmute many times its own weight) will ever be produced with such methods.
    That may very well be true.
    I am only now starting to understand that you seem to have some contempt for the "chymical" operations and consider them to be an imperfect imitation of "true alchemy", and that that was why you were giving me so much blowback.
    My view is that anything that is considered impossible in standard modern chemistry or material physics falls in the category "alchemy". That among alchemy students there is a further distinction made between "true alchemy" and "chymistry" and that this is apparently considered very important, I was not aware of.

    I do know that glasses are not uncommon in variations of the "fire alchemy" I have learnt of that are/were performed in regions of China and India.
    But there they also use common mercury in their alchemy a lot. Gunpowder with lead glass with cinnabar and pyrite is one such mixture.
    That does not produce a stone, but it is supposed to produce gold when ignited. From what I heard it is not much gold, but it is supposed to
    be more than common gold ore contains. (I suppose we're talking about gold ore traditionally found in that region.)


    But I did explain it. Let me recap it again: no matter how you prepare your metallic mercury, what metals/metalloids you mix it with, and how long you "cook" such amalgams, they will never "coagulate" into a fixed, fusible and fire-resistant "tincture" that "penetrates" metals and transmutes them.
    Well you are asking for a lot all at the same time there aren't you? ;-)
    I'm sure you know that you can "coagulate" mercury into a solid by mixing it with the right materials and reacting it. So "fixing" mercury is not impossible.

    As for the combination of fixed + fusible + rife-resistant (= incombustible I presume you mean because if it melts it is not entirely fire-resistant) + ingress + transmutation all in one substance...
    Well isn't that the big secret we're all trying to figure out here?
    Do you know of ANY substance that can do that? I mean an actual substance, not a theoretical one?

    It's just not going to happen. You don't have to take my word for it. We are not dealing with the experience of only one person here, but with the collective accumulated experience of several centuries. You can read about the many failures that so many seekers fell into by trying to follow this "mercurialist" line of thinking. Boerhaave, for example, even spent YEARS patiently heating flasks with various amalgams just to see "what happens". The result of his troubles: N-O-T-H-I-N-G! The metallic mercury remained exactly the same as it always was, no matter what apparent changes it went through. In the end, the exact same mercury remained or could be recovered. Ever since authors like Gaston "Claveus" Duclo made such "mercurialist" claims popular in the 16th century, a veritable army of "puffers" and chymists tried their luck at making the Stone with amalgams. None succeeded in making anything that can be considered an alchemical "tincture". Some did succeed in achieving "direct" (i.e. chymical; no transmuting "tincture" involved) transmutations involving metallic mercury, though.
    I do not dispute that many have worked with mercury for years and found nothing.
    But then again the same goes for the other alchemical paths. How many haven't spent their life working with the golden water, tinkering away in rosicrucian laboratories, not finding anything? Yet many the texts that claim this process produces the true Stone.

    But like I told you, in practice it does not work. It is not easy at all to really seal a vessel that will be glowing hot all over its mass. The pressure build-up is too much for any vessel or cement/lute to withstand it.
    Ah, you're talking about boiling mercury here? No of course it isn't easy. And it is not a coincidence that several authors talk about the crucibles cracking or breaking during the procedures. On the other hand, the temperatures do not necessarily need to be red glowing hot all the time, and I'm also not saying you need to use mercury in all dry methods at all. If you don't want to, leave mercury alone and work with a different material.

    But none of that calls for the vessels being "sealed" or prevent a volatile substance from escaping the strong heat.
    Distilling cinnabar into sulfur and mercury seems like an example of preventing a volatile substance from escaping. You don't think so?

    From my answer I think you can tell that I assumed that is not what you meant, as there is nothing really closing the joints between the crucible and the lid. That's why I brought up the subject of cements/lutes.
    Yes I gather as much. But don't forget that "crucible" only means "vessel in which material is melted", not necessarily a melting pot for metals as the term is reserved for nowadays. A glass flask can be considered a "crucible" is used to melt a solid in.
    And also, as I said above, there are quite a few references to cracked and broken crucibles.

    Did you know that some variants of "fire alchemy" in the far East use crucibles made from clay that are two semi-spherical bowls which are sealed together with more clay and cloth soaked in clay? They put the ingredients in the bottom bowl, put the second one on top, then seal the seam with clay, then wrap the entire thing in clay-soaked rags and more clay. Then they build a big fire, put the ball in, and keep the fire blazing for at least 12 to 24 hours. The ball is then taken out, left to cool,
    and then cracked open. Often most of the cloth is not even burnt, but the stuff inside the ball has melted in the fire.
    This is a way of "sealing a crucible" to contain the vapours inside.

    That the authors who claim that you can prepare the secret solvent (a volatile substance in all its forms)
    Ah finally you say something about that "secret solvent" you keep mentioning. So it is supposed to be volatile in all circumstances? And with "volatile", do you mean it is a vapour or that it is easily vapourised?
    I suppose the latter, otherwise you can't even add it to the other materials because it would just fly off. So it must not already be a vapour. It can't be the "atoether" of StGermaine as that disappeared when air hit it, and you can't put something in a crucible or flask without air touching it...

    in crucibles and then use it to make the Stone in the same type of vessels and with strong fires are either full of crap and lying and making people waste their time and money on a fairy tale, or they actually discovered a way to prevent some forms of the secret solvent from volatilizing too fast and being able to remain in strong heats long enough to both prepare it, and then make the Stone with it. If the second is true, then how???
    Well I don't know. It's difficult to speculate if you have no clue what kind of volatile material we're talking about.

    None of the authors so far consulted on this topic seem to address this problem, at least not in a logical and sufficiently clear manner. The originator of this claim (viz. the 17th century anonymous brass-founder who visited Helvetius and gave him a sample of the Stone for him to test) only makes a vague and enigmatic reference to the "Glassy Seal of Hermes", but does not care to elaborate more on this.
    What is so mysterious and enigmatic about that? Is it not an obvious and clear reference to a hermetically sealed glass?
    He says that Helvetius doesn't know how to make the Stone nor how to "break the glassy seal of hermes".
    So either he is talking about breaking the seal of a hermetically sealed glass, or he is talking about the trick of how to do it without a luted flask, the exact trick you're looking for to make the entire process possible in only one crucible, the "sealing of the crucible" but without actually sealing it.

    This mysterious utterance has caused some to speculate that what he probably meant is that the substances used to make the Stone in this "dry way" are to be covered with a layer of molten glass. But anyone who has performed tests to see how well can molten glass prevent volatile substances from evaporating will have his share of doubts about its effectiveness in the long run. The molten glass slows down the evaporation, to be sure, but certainly not enough to prevent the volatile substances from eventually making it through the glass layer and finding their way out.
    Yes that is a problem. Perhaps combine it with a lid and seal it with clay?

    Since the substances that make-up the Stone in this alleged "way" have to be kept in a strong fire for several days, one then has to obviously wonder how could one possibly prevent the secret solvent from eventually mostly or wholly volatilizing.
    Where does it say this must be done for several days? And are you sure this is the same "secret solvent" as the "celestial salt"?
    Also, "a strong fire" is quite vague. Is that a large or a big fire? Is that like 350 degrees C where KNO3 melts or are we talking about 1500 degrees?
    Last edited by Mr Curious; 4 Weeks Ago at 02:48 PM. Reason: typos

  5. #245
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,824
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Curious View Post
    Oh ok sorry, I didn't know it was moved by a mod. But "talking about the subject already" is a bit much, I only said I am comparing variants of the dry path. And I am.
    You did bring up the subject in that thread, thus my comments about it.

    But that depends entirely on what specific practical operation you are talking about, with what materials and at what temperatures. You can't just dismiss a method of operation completely because it doesn't fit one specific procedure with a specific material. And since you haven't specified at all what materials you're working with nor at which temperatures, I can't very well propose anything that might be suitable to the specific implementation you consider so problematic. If you would care to specify I might be able to think along and see if I can suggest a solution that might work in your specific situation.
    My general comments are for all volatile matters that will obviously not remain behind in a glowing hot fire, it is not important which one exactly is it. The WHOLE vessel is glowing hot, it has no place whatsoever to condense, thus why the tremendous technical difficulty in trying to perform such "casual" (and naive) propositions.

    Perhaps. Although he does say the yield varies a lot, it is not much, "it is by no means the brassfounders work" (= the Stone as described by Helveticus in "the Golden Calf"), and it is not at all the arcanum of Myriam. But it is "profitable" in that the yield is more than the cost. But we won't know until we replicate it and check it.
    Again, if you have experience with this type of processes you will strongly doubt the author's boast that one part of this "glass" can supposedly change several times its weight of silver into gold. Such things can only be achieved by means of alchemy and its secret solvent, not by the chymical operations he is describing.

    That may very well be true.
    I am only now starting to understand that you seem to have some contempt for the "chymical" operations and consider them to be an imperfect imitation of "true alchemy", and that that was why you were giving me so much blowback.
    My view is that anything that is considered impossible in standard modern chemistry or material physics falls in the category "alchemy". That among alchemy students there is a further distinction made between "true alchemy" and "chymistry" and that this is apparently considered very important, I was not aware of.
    I don't have any contempt for "chymical" methods, I investigate them myself. It was most alchemists who kept railing against "vulgar chymistry" and stubbornly denying any other methods other than their own and branding such experimenters as "fools" and "sophists" and the like, not me. I fully acknowledge the reality of some chymical methods to make artificial gold & silver, but at the same time I recognize their limitations; chymistry achieved more humble results. It never managed to discover how transmuting "tinctures" are made, that has remained alchemy's realm.

    Well you are asking for a lot all at the same time there aren't you? ;-)
    Not at all, that's what the Stone is supposed to be and do.

    I'm sure you know that you can "coagulate" mercury into a solid by mixing it with the right materials and reacting it. So "fixing" mercury is not impossible.
    Those common "fixations" are totally "sophistical", as the alchemists would say. They all decompose with strong heat and volatilize.

    As for the combination of fixed + fusible + rife-resistant (= incombustible I presume you mean because if it melts it is not entirely fire-resistant)
    "Fire-resistant" in this context means "not decomposed by fire". Metals also melt in their due degrees of heat, but they do not decompose by it. So, the property of melting is obviously not what it was meant by "fire-resistant".

    + ingress + transmutation all in one substance...
    Well isn't that the big secret we're all trying to figure out here?
    I think that was pretty obvious. And like I said, no amalgam whatsoever is going to accomplish that.

    Do you know of ANY substance that can do that? I mean an actual substance, not a theoretical one?
    Obviously not, otherwise alchemy would never have been a secret and everyone would already be acquainted with such a substance. Such a substance has to be made by artificial methods.

    I do not dispute that many have worked with mercury for years and found nothing.
    But then again the same goes for the other alchemical paths. How many haven't spent their life working with the golden water, tinkering away in rosicrucian laboratories, not finding anything? Yet many the texts that claim this process produces the true Stone.
    That's because such claims, at least as written, are phoney baloney.

    Ah, you're talking about boiling mercury here? No of course it isn't easy. And it is not a coincidence that several authors talk about the crucibles cracking or breaking during the procedures. On the other hand, the temperatures do not necessarily need to be red glowing hot all the time, and I'm also not saying you need to use mercury in all dry methods at all. If you don't want to, leave mercury alone and work with a different material.
    No, you keep confusing my comments about those who claimed that operations with metallic mercury and its amalgams was the supposed "dry way" of making the Stone with my comments about those who claimed that it was made by preparing and using the secret solvent mostly or exclusively in crucibles, in a few days, and using strong fires. They are two very different, separate claims about how this supposed "dry way" was supposed to be achieved. I clearly explained all this in my original post.

    Distilling cinnabar into sulfur and mercury seems like an example of preventing a volatile substance from escaping. You don't think so?
    No, that's just a common distillation in a suitable vessel where the cinnabar can be oxidized and decomposed (and the sulfur is actually "lost", as it escapes in the form of sulfur oxides; only the metallic mercury distills), it's not what we are talking about. We are talking about preventing a volatile substance, like the secret solvent of the alchemists, from volatilizing too fast inside crucibles in such glowing hot fires.

    Yes I gather as much. But don't forget that "crucible" only means "vessel in which material is melted", not necessarily a melting pot for metals as the term is reserved for nowadays. A glass flask can be considered a "crucible" is used to melt a solid in.
    It is very clear what these authors mean by "crucibles". They don't mean retorts, or aludels, or glass flasks. They mean melting pots used for metallurgical operations in strong fires. You can also see plenty of drawings/engravings in the old books plainly showing what alchemists and chymists understood by these vessels.

    And also, as I said above, there are quite a few references to cracked and broken crucibles.
    Yes, and that's the point: there doesn't seem to be a way to actually really "seal" a crucible. And the reason seems very obvious: unlike glass flasks heated on their bottoms in controlled lower heats, crucibles are strongly heated all over their mass and have no "room" left for something volatile to actually be able to condense on. Very naturally, these volatile substances simply will find their way out, either by cracking the lute, blowing the lid or bursting the crucible itself.

    Did you know that some variants of "fire alchemy" in the far East use crucibles made from clay that are two semi-spherical bowls which are sealed together with more clay and cloth soaked in clay? They put the ingredients in the bottom bowl, put the second one on top, then seal the seam with clay, then wrap the entire thing in clay-soaked rags and more clay. Then they build a big fire, put the ball in, and keep the fire blazing for at least 12 to 24 hours. The ball is then taken out, left to cool, and then cracked open. Often most of the cloth is not even burnt, but the stuff inside the ball has melted in the fire.
    This is a way of "sealing a crucible" to contain the vapours inside.
    Either the things they are heating are not very volatile and thus can withstand the containment, or they are not heating the whole mass of the "ball" (thus giving a "cooler" area for the volatiles to condense), or the lute actually develops cracks/fissures where the volatile products are in fact escaping (very likely unbeknownst to the operators who really imagine they are "containing" them.)

    Ah finally you say something about that "secret solvent" you keep mentioning.
    LOL! I have been saying over and over that ALL FORMS of the secret solvent ARE VOLATILE, thus why this strange claim that you can both make it and use it in strongly heated crucibles is very suspicious. I am not saying anything here that I didn't already point out before.

    So it is supposed to be volatile in all circumstances?
    Yes, and it only becomes wholly "fixed" (i.e. no longer volatilized by fire) after certain operations on some metallic matters have been performed with it. And these, according to the bulk of alchemists, take prolonged periods of time (we are talking about weeks and even months. It just can't be done in a matter of minutes! The secret solvent acts and undergoes such "radical" changes in a gradual manner, not immediately. Thus why this whole "dry/brief way" thingy sounds very suspiciously like a "too good to be true" scenario. The majority of alchemists did not recognize any such thing. In the specific case that we are dealing with, namely: solid/saline form of the secret solvent + crucibles + strong temperatures + a few days, I have not been able to trace this claim to before the anonymous visitor in Helvetius' account. No author before that seems to know about any such "way".)

    And with "volatile", do you mean it is a vapour or that it is easily vapourised?
    I suppose the latter, otherwise you can't even add it to the other materials because it would just fly off. So it must not already be a vapour. It can't be the "atoether" of StGermaine as that disappeared when air hit it, and you can't put something in a crucible or flask without air touching it...
    Yes, obviously the latter. It is a visible, tangible substance, either in liquid or solid forms (depending on the manner of its preparation.) Needless to say, if you put it inside a glowing hot crucible (the brass-founder clearly says an "open fire" is used, which means the crucible was placed right smack in the middle of the wood/coals!), it won't have much time to do anything, as it will volatilize too quickly.


    Well I don't know. It's difficult to speculate if you have no clue what kind of volatile material we're talking about.
    For this general consideration it is not really very important the exact substance being talked about, since these guys were claiming that the crucibles to be used in this alleged "way" were strongly heated. At such glowing hot temperatures, a lot of substances simply volatilize. It can be any relatively volatile substance, like zinc or mercury sulfide, not necessarily some "secret" substance.

    What is so mysterious and enigmatic about that? Is it not an obvious and clear reference to a hermetically sealed glass?
    He says that Helvetius doesn't know how to make the Stone nor how to "break the glassy seal of hermes".
    So either he is talking about breaking the seal of a hermetically sealed glass,
    Again, read carefully what he actually says. He is not talking about work in glass flasks, but in crucibles placed in "open fires". He is plainly referring to work at high temperatures. So, no, it is not very "clear" what he means by this "Glassy Seal of Hermes".

    or he is talking about the trick of how to do it without a luted flask, the exact trick you're looking for to make the entire process possible in only one crucible, the "sealing of the crucible" but without actually sealing it.
    That's what he means, and that's the very problem: there is no way to "seal" a crucible like there is to seal a flask. They are not analogous cases because the instruments and their use are very different.

    Yes that is a problem. Perhaps combine it with a lid and seal it with clay?
    That's what a "lute" is; but at such temperatures it's not going to be very effective. The volatile substance will either cause it to crack and escape, or will blow the lid off if the lute is very strong, or, worse, burst the crucible itself.

    Where does it say this must be done for several days?
    He says it's made in 4 days.

    And are you sure this is the same "secret solvent" as the "celestial salt"?
    What else could it be? There is no way of making the Stone without this solvent. If he was talking about something else, then he was obviously lying and he did not prepare the sample of the Stone he gave to Helvetius.

    Also, "a strong fire" is quite vague. Is that a large or a big fire? Is that like 350 degrees C where KNO3 melts or are we talking about 1500 degrees?
    Obviously 350 degrees C hardly qualifies as such in this context. Glowing hot temperatures is what is meant here. The brass-founder clearly says an "open fire" is employed. If you are acquainted with the lingo of alchemists and chymists, you know what this means: the thing to be heated was placed right in the middle of the wood/coals, and then either allowed to be heated as such in direct contact with the burning wood/coals, or, to get to even higher temperatures, air was injected into the wood/coals by using bellows.

  6. #246
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    555
    Have you read Hermetic Recreations yet?

    The author agrees with the canonical necessity of the secret solvent.
    But not only is he claiming to describe the method to prepare the secret solvent, but also dealing with the problems of high temperatures, concerning both the "hermetical seal" and the the secret solvent being volatile.

    Sorry for mentioning that book so often today. But it arrived just recently and is fun to read.
    Thanks again Illen if you read this!

  7. #247
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North America
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Florius Frammel View Post
    Have you read Hermetic Recreations yet?

    The author agrees with the canonical necessity of the secret solvent.
    But not only is he claiming to describe the method to prepare the secret solvent, but also dealing with the problems of high temperatures, concerning both the "hermetical seal" and the the secret solvent being volatile.

    Sorry for mentioning that book so often today. But it arrived just recently and is fun to read.
    Thanks again Illen if you read this!
    I'm glad you are enjoying the book, Florius! It's also good to see that it's now available on Amazon and a more affordable price. The earlier books were limited edition, and thus a little more expensive. That seems to be the trend these days - to issue a limited edition version followed by a much more affordable paperback version. They both contain the very same information.

    The next important book (also heavily used by Fulcanelli) to be released is "La Clef du Cabinet Hermetique". I was hoping that it would have been published by late Spring, but because of various ongoing issues, it looks like it might take some time yet.

  8. #248
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    5,321
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Illen A. Cluf View Post
    The next important book (also heavily used by Fulcanelli) to be released is "La Clef du Cabinet Hermetique". I was hoping that it would have been published by late Spring, but because of various ongoing issues, it looks like it might take some time yet.
    Logistical Note: Continued here: Le Clefs du Cabinet Hérmetique

  9. #249
    Quote Originally Posted by Florius Frammel View Post
    Have you read Hermetic Recreations yet?
    Well attempted to read the French version... Can't find a proper English version.

    The author agrees with the canonical necessity of the secret solvent.
    Well yes that's why it's canon right?
    But not only is he claiming to describe the method to prepare the secret solvent, but also dealing with the problems of high temperatures, concerning both the "hermetical seal" and the the secret solvent being volatile.
    Sounds good. So does he? What's his solution? And what's his solvent, for that matter?

  10. #250
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    5,321
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Curious View Post
    Well attempted to read the French version... Can't find a proper English version.
    http://rubedo.press/purchace/hermetic-recreations-hardback

    https://www.amazon.com/Hermetic-Recreations-Christer-Boke/dp/0473410788

+ 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