Talk:Jan Baptist van Helmont
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, which collaborates on Chemistry and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
|||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
[edit] Some Brussels data
I'm going to throw a few wild cards in - the NPOV needs to be considered carefully. Jan Baptiste van Helmont actually lived at Neder-over-Heembeek, in a farm in the middle of what is now an industrial zone halfway between Brussels and Vilvoorde, close to the church of St Peter and St Paul. In the mid-1840s, the farm was certainly the residence of Count Gioacchino Pecci, Papal Nuncio to Belgium and future Pope Leo XIII, who is reported to have conducted an extensive search of the property for traces of the reported alchemical workings. Mercurius van Helmont is said to have reported that his father, having graduated as a doctor of medecine in the Paracelsian school, was visited by the French Baron René de Cerclairs in 1618. The two talked late into the night, and de Cerclairs left an alchemical powder which van Helmont then used to transmute mercury into gold (apparently the subject of a formal experimental report). This needs full checking, a copy of Mercurius' text would be much appreciated. Mercurius, born later that year, was named for the event, and went on to become one of Leibnitz' tutors in Berlin - Leibnitz wrote his epitaph. De Cerclairs is interesting as independant evidence suggests not only that he was extraordinarily long-lived, but had previously succeeded in extensive alchemical transmutations. This success then triggered van Helmont's interest in assessing chemical reactions objectively, and thence was born one of the axes of scientific rigour. - jelmain Brussels 03:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Why is there nothing about Jan Baptist van Helmont and his theory on spontaneous generation? It is his name that is mentioned several times in the address delivered by Louis Pasteur at the "Sorbonne Scientific Soiree" of April 7, 1864. There needs to be more information on the "experiments" he conducted on the subject. - 168.216.63.73 17:23, 8 March 2005 (UTC)
- Please feel free to add it. I'm pursuing an academic path to prove the case, but that will take some time, as it has to be built on the foundations of mediaeval creed. For the record, an initial pointer is to examine the alchemical practices of Phillip II of Spain in Brussels and the Escorial - see René Taylor's contribution to the Wittkower 65th birthday essays, in the book on Architecture - her subsequent independant publication goes further in establishing a background to Cerclairs' activities.Jel 08:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Jan van Helmont
There should be a disambiguation page for Jan van Helmont. Jan van Helmont was a Flemish physician and alchemist in the early 1600's who was one of the first experimenters to study plant metabolism. He grew willow trees and studied their growth, and after meticulous measuring of all the soil and water involved with his growing plants, he [mistakenly] concluded that plants acquire their mass from the water given to them. - Rlee1185 04:36, 18 June 2005 (UTC)
-
- Nonsense! The plant experiment is the most famous experiment of Jan Baptist van Helmont. - Siffler 15:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Year of birth
I just now reverted van Helmont's year of birth to 1577, the year in the article's first line and in three of the four "External links" on the page. I've also seen the year 1579 in a few sources. Does anyone know why there are two different years in print? Is it perhaps due to a calendar change? -- Astrochemist 23:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
