Patrons of the Sacred Art

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

+ Reply to Thread
Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Results 71 to 77 of 77

Thread: Vinegar toil

  1. #71
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,874
    Quote Originally Posted by elixirmixer View Post
    I just get a feeling while reading his book that this man (John French) did not perform even half of the processes in his own book, its more of a compilation he made by reading through other books.

    He was a recipe collector.
    Spot-on.

    I actually ordered a copy of the original version that has the additional chapters on calcination at the end but unfortunatly ive misplaced them and cannot access another copy. Might jhave to re-order it and publish it here where it belongs... unless someone else has it?
    I have looked into this, and it turns out that it is not the original edition but the fourth edition that contains the extra two sections. You can find a scan of it here:

    https://books.google.com/books?id=No...nation&f=false

    But don't hold your breath, though. The content of the extra 2 sections is pretty much the same uncritical collection of random "recipes" mostly taken from other chymical and spagyrical sources as the original edition, typical John French stuff and modus operandi. As usual, he is mostly interested in medicinal applications of such chymical/spagyrical products. John French = a "vulgar chymist" & spagyrist more or less interested in alchemy, nothing else. I would not even consider him a "transmutational chymist", a la Glauber, Becher, Orschall, Kunckel, Kellner, Creiling, etc. (unlike John French, these chymists do devote a great deal of their works to transmutation, and all of them openly proclaim to have succeeded in achieving transmutations by several methods, but do not claim to have succeeded in making the Stone.) Not even close. So let alone an "alchemist"!!!

  2. #72
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    884
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    You must not be very well acquainted with the "chymical" literature of the 17th and 18th century if you actually think that people like John French and Boerhaave were actually "alchemists".
    Either that...or...we read treatises differently and see things through different Eyes.

    AGAPDOTAJDP you are my favorite poster here and one of the few worthwhile people on this message board (shoutout to Krisztian, z0 K, Chasm, Dwellings, black, Axismundi, Zoas, Dragon's Tail, Andro, and Kiorionis too ), but your perception has not yet caught up to your intellect.

    Eventually you will realize that when reading these treatises, we are not to read the literal words penned, but are meant to read into the spirit of the words (again I urge you to comprehend the significance of what is called acroamatic cipher).

    Only the lowest of the low rubes and oblivious fools read the words in these magnificent works literally. One of the first steps in succeeding in our Art is learning how to read Alchemical texts.




    Quote Originally Posted by FlightOfFire
    If you recall what an acid does in your school science labs... no, not chemical theory but more the 'classical physics', the practical application, the observable effect - it fizzes, bubbles, foams and dissolves many things.

    What about snow. It is white, light in weight, comes 'from above', gently falls down, has a 'flaky' appearance, is very pure, rests on top of things, and so on.

    Eagles, although they are just another bird, do have a 'nostalgic' or 'majestic' quality overlaid on them, mostly in America. As a side note, I might point out that in The Secret Teachings of All Ages by Manly P. Hall (a 33rd degree mason at the time and very knowledgeable man), the original eagle was actually a Phoenix.

    Thus, when looking at an eagle, it flies high, makes it's nest in mountains, has a white head dress, is strong (being a larger bird), and also comes down to the ground to find food then returns to the mountains and so on.

    Now. If we take the qualities, characteristics and attributes of these real world items, we can find a better understanding of the alchemical equivalents like eagles, acids, snow on mountains, rains, toads, leavening, fermentation, and so on. They are usually not literal but are described a particular (or several) qualities derived from the literal because that is what we can more tangibly see and understand with our primary senses. We then overlay them onto our alchemical symbols.

    For example, when we read of 'the eagles' in our work, go look at what an eagle bird does in the real world. It rests 'high up', and 'comes down; to pick something up (usually food) then returns back up into the mountain, usually to feed it's chickens. Over time the chickens get stronger and stronger as a result of these 'cycles' that the parent eagle is doing. It comes down, picks up something, flies back up to the mountain then repeats this. These repeating cycles of the bird is 'strengthening' chicken in this case.

    In Our Work (did you notice the capitals?) we have Our Eagles which symbolically is the same. Something is 'picked up' from 'below' and caries up gently with our 'evaporation'. It then rests on the 'mountain' at the top of our flask only to drip or flow down again, and so the cycles repeat.

    Same with an acid. We have all seen real acids fizz, bubble and foam on many materials. Well, at one particular stage of my Work, (during the Eagles actually), when the stuff above drips down from above or runs down the side of the flask, when it reaches the matter, "earth", below, it fizzes, bubbles and foams, just like an acid. However, I have NEVER used any sort of acid in my main Work.

    Thus, research, even a little, what the literal substance, plant, animal and so on does in the real world, then overlay these qualities, characteristics and attributes onto your Work and you might find that thing will make a lot more sense.




    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    Just compare such works and the plethora of different processes they concern themselves with and those of genuinely alchemical texts, like those of Maier or Khunrath, for example. There is no confusing them.
    Neither French nor Boerhaave wrote literally. To take their words literally is absolutely foolish and inexcusably stupid. In the above quote do you really actually think he was talking about a 'sponge' or actual substance of 'milk'...NO! These are metaphors.


    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    Alchemical literature is more enigmatic and secretive, using and abusing such things as "decknamen", and denouncing all "recipes" regarding transmutation as false. There is just no comparison with chymical works like French's or Boerhaave's.
    Some Alchemical literature is more enigmatic and secretive, while others such a French and Boerhaave present Truth in plain words shrouded in direct lies to baffle the uninitiated reader. FlightOfFire put it so well in his post.


    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    And also, some of what you quoted are in fact FALSE processes similar to the ones I was referring to before, like that ridiculous bit about extracting a "milky substance" from the "rays of the moon". It is painfully obvious that French himself NEVER performed such a bizarre operation.
    YES! Of course these are false processes! Only a fool would take such processes literally instead of comprehending the spirit of what was being said.
    Last edited by Schmuldvich; 11-22-2017 at 11:39 PM. Reason: red

  3. #73
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,874
    Quote Originally Posted by Schmuldvich View Post
    Either that...or...we read treatises differently and see things through different Eyes.

    AGAPDOTAJDP you are my favorite poster here and one of the few worthwhile people on this message board (shoutout to Krisztian, z0 K, Chasm, Dwellings, black, Axismundi, Zoas, Dragon's Tail, Andro, and Kiorionis too ), but your perception has not yet caught up to your intellect.

    Eventually you will realize that when reading these treatises, we are not to read the literal words penned, but are meant to read into the spirit of the words (again I urge you to comprehend the significance of what is called acroamatic cipher).

    Only the lowest of the low rubes and oblivious fools read the words in these magnificent works literally. One of the first steps in succeeding in our Art is learning how to read Alchemical texts.










    Neither French nor Boerhaave wrote literally. To take their words literally is absolutely foolish and inexcusably stupid. In the above quote do you really actually think he was talking about a 'sponge' or actual substance of 'milk'...NO! These are metaphors.



    Some Alchemical literature is more enigmatic and secretive, while others such a French and Boerhaave present Truth in plain words shrouded in direct lies to baffle the uninitiated reader. FlightOfFire put it so well in his post.



    YES! Of course these are false processes! Only a fool would take such processes literally instead of comprehending the spirit of what was being said.
    Dude, just read the works of contemporary "chymists". There is NOTHING remotely "alchemical" about John French's or Boerhaave's works. This last one even spent OVER 15 YEARS patiently distilling & re-distilling HUNDREDS OF TIMES and "cooking" metallic amalgams inside glass flasks EVEN FOR YEARS to test some of the claims he had read and TOTALLY LITERALLY INTERPRETED, just to see if the mercury would really "coagulate" into a solid metal (hopefully silver or gold):

    http://www.encyclopedia.com/people/m...rman-boerhaave

    Boerhaave’s attitude toward alchemy was somewhat ambiguous; he did not dogmatically deny a priori the possibility of the transmutation of metals, but examined it in a series of painstaking experiments that lasted over a period of many years. He purified his mercury specimens by forcing them through leather and then washing them in seawater. In one experiment, he used a fulling mill to shake a specimen of mercury, enclosed in a glass bottle, for a period of eight and one-half months; he then distilled it sixty-one times. Other specimens of mercury were variously heated for fifteen and one-half years, boiled 511 times, or mixed with gold and then distilled 877 times. Gold remained gold, and mercury, mercury; he did, however, obtain mercury with the specific weight of 14.1 as the result of one of these year-long experiments. These experiments were published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London (1734–1736).

    He finally stopped these naive experiments after an accident caused by a clumsy lab assistant ruined one of these amalgam experiments that had been going on for YEARS, and also because he plainly saw that in all these trials NOTHING happened to the mercury and it remained the same inert metal it was at the start of the experiments. Now, does this sound to you like something a genuine alchemist would fall for??? Nope, it certainly doesn't. Rest assured these guys were nothing but chymists, interested in the subject of alchemy and transmutation, sure, like most other chymists of the time, but still NOT "alchemists" by any stretch of the imagination. These guys NEVER figured out how to make the Stone. Rest assured of it. Again, just compare their works with those of genuine alchemists. Very easy to tell them apart.

  4. #74
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    526
    Quote Originally Posted by Schmuldvich View Post
    AGAPDOTAJDP you are my favorite poster here and one of the few worthwhile people on this message board (shoutout to Krisztian, z0 K, Chasm, Dwellings, black, Axismundi, Zoas, Dragon's Tail, Andro, and Kiorionis too ), but your perception has not yet caught up to your intellect.
    Aw, shucks. I'm not sure how "worthwhile" I am other than repeatedly demonstrating things that don't create the stone, fiddling with herbs, and posing thinking points as they come to me.

    I'm afraid, however that this post has gone waaaay off topic. Nothing being discussed here is furthering the production of acetic through natural means.

    I was however considering the fact that certain chemicals are used in helping alcohol yeast survive longer to generate higher alcohol content in wine. I don't recall the exact ingredients, but I have a feeling that some can be found in plant ashes, possibly the ashes of yeast husks. More alky means more vinegar, assuming that the bacteria could also survive the increasingly acidic conditions. When I've caught wild acetobacter in a glass before, it ended with really low strength vinegar, of course, I didn't "feed" them, even after I spotted the mother and realized what was happening. Any ideas for "natural" means of stabilizing the wine making process? A concentration of raw vinegar of even a couple percent could be huge in the reduction of raw work. Concentrating acetic is a pain in the butt, and not energy efficient.

  5. #75
    This could be useful:

    With a fish tank aerator and a pet warming pad underneath I am getting completed vinegar in less than a week. So the vinegar is now taking less time to make than the wine unless I use the fastest possible turbo yeast for the wine. So in practical terms half an hour to an hour of wine making every other day leading to a ‘conveyer belt’ of vinegar fermenting in just one barrel and from there to the freezer. This has become a manageable undertaking. The quantity of vinegar required for acetate research is now feasable with regular piecemeal activity rather then the ridiculous scale of activity it previously seemed to require. The crux is not needing loads of barrels of fermenting wine and vinegar around. Just one barrel with pad and aerator for vinegar and 8 demijohns for the wine.

  6. #76
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    526
    Quote Originally Posted by Axismundi000 View Post
    This could be useful:

    With a fish tank aerator and a pet warming pad underneath I am getting completed vinegar in less than a week. So the vinegar is now taking less time to make than the wine unless I use the fastest possible turbo yeast for the wine. So in practical terms half an hour to an hour of wine making every other day leading to a ‘conveyer belt’ of vinegar fermenting in just one barrel and from there to the freezer. This has become a manageable undertaking. The quantity of vinegar required for acetate research is now feasable with regular piecemeal activity rather then the ridiculous scale of activity it previously seemed to require. The crux is not needing loads of barrels of fermenting wine and vinegar around. Just one barrel with pad and aerator for vinegar and 8 demijohns for the wine.
    Wait.. how fast is your wine fermenting? Where can find this turbo yeast? lol.

    Sounds like the vinegar production problem is solved, now purifying it. Don't know where you're at, but around here it's getting close to them temps were it can be left outside at night. At least for the first couple pour offs. Vinegar purification would def be easier in the frozen months.

  7. #77
    Using specific vodka making turboyeast you can get about 90% of ferment complete within 2 days. You must get double size demijohns at least and fill no more than 1/4 - 1/3 otherwise the grape pulp will rise up block the airlock and blowout, pebbledash your ceiling. The yeast company recommend no airlock for this reason, what they expect you to use instead I cannot say.

    The last batch of vinegar I have done of only 15 litres is finished at PH 3-4 after 36 hours approx, this morning it was PH 4-5, time to bottle and freeze. The flavour of the vinegar is not very strong I don’t know how that will impact the Alchemy. Cheaper vinegar brands add flavour and aroma to vinegar forced in this way I have discovered. For food slowly adding glasses of wine to a wooden barrel over 6 months or so produces a wonderful vinegar. However I am not seeking a delicious food vinegar, I just want loads of naturally made acetic acid.
    Last edited by Axismundi000; 11-29-2017 at 09:46 PM. Reason: PH measurements.

+ 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