Patrons of the Sacred Art

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

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 68

Thread: Can you make the stone without the solvent?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    AUSTRALIA
    Posts
    346
    Hi Dwellings

    Is this something you wrote, or is it a message from "SPIRIT" that you transcribed ???

    __________________________

    Logistical Note: Answered HERE.

    -----------------------------------------
    Last edited by Andro; 04-11-2017 at 02:01 PM. Reason: Juggling spin-off threads :)

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    299
    Quote Originally Posted by Schmuldvich View Post
    What would you guys say is the difference between vegetable mercury vs. Alchemical Mercury (vs. "Our Mercury" if you want to go even further...)?
    There is no difference between vegetable mercury and alchemical mercury. Alchemical mercury carries the principle of growth often referred to as the seed. That is why Ripley sometimes calls it vegetable mercury. It is the alchemical seed water. Plant mercury is the same thing only it is not necessary to further cure it to make an alchemical plant stone.

    Quote Originally Posted by Schmuldvich View Post
    z0 k's response pointed out what he calls "Spagyrics" which is doing things without "our Solvent" ala the methods of Junius, Albertus, etc. As z0 k said, these "stones" in no way do anything worthwhile and in no way compare to the power the Ancients had with their actual Stone. So I would ask, other than sheer curiosity and firsthand laboratory experience, what value do these "false paths" have in our lives?
    I never said nor intended to relate that Spagyric elixirs and stones "in no way do anything worthwhile and in no way compare to the power the Ancients had with their actual Stone."

    What I actually wrote was:

    What they produce, their stone, requires adept skill in the laboratory. Spagyric plant stones can be great medicines, but they do not behave as the ancients describe for a vegetable stone.
    Those spagyric stones do not flow like wax when heated resisting the fire over 500F as I have tested on the alchemical plant stone. Nor do they remain coherent when placed in water. Still they can be very good medicines, better than what big pharma will give you.

  3. #13
    In order to show that this ‚water‘ is most crucial the 18th century Rosicrucian and alchemist Johann Rudolf Johann Fridrich Schmid wrote a monographic treatise in Latin about that subject.

    Enchiridion alchymico-physicum sive Disquisitio de menstruis universalibus vel liquoribus alcahestinis … Jena 1739.

    Unfortunately Schmid did not reveal or he didn’t even know the secret of its preparation.

    As far as I am aware there is only the original Latin version and a German translation.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    5,333
    Blog Entries
    1
    The title of the German translation appears to be: Ueber die Allgemeinen Auflösungsmittel (About The Universal Solvent/s) by R.J.F Schmid

    Here's a list of other works that this book is sourcing/referencing: http://www.academia.edu/4644439/Sour...ymico-Physicum

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,459
    Quote Originally Posted by Dwellings View Post
    In the secrecy thread, everyone is debating about the need for a solvent besides other issues. So, my question is this, is it really necessary? Can we do without it? If yes, then how? I hope this discussion brings out new perspectives.
    I think a question zero should be asked: "What is the philosopher's stone? Which ones are the things that it should be able to do?"
    The first question is if the solvent is necessary: yes, it is.
    The second question is if it can be done without it: I disagree a bit with what everyone else said... it can somehow be done without it, but it's a tricky reply that needs an explanation.
    The third question was answered by yourself: "The secret solvent still enters the work, not in the conventional way."

    My answers are based on the experiences of 4 persons who are not in this forum (nor they have ever been)... The claims of one of them are a bit dubious to me, the other 3 are not dubious at all to me. The 3 of them created "weak transmutational stones" which can transmute a small amount of other metals into gold (no medicinal use at all though, it would be crazy and suicidal to ingest them).

    The 4 persons followed very different procedures (I have my own reasons to doubt about one of them)... in all cases very tedious, long, dangerous and expensive procedures.

    What they did? Let's pretend that the solvent is alcohol and you need a pure ethanol. Their procedure would be similar to making a beer which produces a 5% of alcohol. So the solvent is there, but very diluted, very weak... and what they got was "transmutational stones", but I think that calling them "Philosopher's Stones" is maybe going too far.
    And as to use a metaphor of JDP... it's not the "chicken of the golden eggs", because their outcome probably only covered the costs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dwellings View Post
    Since working with Gold is extremely difficult due to the length and care that needs to be taken. How can we simplify it?
    The 4 cases I know use gold... they are very very very long paths... and quite dangerous actually (and they need a LOT of care in all the senses: a lot of active work and a lot of caution).

    So after this explanation, I can clarify my answers: "Can we do without it? If yes, then how?"... actually you can't do it without it, but you can do a weak transmutational stone with different procedures that end up creating small amounts of it mixed with a lot of things which are not "it".

    Other that that these 4 (or 3, because I am not sure about one of them) persons didn't "simplify" anything when it comes to the practice... what they did is tedious, expensive, dangerous, very long, difficult in a technical way, etc.... and I do not dare to say that their result is "The Philosopher's Stone", but a weak "transmutational stone" that produces a limited "miracle" which covers the costs of its manufacture (though if you give yourself a symbolical "salary" for your work, then it doesn't). I think it is philosophically easier and technically harder.

    Maybe it fits into the realm of "transmutational chymistry" (stealing an expression from JDP) than exactly "alchemy"... or a gray zone between these two things.
    (In a strange way, the procedures use matters which are probably quite typical for a modern chemist, but no modern chemists would follow these procedures because they would sound crazy to him -i.e, no modern chemist would distil the same water 1,000 times during a whole year, the procedure would not make sense to him.... in the same way that probably no person here takes a shower 40 times per day).


  6. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,888
    Quote Originally Posted by zoas23 View Post
    I think a question zero should be asked: "What is the philosopher's stone? Which ones are the things that it should be able to do?"
    The first question is if the solvent is necessary: yes, it is.
    The second question is if it can be done without it: I disagree a bit with what everyone else said... it can somehow be done without it, but it's a tricky reply that needs an explanation.
    The third question was answered by yourself: "The secret solvent still enters the work, not in the conventional way."

    My answers are based on the experiences of 4 persons who are not in this forum (nor they have ever been)... The claims of one of them are a bit dubious to me, the other 3 are not dubious at all to me. The 3 of them created "weak transmutational stones" which can transmute a small amount of other metals into gold (no medicinal use at all though, it would be crazy and suicidal to ingest them).

    The 4 persons followed very different procedures (I have my own reasons to doubt about one of them)... in all cases very tedious, long, dangerous and expensive procedures.

    What they did? Let's pretend that the solvent is alcohol and you need a pure ethanol. Their procedure would be similar to making a beer which produces a 5% of alcohol. So the solvent is there, but very diluted, very weak... and what they got was "transmutational stones", but I think that calling them "Philosopher's Stones" is maybe going too far.
    And as to use a metaphor of JDP... it's not the "chicken of the golden eggs", because their outcome probably only covered the costs.



    The 4 cases I know use gold... they are very very very long paths... and quite dangerous actually (and they need a LOT of care in all the senses: a lot of active work and a lot of caution).

    So after this explanation, I can clarify my answers: "Can we do without it? If yes, then how?"... actually you can't do it without it, but you can do a weak transmutational stone with different procedures that end up creating small amounts of it mixed with a lot of things which are not "it".

    Other that that these 4 (or 3, because I am not sure about one of them) persons didn't "simplify" anything when it comes to the practice... what they did is tedious, expensive, dangerous, very long, difficult in a technical way, etc.... and I do not dare to say that their result is "The Philosopher's Stone", but a weak "transmutational stone" that produces a limited "miracle" which covers the costs of its manufacture (though if you give yourself a symbolical "salary" for your work, then it doesn't). I think it is philosophically easier and technically harder.

    Maybe it fits into the realm of "transmutational chymistry" (stealing an expression from JDP) than exactly "alchemy"... or a gray zone between these two things.
    (In a strange way, the procedures use matters which are probably quite typical for a modern chemist, but no modern chemists would follow these procedures because they would sound crazy to him -i.e, no modern chemist would distil the same water 1,000 times during a whole year, the procedure would not make sense to him.... in the same way that probably no person here takes a shower 40 times per day).

    What you are talking about was pretty much already explained by the anonymous author of "The Ancient War of the Knights" (the one published in the "Hermetic Triumph", not the older German text with the same title):

    https://books.google.com/books?id=xh...ars%22&f=false

    "However, since you happen to speak to me of (Processes, or) Particulars, I'll explain to you in what they differ (from the Art), some Artists who have wrought with me, have carried on their Works so far, that they succeeded so far as to separate from me my Spirit, which contains my Tincture; so that mixing it with other Metals and Minerals they arriv'd thus far, that they communicated a final part of my Virtues, and of my Power to such Metals as have some Affinity and Friendship with me. Yet these Artists who have succeeded in this way, and who have indeed found one Part (of the Art,) are really but a very small Number: but as they knew not the Original whence the Tinctures come, it was impossible for them to carry on their Works beyond that; and at the casting up of their Accounts, they have found no vast Profit in their Proceeding. But if these Artists had carried on their Search further, and that they had well examined which is the Wife who is proper for me; and that they had sought for her, and united me with her; then could have ting'd a thousand Times (more; ) but (instead of that) they entirely destroyed my own Nature, by mixing me with foreign Things; 'tis truly for that Cause, that at the making up of their Accounts, they have found some Gain, however, but indifferent, in comparison of the great Power which is in me; 'tis apparent, nevertheless, that (this Gain) did not proceed, nor had its Original, but from me, and not from any other Thing whatsoever (wherewith I might be mixed)"

    "However, as for Particulars, of which you make mention, it is thus with them: Some are come thus far, that they have been able to extract my tinging Spirit, which they have joined to other Metals, and brought it about by many Operations, that I have participated to such Metals as had any Affinity with me, a small Matter of my Virtue and Power; which, however, but very few succeeded in: Likewise did they partly find it by Chance. And by Reason that they did not penetrate into the Foundation, whence Tinctures come, therefore they could not proceed further, and thus they could not reap very great Advantages therefrom. But if the Artist had looked further about for my own [proper] Wife, and joined [or united] me with her, I then could have tinged a thousand Times more: But they thus spoiled my Nature [or Property] with foreign Things. However, whatever they found, (although but a small Matter in Comparison of my true Power and Efficacy,) it proceeded from me, and of no other Thing whatsoever."


    By the way, most of the processes of "transmutational chymistry" (I see that you are getting a taste for my nomenclature and classifications, which are based on those of some older writers, like Alsted) do not have anything to do with the secret solvent/water of alchemy at all, they in fact involve "direct" transmutations without having to prepare any "tincture" first. The precious metal yields of most of these processes are too small to reap any profit from them, though. But they do answer the purpose of clearing up for the hesitant seeker the issue of whether transmutation is real or just the result of some collective errors, delusions, or fantasies (which implausible "explanation" is what chemists and physicists would like us to believe.)

    So to sum it all up:

    Alchemy NEEDS the secret solvent/water, you simply can't make the Stone/Elixir without it. Transmutational chymistry and its practitioners, on the other hand, do not need, or know how to use, or even actually know how to make this "water", and its processes mostly rely on other things, but the yields of its positive processes are usually too small to be profitable.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,459
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    What you are talking about was pretty much already explained by the anonymous author of "The Ancient War of the Knights" (the one published in the "Hermetic Triumph", not the older German text with the same title):
    (...)
    "However, since you happen to speak to me of (Processes, or) Particulars, I'll explain to you in what they differ (from the Art), some Artists who have wrought with me, have carried on their Works so far, that they succeeded so far as to separate from me my Spirit, which contains my Tincture; so that mixing it with other Metals and Minerals they arriv'd thus far, that they communicated a final part of my Virtues, and of my Power to such Metals as have some Affinity and Friendship with me. Yet these Artists who have succeeded in this way, and who have indeed found one Part (of the Art,)
    Yes, you perfectly understood it. You may understand now why I was not interested in the "powder that eats the gold" that we discussed not so long ago: it was such an incoherent mix of Particulars that it ended up being more a problem rather than a solution to anything. The process (and the others I mentioned) fall into a gray area between "transmutational chymistry" and "alchemy", because they produce a "transmutational stone", which I do not dare to call "philosophical"... and the [diluted] solvent is mixed with a chaos of substances in such a way that it is easier to "do it differently" than trying to separate it from that chaos.

    Funny that you bring Saint-Didier... one of these processes I know (but have never done myself, nor I have the intention of doing it) was a "mix" between the Hermetic Triumph and Roger Bacon (Or, as to say it properly, an "interpretation" of what they meant... which I think is wrong because of the same reasons that you showed in the blue quote).

    And yet this brings for me a specific question which is probably the SOURCE of all of our discrepancies. No need to be a genius to say that one of the BIG discussions in the Hermetic Triumph (and War of the Knights) is what is "Particular" and what is "Universal"....

    So how would YOU define an "Universal" as opposed to a "Particular"?
    (I have my definition and I think that you know it and you don't agree... but I am curious about your definition).

    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    By the way, most of the processes of "transmutational chymistry" (I see that you are getting a taste for my nomenclature and classifications, which are based on those of some older writers, like Alsted) do not have anything to do with the secret solvent/water of alchemy at all, they in fact involve "direct" transmutations without having to prepare any "tincture" first. The precious metal yields of most of these processes are too small to reap any profit from them, though.
    Yes, that's why I said "a gray area" in the middle of "transmutational chymistry" and "alchemy"... or a transmutational chymistry that produces a weak stone rather than a "direct transmutation", though you (and the War of the Knights) are right about the issue of "profits", at least in the cases I know.

    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    So to sum it all up:

    Alchemy NEEDS the secret solvent/water, you simply can't make the Stone/Elixir without it. Transmutational chymistry and its practitioners, on the other hand, do not need, or know how to use, or even actually know how to make this "water", and its processes mostly rely on other things, but the yields of its positive processes are usually too small to be profitable.
    Yes, that's why I said that the answer to "how" is " "the secret solvent still enters the work, not in the conventional way."... but the results are not, as to steal your expression, "the chicken of the golden eggs".

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    269
    The gold needs to be didissolved to extract his sulphur, no doubts about it.
    But, what if there could exist a substance of minera "origin" that we could make evolve imitating to the nature in our laboratories?
    The word "origin" implies that such substance, it's not in the minerals... but in a previous condition. Then a solvent would not be necessary, maybe.
    Do you think such a matter could possibly exist?
    I'm just thinking out loud...

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,888
    Quote Originally Posted by zoas23 View Post
    Yes, you perfectly understood it. You may understand now why I was not interested in the "powder that eats the gold" that we discussed not so long ago: it was such an incoherent mix of Particulars that it ended up being more a problem rather than a solution to anything. The process (and the others I mentioned) fall into a gray area between "transmutational chymistry" and "alchemy", because they produce a "transmutational stone", which I do not dare to call "philosophical"... and the [diluted] solvent is mixed with a chaos of substances in such a way that it is easier to "do it differently" than trying to separate it from that chaos.

    Funny that you bring Saint-Didier... one of these processes I know (but have never done myself, nor I have the intention of doing it) was a "mix" between the Hermetic Triumph and Roger Bacon (Or, as to say it properly, an "interpretation" of what they meant... which I think is wrong because of the same reasons that you showed in the blue quote).

    And yet this brings for me a specific question which is probably the SOURCE of all of our discrepancies. No need to be a genius to say that one of the BIG discussions in the Hermetic Triumph (and War of the Knights) is what is "Particular" and what is "Universal"....

    So how would YOU define an "Universal" as opposed to a "Particular"?
    (I have my definition and I think that you know it and you don't agree... but I am curious about your definition).



    Yes, that's why I said "a gray area" in the middle of "transmutational chymistry" and "alchemy"... or a transmutational chymistry that produces a weak stone rather than a "direct transmutation", though you (and the War of the Knights) are right about the issue of "profits", at least in the cases I know.



    Yes, that's why I said that the answer to "how" is " "the secret solvent still enters the work, not in the conventional way."... but the results are not, as to steal your expression, "the chicken of the golden eggs".
    My take on "universal" vs "particulars" is the same as that of the alchemists: the "universal tincture" (which is the Stone/Elixir) is capable of transmuting all base metals into silver and gold, and also capable of doing so in large quantities, while the "particular tinctures" only turn some metals into silver or gold, and the quantities produced are smaller as well.

    And then there's what I call "chymical" processes, which most alchemists considered as "sophistical" and "false", but which contrary to their claims some of them in fact do work and produce gold and silver from some metals (gold from silver, and silver from lead, tin, copper, bismuth), but the yield is usually too small to be of profit for the operator (but there also appear to be a minority of them that give higher yields, enough so to cover the expenditure of carrying them out and to still leave some profit for the operator.) Anyone interested in these types of processes should investigate the works (either printed books or unpublished manuscripts) of "chymists" like Porta, Libavius, Eglin, Fabre, the anonymous author of the German text entitled "Brief and Excellent Treatise on the Particular and Universal Tincture", Kessler, Glauber, Orschall, Becher, Kunckel, the anonymous author of "Alchymia Denudata", "Sincerus Renatus" (pseudonym of Samuel Richter), Kellner, Teichmeyer, Juncker, Creiling, Henckel, etc. As can be seen from this "roster", the Germans were the indisputable masters of "transmutational chymistry". No other people have produced more of such investigators than them. Beware, however, that almost all of these chymists had the VERY BAD HABIT of burying these truthful processes in the midst of a bunch of other totally false processes. It was a kind of defense mechanism, by which they would "weed out" the "unworthy" or superficial seeker who gave up easily after some failures, and the truth would only be found out by the most persistent and tireless investigator who could get through the barrier of false processes they erected. But rest assured that some of the processes they wrote not only DO work but they are written very plainly, quite literally, while some other of these processes only need a "tweak" or two to make them actually work, but nothing too difficult to figure out for any experienced investigator.

    And for those of you who want to dig into the historical background of these types of processes, peruse the old medieval "puffer" and "multiplier" manuals and collections of "recipes" (like, for example, Constantine of Pisa's "Book of the Secrets of Alchemy", which second part is nothing more than a compilation of "puffer" recipes, or some of the texts of the late 15th/early 16th century writer who called himself "Salomon Trismosin", and which often have strange sounding titles that resemble Greek words, like "Viatolon", or even weirder ones like "Sarona Doap Auri"), you will find many of the basic "chymical" techniques already described in such older texts, but proceed with the same caution as you should take with the texts of the later "chymists": there's a ton of false processes also described in those older texts, which makes it very tedious for the neophyte to learn which one is which. And there is no way to determine this other than to gain experience, or for someone who already knows which are true and which are false to tell you about it (but this is VERY UNLIKELY to happen, because whoever discovers any of the true ones does so at such a high cost in time and money that there is hardly anyone who will be willing to pass the information to someone else.) The empirical results will let you know what works and what does not. But you need to be a good experimenter, you need to be well acquainted with assaying, otherwise you won't know what you are doing, even if you manage to get some gold and silver (if you don't know how to assay your raw materials to determine their lack of precious metal content you will never know if what you are getting is truly artificial gold or silver or if it was just natural gold or silver already contained in your raw materials as an impurity. This type of investigations DEMAND people well acquainted with assaying, if you don't know about the subject then either get familiar with it first or move on to something else.)
    Last edited by JDP; 04-13-2017 at 05:59 AM.

  10. #20
    I think the universal solvent is not just a solvent but an integral part of the stone itself and that’s why it is not exchangable by any other means. The water carries within the power to release the real sulphur of gold, which becomes philsophical gold. The power of the ‘water’ should be understood by the condensed universal mercury, or short before, by the enchained ‘spiritus mundi’ collected by an appropriate magnet. The trick might be to release the corporified ‘universal spirit’ by pyrolytic distillation of the mass (chaos, the impregnated magnet) and its subsequent condensation.

+ 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