Patrons of the Sacred Art

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

+ Reply to Thread
Page 26 of 27 FirstFirst ... 16 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 LastLast
Results 251 to 260 of 261

Thread: Short Dry Path (Ars Brevis)

  1. #251
    Ok so this thread on the "dry path" concerns itself only with the dry path to the Philosophers Stone and not with dry paths to "particulars" then?

    And basically we're stuck on the volatile solvent and how to use that in crucibles?

    Is there another thread that does concern itself with "particulars" made by variations of the dry path?
    For without the enigmatic solvent and without a way to even use it in the dry path, it seems to me that the only "dry path" we're left with then are the "particulars" that don't require that unknown solvent.
    Without the volatile component the problem of its containment is also gone.

    Yes of course that is not nearly as exceptional as the true Stone.
    But if the choice is between things that transmute a little and that can be done, and things that transmute a lot and that can't be done, then the choice seems obvious.
    (And before anyone gets triggered I mean "can't be done" in the sense that nobody seems to have any clue as to how to obtain the solvent and so it cannot at present be obtained and so it cannot be worked with and so without it there is simply no way to proceed.)

    Another point vaguely related: the true Stone is supposed to transmute all of the metal into gold, whereas "particulars" only transmute a little bit. Right? But the witness accounts of transmutation with the Stone do not all say that all of the metal is transmuted into gold. Some clearly say it is transmuted into gold and silver.
    And "gold" is not necessarily 24k gold. Gold alloys with platinum, silver, copper, or other metals are all considered to be gold. So if a mass of metal is said to be entirely transmuted into gold, that doesn't necessarily mean that 100% of the metal has been transmuted. Just that the greater majority of the metal has been turned to gold.

    The distinction between true Stone and "particulars" on the grounds of the claim that the true Stone transmutes all the metal into gold therefore seems a little forced.
    That one may transmute significantly more than the other seems likely, but that one transmutes all of the metal into pure gold seems a bit less likely...

  2. #252
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Bridger Mountains
    Posts
    1,895
    Blog Entries
    4
    Why is the general assumption that the solvent used in the so-called ‘dry path’ is a volatile or liquid solvent?
    Art is Nature in the flask; Nature is a vial thing.

  3. #253
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    295
    Quote Originally Posted by Kiorionis View Post
    Why is the general assumption that the solvent used in the so-called ‘dry path’ is a volatile or liquid solvent?
    This is how I look at it.

    The assumption is that there is only one alchemical solvent which is a secret and composed of Philosophical Elements. Read Weidenfeld and it becomes apparent that many variants of that menstruum can be made. In the beginning it is simple and not so strong but can be adjusted and boosted to perform in certain ways.

    It is liquid in the raw crude state at the first presentation of the Elements. However when the Elements are purified by fire and water then it can be fixed by the proper combination of those Elements. That takes quite a bit of Sal Volatile to super saturate the liquor until it gets really sluggish and shiny like references to Quicksilver.

    The solvent is composed of the Elements, Fire, Water, Air and Earth which in alchemy have very specific intent to the matters received from the depredation of Saturn. Armoniac has all four Elements in it. When it is fixed it is pure as white snow which is a manifestation of Earth. It will still yellow over time which is a manifestation of Fire. It will liquefy in warm humidity which is a manifestation of Water. Heat it enough and it will become Air until it latches onto something it likes.

    In the correct state of proportion and concentration (which I do not know yet) it is ready to make the transmutation stones White or Red. Supposedly when the Double Mercury (Red and White combined) is prepared it will be seeded with Ag or Au. At or around 2000F Au melts so in the Dry Path the Elements must be sealed into a very strong Egg or the Elements will volatilize.

    I assume until proven otherwise that the end result from the Dry Path as I have described would be the White or Red powders of projection in the Egg crucible once it is cracked open.

    I don't think there is a "short" dry path because the elements must be purified before making the Double Mercury for the Dry Path otherwise the feces or impurities will clog the Philosophical reactions same as with the Wet Path.

    It is all speculation based upon probable hypothesis derived from mostly vague or ambiguous descriptions and details from the adepts. At least it is something showing great promise so far. Still the problems here for me involve the right combination of Elements before the Au is incorporated either as a prepared calx or pure metal. One will need several ounces of fixed Armoniac which is the hardest to collect large amounts. Lull and Hollandus both say you can do nothing in this Art without that Salt of the Wise.

  4. #254
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    177
    Sorry about off-slight topic, but anyone knows what was the earliest mention of Dry/Wet Paths division? Which books mentioned them, and which mentioned it first?

  5. #255
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,823
    Quote Originally Posted by Warmheart View Post
    Sorry about off-slight topic, but anyone knows what was the earliest mention of Dry/Wet Paths division? Which books mentioned them, and which mentioned it first?
    See here:

    http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showt...t-dry-way-quot

  6. #256
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,823
    Quote Originally Posted by Kiorionis View Post
    Why is the general assumption that the solvent used in the so-called ‘dry path’ is a volatile or liquid solvent?
    Because most alchemists describe the secret solvent as volatile, even when they describe its solid forms. Most of them describe operations with the secret solvent in glass vessels and more controlled fires (water & sand baths.) It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to easily deduce that even the alchemists who do not specifically mention its volatility are in fact implying it by the very descriptions they make.

  7. #257
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    177
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    Thank you, it is a very valuable finding, I will take a look at what was written about it in those books.

  8. #258
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,823
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Curious View Post
    Ok so this thread on the "dry path" concerns itself only with the dry path to the Philosophers Stone and not with dry paths to "particulars" then?
    I am not sure if it would be considered "off topic". The criteria for such things in these forums is rather "iffy".

    And basically we're stuck on the volatile solvent and how to use that in crucibles?
    This applies to the claims of those who say that it is performed wholly in crucibles and using strong fires. It does not apply to other claims, like the "amalgam" ones, for example. There's several claims regarding this alleged "dry/brief way".

    Is there another thread that does concern itself with "particulars" made by variations of the dry path?
    Not that I know of, but I have talked on the subject of "gradating glasses" in other threads.

    For without the enigmatic solvent and without a way to even use it in the dry path, it seems to me that the only "dry path" we're left with then are the "particulars" that don't require that unknown solvent.
    Without the volatile component the problem of its containment is also gone.

    Yes of course that is not nearly as exceptional as the true Stone.
    But if the choice is between things that transmute a little and that can be done, and things that transmute a lot and that can't be done, then the choice seems obvious.
    (And before anyone gets triggered I mean "can't be done" in the sense that nobody seems to have any clue as to how to obtain the solvent and so it cannot at present be obtained and so it cannot be worked with and so without it there is simply no way to proceed.)
    But the point is to discover how this peculiar solvent is made. Before you do, of course you won't be able to make the Stone or any true alchemical "tincture" by any way, either "wet" or "dry".

    You are also going to be a bit disappointed regarding the yield of chymical "gradating" glasses. You have to use much larger amounts of them, and prolonged strong fusions, all of which costs time and money, to get your silver to yield some gold. Nothing like that de Winter guy's grossly exaggerated claims that Bacstrom was reporting about. Bacstrom himself, by the way, was aware that you could get "atoms" of gold with some of these "glasses" and their action on silver.

    Another point vaguely related: the true Stone is supposed to transmute all of the metal into gold, whereas "particulars" only transmute a little bit. Right?
    Yes. By "particulars" here should be understood CHYMICAL ones. Alchemical "particulars" also use the secret solvent and can obtain "tinctures" (liquid or solid) that can transmute larger amounts of metals into silver or gold, though not as much as the Stone.

    But the witness accounts of transmutation with the Stone do not all say that all of the metal is transmuted into gold.
    It depends on how much "tincture" vs metal-to-be-transmuted is used. In fact, some witness accounts point out "excesses" of "tincture" in the resulting precious metals, which is gotten rid of by melting the artificial silver or gold overcharged with "tincture" with more base metal until it is all used up and it doesn't transmute anymore.

    Some clearly say it is transmuted into gold and silver.
    In the case of the Stone, that depends on whether the white or red Stone were being used.

    And "gold" is not necessarily 24k gold. Gold alloys with platinum, silver, copper, or other metals are all considered to be gold.
    Says who??? Most alchemists and transmutation account witnesses were well acquainted with assaying. They knew well when it was pure gold and when it was not.

    So if a mass of metal is said to be entirely transmuted into gold, that doesn't necessarily mean that 100% of the metal has been transmuted. Just that the greater majority of the metal has been turned to gold.
    Again, it depends on how much "tincture" vs metal-to-be-transmuted was used. If you used an excess of, say, lead, obviously your resulting gold would have some traces of (untransmuted) lead. You simply got rid of it by cupelling the resulting lead-containing gold. On the other hand, if you used too much "tincture" compared to the amount of metal-to-be-transmuted, you ended up with a gold or silver containing an excess of "tincture". You solved this simply by melting the resulting artificial metal with the "tincture" overload with more base metal, then got rid of it by the usual practices of assaying (cupellation, parting with aqua fortis, fusion with sulphur or antimony, cementation, etc.)

    The distinction between true Stone and "particulars" on the grounds of the claim that the true Stone transmutes all the metal into gold therefore seems a little forced.
    Not at all, it is the most logical and practical way to distinguish "alchemy" from other techniques/methods that can also achieve transmutations (and which most alchemists themselves vehemently and stubbornly denied the validity of.) Only alchemy discovered how to produce such transmuting "tinctures" that can transform many times their own weight into silver or gold. The transmutations of "chymistry" are of a "direct" kind: getting gold out of silver, and silver out of base metals (lead, tin, copper, bismuth, etc.), but always inferior in quantity to the metals and reagents used to achieve this. The transmutations of physics also are "direct" (no transmuting agent is prepared first), and where it concerns "gold/silver-making" its results are actually way more "humble" than those of "chymistry": you need special apparatuses to detect the infinitesimal amounts obtained! "Chymical" transmutations don't need any such thing: the resulting artificial silver and gold, though small in comparison to those obtained by alchemical methods, are perfectly visible with the naked eye and measurable with simple scales.

    That one may transmute significantly more than the other seems likely, but that one transmutes all of the metal into pure gold seems a bit less likely...
    Yet that is the very difference between "alchemy" and everything else concerning transmutation!

  9. #259
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    This applies to the claims of those who say that it is performed wholly in crucibles and using strong fires. It does not apply to other claims, like the "amalgam" ones, for example. There's several claims regarding this alleged "dry/brief way".
    So now you're saying that amalgam variations of the dry path are possible? Whereas before you were very adamant that amalgams cannot work. What is it?

    But the point is to discover how this peculiar solvent is made. Before you do, of course you won't be able to make the Stone or any true alchemical "tincture" by any way, either "wet" or "dry".
    Sure, but the point is that nobody knows how the solvent is made and you guys have been going round in circles for years now repeating statements of old authors to eachother but nobody still has any idea what that "secret solvent" is nor how it is really made. One author says this, the other says that, one says it's an "antimonial mercury" or a "saturnine antimony" and not any sublimed salt, another says exactly the opposite... And the few that claim eyewitness reports also claim entirely different things, one says lead turned to gold simply by adding some salt and leaving it, others say a powder must must be made from the secret salt and other stuff and thrown into molten lead in wax or it will evaporate, others never actually mention the use of lead but talk about pewter, etc etc.

    You are also going to be a bit disappointed regarding the yield of chymical "gradating" glasses. You have to use much larger amounts of them, and prolonged strong fusions, all of which costs time and money, to get your silver to yield some gold. Nothing like that de Winter guy's grossly exaggerated claims that Bacstrom was reporting about. Bacstrom himself, by the way, was aware that you could get "atoms" of gold with some of these "glasses" and their action on silver.
    That may be, yet still I don't see how making actual gold even in very small quantities would be more disappointing than never making any and forever chasing the seemingly impossible secret solvent without ever transmuting anything. A little bit of a magic trick that actually works and yields a tiny bit or real gold seem like a thousand times better than a huge big magic trick that never works and never produces even the slightest bit of gold.
    But that's just my view. First show the trick is possible at all, then try to improve it. I'm not in it just for "romancing the stone", I'd like to see some result.

    Yes. By "particulars" here should be understood CHYMICAL ones. Alchemical "particulars" also use the secret solvent and can obtain "tinctures" (liquid or solid) that can transmute larger amounts of metals into silver or gold, though not as much as the Stone.
    Again, this seems like semantics and epistemology to me. The difference seems to exist on a conceptual level only, as all your talk of the unobtainable and unknown "secret solvent" and the claim of transmuting large amounts of metal are completely unsubstantiated. It seems more like you're drawing a distinction between possible experiments that work and fantasy experiments that don't work, than anything based on facts.

    It depends on how much "tincture" vs metal-to-be-transmuted is used. In fact, some witness accounts point out "excesses" of "tincture" in the resulting precious metals, which is gotten rid of by melting the artificial silver or gold overcharged with "tincture" with more base metal until it is all used up and it doesn't transmute anymore.
    Well you sure know a lot of specific details about a substance you have never seen, handled, and don't know how to make.
    All empirical observations again? ;-)



    In the case of the Stone, that depends on whether the white or red Stone were being used.
    yeah yeah that's what all the texts say that talk about projection. Seen it yourself?

    Says who??? Most alchemists and transmutation account witnesses were well acquainted with assaying. They knew well when it was pure gold and when it was not.
    Says anyone who's ever worked as a jeweller or gold smith. First of all, most of the old texts do NOT say anything other than that "good gold" is made,
    or "gold". Only a few mention 24 karat pure gold. To extrapolate that all the other texts mean to say 24k is a leap. I understand you like to make that leap, as you like to believe that huge masses of gold were made from a pinch of powder. But that you like to believe it doesn't make it so.
    And second of all everybody who works or sells gold knows that the term "gold" is used for everything that contains a greater portion of gold, and that every ring or bracelet is made from gold alloyed with other metals. These things are still sold as "gold rings" even though they are not pure 24k gold.
    Logical conclusion: if a metal is said to be transmuted into "gold" or "good gold", it doesn't necessarily mean "24k pure gold". 18k is pretty good gold. 12k is still pretty good gold. "bad gold" would be very low gold content gold, or something that doesn't even contain gold at all.

    Your claims about the difference between "chymical" and "alchemical" do not really mean much when you cannot demonstrate it because you simply don't have a clue how to make the Stone. If you had some of the Stone and some "chymical" powder and can show that difference, then I would be much more open to accepting your claims, but so far all you have been doing is repeating claims by others that you cannot prove nor even substantiate. You can keep repeating your unsubstantiated claims all you want, but I'm not the type of person that just accepts hollow claims.

  10. #260
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,823
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Curious View Post
    So now you're saying that amalgam variations of the dry path are possible? Whereas before you were very adamant that amalgams cannot work. What is it?
    It seems like every time you are proven wrong on something you go on these silly tirades and start projecting your own misunderstandings onto other people. You obviously have a very hard time trying to follow logic, common sense and who-said-what in a discussion. The fact that the amalgams claim does not work does NOT mean that from a historical context, which is what we are talking about here, it counts as just that: A CLAIM. It does not really have to work to count as such. Try to keep up with the normal conventions of discussion of a given topic.

    Sure, but the point is that nobody knows how the solvent is made and you guys have been going round in circles for years now repeating statements of old authors to each other but nobody still has any idea what that "secret solvent" is nor how it is really made.
    That's just your uninformed opinion. Some of us certainly think we have a few interesting "leads" regarding this subject. Of course, putting them thoroughly to the test and fully confirming that they actually lead to success is more difficult and requires more time and effort to do. But some of us will get there, eventually.

    One author says this, the other says that, one says it's an "antimonial mercury" or a "saturnine antimony" and not any sublimed salt, another says exactly the opposite...
    That's a large part of what makes the subject difficult to investigate.

    And the few that claim eyewitness reports also claim entirely different things, one says lead turned to gold simply by adding some salt and leaving it, others say a powder must must be made from the secret salt and other stuff and thrown into molten lead in wax or it will evaporate, others never actually mention the use of lead but talk about pewter, etc etc.
    The "contradictions" are here mostly the product of your misunderstanding of the subject. Most transmutation accounts agree very well in the important points: 1- the alchemical "tincture" being tested (whether solid or liquid) is much inferior in weight to both the metal to be transmuted and the amount of silver or gold obtained, 2- the whole mass of the metal to be transmuted becomes gold or silver, depending on whether a sufficient amount of "tincture" has been used to be able to change a given mass of metal, 3- lead is not the only metal that can be transmuted, technically all metals can become silver or gold, and it also depends on the "tincture" being tested, some can only transmute some metals, while the Stone is said to transmute all of them into silver and gold.

    That may be, yet still I don't see how making actual gold even in very small quantities would be more disappointing than never making any and forever chasing the seemingly impossible secret solvent without ever transmuting anything. A little bit of a magic trick that actually works and yields a tiny bit or real gold seem like a thousand times better than a huge big magic trick that never works and never produces even the slightest bit of gold.
    But that's just my view. First show the trick is possible at all, then try to improve it. I'm not in it just for "romancing the stone", I'd like to see some result.
    The satisfaction you get is only of an intellectual kind, not of a monetary kind, since the majority of these "chymical" processes can't even pay you back the expenditure you have to invest in order to carry them out. It doesn't take a Wall Street economist to see that it's bad business to make gold or silver in quantities which actually are worth less than the amount of money you had to spend in order to make them! So obviously looking for the fewer ones that actually leave a profit is a great "desideratum". But here is the catch: finding them is almost as hard as finding the Stone itself! Did you really think that those "chymists" were going to very clearly describe their best and most profitable processes so that just about anyone could easily repeat them and profit from them? Nope. In this they followed the lead of the alchemists. They only clearly explained the basic and more mediocre processes, mostly as demonstrations of the empirical reality of transmutation. It is up to the "chymical" investigator to start improving and finding the better methods on his own. And that is almost as difficult as investigating alchemy itself. It takes a lot of time, money and dedication to get to the right tracks in transmutational "chymistry" as well.

    Again, this seems like semantics and epistemology to me. The difference seems to exist on a conceptual level only, as all your talk of the unobtainable and unknown "secret solvent" and the claim of transmuting large amounts of metal are completely unsubstantiated. It seems more like you're drawing a distinction between possible experiments that work and fantasy experiments that don't work, than anything based on facts.
    At this point it is by force that it has to partly remain at "the conceptual level", because so far we have not been able to fully "crack" alchemy's secrets. Therefore regarding alchemy itself we must go by what we know from contemporary sources. But we (or at least some of us) also know very well the empirical reality of the "chymical" transmutations, we don't need any "old witness accounts" or to take the chymists' words for granted since we have done it ourselves (thanks largely to the more sincere and honest chymists, who sometimes have written naked truths, openly, without any traps or tricks, and which have allowed us to replicate some of their results and find out for ourselves, with our own hands and eyes, the empirical reality of the subject), so we know that these transmutations are not achieved by means of any "secret solvent", unlike those of the alchemists, and they also do not transmute the entire mass of any metal into silver or gold, but usually only smaller fractions of them, once again unlike those of the alchemists and their methods. And, finally, we have the overwhelming and stubborn denial from the part of the majority of the alchemists themselves, who refused to believe that anything but their methods could lead to genuine transmutations, and anyone who deviates from them is a "fool", a "sophist", a "puffer", a "multiplier", one of "Geber's Cooks", a "vulgar chymist", etc. All of this serves as a very convenient, easy and historically justified way of separating "chymistry" from "alchemy", as I have already explained several times.

    Well you sure know a lot of specific details about a substance you have never seen, handled, and don't know how to make. All empirical observations again? ;-)

    yeah yeah that's what all the texts say that talk about projection. Seen it yourself?

    Your claims about the difference between "chymical" and "alchemical" do not really mean much when you cannot demonstrate it because you simply don't have a clue how to make the Stone. If you had some of the Stone and some "chymical" powder and can show that difference, then I would be much more open to accepting your claims, but so far all you have been doing is repeating claims by others that you cannot prove nor even substantiate. You can keep repeating your unsubstantiated claims all you want, but I'm not the type of person that just accepts hollow claims.
    I don't know where are you getting this bizarre idea that just because you haven't made the Stone (yet) you cannot have a well-informed opinion of the subject. We are talking about alchemy in a historical context, and therefore we have to go by what the majority of alchemists themselves wrote about their "craft", as well as what independent historical witnesses wrote about the subject. Then we compare this historical evidence with what we know about the methods of the "chymists", but here WE DO NOT HAVE TO RESTRICT OURSELVES TO JUST THEIR WORD, here we also have empirical experience that has confirmed some of their claims. So the arguments being presented are very well justified. They are based on BOTH historical evidence as well as empirical evidence.

    Says anyone who's ever worked as a jeweller or gold smith. First of all, most of the old texts do NOT say anything other than that "good gold" is made, or "gold". Only a few mention 24 karat pure gold. To extrapolate that all the other texts mean to say 24k is a leap. I understand you like to make that leap, as you like to believe that huge masses of gold were made from a pinch of powder. But that you like to believe it doesn't make it so.
    It hardly takes any "leap" when so many alchemy works themselves keep on pointing out that the alchemically produced silver and gold resist all the assayer's tests. This is in fact a very common topic in the literature. Also, contrary to what you claim, the number of historical transmutation accounts that mention how the silver or gold produced was tested and withstood the assays is HUGE. Some of the most well-known transmutation accounts, like the Helvetius and Berigard of Pisa accounts, mention this. Most people acquainted with this subject were very well aware of assaying.


    And second of all everybody who works or sells gold knows that the term "gold" is used for everything that contains a greater portion of gold, and that every ring or bracelet is made from gold alloyed with other metals. These things are still sold as "gold rings" even though they are not pure 24k gold.
    Logical conclusion: if a metal is said to be transmuted into "gold" or "good gold", it doesn't necessarily mean "24k pure gold". 18k is pretty good gold. 12k is still pretty good gold. "bad gold" would be very low gold content gold, or something that doesn't even contain gold at all.
    That's just you making ASSUMPTIONS based on modern usage of that word. The alchemists and the eye-witnesses understood well the concept of what an "alloy" is, and therefore how "pure" silver or gold are. There are no ways around this.

+ 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