Question on Jabir's, an alchemist, thought on gold

  • Thread starter Thread starter tarekatpf
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gold
AI Thread Summary
Jabir believed that different metals were composed of varying mixtures of mercury and sulfur, but he theorized that an additional material was necessary to properly combine these elements to create gold. This raises questions about the need for a catalyst, as simply mixing mercury and sulfur should suffice if they were indeed the only components of metals. The discussion suggests that alchemists, despite lacking modern chemistry knowledge, systematically experimented with proportions and sought a catalyst to facilitate the reaction. The concept of catalysts, while not formally recognized until the 19th century, may have been understood in practice, as evidenced by the historical use of yeast in winemaking. The conversation also touches on the possibility of alchemists applying heat and pressure to their experiments, indicating a rudimentary understanding of how these factors influence chemical reactions.
tarekatpf
Messages
140
Reaction score
1
From ''A Brief History Of Chemistry'' by Isaac Asimov:

''It seemed to Jabir that the different metals were made up of different mixtures of mercury and sulfur, and it remained only to find some material that would facilitate the mixture of mercury and sulfur in the proper proportions to produce gold.''

What I don't understand is if Jabir thought the ''different metals were made up of different mixtures of mercury and sufur'', why would production of gold need another material? Wouldn't just mixing MERCURY and sulfur in different proportions would do the job? Wouldn't addition of a different material actually make it something not gold?

PS: I know that alchemy is not real, and no gold can be produced in such way.
 
Last edited:
Chemistry news on Phys.org
Alchemists didn't know much about the real chemistry but they were not idiots, so I suppose they checked many proportions first, perhaps even in a systematic way. It didn't work, so perhaps they started to look for some kind of catalyst (to use todays nomenclature). But that's just a speculation.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
Because it was not a question of proportion, but a question of getting them to mix in the "right way" to make gold. In some sense, alchemists were looking for a "catalyst" that would get the metals to react in a special fashion that would produce gold.

Read up on the Philosopher's[/PLAIN] stone to learn more about their way of thinking.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Likes 1 person
Borek said:
Alchemists didn't know much about the real chemistry but they were not idiots, so I suppose they checked many proportions first, perhaps even in a systematic way. It didn't work, so perhaps they started to look for some kind of catalyst (to use todays nomenclature). But that's just a speculation.

Thank you very much for your answer. Yes, I thought they used it as a catalyst, too. Then I thought if they were already familiar with the concept of a catalyst. It seems they did, as since antiquity, man was familiar with the use of yeast as a catalyst in the production of wine. However, yeast is actually a living thing.

Do you know of use of any non-living thing as catalyst in pre-civilization period?

PS: Jabir developed the idea of such a material in 10th century.
 
Last edited:
DrClaude said:
Because it was not a question of proportion, but a question of getting them to mix in the "right way" to make gold. In some sense, alchemists were looking for a "catalyst" that would get the metals to react in a special fashion that would produce gold.

Read up on the Philosopher's[/PLAIN] stone to learn more about their way of thinking.

Yes, I already read about this philosopher's stone thing. Since they were experimenting with a possible catalyst, I guess they already tried with applying heat and pressure, since it is very likely that they already noticed the effect of heat or pressure on change of matters ( For example, if you keep rice in normal water for a week, you can't eat it. Boil it for half an hour, it would be edible. )

However, I thought if they really knew about catalysts ( The term ''catalyst'' was coined only in the 19th century. ) I looked for on the internet, and found that since antiquity, man was familiar with use of yeast as a catalyst in the production of wine. However, yeast is actually a living thing.

Do you know of use of any non-living thing as catalyst in the pre-alchemy period?

PS: Jabir developed the idea of such a material in 10th century.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It seems like a simple enough question: what is the solubility of epsom salt in water at 20°C? A graph or table showing how it varies with temperature would be a bonus. But upon searching the internet I have been unable to determine this with confidence. Wikipedia gives the value of 113g/100ml. But other sources disagree and I can't find a definitive source for the information. I even asked chatgpt but it couldn't be sure either. I thought, naively, that this would be easy to look up without...
I was introduced to the Octet Rule recently and make me wonder, why does 8 valence electrons or a full p orbital always make an element inert? What is so special with a full p orbital? Like take Calcium for an example, its outer orbital is filled but its only the s orbital thats filled so its still reactive not so much as the Alkaline metals but still pretty reactive. Can someone explain it to me? Thanks!!
Back
Top