One of many things the alchemists sought was the universal solvent, the alkahest.
Perhaps it is just as well they never found it, for what could they have stored it in?
alkahest
n.
5Fr < ML alchahest: apparently coined by PARACELSUS the hypothetical universal solvent
sought by the alchemists

If you found something to put it in, then it wouldn't have been the alkahest. I love it. I wonder if they thought about that back in the day.

Though I suppose it could be, if it were something that was mixed on-site for immediate use. I vaguely remember having to mix some things years back, which came with directions to use immediately, because the container you mixed it in wouldn't last very long. Couldn't a substance still be an alkahest, if it didn't matter how *fast* it worked upon the substances it was in contact with?

Ali

Dear Seian: good to see you posting again. We need all the talent we can get.

what could they have stored it in?

Back then, nothing. Today, with the magic of electromagnetics and ionization, nothing. But today that method could work.

If you poured (an, the, some?) alkahest onto the ground would it ever stop sinking, or would it disappear through chemical reaction?

poured it out of what? how could you make it in the first place without it instantly dissolving the beaker, or what ever alchemists use for these things.

instantly dissolving the beaker

Of course, it wouldn't have to dissolve it instantly. OTOH, what would happen if you were to introduce some thiotimoline into your alkahest?

what would happen if you were to introduce some thiotimoline into your alkahest?

It would depend on what you were about to do with the thiotimoline.


http://homepage.mac.com/jenkins/Asimov/Stories/Story062.html

Well, a universal solvent would be the ultimate paradox, wouldn't it?...since it would also have to dissolve itself. But that never stopped the alchemists before..."burning metal", "turning lead into gold" (transmutation)...

which leads one to believe they must have been onto something else which we can't fathom (or good drugs)...the ol' Philosopher's Stone. Unfortunately, I believe any recorded texts of their earliest work disappeared in the burning of the Library of Alexandria. Perhaps all their ensuing research was an attempt to recapture what was lost there???

Hi shona!

it would also have to dissolve itself.

Naw. Think about what dissolving means and what you'd have left over after something dissolved itself.

I guess once a universal solvent had caused something to dissolve what would be left would be a solution of the solvent plus whatever had dissolved in it. So it would no longer be the universal solvent it once was.

Thanks for the welcome back. I just recently got DSL, so I'm actually able to get the posts to load within a reasonable time (instead of ten responses in a half hour, for example).

Ali

see also http://wordsmith.org/board/showthreaded.pl?Cat=&Board=wordplay&Number=42958 .

Thanks, Shona, for the definitive reference. :-)

http://homepage.mac.com/jenkins/Asimov/Stories/Story062.html

Edit - Now that I've looked more closely it's a little disappointing to find it isn't the actual text of the story. Nice bibiography, though.

Speaking of actual text, though, I did find this little gem, originally published by Arthur D. Little Company, about "The Turbo-encabulator in Industry." Fans of thiotimoline may find it also to be of interest...
http://www.nelp.navy.mil/turboencabulator.htm

<mumble> ... chopped liver ... <grumble>

Well, a universal solvent would be the ultimate paradox, wouldn't it?...since it would also have to dissolve itself.
Am I missing something here? If "alchemy" is the 'science' of turning (transmuting) lead into gold (or some other base metal into precious metal), wouldn't an "Alkahest" simply be the solvent which effectuated that particular transmutation? In other words, an "Alkahest" would be a solvent only for the metals it acted upon transmutationally. It follows that an "Alkahest" could be collected in a glass beaker, a leather pouch, or, perhaps, even a metal container which happens to be all base metal or all precious metal, but not both.

chopped liver

Sorry, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander!

alkahest is not directly related to alchemy per se: first used in med.L. by Paracelsus, and believed to have been arbitrarily invented by him with a form simulating Arabic. Used in the same forms in most of the European languages. so the alkahest is the universal solvent imagined by the alchemists.

"Well, a universal solvent would be the ultimate paradox, wouldn't it?...since it would also
have to dissolve itself. "

A prime proposition of alchemy was "similia similibus solvuntur". As corollary, ipsa ipsem solvitur'.
Don't bother trying to parse my Latin, it is imparsible.

it is imparsible

Nice one, Dr. Bill!

Speaking of old Isaac: http://world.honda.com/robot/

Wow! Those are very impressive movies, maybe even scary. Is the little fella named Robbie?

Is the little fella named Robbie?

More parbly, Daneel.

to wordminstrel:

as OED says: Alchemy - the chemistry of the Middle Ages and 16th c.; now applied distinctively to the pursuit of the transmutation of baser metals into gold

e.g. modern chemistry has its beginning in alchemy, alchemists invented basic chemical procedures such as distillation, they discovered basic chemical reactions, they managed to obtain many pure chemical elements etc. unfortunately, only a "show" part of alchemy - unsuccessful attempts to transmute metals into gold - are widely known.
so hypothetical universal solvent should not only dissolve something used for a transmutation but everything else as well.

Surely he is called ASIMO. I was interested to learn that they had deliberately made him just big enough to function in a human environment, but small enough, at 120cm, to be non-threatening.

Isaac Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics

1.A robot may not injure a human being, or, through
inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

2.A robot must obey the orders given it by human
beings, except where such orders would conflict
with the First Law.

3.A robot must protect its own existence, except
where such protection would conflict with the First
or Second Law.

And just to complete the list, wwh, here's the Zeroth Law of Robotics, expounded by the very Daneel of whom Faldage made mention:
"No robot may harm humanity or, through inaction, allow humanity to come to harm".

Somebody plagianrized somebody.

>Somebody plagiarised somebody.


Not at all. R. Daneel Olivaw is a central character in Asimov's "Robot and Empire" Series, and later works in his "Foundation" series. Asimov himself devised the Zeroth law, and Daneel was his mouthpiece for propagating it.

>Somebody plagiarised somebody. -- whh

Not at all. R. Daneel Olivaw is a central character in Asimov's "Robot and Empire" Series, and later works in his "Foundation" series. Asimov himself devised the Zeroth law, and Daneel was his mouthpiece for propagating it. -- sjm


(Somehow I have the feeling Bill knew that)

Dear wofahulicodoc: my ignorance is very ;extensive. I did not read much of Asimov.
Incidentally, he spent his last few years at BUSch.of Med. Acronym is anathema.

So it would no longer be the universal solvent it once was.

Thank you, dxb...so as I said, "universal solvent" is thusly paradoxical.

thusly paradoxical

Not really. It would merely suggest that a given sample of it would not remain a universal solvent indefinitely. Water doesn't stop being a solvent just because that glass over there on the table has become saturated with salt.

And there was me thinking that an Alkahest was an engraved invitation to a beer festival ...

thusly paradoxical

Not really. It would merely suggest that a given sample of it would not remain a universal solvent indefinitely. Water doesn't stop being a solvent just because that glass over there on the table has become saturated with salt.

Hmmm...so perhaps it's paranitical then?

("There I go again!"...just savin' ya the trouble, Faldie! )

an engraved invitation to a beer festival

Alkafest...gaaaaaaa [drool a la Homer Simpson -e]

Water doesn't stop being a solvent just because that glass over there on the table has become saturated with salt

Ah, but there could never be a glass (or any container) of alkahest "over there on the table", so there could never be saturated alkahest.

there could never be a glass (or any container) of alkahest

You trying to take over my postion as Chief Picker of Nits, ephew? If so, there's at least one person ahead of you in line. Although I must say you seem to have a better idea of what is a nit than he does.

You trying to take over my postion as Chief Picker of Nits, ephew?

No fear, nunclage.

I was just sticking up for my brother-in-armlessness, Juan.

my brother-in-armlessness, Juan.

Funny you should mention him. Mebbe you kin splain him the difference atwixt nits and typos/misspellings.