Talk:Alkahest

	History of science portal This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Actually this is not a hypothetical universal solvent. Here is a link on a book about it and how to make it.

[[1]]

On a side note, time is the universal solvent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew Benesi (talk • contribs) 04:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2021 and 7 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aewmnw, Barelybeard.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

first blush questions

It seems that this article is missing a lot of citations for a majority of its claims. Is there references or documentation of its etymology coming from the arabic word alkali? References for the claim "Because of its perceived invaluable medicinal qualities, alchemists of the time were concerned with its plausibility and existence"? It seems also that Alkahest may have been a hypothetical concept- like the philosopher's stone, however there was in fact substances known by the name "alkahest" like that of Paracelsus' recipe mentioned. Is the dissolving container problem a problem posed by the editor or by an alchemist of the day? Is there a difference between elemental parts and first matter? What is the relation alkahest has to the philosopher's stone- did other alchemists think it was synonymous like Paracelsus? Was the idea of an alkahest a widespread idea amongst alchemists, or a fringe topic? Did anything come of this idea of an alkahest- were any other inventions or innovations created from this idea, like that of the glycerol example? Godspeed, - Barelybeard (talk) 21:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit plans

A strong introduction is important to any article, and I plan to strengthen the description of what alkahest is/was and add some sources, since there are currently none in the introduction. Ash Worley (talk) 17:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC) I am also going to add a section about the proposed recipes for alkahest, given that the article says little about this. Ash Worley (talk) 17:40, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to add some additions to the debate over what the alkahest really is- the ideas from J.B. Helmont suggesting it was the lymphatic vessel fluid of animals; the synonymous name for alkahest (aka Ignis Gehennae); and the motivation changes in the pursuit of alkahest as alchemy goals changed over time (from transmutation of metals, to medicines). Barelybeard (talk) 17:36, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the first paragraph "Because of its perceived invaluable medicinal qualities, alchemists of the time were concerned with its plausibility and existence", should be removed or reworded. Alkahest didn't have the medical qualities, but could break down substances to their medical virtues, which could then be used. It could be said that alkahest had medical potential, but not quality.Barelybeard (talk) 17:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The source used on the section about Paracelsus' successor appears to have been misunderstood when that section was written. It does not appear that that source is particularly reliable anyhow, but the van Helmont referred to does not appear to be Franciscus Mercurius van Helmont, but rather Jan Baptiste van Helmont. Moreover, Paracelsus' alkahest was conceptually different from the alkahest most alchemists were seeking, so it feels strange to refer to him as a "successor" of Paracelsus. Given the irrelevance, incorrect information, and lack of reliable sources, I intend on removing this section. I will also continue expanding the recipe section, and Barelybeard and I may also be adding sections about proposed mechanisms by which alkahest operated and proposed uses for alkahest. Ash Worley (talk) 15:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to introduction and etymology

Today, i will be adding information on the unclear origin of the word and the various other names the alkahest has been referred to, as well as some general history about the history of the idea and its development. Barelybeard (talk) 21:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"see also" section

I feel that other than azoth, and perhaps one other reference, these are unnecessary, and don't seem immediately relevant. I will likely add a parenthetical in the bits where we talk about alkahest being used medically to insert (see also Azoth), rather than creating a subsection at the botton to list off other topics. Barelybeard (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]