Sciencemadness Discussion Board - Alchemy

Alchemy

celindgren - 21-12-2007 at 03:19

I have just built a small alchemy lab (300 sq ft) which I am using to re-examine the various experiments conducted over the past 500 years. The results will be written into a book and will contain, plant and mineral experiments. It is not my intention to make any great discovery but rather to conduct the work so there will be a historical review of the developments of alchemy which finally led to chemistry.

Anyone wishing to help may contact me either by e-mail or at 662-563-7554.

Prof. Carl Edwin Lindgren

Phosphor-ing - 21-12-2007 at 06:54

Good luck with the isolation of Phosphorus! The way many alchemy experiments were conducted shortened the life of the alchemist/chemist

Magpie - 21-12-2007 at 15:01

Welcome to the forum professor.

What do you plan on having in your lab for equipment besides a charcoal furnace & bellows, clay retorts, and a mortar & pestle? Will you have a pet crow?

I too, will be interested in hearing about your results in duplicating Brandt's isolation of phosphorus from urine.

Also, let us know how open you are to your friends in discussing your lab. I'm curious to see if you get the same moronic feedback that we are prone to getting. Perhaps the dignity of being a professor will allay most of this. I sure hope so (for your sake).

[Edited on by Magpie]

Fleaker - 21-12-2007 at 15:30

Welcome to forum professor!

I wish you the best of luck in your endeavor, and I am quite envious; it has always been a personal dream to go back and recreate the work of the alchemists and early chemists.

They were the original ''mad scientists'' and the forerunners of us chemists.

I'd gladly buy your book.

Please keep us posted!

Rosco Bodine - 21-12-2007 at 15:56

http://www.borderlands.com/archives/arch/alchem.html

The_Davster - 21-12-2007 at 17:30

Welcome Professor!

I too wish you luck in your quest. It is also a dream of mine to start from base materials and follow in the footsteps of the alchemists.

Keep us updated, and do not hesitate to post questions/updates/photos here!

Best of luck, and I look forward to the book

chemrox - 22-12-2007 at 11:05

Why?

MagicJigPipe - 22-12-2007 at 17:26

I don't think it's a very good idea to post your phone number on the internet.

And let's try to pry our lips from the professor's ass.

chemrox - 22-12-2007 at 19:11

I knew a modern day alchemist of sorts. He was a geophysics professor who worked in high pressure and had a reputation for knowing how diamond could be made. Just like the alchemists of old, he'd get some greedy guy with a few bucks who wanted (instead of gold) diamonds and the professor would get a bunch of money up front, buy some more gear for his lab and write a little report. He would do this every few years. He stuck the Navy for $250K in 1980 money over some Russion synthetic stones but that's another story. Other than the shell games they played, they did some really basic chemistry. I see little of interest, to me, in repeating those old experiments.

[Edited on 22-12-2007 by chemrox]

Xenoid - 22-12-2007 at 19:42

Gotta agree with chemrox and MagicJigPipe on this one!

Just sounds like another "nutter" with too much money!

I'm not all that convinced that the alchemists with their mad "three element" ideas (mercury, sulphur and salt) and endless search for the "philosopher's stone" contributed all that much to chemistry. Sure, they developed a lot of practical apparatus and techniques, but on the whole they probably did more to hold back chemical enlightenment than advance it. Chemistry didn't really start to develop until the mid 17th century with the rise of the "phlogiston theory" and more scientific procedures, communication, and measurements!

[Edited on 22-12-2007 by Xenoid]

bereal511 - 23-12-2007 at 21:45

Well, chemistry had to have come from some kind of humble beginnings. A baby may learn to walk after falling and banging its head on the floor; sure, through hindsight, falling and hurting ownself isn't exactly the most efficient way to learn to walk, and perhaps if a baby is taught to walk it would be saved a lot of pain. But human beings didn't exactly have anyone to explain the scientific method to them 1300 years ago. It was slow, inefficient, insane, and full of superstition, but assuredly alchemy provided some level of encouragement to experiment along the lines of pre-scientific chemistry. And if it wasn't the alchemists, who else was going to do it? The upper class? The peasants? The Church?

Xenoid - 23-12-2007 at 22:24

Hmmm... Alchemy. That's from Al Kimiya (Arabic). If they had stuck to their Arabic roots, chemistry would probably be a few hundred years further down the track!
It took the arrival in Europe (from China) of gunpowder, in the late 13th Century, to give a fillip to the "art" of alchemy and redirect it toward a more "scientific" basis. Just the first example of warfare giving rise to technical and scientific innovation as it has consistantly done over the last few centuries.

Why doesn't the good Professor devote his time, money and generous laboratory space to persuing something useful to mankind (like a perchlorate anode) rather than delving into the arcane "alchemical" arts of the past!...

Fleaker - 23-12-2007 at 22:25

Probably because the good professor is more of the history persuasion.

Look him up, he's published before.

Sauron - 24-12-2007 at 21:21

I disagree with the critics. I think this is a worthy project, and in fact is rather daunting. Alchemists were not particularly renowned for being very forthcoming with precise details of their work. Ciphers, vaguery, and imprecision will complicate the already onerous linguistic challenges. Even English from the 15-16th century is difficult.

So an academic endeavor in the history of early science department, in which early equipment, techniques, materials, etc. ought to be very interesting. It is unlikely to produce the philosopher's stone, or shed any light on 21st century organic chemistry. But that is not the intent.

not_important - 25-12-2007 at 01:24

It should be noted that

Nasīr al-Dīn al-Tūsī, better known for his contributions to mathematics and astronomy, both suggested an early theory of evoilution and paid attention to conservation of mass.

Ja'far al-Sadiq did not believe in Aristotle's Four Elements, proclaiming that each metal was an element.

The Arabs described the purification of potassium nitrate before the 12th century, and had recipes for gunpowder dating to the 13th century and earlier. http://www.history-science-technology.com/Articles/articles%...

The Crusades brought some of this knowledge to Europe, and at the same time planted an attitude that lead to the downplaying or writing-out of much of the developments of the Arabs, and may have caused some of their more philosophical notions to be rejected. By the 16th century some of those ideas were returning, but as Sauron says the alchemists were not noted for clarity, and separating practical mundane information from less material philosophy with both wrapped up in codes is a real task. Actually attempting to recreate those works to determine what they actually were doing could provide useful information, if only for historical purposes.

microcosmicus - 1-1-2008 at 17:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Xenoid
I'm not all that convinced that the alchemists with their mad "three
element" ideas (mercury, sulphur and salt) and endless search for the
"philosopher's stone" contributed all that much to chemistry. Sure,
they developed a lot of practical apparatus and techniques, but on the
whole they probably did more to hold back chemical enlightenment than
advance it. Chemistry didn't really start to develop until the mid
17th century with the rise of the "phlogiston theory" and more
scientific procedures, communication, and measurements!
[Edited on 22-12-2007 by Xenoid]

I think you are giving the old-timers too little credit here. Sure,
their notions about elements turned out to be a dead end and look
bizarre in retrospect, but so what? Along the way to understanding,
people come up with some really crappy notions alongside the brilliant
insights and it often takes a long time before the fruitful ideas get
sorted out from the blind alleys. For instance, a century ago, most
scientists believed in luminiferous aether, absolute space, and vortex
atoms, but today these ideas seem almost as quaint as the
sulfur-mercury-salt theory or planetary spheres and epicycles.

Sure, tenaciously holding on to the bad ideas retarded the progress of
science (then as now!) but modern science also advanced by adopting
the good ideas of the ancients. When I read what the pioneers of
modern science had to say 300 years ago I find that, by and large,
they had great respect for their predecessors and felt that past
accomplishments provided a useful base for future progress, even though
they all had to be re-examined critically using the then-new
experimental method. For instance, while old notions about elements,
whether the sulfur/mercury/salt theory or the
earth/wind/water/fire theory were dead ends, the old ideas about atoms
were much more fruitful --- one can trace a pretty straight line of
development from Democritus and Epicurus through Gassendi to Hooke and
Boyle, then Dalton and Boltzmann, to modern kinetic theory. Likewise,
the alchemist's experience with potassium nitrate (mentioned in
not_important's post above) and gunpowder provided the basis for
Hooke's experiments which demolished the notion of fire as an element
and led to the discovery of oxygen. Whilst off-the-wall alchemical
notions may have delayed the development of modern chemistry, at the
same time modern chemistry was also built upon those alchemical notions
which had passed the test of controlled experimentation. Overall, I
get the impression that the latter outweighed the former so the net
contribution of ancient alchemy to modern chemistry was positive.

As for holding back versus advancing scientific progress, I think it
is important to distinguish the ancient and mediaeval philosophers
from their uninspired and pedantic followers in early modern times.
I consider the former group to have laid the groundwork for modern
science but the latter to be the ones who retarded its development
with their nearsighted interpretations and misplaced reverence for
the old masters. At the time of Albertus Magnus, Thomas Aquinas,
and Roger Bacon (who also happened to be alchemists), Aristotelean
philosophy was something of a controversial subject which was
developing dynamically but, by the time of Galileo, scholastic
philosophy had fossilized into a shadow of its former self and
taught by pedants who were well-ingrained in the academic
establishment and took a dim view of the new, experimental
philosophy then being developed.

As for the quest to synthesize gold, I don't see that in a negative
light. Rather, I see it and similar endeavors such as squaring the
circle as a normal part of how people do science. Namely, people are
motivated by some sort of goal and work towards it; whether or not
the goal is attained or not, science advances becasue of the work
done in pursuing that goal. (As evil_lurker put it in another
discussion thread, "Research is not about synthing things, its about
not synthing things.") Trying to make an elixir of life led an
alchemist to invent gunpowder. Trying to square the circle led to
advances in number theory and algebra. In both cases, the advances
made along the way ultimately showed that the goal was unattainable
as originally envisioned, but that doesn't mean that the effort put
towards these goals was wasted because it led to important advances
in science which may ultimately be of more importance than attaining
these goals would have been had they been doable.

As for technique, the alchemists were no slouches! Not only did
they have a good understanding of techniques such as recrystallization.
distillation, and extraction, they even performed what we would
now recognize as basic organic synthesis: In 1275, Ramon Lull
condensed ethanol using sulfuric acid to produce ether. As the
forum posts at this site show, doing things like synthesizing ether
or preparing glacial acetic acid fom vinegar using only simple
equipment are non-trivial tasks, especially if you have to prepare
your own oleum by starting with sulfate minerals and making a
destructive distillation and distilling your ethanol from wine! I would
certainly be interested to see a re-enactment of this and similar
feats on period equipment by the gentleman from Mississippi.

I don't think that this will shed any light on modern chemistry
either --- pretty much everything of permanent value to be found
in alchemy books was already absorbed into modern science during the
17th and 18th centuries. However, I think it can shed some light on
how modern chenmistry came to be and, more generally, how science
evolves. I find stories of how the speculations of Pythagoras,
Democritus, Plato, and Aristotle eventually morphed into modern
science with all sorts of twists and turns along the way quite
fascinating and hopefully getting past the arcane mumbo-jumbo and
figuring out what the alchemists were actually cooking in their
retorts by repeating their operations sounds like a promising
way to unearth a few more of those twists and turns on the road
to understanding how the natural world operates.

Xenoid - 1-1-2008 at 18:51

@ microcosmicus

See my second post.

But the point is, why try to duplicate all that bumbling madness in a modern lab. What is the point! Most of what the alchemists achieved was just basic inorganic chemical reactions. Why doesn't the "alchemically-minded professor" devote his time to something useful like superconductors (now that is true alchemy) or fuel cell research. Just because he is a lowly historian, he should not preclude himself from seeking such lofty goals. I gather many of the experimenters in this forum don't have chemistry careers behind them. I don't, I come from a lowly geological background....

chemkid - 1-1-2008 at 19:43

many of us (i think) do basic inorganic chem or just synthesis for fun. I always try out original synthesises. I think such a book would be a great idea. Kind of like cave man chemistry. (the book)

Chemkid

microcosmicus - 2-1-2008 at 11:23

@Xenoid:

Yes, I did read your last post. As I understand it, there are two reasons for
doing something like this.

First, repeating what they did can help one understand exactly what the alchemists
were doing. Sure, it was elementary chemistry, but because they wrote it
up in rather obfucsated language, so the sure way to see if one has correctly
understood their writings and separate the fact from the fiction is to try to replicate
what is being described. This reminds me a lot of the folks who are reproducing
mediaeval iron smelting technology:

http://www.darkcompany.ca/

Second, there is historical education by re-enactment. There are all sorts of
re-enactors out there --- people who re-enact historical battles, guides to old
landmarks who dress like people did centuries ago, orchestras who perform on
historical instruments., people who impersonate historical figures. etc as
"living history" to educate the general public about how it was like to live in the past.

As for why Prof. Lindgren prefers re-enacting ancient chemistry rather than doing
modern chemistry, he will have to answer that question for himself. Until he does,
I think this will be my last post on this topic. Whether or not I think it is worthwhile
to re-enact alchemy isn't so important because, while I might be curious to read
a book on the (pre-)history of science, I have little inclination to set up a historically
correct alchemy lab myself. Having said that, I'm off to the basement to do some
modern alchemy with fire and brimstone! More about that coming to a forum near
you if and when I succeed in transmuting SO3++ to SO4++

woelen - 2-1-2008 at 14:34

I only can agree with microcosmicus. The history of chemistry is a subject which is quite interesting on its own (like most history of other aspects of human achievements, like arts, social development and many many other things). If one is capable of reproducing the work of those old-time (al)chemists, then that has great educational value. A nice example I have seen on sciencemadness is the following (pay special attention to the end of the thread):

http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=9482&a...

The educational benefits of that kind of work of course can be improved by a good write-up on this, but I really like the idea of this kind of experiments. This is the kind of things which really speak to the imagination of young scientists (or people who want to become scientists), and only that already is a valid reason for repeating this kind of things.

A world without history is like a person without a memory. We need history to understand the now and the future.

[Edited on 2-1-08 by woelen]

Alchemy

chloric1 - 2-1-2008 at 17:06

I think a book on alchemy, especially in a modern tone, with practical experimental information would be quite the asset in all our libraries. Although most of the information on old synthesis could be found this could provide a more accessible and concentrated information source. Besides, there is the chance a 500 year old synthesis could put a new spin on a 21st century idea.

@Xenoid-You don't consider making THE perfect perchlorate anode a form of modern alchemy?

MagicJigPipe - 2-1-2008 at 17:30

I'm just wondering why the professor hasn't replied.

Call me crazy but his post (and interest in the subject) didn't seem very genuine.

I am not necessarily a critic because I believe it to be a good thing when someone does any kind of "research". I was just surprised at how many people cared so much about what he does in his own lab on his own time.

If he's truly interested then let him reply. If he doesn't we should abandon this thread IMO.

Xenoid - 2-1-2008 at 17:58

Quote:

Originally posted by chloric1

@Xenoid-You don't consider making THE perfect perchlorate anode a form of modern alchemy?

Yes! This is dragging on a bit, and getting tedious. Please leave me alone...

The "perfect" perchlorate anodes have probably already been found, they are Ti/Nb coated with Pt or PbO. They were the result of decades of research, by gifted scientists funded by wealthy companies! I'm not sure where resurrecting medieval alchemical practices comes into the picture.

chloric1 - 3-1-2008 at 03:25

Yes I understand that. I guess I am looking at this from an artistic point of view. Some obscure online discussion forum, a few guys from around the world exchanging ideas to be able to produce the mother of oxidizers and to snub the nose at the establishment. Somehow with all these restrictions, and legal red tape it is as if the amatuer chemist is in a sort of "dark age" . The precarious patent language is not far removed from the difficult to interpret volumes of old.

Getting carried away aren't I?