Glauber's "The Salt of Art"

So dung is also used? Traveller, why are you opposed to those on this forum who experiment with uriine when this whole process involves uriine? Is it the process they use?

over

over

over

Traveller wrote:

PulvisRubeus wrote:

Is it the process they use?

No there was no one in the whole world I saw, who knew this process of Glauber, even I introduced it to them, but still they were blind, so in either of the case if they work by following the process of Bartlett or Glauber, they can so easily achieve a rectified Spirit of Uriine, without any Uriine or Dung, and when I will do this work, I will show to them both ways (of Bartlett and Glauber) but without Uriine.

I meant was it the process that was described here before by Nik and others that you were concerned about? Thanks - you have answered this anyway.

Traveller wrote:

Because I have seen other guys, who were working on Uriine in this way and they claimed that after working in this way of Bartlett by using the dregs of Uriine, they successfully achieved a rectified Spirit of Uriine after many years of long labor, which rectified Spirit of Uriine or Mercury, Glauber is achieving in a few hours of labor, which is the actual work and not a mind made work of any person.

But you described Glauber's process, and Glauber also uses the disgusting Uriine directly, just like Bartlett and others. Glauber didn't use Ammonium Carbonate directly. So why is Glauber's method correct and Bartlett and others not?

over

over

over

Traveller wrote:

Yes if anyone will ever follow the way of Glauber then I already said, they can follow his writings as is written, because it is a proper theory, so work without any theory may be unintelligible for either me or for others. As if they follow Bartlett or Weidner, for working on Uriine, then it is out of theory. Do you agree with this ???

I'm still not clear. Both theorize the use of Uriine, so why is one theory correct and the other not? What are the main differences between the two theories?

over

over

Traveller wrote:

The difference of their methods are that they used a below gooey type of matter to make their Sal Ammoniac which gooey matter left after the putrefaction and distillation of the Uriine, and which matter Glauber wasn't preferred to use it in this Minor work and in place of this he used other minerals, to make his secret Sal Ammoniac.

I think I'm beginning to understand your point. At first I thought you were earlier saying that both the gooey residue as well as the minerals both served the same purpose and contained the same important substance needed to make the medicine. Now it is clear that you consider using the minerals of Glauber as the correct way and using the gooey residue of Nik, Bartlett, and many others as the false way, and that this constitutes the main difference between the two theories, even though both use uriine. Am I correct?

over

Thank you. Now I understand the subtlety between the two methods. So you are saying that most of the modern alchemists misunderstood the alchemists' meaning of dregs and followed the wrong way, but that Glauber discovered the real meaning of dregs and outlined the correct way.

over

over

over

Traveller wrote:

PulvisRubeus wrote:

but that Glauber discovered the real meaning of dregs and outlined the correct way.

No again you used this last time wrongly, actually Glauber didn't discover any dregs for a right way but he only used the other minerals which will help common Uriine to become a Spirit.

I think that part of the problem is that the summary you provided earlier from Glauber describing how to make the Saltpeter does not mention discarding the dregs from uriine. Thus I'm still not getting a very clear picture. Although you explain one thing, your references often seem to say a different thing. Do you have a copy of the text where he specifically mentions discarding the dregs? That will really help.

over

Traveller wrote:

What is so difficult in it which is hard to understand ?

It's not that it's difficult to understand, it's that there are some communication issues. I did understand that the dregs are not to be used, but I like to check and verify from the original source, and didn't see it mentioned. I could go back and read all of Glauber's text (which I plan to do in the future), but that would take me weeks or months, which would affect our discussion (we would have to continue months from now). Thus I was hoping to see what you said reflected in the actual text references that you provided.

PulvisRubeus wrote:

Do you have a copy of the text where he specifically mentions discarding the dregs?

Quote :

Actually I was read it, in somewhere in his writings, but I will find it.

All I put above is for information, and there is no different things I said above, but only the one, that it is a wrong subject, so we don’t need to worry about such like things of using dregs or not using it. But I will put the words of Glauber here that where he mentioned to discard the feces.

But the use of the dregs (modern), as opposed to the substitution with minerals (Glauber) is the key part of the discussion. It's largely what separates the wrong process from the correct process. It is key to the argument that the approach of the modern alchemists is based on a misunderstanding.

Thank you for trying to find it in his writings.

over

I just happen to be overly logical, and like to take things a step at a time :-) Other people like to jump way ahead and miss the journey of understanding.

OK, so I understand that this whole discussion about uriine was just an example, and in fact, today we don't even need to use uriine. We could just use ammonium carbonate and combine that with the minerals.

But before we move way ahead, I'm still interested in reading your 12 pages, and would also like to learn more about what you mentioned earlier - that Glauber had both a humid way as well as a dry way. What was his dry way?

over

over