Patrons of the Sacred Art

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

+ Reply to Thread
Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 68

Thread: Can you make the stone without the solvent?

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    311
    Quote Originally Posted by Dwellings View Post
    Not the one brought from the market.
    Yeah. Better try the one from the grocery store.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,002
    Quote Originally Posted by Luxus View Post
    Ice melts in water does it not, isn't it a fact that Ice and water are the same substance just in different forms. The solvent infact bares the same relationship to the corpus as water does to Ice. So yes the stone is made from one thing only.
    False analogy based on states of matter at different temperatures that does not translate into the subject at hand. It's about as false as saying: rock melts into lava, does it not? Isn't it a fact that rocks and lava are the same substance in different forms? Ergo, the Stone is made from one thing! (huh???)

    Bottom line, based on REALITY, not false analogies and speculations: there is no single matter that can perform everything that the alchemists describe in their books. It does not exist in nature. So no, the Stone is not "made from one thing only" but out of the interactions between several chosen specific matters in the appropriate proportions.

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,002
    Quote Originally Posted by Luxus View Post
    "The artist must gradually purify without heat"

    "They can be brought to perfection by means of a steady subsequent cooking or digestion"

    These two quotations seem to contradict and I have noticed similar statements in other text I have read.
    Yes, there are contradictions in many alchemical texts, but in this case there might be a possible solution provided by the author himself, since Grasshoff is here quantifying the amount of heat:

    "This the Artist must gradually purify without heat. For as soon as the outward warmth becomes greater than the warmth within, then the metallic Spirit flows away and cannot be introduced into the dead body, as one can perceive in all metals, which are all dead, since their life has escaped them in fire and has flown away."

    His objection to heat would thus only count if the "outward warmth" (i.e. external heat) was greater than this supposed "warmth within". So he should rather have said "without a strong heat" rather than "without heat".

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    1,107
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    Yes, there are contradictions in many alchemical texts, but in this case there might be a possible solution provided by the author himself, since Grasshoff is here quantifying the amount of heat:

    "This the Artist must gradually purify without heat. For as soon as the outward warmth becomes greater than the warmth within, then the metallic Spirit flows away and cannot be introduced into the dead body, as one can perceive in all metals, which are all dead, since their life has escaped them in fire and has flown away."

    His objection to heat would thus only count if the "outward warmth" (i.e. external heat) was greater than this supposed "warmth within". So he should rather have said "without a strong heat" rather than "without heat".
    Sounds like an exothermic reaction within the flask, and too much external heat would ruin the work.
    So maybe it doesn't need external heat - it very well may provide its own.




    ~Seth-Ra
    Last edited by Seth-Ra; 05-05-2017 at 03:46 AM. Reason: Spelling
    One fatal tree there stands of knowledge called, forbidden them to taste. Knowledge forbidden? Suspicious. Reasonless. And why should their Lord envy them that? Can it be sin to know? Can it be death? And do they stand by ignorance, is that their happy state, the proof of their obedience and their faith?

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    717
    Quote Originally Posted by Weidenfeld View Post
    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.
    This is indeed one of the two books Prof. H. Ludolf (18th century, Erfurt) recommends as the only ones where the true path is clearly described. Ludolf, unlike many "scientists" of his time was very into alchemy and worked together with some alchemists. Unfortunately he adds that there are several false versions around because they got altered later because of their contents.

    He recommends some other books as well including, surprisingly, Weidenfeld's book. He says unfortunately Weidenfeld didn't tell what the secret solvent is. But this information speaks against the claim of von Bernus, who said that Weidenfeld's book wasn't known until he rediscovered it.

    Edit: I looked it up again and found that Ludolf worked together with this alchemist Schmid, but did not recommend one of his books.

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,002
    Quote Originally Posted by Florius Frammel View Post
    This is indeed one of the two books Prof. H. Ludolf (18th century, Erfurt) recommends as the only ones where the true path is clearly described. Ludolf, unlike many "scientists" of his time was very into alchemy and worked together with some alchemists. Unfortunately he adds that there are several false versions around because they got altered later because of their contents.

    He recommends some other books as well including, surprisingly, Weidenfeld's book. He says unfortunately Weidenfeld didn't tell what the secret solvent is. But this information speaks against the claim of von Bernus, who said that Weidenfeld's book wasn't known until he rediscovered it.

    Edit: I looked it up again and found that Ludolf worked together with this alchemist Schmid, but did not recommend one of his books.
    This last edit needs some clarification: are you saying that Ludolf did not recommend the Schmid book in question, or that he did not recommend another book by Schmid, or that he did not recommend any book by Schmid?

    Note: I have examined some parts of Ludolf's chymical treatise, but I can only remember him saying that a book by Petrus Arlensis de Scudalupis supposedly contained the secret (of the Stone) plainly revealed but that this book has been edited and mutilated by Scudalupis' own son soon after the first two editions of Madrid and Rome were published, which the same son bought up all the copies he could find in order to suppress them from the public. Ludolf is basing this statement on a report by the encyclopedist Morhof. Based on this report of Morhof, I have looked all over the place for a surviving copy of the first editions, so that I can examine this alleged "untampered with" text, but the last reference to a surviving copy of the Madrid edition I found was in an 18th century book catalog published in France, marking it as "very rare"; after that there seems to be no trace of this or any other surviving copy of any of the original two editions.

    I have my doubts regarding Ludolf's convictions about this, though, since he also says that Alvaro Alonso Barba's treatise contains the secrets of alchemy plainly exposed. I have examined Barba's treatise in its original Spanish edition (1640) and I can find ZERO evidence whatsoever that he was an alchemist at all. He was a priest and a metallurgist and nowhere does he claim that he knows the secret of making the Stone. Barba was obviously well acquainted with the alchemical and chymical literature of his times, and he in fact defends the reality of transmutation, but nowhere does he say that he knows how to make the Stone, and neither does he devote any section of his metallurgical treatise specifically to this subject. In one chapter he mentions that he knows several people who have transmuted mercury into silver by means of "medicine donated by others" (i.e. someone has donated a sample of the white Stone or some other silver-making "tincture" to someone else, and this someone else has performed the transmutation of mercury into silver with the sample), and he also explains that the discovery that Barba is still remembered for (i.e. the "copper kettle" method to recover silver from its ores) was in fact the accidental result of his unsuccessful attempts to "coagulate" mercury into silver. In the chapter on silver he also says that even those who stubbornly deny the reality of transmutation cannot deny the transmutation of silver into gold, and he insinuates that he knows that silver can "easily" be transmuted into gold by means of "coctions" in the fire (i.e. cementations; Barba is here being a bit vague and misleading, and exaggerated as well, as such procedures are not really "easy" but long and tedious, and also fire alone, by itself, will not do anything to silver, you need the right "cements" to make silver yield gold.) However, this hardly qualifies Barba as an "alchemist" who knows how to make the Stone, as such "cementations" are not really "alchemy" but the methods of transmutational chymists (the alchemists in fact usually rail against such methods and quite incorrectly brand them as "sophistical" and "false"!!!) So, I see ZERO support whatsoever for Ludolf's claim that Barba's treatise somehow contains the secrets of alchemy in plain view. It doesn't even contain them in a "veiled" manner! Barba was not even an alchemist to begin with.

    Having said that, Ludolf's treatise is still interesting, not so much because of what he says regarding "alchemy", properly, but because of some of the "chymical" methods he also deals with.

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    717
    One can count on you, JDP! That's for sure!

    No, Ludolf did not recommend any book by Schmid. But he was working with him. The other alchemist he worked with was a "Baron von Blaka", but I could not find any trace of this guy.

    Yes, those two treatises you mentioned are those two he said that contain all the secrets.

    I have a book by Ludolf from google books that has over 1000 pages and he mentiones several alchemical, spagyrical and chymical recipies, though I doubt he made a big difference between those three categories.

    However the other books he recommends are:

    1.Aurea Catena Homeri
    2.Everything by Basil Valentine (especially his tractat of the quinta essentia)
    3.Thölde's Coelum referatum
    4.Wunschhütlein by Paracelsus
    5.Zoroaster's book (I suppose he means Clavis Artis)
    6.Abraham the Jew
    7.Kunckel
    8.Glauber
    9.Weidenfeld
    10.Henkel
    11. Memoires of the academies in Paris, London and Edinburgh

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    49
    Absolutely, yes. See in the words of Flamel in The Breviary:


    HOW TO MAKE THE PROJECTION POWDER STARTING FROM THE ELIXIR

    "Here in this procedure. Melt in a crucible 10 ounces of fine gold and throw in it, on the melted gold, one ounce of the red powder. Leave in very strong fire for two hours, remove the crucible, let it cool, break it and you will see in the bottom a red glass, that is the exalted gold, true and royal powder capable of transmuting all metals in pure gold, better than the one found in the mines. You can, like this, dispose of great fortunes, that even the kings cannot get without acquiring it from other. Proceed, therefore, dear nephew, like me, by helping the poor, our brothers in God, to ornament our Redeemer's temples, to free of the prisons many captive detained for money, and the good and loyal use that you will do with it will lead you on the way to glory and eternal salvation, in God's mansion, that I, Nicholas Flamel, wish you on behalf of the Eternal Father, of Redeemers' Son and of the Holy Spirit Illuminator, Holy sacred and adorable Trinity, Amen".

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,002
    Quote Originally Posted by Esche View Post
    Absolutely, yes. See in the words of Flamel in The Breviary:


    HOW TO MAKE THE PROJECTION POWDER STARTING FROM THE ELIXIR

    "Here in this procedure. Melt in a crucible 10 ounces of fine gold and throw in it, on the melted gold, one ounce of the red powder. Leave in very strong fire for two hours, remove the crucible, let it cool, break it and you will see in the bottom a red glass, that is the exalted gold, true and royal powder capable of transmuting all metals in pure gold, better than the one found in the mines. You can, like this, dispose of great fortunes, that even the kings cannot get without acquiring it from other. Proceed, therefore, dear nephew, like me, by helping the poor, our brothers in God, to ornament our Redeemer's temples, to free of the prisons many captive detained for money, and the good and loyal use that you will do with it will lead you on the way to glory and eternal salvation, in God's mansion, that I, Nicholas Flamel, wish you on behalf of the Eternal Father, of Redeemers' Son and of the Holy Spirit Illuminator, Holy sacred and adorable Trinity, Amen".
    Apparently you do not understand that the "one ounce of the red powder" in question is the red Stone itself already prepared, which is projected upon gold in order to "ferment" it. The title even clearly tells you that this chapter is about "HOW TO MAKE THE PROJECTION POWDER STARTING FROM THE ELIXIR" That "red powder" that he throws on the molten gold is that "Elixir", AND IT CANNOT BE MADE WITHOUT THE SECRET SOLVENT. So "absolutely, no!" You most certainly need the secret solvent to perform what he describes. No secret solvent = no "red powder" or "Elixir" that will do what he describes.

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    49
    You are right now with the reason!!! Congratulations!

    But without solve it with any kind of spirit or "solvents" just doing the digestion of the Red Powder with his Mercury and recalling it you will get the same red glass by the same Flamel process description. Well done: the solvent of the stone is Mercury.

    I've been prepared if someone says if this Mercury isn't common Mercury. I obtained it Mercury from the red powder at first by the dissecation of the red powder in a metal recipe made of stainless still and antimony just for keep the Stone. When I open this recipe the cover was replet of mercury globious evaporated from the powder. However, when the term "Argent Vive" is used reffers to the Mercury from the mines.

    The alchemical or hermetic Mercury in the Art is entirely obtained by the distillation of the amalgaman, the Martial Regulus wich is so hard to do, and a special retort is required. I'm trying to find any alternative path to distill and liquefy the own Mercury of the Stone (the philosophical Mercury) because I already evaporated this matter at a common cooker, perhaps the dissecation of the Stone is quikly all the requirements.

    A distiller that I recently found over the internet can match with this work, or a copper alquitar because supports the heating to distill it. See below:

    https://zonesun-technology-limited.m...iller-for-sale

+ 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