User:Barelybeard/sandbox

= Notes of Alkahest =

Evaluating Alkahest Article

 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * the idea of spit being a universal solvent, and water being universal solvent seemed somewhat unrelated.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * no particular bias
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * only the perspective of Paracelsus is touched on. No other alchemists are mentioned.
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * the first citation is literally a note from the editor. Only 2 sources aside from that. No sources for who named the name, and it being modeled after words such as "alkali". No source for even the definition of what Alkahest, which may contribute to the confusion of whether this is some hypothetical substance, or an actual substance that was used by alchemists.
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * nope. Theres only 3 references, but a good few paragraphs worth of information with no citations. One of the sources is straight from an alchemist's published work back in the day of alkahest prominence.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * section on the development of it, its relation to the pholosopher's stone. Was this a obscure idea of the time? or was this a big issue? Did anyone else experiment with Alkahest? Were there other recipes? There could also be links to what "first matter" is, as it refers to "prima materia" - the starting material for the alchemical Magnum Opus and used in the making of the philosopher stone (also, this seems to indicate that alkahest and philosophers stone are different, not the same like the article suggests).
 * Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * The idea of Alkahest being a "hypothetical solvent" is objected to. It is a real solvent that was made. This brings up potential distinctions between the sort of "out of this world" alkahest vs the real chemical compound made. What do we call the real alkahest today? Also misinformation about what the "universal solvent" is. The article claims water is the universal solvent, however the talk page links to an article on universal expansion and heat death, to claim that time is the universal solvent.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * it is a start-class article, and is a part of the History of Science WikiProject.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * we haven't talked about this in class- although we have talked about alchemy generally. I would like to know how this idea of alkahest spread and evolved over time. Do we still have alkahest today? Did this spawn any philosophical discussions?

Research on Alkahest (Alchahest)
(for peer review)

History
The first mention of alkahest (alchahest) comes from the writing of Paracelsus (1493-1541) as a chemical that could fortify the liver, and in instances where the liver failed, could act as a substitute (see De viribrus membrorum). It became very popular in the 17th and 18th centuries through J.B. van Helmont, after which it was taken less seriously over time. Its prevalence in the 17th and 18th centuries, despite its otherwise absurd and extreme qualities, was likely due to the popularity of alchemy at the time and no adequate alternative theory of chemistry. Those who followed and trained under Paracelsus did not think of the alkahest as van Helmont did, but slowly built upon the ideas posed by their teacher. As the shift of alchemy went from transmuting metals to creating remedies, the alkahest became valued for its ability to break down substances to its base virtues, including healing properties. Thus is was sought after for its potential to cure incurable diseases at the time (for example, the breaking down of Ludus via alkahest could provide a cure for urinary calculi). Tobias Ludwig Kohlhans (1624-1705) posed possible alkahest in the lymphatic vessels of animals, in the appendix of his dissertation of the spleen. This was then contested and doubted by Helmont, Oldenburg (later in 1661), and Goddard, who raised questions about its "sweetly acidic" quality, the necessity of a hypothetical universal solvent to explain the acidity in empty animal lymphatic vessels, its ability to be generated within the body, and how it differed from that of the other fluids or humours in the body. German Alchemist Kohann Kunckel (1630-1703) and others over time began to see the alkahest as just fantasy and wishful thinking. Kunckel presented the container dilemma in such response; if alkahest breaks down every substance, it would break down its container as well.

Etymology
The origin and etymology of the word alkahest is under no consensus, as Paracelsus left no trace or history of the word. George Starkey argued it came from the german word al-gehest (all spirit). Johann Rudolph Glauber posed that it could have come from the words alhali est, the german word al gar heis, or Al zu hees, meaning "very hot". Cleidophorus Mystagogus in england argued for its root being of Belgian or high-dutch.

Other names for alkahest & equivalents
Helmont considered the alkahest to have never-ending reusability calling it an "immortal". He also used the term "maccabean fire" because of its similarities to the "thick water" in the apocryphal book of Maccabees in the Old Testament Another name for the Alkahest termed by Helmont was ignis gehennae. Other names include Latex (or "clear water reduced to its minutest atoms"), and primum Ens Salum (or "salt exalted to its highest degree"). Ladislae Reti, a historian of science investigated alchemical recipes involving alkahest, and found that no chemical was sufficient in breaking down the wide variety of materials Helmont supposed. Reti points out that in such recipes, an alcohol solution of potassium hydroxide could have been used instead.

= References =

Peer Review by Njsrk9 (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
'''1. First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way?''' Very much enjoy all the additions to the History section. Loose chronology in the planned additions is also very good, makes for easy reading. '''2. What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?''' Etymology info in the History section? Or is that going to the Etymology section? Long run-on sentence in the first paragraph of History. Saying the same thing in Ash’s sandbox, but more sources is never a bad thing. 3. What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? Begin putting it together how it will appear in the article. If you do that, you can really see if you like what you’re writing and add/remove stuff as it comes up. '''4. Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know!''' Etymology makes me want to write a history of pocket watch slide rules section, but I’m unsure if I will do that. Njsrk9 (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I plan on keeping the loose chronology in place, although in a more written draft format. Following a sort of timeline is helpful is seeing how the idea progressed and changes over time. Originally i didn't think the etymology was going to have enough information to justify a separate section, (especially since the current etymology section on the page is lacking, or wrong on some things), but actually seeing all the different proposed etymologies, i think adding those bits of information to the etymology section would be beneficial. Thank you for bringing that up! The first sentence of the history information is surely a run-on, i will separate that. I got a bit carried away with parentheticals and additional information that i could have easily made into new sentences. It seems that Ash and I do cover some similar topics, however we had different sources, and they provide some slightly different perspectives (which in turn provides equal coverage that wikipedia strives to deliver). There are several names that appear often in the literature of alkahest it seems as well, so it is no surprise that they get mentioned frequently, although many of these people had wide usage and opinions on the topic. Ash has a heavy focus on the creation perspective of alkahest, whereas i present a more metaphysical or philosophical summary. Lastly, putting all the information into one (or several) complete paragraphs will help tremendously- i plan on doing that Barelybeard (talk) 16:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)