Derived Avogadros Equation for:

[Dr. A Sheikh]

Derive avogadros equation for:
A plant could have hundred of different chemicals. Suppose that these are A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y and Z numbers. Suppose we are going to prepare first potency first potency. When you mix the extract of plant with water and alcohol (solvent based used in homeopathic potencies) then what would be interaction of these chemical with water+alcohol. This we have to understand first. For having chemical reaction there are so many factors, few reactions take place at room temperature and few required heat and few take longer time even a month or year. Few reactions take place when you perform vigourous shaking.

Among these A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y and Z few chemicals are easily dissolved in the solvent and formed homogenized solution and few do not dissolve solvent and remain suspended. Few can have reaction with solvent and form a new compound as well.

highdesert, I want to understand this basic chemistry that how avogadros law is applicable on all these different chemicals A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y and Z when all have different properties and reaction with solvent? yes, with single chemcial like sulphur, this makes sense and your avogadros law is truly applicable but how on these different chemicals? Please elaborate your point? when all are behaving in ways.

Details available at: http://www.nch.ipbfree.com/index.php?showtopic=474&st=30

[Mojo]

Sheikh, it doesn't matter how many different compounds you have present. atoms have a finite mass, so in a finite mass of solvent there will be a finite number of atoms. If you sequentially dilute a given mass of solute, whatever it is composed of, you will eventually arrive at a point at which you resulting solution contains less than one atom from the original solute. All Avogadro's constant does is to enable us to work out the point at which this happens, and to enable us to work out exactly how many atoms are present in a given mass of a known substance.

We're not going to have to go back to asking you (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1109192#post1109192) if you accept that matter is composed of atoms, and that atoms have finite mass, are we?

[anor277]

Derive avogadros equation for:


Details available at: http://www.nch.ipbfree.com/index.php?showtopic=474&st=30


Dr Sheikh,

I have tried to answer your question (without success apparently) on the NCH board. I will have another attempt here.

1. You are quite mistaken to believe that a reaction can take place with the solvent. Alcohols are quite inert substances and while they can react with certain substances at elevated temperatures they will not react at low temperature (i.e. room temperature). You have claimed elsewhere that jerking the container provokes reaction (by providing mechanical heat) but this is unsupported by any experimental chemistry.

2. You claim (apparently) that the mixture of compounds you extract from the plant somehow negates the Avagadro limit. The problem is you can only etract a finite amount of mass from the plant, 1 g, 2 g, 20 g, into solution. Suppose you extract 1 g into solution of all A,B,C etc (I will leave out for a moment the non-soluble component.)

Now I take it that A,B,C,.... etc have definite molecular weights in grams mol-1. I can calculate the average molecular weight of the mixture of A,B,C... quite easily, i.e. by taking the weighted sum of the individual molecular weights. For instance the average molecular weight of the air we breathe is 78% x 28 g mol-1(N2) + 20% x 32 g mol-1(O2) + 1% x 40 g mol-1(Ar) + a few others = 28.6 g mol-1 for Avagadro's number of the particles of air we breathe.

So whatever your mixture is one can always calculate an average molecular weight. Since you can only extract a finite amount of A,B,C, then you you can use the molecular weight to give you an actual and finite number of moles. I can assure you that this number of moles (by definition) obeys the Avagadro condition. (Note that this is an elaboration of highdesert's point on the NCH forum)

3. As regards the insoluble component, suppose they disperse to give 100 uniform particles. Dilution (10%) of an agitated dispersion of these particles would give you about 10 particles left, another dilution gives 1 particle left, another dilution gives how many particles left? I have been a bit abstract in this demonstration but I can assure you that many of us here have performed dilution with suspensions that are insoluble in the solvent employed. You have to ask yourself how long can we dilute the insoluble component. Forever? - conservation of mass suggests othwerwise.

I apologize in advance if I have misrepresented your position or insulted your intelligence. That was not my intention.

[PixyMisa]

There is no Avogadro's Equation. Just Avogadro's Number, which is always the same, 6.02 x 1023.

All you need is the molecular weight of the compound in question. For water, which is H2O, this is 18. 18 grams of water contains 6.02 x 1023 water molecules.

From there, it is simple arithmetic. If you dilute tenfold, you have ten times fewer molecules of the substance. And sooner or later you have none at all.

It's just arithmetic. If you can't do it, ask a twelve-year-old.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

It should be called Avogadro's Constant, since it has a unit: $\mathrm{mole}^{-1}$ or particles/mole.


~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Few can have reaction with solvent and form a new compound as well.
Are there any homeopathic medications where the active ingredient forms a new chemical compound with the solvent?

~~ Paul

[anor277]

Are there any homeopathic medications where the active ingredient forms a new chemical compound with the solvent?

~~ Paul

Any ionic salt forms a set of new compounds upon dissolution in water.

[Dr. A Sheikh]

each plant contain hundreds of chemicals where these can react with water based alcohol and form new compounds.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Then all bets are off about diluting away all the active ingredient, right?

~~ Paul

[anor277]

each plant contain hundreds of chemicals where these can react with water based alcohol and form new compounds.

Name one of them, and name the product of reaction with ethanol at room temperature.

Note that even if ethanol does react with a plant component you have simply increased its molecular weight and the average molecular weight of the mixture of compounds if you followed my earlier argument.

[Dr. A Sheikh]

Sheikh, it doesn't matter how many different compounds you have present. atoms have a finite mass, so in a finite mass of solvent there will be a finite number of atoms. If you sequentially dilute a given mass of solute, whatever it is composed of, you will eventually arrive at a point at which you resulting solution contains less than one atom from the original solute. All Avogadro's constant does is to enable us to work out the point at which this happens, and to enable us to work out exactly how many atoms are present in a given mass of a known substance.

We're not going to have to go back to asking you (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1109192#post1109192) if you accept that matter is composed of atoms, and that atoms have finite mass, are we?

Any ionic salt forms a set of new compounds upon dissolution in water.

Dear Mojo, you are struckup at one single point and are not moving forward, this shows your misunderstanding with quoted point. You A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y and Z number of chemicals in plant extract those have different chemical properties as well. These A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y and Z chemicals can react with each other during succession and also with homeopathic solvent (alcohol + water). Do you agree with this point? Then you can understand Dr. Ayub Point.

[Dr. A Sheikh]

[QUOTE=anor277;1379817]Dr Sheikh,

I have tried to answer your question (without success apparently) on the NCH board. I will have another attempt here.

1. You are quite mistaken to believe that a reaction can take place with the solvent. Alcohols are quite inert substances and while they can react with certain substances at elevated temperatures they will not react at low temperature (i.e. room temperature). You have claimed elsewhere that jerking the container provokes reaction (by providing mechanical heat) but this is unsupported by any experimental chemistry.

2. You claim (apparently) that the mixture of compounds you extract from the plant somehow negates the Avagadro limit. The problem is you can only etract a finite amount of mass from the plant, 1 g, 2 g, 20 g, into solution. Suppose you extract 1 g into solution of all A,B,C etc (I will leave out for a moment the non-soluble component.)

Now I take it that A,B,C,.... etc have definite molecular weights in grams mol-1. I can calculate the average molecular weight of the mixture of A,B,C... quite easily, i.e. by taking the weighted sum of the individual molecular weights. For instance the average molecular weight of the air we breathe is 78% x 28 g mol-1(N2) + 20% x 32 g mol-1(O2) + 1% x 40 g mol-1(Ar) + a few others = 28.6 g mol-1 for Avagadro's number of the particles of air we breathe.

So whatever your mixture is one can always calculate an average molecular weight. Since you can only extract a finite amount of A,B,C, then you you can use the molecular weight to give you an actual and finite number of moles. I can assure you that this number of moles (by definition) obeys the Avagadro condition. (Note that this is an elaboration of highdesert's point on the NCH forum)

Sorry you are not following the entire question. When you take ABC and after reaction it becomes CDE then how can you take one mole of the same abc again? Why you will not start with one mole of CDA for 2nd potency?

3. As regards the insoluble component, suppose they disperse to give 100 uniform particles. Dilution (10%) of an agitated dispersion of these particles would give you about 10 particles left, another dilution gives 1 particle left, another dilution gives how many particles left? I have been a bit abstract in this demonstration but I can assure you that many of us here have performed dilution with suspensions that are insoluble in the solvent employed. You have to ask yourself how long can we dilute the insoluble component. Forever?

This question will come in the later stages, the first question is BSM has derived an equation at this forum and at NCH forum, the question is how avogadros equation can be derived for A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y and Z compounds as pointed out Dr. Ayub at NCH forum.

[Dr. A Sheikh]

Then all bets are off about diluting away all the active ingredient, right?

~~ Paul

No () you cannot ask the chemicals to do not react during succession process. There is a possibility of formation of new compounds all the way. 2nd transfering of one drop to another potency is not taken place as it is written in books as said by Dr. MAS at NCh forum. it is series of process which is taken place without break.

[Dr. A Sheikh]

There is no Avogadro's Equation. Just Avogadro's Number, which is always the same, 6.02 x 1023.

All you need is the molecular weight of the compound in question. For water, which is H2O, this is 18. 18 grams of water contains 6.02 x 1023 water molecules.

From there, it is simple arithmetic. If you dilute tenfold, you have ten times fewer molecules of the substance. And sooner or later you have none at all.

It's just arithmetic. If you can't do it, ask a twelve-year-old.

You have misunderstood the process of succcession. It is un-broken continous process in which dilutions are prepared in series without break. From one side bottle is filled and on the other side it is evacuated. There is no break. Where the molecules are moving or what is the reaction going on, no body knows. Detail is available at NCH web site

http://www.nch.ipbfree.com/index.php?showtopic=208&st=0

&

http://www.nch.ipbfree.com/index.php?showtopic=212

[Dr. A Sheikh]

http://img490.imageshack.us/img490/5418/whcc5wj.jpg

[Dr. A Sheikh]

see succession the machine

You see, in actual practice, succession process is entirely different as you understand. We are talking about Avogadros equation. Apply that equation on the actual method of preparing potency.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Then all bets are off about diluting away all the active ingredient, right?
Never mind.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

You have misunderstood the process of succcession. It is un-broken continous process in which dilutions are prepared in series without break. From one side bottle is filled and on the other side it is evacuated. There is no break. Where the molecules are moving or what is the reaction going on, no body knows.
So you're preparing a medication whose actual contents is completely unpredictable. Remind me not to take any of that crap. Oh wait, there's none left. Most of the time.

~~ Paul

[anor277]

Sorry you are not following the entire question. When you take ABC and after reaction it becomes CDE then how can you take one mole of the same abc again? Why you will not start with one mole of CDA for 2nd potency?
[/b]
I might not be following the entire question. But you have not addressed my reservation that A,B,C would not normally react with ethanol. You have also failed to realise that even if the molecular weight changes, i.e. by reaction, the number of moles remains a constant . That is if one mole ABC gives one mole CDE you still only have mole. I can guarantee that if ABC reacts once with ethanol, it will not react a second time. As regards "Why you will not start with one mole of CDA for 2nd potency?", well is this before or after you have diluted (i.e. discarded) 90% of the solution

You also have not even addressed my subsequent question and named a single plant compound that would react with room temperature ethanol, nor have you named the product of reaction.




This question will come in the later stages, the first question is BSM has derived an equation at this forum and at NCH forum, the question is how avogadros equation can be derived for A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y and Z compounds as pointed out Dr. Ayub at NCH forum.
I thought I had already addressed this question. I had defined an average molecular weight for A,B,C,........etc and gave you an example on how to do this. Am I not free to do this?

[Z]

Mr. A Sheikh:

Consider compound A and B. Consider we have one mole of each in a solution of solvent, such that A and B react only with each other. Let us say that one mole of A is 6g, and one mole of B is 18g. Suggest our total volume be 1 L.

Now, when A and B combine, they form compound C with a leftover component of D. Let's say that they form one mole of C and one mole of D. So we have... let's suggest... 22g of C and 2g of D. In other words, all parts of A and B accounted for.

Now we dilute, by removing 90% of the total and replacing with clear solvent. At this point we have only 10% of whatever was in the container originally - or about 2.2g of C and .2g of D, in one L of solvent.

If we repeat the process, since reactions have all occured already, the only thing we're doing is losing more of compounds C and D with each successive dilution. Succession has NOTHING to do with this problem.

At third potency, we have roughly .2g of C and .02g of D; at fourth, .02g of C and .002g of D.

Eventually, we will reach a point where we will have such a small quantity of C or D that neither will actually be present any longer.

Of course, these are mathematical models only; there is always a chance that when we remove .9L from the container, the remaining .1L will contain the entire weight of the solute; however, succession in most cases would ensure that the mass of the solute is homogeneously distributed in the solvent.

[Dr. A Sheikh]

If you could prove your claim then you can win a fabolous prize. After all you think your claim is right.

[Z]

If you could prove your claim then you can win a fabolous prize. After all you think your claim is right.

You never took high school level chemistry, did you Mr. Sheikh? This is elementary chemistry.

But since Mr. MAS is a fraud and a cheat, there is no prize. He is a LIAR, and should be arrested on criminal charges.

So should you.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

If you could prove your claim then you can win a fabolous prize. After all you think your claim is right.
If you think Zaayrdragon is incorrect, could you describe, as succinctly as possible, what you think would actually happen in his scenario?

~~ Paul

[H'ethetheth]

If you could prove your claim then you can win a fabolous prize. After all you think your claim is right.The thing is, Sheikh, that if a,b,c etc are unknown, we can't know exactly how many moles are in the solution, but what we do know is the absolute upper boundary to the amount of particles.
For every gram of any substance, there can never be more than one mole of particles. I have calculated this for you, but obviously you did not understand.
And if there can never be more than one mole per gram of anything, any reaction with the solvent wil produce 1 mole of altered solvent molecules. The only other thing that could possibly happen is a catalytic reaction, but then you would still throw away 99% of your catalyst and your altered solvent at every step. This means you will run out of catalyst at 12C, the reaction stops and you will run out of altered solvent very soon after that.

Now where is the million rupees?

Come to think of it, the only thing that could make you not run out of particles is to use a chemical that makes copies of itself. If you manage that, Kent Hovind might shut op for once and you might win the Nobel prize of chemistry.

Oh crap, yoghurt and milk.

[PixyMisa]

You have misunderstood the process of succcession.
Nope.

It is un-broken continous process in which dilutions are prepared in series without break.
So what? You are diluting by 10 times or a hundred times at each stage, right?

So simple arithmetic is all that is required.

From one side bottle is filled and on the other side it is evacuated. There is no break. Where the molecules are moving or what is the reaction going on, no body knows.
None of that matters, even if your initial substance is reacting with your solvent. (In which case, lousy choice of solvent, guys.)

All you need is arithmetic. Which apparently you know nothing about, just as you know nothing about chemistry.

[PixyMisa]

Ah, sorry.

I see from the other thread that you explain that when homeopaths say that a remedy is diluted 18X or 30C or whatever, they are lying, and in fact they have no idea what the actual dilution is; that the process is knowingly sloppy and uncontrolled.

Okay, that's just fraud and reckless endangerment of public health rather than impossible. Fine then.

[Psiload]

http://img490.imageshack.us/img490/5418/whcc5wj.jpg

Now that is a depressing picture. The time and talent of intelligent electronics engineers was pissed away designing and manufacturing a nifty little gizmo to churn out homeopathic delusion juice.

Sad. :cry1

[Dr. A Sheikh]

You never took high school level chemistry, did you Mr. Sheikh? This is elementary chemistry.

But since Mr. MAS is a fraud and a cheat, there is no prize. He is a LIAR, and should be arrested on criminal charges.

So should you.

I agree with you, trial should be conducted on James Randi and Dr. MAS in one court.

[Dr. A Sheikh]

annor,

there are so many compounds which react with homeopathic solvent (water and ethyle alcohol mixture)

[clarsct]

Bonus question, for the 'Dr.' only:
If you combine 2 moles of Hydrogen and 1 mole of Oxygen with the required heat to get a reaction, how many moles of water do you produce?


This question is very relevent to the discussion of Avagadro's constant. Please answer it.

[anor277]

annor,

there are so many compounds which react with homeopathic solvent (water and ethyle alcohol mixture)

I invite you again to name one such compound that reacts with room temperature ethyl alcohol.

[MRWiffen]

annor,

there are so many compounds which react with homeopathic solvent (water and ethyle alcohol mixture)
If this is true alcoholic beverages couldn't be traced back to their initial components. Also during an earthquake plants would start to react with themselves and the environment, if it is true that water/alcohol + shaking causes a reaction.

[Zep]

Wiff, I know you are joking, but PLEASE don't give him MORE ideas to work with. He seems to have no idea of basic science, biology, or chemistry. So the irony of such comments flies right past his nose completely unnoticed!

[MRWiffen]

Wiff, I know you are joking, but PLEASE don't give him MORE ideas to work with. He seems to have no idea of basic science, biology, or chemistry. So the irony of such comments flies right past his nose completely unnoticed!
Sorry, I thought if I showed how ridiculus his argument actually was he might notice. Silly of me to think a homeopath can learn anything without being vigourously shaken themselves.

[steenkh]

Sorry, I thought if I showed how ridiculus his argument actually was he might notice. Silly of me to think a homeopath can learn anything without being vigourously shaken themselves.
Now you did it again! Next thing he will claim that vigorous shaking will make a difference!

[MRWiffen]

Now you did it again! Next thing he will claim that vigorous shaking will make a difference!
I'll volunteer to shake him, though I might need some help. See if he can learn some chemistry that way, explaining it doesn't seem to.

[MRC_Hans]

You have misunderstood the process of succcession. It is un-broken continous process in which dilutions are prepared in series without break. From one side bottle is filled and on the other side it is evacuated. There is no break. Where the molecules are moving or what is the reaction going on, no body knows. Detail is available at NCH web site


Please provide evidence that potentization is not performed as dilution, succussion, dilution, succussion, etc.

No, a picture of some machine is not evidence.

Dr. Sheikh, are we talking about homeoapthy, or something else? Read your Organon of Medicine. It is quite specific about how to prepare a homeopathic remedy. If you are talking about something else, then it is not homeopathy.

(But in reality you are just demonstrating your ignorance, right?)

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Oh, and on your original question, Sheikh: Please provide the mole values of your a, b, c, etc. constituents. That is, how many moles of each exist in the mother tincture (it is alright to use hypothetical values), and I'll figure out the exact point where each hits the Avogadro limit.

Hans

[Dr. A Sheikh]

I invite you again to name one such compound that reacts with room temperature ethyl alcohol.

acetic acid with ethyle alcohol

[geni]

acetic acid with ethyle alcohol

um no that is so not going to happen. Esterification of carboxylic acids and alcohols doesn't happen at room tempreture. In fact doing Esterification in this form is not very easy.

[anor277]

acetic acid with ethyle alcohol


Thank you for responding. I did, however, specify a room temperature reaction. As Geni pointed out last post, the esterification reaction is definitely not a room temperature reaction. Esterification reactions in the laboratory require acid halides, dehydrating agents to remove the water molecule formed during condensation, and anhydrous solvents. You have aqueous ethanol, esterification would not occur in this medium. Please try again.

[Dr. A Sheikh]

in your first post, your point was there is no compound that reacts with ethyl alcohol then you said there is no compound that react with alcohol at room temperature. first decide your question. I have given you example.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

But it's irrelevant.

~~ Paul

[anor277]

in your first post, your point was there is no compound that reacts with ethyl alcohol then you said there is no compound that react with alcohol at room temperature. first decide your question. I have given you example.

I would certainly not have said that there was no compound that reacts with ethyl alcohol. I can think of dozens, e.g. acids, acid halides, alkali metals, oxygen, ketones. When you originally answered, you in fact quoted my question, i.e.

Originally Posted by anor277 :
I invite you again to name one such compound that reacts with room temperature ethyl alcohol.


acetic acid with ethyle alcohol

A room temperature reaction was therefore always a specification. Your example is quite inadequate. Care to try again with the specified question?

I would further like to know how many grams of belladonna there are in a volume of 30C belladonna, 10-60 grams?

[Dr. A Sheikh]

the answer of the question lies in asking a question. how many chemicals a belladonna plant have?

[anor277]

But it's irrelevant.

~~ Paul


Paul, you won't get any argument from me there!

[anor277]

the answer of the question lies in asking a question. how many chemicals a belladonna plant have?

Evasion noted.

I have no idea how many chemicals one can derive from a belladonna plant; nor, I think, do you.

[Peter@Beoworld]

I have been reading the Homeopath debate for some time. As a GP, I did once think of dabbling into homeopathic learning. It seemed to me that a product with next to nothing in it would probably be better than some of the toxins that we throw at our patients with little expectation that they will work but relying on the placebo effect. However I am pleased to say that I did not and merely attempted to reduce my prescribing by keeping my patients informed of what I felt were medicines worth taking by reason of evidence based medicine and which were clearly snake oil. This has served me well as well as my prescribing figures and, I believe, my patients.
The on going discussion about belladonna is of course ridiculous! If you are diluting the original solution in the way described, it makes no difference how many chemicals are in belladonna, whether it be 1 or 1,000,000. Each is going to be diluted in the same way. Just treat them all individually rather than pretending that the presence of one is going to have any effect on the others after the initial adding of the solvent. And any compound formed at the adding of the solvent can merely be treated in exactly the same way. The only molecules you have to worry about are the impurities in the solvent which will not be diluted as you are using the same solvent all the time! I find it very disturbing that a 'Dr' is unable to grasp basic mathematics that I would expect my eight year old daughter to understand.
With regard to snake oil, I confess to still prescribing the odd 'cough bottle' - very difficult to wean some people off them! I do tell them dark chocolate is better though and have had a few converts!

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I do tell them dark chocolate is better though and have had a few converts!
Will you be my doctor?


the answer of the question lies in asking a question. how many chemicals a belladonna plant have?
Let's say 1,000. How much of each of them remains in a 30C dilution?

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I do tell them dark chocolate is better though and have had a few converts!
Will you be my doctor?


the answer of the question lies in asking a question. how many chemicals a belladonna plant have?
Let's say 1,000. How much of each of them remains in a 30C dilution?

~~ Paul

[Peter@Beoworld]

Unfortunately, chocolate is not available on prescription. Quite a failing in some ways as I am sure it would do very well in trials! Bit difficult to do a double blind though! My father, a surgeon, regarded chocolate as a fruit, and insisted on keeping up his 5 pieces a day!

[Rolfe]

Why am I reading this? It's worse than watching a car smash.

Sheikh seems to have no concept whatsoever of what could possibly be contained within a homoeopathic mother tincture.

Sheikh, please tell us.

How many grammes of belladonna do you use to prepare a belladonna mother tincture?
What volume of solvent is this dissolved in?Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Evasion noted.

I have no idea how many chemicals one can derive from a belladonna plant; nor, I think, do you.I think Sheikh believes that you can run the calculation once for every different compound in the preparation, thus multiplying the available material many-fold. I think he also believes that you get to run the calculation once more for every derivative compound you can think of or imagine. Thus, he believes you can never run out of solvent.

To try to show him how wrong he is, people are trying to explain that you can only have so many atoms in a given volume of material, and even if we allow that those atoms may dissociate completely, and we allow the largest possible number of atoms and a whole litre of mother tincture to start with, even then you are running out of atoms by the time you get to 13C. Because you can only use each atom once, irrespective of what compound it is involved in, and you can only pack so many atoms into a litre, even if it is a litre of liquid hydrogen.

Actually, homoeopaths usually start with about 5ml of mother tincture containing significantly less than a gramme of solvent, so you see you actually end up running out earlier than the caculations suggest, not later. Also, if you then factor in that a single dose of the final potency is only going to be a couple of drops, you see where we're going here....

Of course, if he would only concentrate on a mineral remedy, like the sodium sulphate that was mentioned before, and agree a volume for the mother tincture and a weight of sodium sulphate that was dissolved in it, we could get there in no time. However, I think he has already realised that his not-so-clever get-out-of-jail card doesn't work when you know the chemical nature of what you dissolved, so he's trying to fudge it by insisting on talking about a whole plant concoction.

Anyway, if we have to talk about belladonna,

How many grammes of belladonna do you use to prepare a belladonna mother tincture?
What volume of solvent is this dissolved in?Rolfe.

[Zep]

The more realistic alternative is that he knows NOTHING about chemistry or mathematics. Ockham's Razor would cut that way! ;)

[Dr. A Sheikh]

Evasion noted.

I have no idea how many chemicals one can derive from a belladonna plant; nor, I think, do you.

That is also my point, when you don't know the idea that when you take 1ml of belladonna extract and put it in 99ml of solvent (c2h5oh +h2o) and then you vigorously shake it and then put the bottle for a month or so some time at certain degree then how can you ensure that chemical changes have not been occured.

please try to understand it that you have no idea about actual preparation of homeo MT's and Potencies. You are talking on the gen information which are written in some books or available at net.

When you will apply for the WHCC prize money you will fail at very first step. I am giving you click here to study preparation of MT and Potencies.

[PixyMisa]

That is also my point, when you don't know the idea that when you take 1ml of belladonna extract and put it in 99ml of solvent (c2h5oh +h2o) and then you vigorously shake it and then put the bottle for a month or so some time at certain degree then how can you ensure that chemical changes have not been occured.
So what you are saying is that you have absolutely no idea what you are giving your patients?

Do you not see a problem with that?

[Art Vandelay]

For every gram of any substance, there can never be more than one mole of particles. There are more than one mole of electrons in a gram.
:p

If you could prove your claim then you can win a fabolous prize. After all you think your claim is right.I think that, given your inability to frame your arguments in proper English, you can hardly consider the fact that no one has been able to provide a counterargument that you consider adequate as determinative of anything.


It should be called Avogadro's Constant, since it has a unit: $\mathrm{mole}^{-1}$ or particles/mole.
6.02 x 10^23 is a number. It doesn't have a unit, although you can add one. If I were to say that there are twelve units in a dozen, would it be inaccurate to call twelve a number?

[Mojo]

That is also my point, when you don't know the idea that when you take 1ml of belladonna extract and put it in 99ml of solvent (c2h5oh +h2o) and then you vigorously shake it and then put the bottle for a month or so some time at certain degree then how can you ensure that chemical changes have not been occured. Sheikh, it doesn't matter. There can only be a finite number of atoms in a finite mass of belladonna. Sooner or later you will run out.
When you will apply for the WHCC prize money you will fail at very first step. Yes, but not because we don't understand the issues or because homoeopathy works. If we apply, we will fail because MAS's challenge is a fraud. His rules allow him to simply decide that an application has failed without any reference to whether or not it is correct.

[Pidge]

6.02 x 10^23 is a number. It doesn't have a unit, although you can add one. If I were to say that there are twelve units in a dozen, would it be inaccurate to call twelve a number?

6.02 x 10^23 is a number, but a special one called Avagadro's number.
However, 6.02 x 10^23 mol-1 referred to as Avagadro's constant.

The distinction is subtle, but you should use Avagadro's constant in equations in which all of the measurements or variables have units, if you want to have a meaningful result. (e.g. x (in grams) of substance, which has a molar weight of y (in grams/mol), will contain x/y*A molecules)

e.g. "c" (approximately 3x10^9 m.s-1) is a constant. Without the unit, "c" becomes a bit meaningless.

I think there are a few physical constants that are unit-less, but I can't recall them right now.

But Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensionless_number) comes to the rescue. Note - Avagadro's number is not listed there...

[H'ethetheth]

There are more than one mole of electrons in a gram.
:p


My bad. :cry1

[anor277]

That is also my point, when you don't know the idea that when you take 1ml of belladonna extract and put it in 99ml of solvent (c2h5oh +h2o) and then you vigorously shake it and then put the bottle for a month or so some time at certain degree then how can you ensure that chemical changes have not been occured.

You seemed to have changed your story. So now ethanolic solution of belladonna are aged at elevated temperature for some months. How dangerous; you would not find me walking in to that storage facility. Then let me ask the actual temperature at which the ethanolic solutions are stored.

Let me reiterate, the fact that belladonna extract contains a number of components poses no problems for the Avogadro condition. One can calculate an average molecular weight, or one could follow Aepervius calculation in the other thread, which rigorously showed that at the 20C level the number of actual molecules of each component had fallen to just 10-16 and had assumed unreasonable solubilities. I presume you understand the problem with a non-integral number of molecules.

please try to understand it that you have no idea about actual preparation of homeo MT's and Potencies. You are talking on the gen information which are written in some books or available at net.

I am doing my best to understand it with patience and courtesy. In fact I have some 15 years experience at the graduate level and beyond in chemical research and consultation, as well the information in books and references, which you apparently disparage. If I remain ignorant of the process of homeopathic dilution then you must take some of the responsibility, because (i) you have failed to point out a single reaction pathway available to ethanol with a plant component at room temperature, and (ii) you have not told us the mass of belladonna in all its forms in 100 mL of Belladonna 30C preparation. Please address these questions to aid my understanding.

When you will apply for the WHCC prize money you will fail at very first step. I am giving you click here to study preparation of MT and Potencies.

Thank you, but I am certainly not going to apply for the WHCC prize. The prize is not logically consistent. I cannot show that homeopathy is paranormal because on current evidence I cannot show that homeopathy works. To win the WHCC prize I would first have to show that homeopathy works (beyond my abilities and also the abilities of actual homeopathic practitioners), and then show that usch working is paranormal. If I could show that homeopathy works I would first apply for the JREF prize, which is worth some 5 times more than the WHCC prize, and which only requires me to show that homeopathy works.

[H'ethetheth]

That is also my point, when you don't know the idea that when you take 1ml of belladonna extract and put it in 99ml of solvent (c2h5oh +h2o) Ah! That I can work with. Mind you, this is going to be a ludicrous calculation with no bearing on reality other than yielding a grossly optimistic upper bound. Especially for you, Dr. Sheikh

Let's see: 1ml of anything contains at most (for now) 0.27 mol of anything, if it's boron.
0.27 mol of anything weighs at most about 0.27*275 = 74.25 g if it turned out to be ununoctium (Uun118).

ETA: Oh, wait a minute that's very wrong. Nevermind. Back to the drawing board.
Conclusion deleted.

[anor277]

@H'th, try lithium metal. Not only is its molecular weight about half that of boron, it actually reacts with water and ethanol (boron is inert!).

[H'ethetheth]

Okay, a second attempt.
The bottom line is, if you want to see particles at 13C, you will need to dissolve 100 moles of solute, so your initial mass should be at the very least 100g.
Humour me, Dr. Sheikh, does a ml of Belladonna weigh more than 100g?

And again, if you want to stretch it to 30c, that ml would have to weigh at least as much as 10 of the biggest stars.
Does it?

What did I learn? I learned that my brain doesn't function very well at this hour, and that 100ml of belladonna 13c does not have any belladonna in it,

...again.

[H'ethetheth]

@H'th, try lithium metal. Not only is its molecular weight about half that of boron, it actually reacts with water and ethanol (boron is inert!).
Thanks, but there's a few things you should know about me:

1- I'm an engineer, so I don't know much chemistry, I just know my calculator fairly well.
2- I'm an engineer, so I like to make far fetched absolute-worst-case estimates.
3- The whole calculation was irrelevant anyway, but I chose Boron because it had the smallest molar volume I could find, and I wanted to reserve as much slack as possible for belladonna having a small molar volume, because we don't know what it is.
4- Other than being an engineer, I'm also often an idiot.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I think there are a few physical constants that are unit-less, but I can't recall them right now. An example is the fine structure constant, $\alpha = 0.007297\ldots$

It should, of course, be called the fine structure number.

~~ Paul

[Dr. A Sheikh]

You seemed to have changed your story. So now ethanolic solution of belladonna are aged at elevated temperature for some months. How dangerous; you would not find me walking in to that storage facility. Then let me ask the actual temperature at which the ethanolic solutions are stored.

for preparation of MT, for each MT different procedure is adopted. When you collect plants then you dip the different parts in alcohol. Then you leave the container for few weeks, for time to time you put fresh alcohol and water. Sometimes the container also remains under sunlight.

[steenkh]

But this procedure is used for preparing the MT. Once you start the potentisations, you surely do not leave the dilutions for weeks or expose them to heat? We are really interested in what happens to the molecules of the MT, and it does not matter if the original plants have reacted with any while preparing the MT.

[Art Vandelay]

The distinction is subtle, but you should use Avagadro's constant in equations in which all of the measurements or variables have units, if you want to have a meaningful result. (e.g. x (in grams) of substance, which has a molar weight of y (in grams/mol), will contain x/y*A molecules)Not so much a meaningful result, as a correct one. A mole is equal to Avagadro's number. Which means that Avagadro's number divided by one mole is one. Which means that we can multiply this quantity by any other amount, and the amount will remain unchanged.

[Dr. A Sheikh]

But this procedure is used for preparing the MT. Once you start the potentisations, you surely do not leave the dilutions for weeks or expose them to heat? We are really interested in what happens to the molecules of the MT, and it does not matter if the original plants have reacted with any while preparing the MT.

But you can't stop the reaction between various chemicals in 1x, 2x or 3x etc potencies. When there is fine chance of having some chemicals which can split ethyle alcohol bandage into their parts.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

But you can't stop the reaction between various chemicals in 1x, 2x or 3x etc potencies. When there is fine chance of having some chemicals which can split ethyle alcohol bandage into their parts.
Let them react 'til the cows come home. You're still removing 90% of the good stuff on each dilution. The only way you wouldn't is if all the good stuff knew to scamper over into the 10% of the solution that remained at each dilution. Is that what happens?

~~ Paul

[Dr. A Sheikh]

2c or 2x potency contain many chemicals a, b, c, d, etc these abcd can react with each other and form a new compound during succession.

[anor277]

2c or 2x potency contain many chemicals a, b, c, d, etc these abcd can react with each other and form a new compound during succession.

Again I ask, what possible reaction could occur between a plant chemical and ethanol at room temperature?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

2c or 2x potency contain many chemicals a, b, c, d, etc these abcd can react with each other and form a new compound during succession.
Fine. But then you remove 90% of the good stuff and add more solvent. Do you think you can do this forever without eventually removing all the good stuff?

~~ Paul

[Z]

2c or 2x potency contain many chemicals a, b, c, d, etc these abcd can react with each other and form a new compound during succession.

A new compound with the same exact chemicals a, b, c, d, etc. NO NEW ATOMS (except of solvent) WILL APPEAR IN THE SOLUTION after dilution. In fact, you will simply lose atoms.

Illustration:

Solute:

a-300u
b-450u
c-900u
d-1000u

Add the solvent, and a reaction occurs, creating as follows:

a2b (two parts a, one part b) - 150u
b2c2 - 150u
cd4 - 250u

and leaving the following remains:

c - 350u

Now, when we dilute by, say, replacing 90% with fresh solvent, the solvent now contains:

a2b - 15u
b2c2 - 15u
cd4 - 25u
c - 35u

Note: no new reactions have formed, as all atoms have naturally achieved their preferred equilibrium.

Now dilute again, and what do we have?

a2b - 1.5u - well, we can't have a half unit, so we'll give the benefit of the doubt here and say 2u
b2c2 - 2u
cd4 - 3u
c - 4u

Dilute again... and you have nothing at all.

Dilute again... well, do you get the picture yet?

Now, granted, that's a vast oversimplification; it doesn't take into account those chemicals that are water-soluble yet form multiple states in varying proportions, etc. etc. But the point is that the key ingredients in the mother tincture, abcd, simply get diluted away, NO MATTER WHAT COMPOUNDS THEY MAY FORM!!!!!

Serious question, Mr. Sheikh - does your country require 'doctors' to have graduated any elementary school at all?

[Dr. A Sheikh]

A new compound with the same exact chemicals a, b, c, d, etc. NO NEW ATOMS (except of solvent) WILL APPEAR IN THE SOLUTION after dilution. In fact, you will simply lose atoms.

Illustration:

Solute:

a-300u
b-450u
c-900u
d-1000u

Add the solvent, and a reaction occurs, creating as follows:

a2b (two parts a, one part b) - 150u
b2c2 - 150u
cd4 - 250u

and leaving the following remains:

c - 350u

Now, when we dilute by, say, replacing 90% with fresh solvent, the solvent now contains:

a2b - 15u
b2c2 - 15u
cd4 - 25u
c - 35u

Note: no new reactions have formed, as all atoms have naturally achieved their preferred equilibrium.

Now dilute again, and what do we have?

a2b - 1.5u - well, we can't have a half unit, so we'll give the benefit of the doubt here and say 2u
b2c2 - 2u
cd4 - 3u
c - 4u

Dilute again... and you have nothing at all.

Dilute again... well, do you get the picture yet?

Now, granted, that's a vast oversimplification; it doesn't take into account those chemicals that are water-soluble yet form multiple states in varying proportions, etc. etc. But the point is that the key ingredients in the mother tincture, abcd, simply get diluted away, NO MATTER WHAT COMPOUNDS THEY MAY FORM!!!!!

Serious question, Mr. Sheikh - does your country require 'doctors' to have graduated any elementary school at all?

a reaction with in potency one was going on between a & b and you prepared 2nd potency. it was completed in 3rd potency. few reactions take just a nano second and few take one minute to five minutes and few an year.

[chrisjeans]

acetic acid with ethyle alcohol

Interestingly, I am in my laboratory right now, and for an experiment I am about to do, I require a mix of 10% acetic acid, 30% ethyl alcohol. Let's see what happens....

Hmmm. No reaction.

Dr Sheikh, please take in all the other replies here, then go and read a chemistry textbook. It really isn't all that hard.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Dr. Sheikh, don't miss my question:

Fine. But then you remove 90% of the good stuff and add more solvent. Do you think you can do this forever without eventually removing all the good stuff?



~~ Paul

[Z]

a reaction with in potency one was going on between a & b and you prepared 2nd potency. it was completed in 3rd potency. few reactions take just a nano second and few take one minute to five minutes and few an year.

Show me a reaction that takes a year to compete between molecules?

Not that it matters - the numbers would still stand. By third potency, you'd have 1% of the original chemicals present. By fourth, only 0.1%. Regardless of what reactions are ongoing.

[Dr. A Sheikh]

Dr. Sheikh, don't miss my question:

Fine. But then you remove 90% of the good stuff and add more solvent. Do you think you can do this forever without eventually removing all the good stuff?



~~ Paul

NO

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Okay then, Dr. Sheikh, how many 10:1 dilutions can you perform before you have removed all the good stuff and have nothing but solvent remaining?

~~ Paul

[H'ethetheth]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos :

Dr. Sheikh, don't miss my question:

Fine. But then you remove 90% of the good stuff and add more solvent. Do you think you can do this forever without eventually removing all the good stuff?



~~ Paul
NOOoh ooh! I know the next question!

ETA: Awwwww! too late

[CurtC]

6.02 x 10^23 is a number, but a special one called Avagadro's number.
However, 6.02 x 10^23 mol-1 referred to as Avagadro's constant.I've always heard it as "Avogadro's number" instead of constant, and a Google search shows more than a 10:1 ratio in favor of "number."
The distinction is subtle, but you should use Avagadro's constant in equations in which all of the measurements or variables have units, if you want to have a meaningful result. (e.g. x (in grams) of substance, which has a molar weight of y (in grams/mol), will contain x/y*A molecules)If there is a distinction, it would be in favor of AN being a number, but I'm not sure what distinction you're drawing. No matter what system of units you're working with, you'd use the 6.02x10^23 number. Of course, to get meaningful results, you have to be consistent in your units, but that's always the case.
e.g. "c" (approximately 3x10^9 m.s-1) is a constant. Without the unit, "c" becomes a bit meaningless.This is completely different, because the 3x10^9 number is only valid for the MKS system, when you're referring to meters as distance and seconds as time. With AN, it's always 6.02x10^23, even if you're working with miles, hours, and slugs.
But Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensionless_number) comes to the rescue. Note - Avagadro's number is not listed there...Some of the ones I recognize on that list, such as Reynolds Number, have different (unitless) values depending on the conditions of a particular setup.

AN is exactly like a dozen. Is the number 12 when referring to a dozen a constant, or a number?

[Rolfe]

My vote is that it's a number. A constant is a constant multiplier, if I understand it correctly. Avogadro's number is just a number.

I think.

Rolfe.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

It's a constant if it has a unit, a number otherwise. The word dozen is a name for a number. These definitions are fairly informal, which is why people swap them around all the time.

If I ask you how many particles there are in 10 moles, you better calculate it like this:

$10 {\rm ~moles} \cdot \frac{6.02 \times 10^{23}}{\rm mole} = 6.02 \times 10^{24}$

not like this:

$10 {\rm ~moles} \cdot 6.02 \times 10^{23} = 6.02 \times 10^{24} {\rm ~moles}$

~~ Paul

[Metullus]

It's a constant if it has a unit, a number otherwise. The word dozen is a name for a number. These definitions are fairly informal, which is why people swap them around all the time.

If I ask you how many particles there are in 10 moles, you better calculate it like this:

$10 {\rm moles} \cdot \frac{6.02 \times 10^{23}}{\rm mole} = 6.02 \times 10^{24}$

not like this:
The suspense is killing me...

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Sorry Metullus, I posted instead of previewing.

~~ Paul

[Dr. A Sheikh]

Okay then, Dr. Sheikh, how many 10:1 dilutions can you perform before you have removed all the good stuff and have nothing but solvent remaining?

~~ Paul

It depends upon the number of compounds or chemicals present in 1st starting material. I never seen somebody using damiana cm or sabal serrulata 1m because these have no results in 1m or 200.

I have been taught that few potencies do not work just because these have no traces of molecules or energies in them due to their chemical properties.

All potencies or all medicines do not work because of the implication of avogadros number. I am not against the equation of avogadros number equation which BSM derived. I am against the procedure which he adopted because the we do not prepare medicines as he described. I am against this opinion that at 12c you cannot trace molecules other than ethanol or water.

[Ririon]

Why don't we call it Avogadro's constant when it has a unit and Avogadro's number when it doesn't? Like in "a mole of anything has Avogadro's number of molecules" and "Avogadro's constant is the number of molecules per mole". I, for one, reserve my right to say both statements.

Next topic: $\pi$, number or mathematical constant?

[CurtC]

It's a constant if it has a unit, a number otherwise. The word dozen is a name for a number.Is you is, or is you ain't agreeing with me that "dozen" and "mole" are completely equivalent? If a dozen is a number, then a mole is also a number, albeit a much larger number.

Your fancy-pants latex-formatted equation works exactly the same for moles and dozens:

$10 {\rm ~dozen} \cdot \frac{12}{\rm dozen} = 120$

[Donks]

I am against this opinion that at 12c you cannot trace molecules other than ethanol or water.
You are free to provide some evidence to refute this "opinion."

[rwguinn]

You are free to provide some evidence to refute this "opinion."

one cannot help but wonder what his "opinion" is on the equality 2+2=4

[JamesM]

Is you is, or is you ain't agreeing with me that "dozen" and "mole" are completely equivalent? If a dozen is a number, then a mole is also a number, albeit a much larger number.
Previously, you said the Avogadro Number and a dozen were equivalent, not the mole and a dozen. I agree that a mole and a dozen are analogous. They are both units of an amount of substance, the former being the SI unit.

But I don't see how it follows that NA is dimensionless. If we take the dozen as the unit of substance, we could posit CurtC's constant, NCC, which the SI might define as the unit of the amount of substance of a system which contains as many elementary entities as there are protons and neutrons in a nucleus of 12C. NCC = 12 dozen-1.

edited to add "and neutrons" - oops.

[Zep]

1 mole. (This HAS to be done!)

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Parliament/2191/images/Whitehurst.gif

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Is you is, or is you ain't agreeing with me that "dozen" and "mole" are completely equivalent? If a dozen is a number, then a mole is also a number, albeit a much larger number.

Your fancy-pants latex-formatted equation works exactly the same for moles and dozens: You's absolutely correct, sir. When used in the calculation of bagel counts, a dozen is a constant.


Next topic: http://www.randi.org/latexrender/latex.php?$%5Cpi$, number or mathematical constant? It's a number. However, it can be used in contexts where it is a constant. For example, there are http://www.randi.org/latexrender/latex.php?$%5Cpi$ radians in a half circle.

Think this is a bit pedantic? I figured we might as well discuss something that doesn't go 'round in a circle forever. :D

Moles and dozens are interesting in that the term is defined to be a certain number, which number then has units of ${\rm term}^{-1}$.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

It depends upon the number of compounds or chemicals present in 1st starting material. I never seen somebody using damiana cm or sabal serrulata 1m because these have no results in 1m or 200.
How does it depend on the number of compounds in the MT? Please explain the chemistry.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

It appears that I would do everyone a favor by dropping this constant vs. number nonsense and using the terms dimensionless constant or dimensionless quantity instead.

~~ Paul

[Ririon]

...
Think this is a bit pedantic? I figured we might as well discuss something that doesn't go 'round in a circle forever. :D
...

~~ Paul

By all means continue... If our favourite Pakistani is annoying, you are about 3X annoying. Less than me on any day... :)

[Art Vandelay]

But I don't see how it follows that NA is dimensionless. If we take the dozen as the unit of substance, we could posit CurtC's constant, NCC, which the SI might define as the unit of the amount of substance of a system which contains as many elementary entities as there are protons and neutrons in a nucleus of 12C. NCC = 12 dozen-1.
If you consider NA to be 6.02 x 10^23 mol-1 and NCC to be 12 dozen-1, then NA=NCC=1 (which why we can multiply by it without changing anything). I'm not sure why we need to have a bunch of different names for the same number.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I may be a ridiculous pedant, but not as ridiculous as this fellow:

http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0031-9120/8/4/011

~~ Paul

[JamesM]

If you consider NA to be 6.02 x 10^23 mol-1 and NCC to be 12 dozen-1, then NA=NCC=1 (which why we can multiply by it without changing anything). I'm not sure why we need to have a bunch of different names for the same number.

NA = 1? I don't follow you.

[PixyMisa]

It depends upon the number of compounds or chemicals present in 1st starting material.
Not really, no.

I have been taught that few potencies do not work just because these have no traces of molecules or energies in them due to their chemical properties.
Really? That seems to be a new finding for homeopathy.

All potencies or all medicines do not work because of the implication of avogadros number. I am not against the equation of avogadros number equation which BSM derived.
Interesting.

I am against the procedure which he adopted because the we do not prepare medicines as he described.
Yeah, we know. When you say you dilute by a factor of ten, what you mean is you dump some amount of the previous dilution into a vial of solvent which may already be contaminated.

I am against this opinion that at 12c you cannot trace molecules other than ethanol or water.
If you were honest and followed the proper procedure when you performed the dilutions, then 12C would be the lowest level where you might reasonably find a single molecule left of the mother tincture. At 13C and higher, you would not expect to find anything at all - at least, you wouldn't if you weren't allowing contaminants into the process.

[Rolfe]

In fact, 12C is the limit if you start with a mole of solute. I seriously doubt that any mother tincture has a mole of solute in it. Mostly they seem to be talking about small volumes, and not very concentrated solutions. The only one I found any figures for was LSD, where the homoeopath said that 250mg had been used to make the mother tincture.

I keep asking Sheikh what weight of belladonna plant is used to make a mother tincture and he keeps on not answering me. Of course since that is a mixture of many compounds it wouldn't be possible to say how many molecules were in that weight, but it would at least allow some estimates.

I suspect that if we really knew the quantity of solute in the mother tincture we'd find the limit was reached at perhaps as low as 10C. 12C is really the upper limit of possibility, allowing for an awful lot of starting material.

Rolfe.

[CurtC]

If you consider NA to be 6.02 x 10^23 mol-1 and NCC to be 12 dozen-1, then NA=NCC=1 (which why we can multiply by it without changing anything). I'm not sure why we need to have a bunch of different names for the same number.
NA = 1? I don't follow you.He's saying that since the number "dozen" is equal to 12, then the quantity 12 dozen-1 is dividing 12 by 12, which is one. Same thing for moles.

I agree with him: Avogadro's number is not 6.02x1023/mole, the number is 6.02x1023. Avogadro's number is one mole, which is equal to 6.02x1023, or 602000000000000000000000. No units.

When we use it in an equation, we multiply a quantity by the term 6.02x1023/mole, because that's the same as multiplying it by one, therefore it doesn't change the quantity, only the units.

[JamesM]

He's saying that since the number "dozen" is equal to 12, then the quantity 12 dozen-1 is dividing 12 by 12, which is one. Same thing for moles. Ok.

Avogadro's number is not 6.02x1023/mole, the number is 6.02x1023. I agree. But you are not just arguing for the existence for the Avogadro number, but for the non-existence of the Avogadro constant, NA.

Can we agree that the mole is defined as the SI base unit for a quantity of substance?

If we agree on that, can we further agree that, as defined by the SI, the definition of a value of a physical quantity is the product of a number and a unit?

If so, then to determine the amount of substance of something (which has units of mole), then NA must necessarily exist, and have the units of mol-1.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

He's saying that since the number "dozen" is equal to 12, then the quantity 12 ${\rm dozen}^{-1}$ is dividing 12 by 12, which is one. Same thing for moles. Huh? If that were the case, then:

$6{\rm ~dozen} \cdot \frac{12}{\rm dozen} = 6{\rm ~dozen} \cdot 1 = 6{\rm ~dozen}$

But we want the units to cancel, as in:

$6{\rm ~dozen} \cdot \frac{12}{\rm dozen} = 72$


~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ah, but wait. If ${\rm dozen} \equiv 12$, then:

$6 {\rm ~dozen} \cdot \frac{12}{\rm dozen} = 72 \cdot 1 = 72$

So we can treat dozen as a unit or as a number. The latter works as long as "6 dozen" means "6 times dozen." This is fun.

~~ Paul

[Crispy Duck]

I keep asking Sheikh what weight of belladonna plant is used to make a mother tincture and he keeps on not answering me. Of course since that is a mixture of many compounds it wouldn't be possible to say how many molecules were in that weight, but it would at least allow some estimates.

Rolfe, somewhere in one of these threads Sheikh mentioned that the MT is prepared by dropping some belladonna in some alcohol and leaving it for a while. It therefore seems likely that he has absolutely no idea what mass of 'belladonna extracts' remain in the alcohol when the plant material itself is removed. How would one begin to determine this? One could weigh the alcohol solution and the plant after the soaking, but this wouldn't tell you an awful lot. One could measure lots of things - density, freezing point, boiling point, colour - would any of this give a starting point for the calculations?

Of course, an honest homeopath could tell you exactly how much belladonna remains in the 30C product, even without knowing the starting concentration :)

[Mojo]

Rolfe, somewhere in one of these threads Sheikh mentioned that the MT is prepared by dropping some belladonna in some alcohol and leaving it for a while. Here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1383343#post1383343).

[Rolfe]

I don't necessarily believe his accounts of how these things are done, as they seem rather different from what we know from other sources. In particular, the adding of fresh alcohol and water seems doubtful.

However, note that he never describes removing any part of the belladonna plant. Never mind, that's fine. I'll settle for knowing the approximate weight of plant material he started with. Even if we assume that all of that is incorporated in the mother tincture, I think it would still give a sub-12C result for running out of material.

The fact is that you can only get a large number of molecules (or ions) to start with if your remedy is a small molecule or salt. Once you start talking about things with MWs of thousands of daltons, you have proportionately fewer molecules in any likely starting weight of material. So, although you can say, I took 1 mole of sodium sulphate, and when dissolved I had 3 moles of ions in total, you can't really say, I took 1 mole of botulinum toxin, in quite the same way, because you'd be talking about tons of the stuff!

The 12C endpoint is based on a reasonable number of atoms in the starting quantity of mother tincture, as I interpret it. If the substance is such that it will dissociate pretty much to its component atoms (like NaCl), then we end up at about 12C. However, you can't then say, but if I took a substance with a huge molecular weight, and started with the same number of molecules of that as I had of the small MW substance, because in that case (I repeat) you'd be requiring several tons of material. Whether or not the remedy substance is large or small molcules, the chances are that the number of atoms in a practical weight of mother tincture will be relatively constant. If the MW is very large, and the substance does not dissociate, then the Avogadro limit will be reached sooner. However, if you start allowing that it can dissociate down to its component atoms, you merely return to roughly the same place you were with your salt remedy, 12C.

I'm still waiting to see what reactions with the solvent might even be possible for any common remedy, then evidence that these actually happen, then evidence that it's the products of these reactions rather than the mother tincture that is biologically active.

Because if so, why bother with all the diluting and succussing? If homoeopaths can show that they have fortuitously hit upon a way to produce novel therapeutic compounds, and that these have a striking efficacy, then why not just synthesise these compounds. Oh, and test them for safety and so on too....

This is getting really silly, I'm off to do some real work with some real analyses of some real molecules.

Rolfe.

[flume]

I missed this whole thread until now. Darn.

I decided to make a real life example for a remedy. I used the USDA nutrient database values for broccoli as my sample of a remedy. Broccoli has about 10% dry matter. For an approximate estimate of an extract I figured there would be half that weight in the final volume because of the solvent.

So then I plugged in various values for the minerals etc. in the nutrient list.
I figured the weight and the number of atoms-molecules-ions of various compounds per ml. Needless to say, they were all goine by 12C.
Selenium was gone by 7C. Calcium, potassium and sodium were gone by 10C.

What else... I figured the amount of sucrose: gone by 9C. Glucose and fructose gone by 10C.

By 12C, the whole weight of the starting extract was reduced to 5.0 x 10-26 grams per ml. Since this is less than the weight of a H atom, it means that the probability is that not even one atom from the starting extract remains.

Broccoli has a compound sulforaphane which may have beneficial medicinal properties. It breaks down and/or combines into new compounds in a lovely complex array that might be just the kind of thing Dr. A Sheikh envisions. I imagined plugging those values into Excel but I haven't done it yet. It would work just the same as the easier examples.

Okay, instead of taking the small amount of sucrose in my hypothetical broccoli extract, let's take a whole gram of sucrose as our starting material. (Ignore the fact that sucrose isn't a remedy - this is just for the numbers.)
By 11C the probability is that no molcule remains.
But sucrose can be combined with a molecule of water (solvent!) to produce a molecule of glucose and a molcule of fructose. Let's take all the sucrose remaiing at the 8C dilution and break it down into glucose and fructose. (Note: this would not really happen. This is for numbers only.) The fructose and glucose are still diluted out by 11C. But wait, sucrose is actually composed of 12 atoms of C, 22 atoms of H and 11 atoms of O. What if at the 8C dilution it completely and magically decomposed into all those atoms?
They would all be diluted out by 12C.

I could post the math, or maybe I could think of more examples if I thought it would do any good.

------------

There is one homeopathic remedy that might be a catalyst for alcohol breakdown. I posted about this here once before. I think it was potassium dichromate. I don't remember the details but it is used in breathylizer tests. My memory is that it works at an acid pH though. And there would still be the problem that the catalyst would be diluted out before 12C and the transformed ethanol (if any) would be diluted out.
An American com[pany, Hahnemann Labs (?) said they only use water for the early dilutions when preparing this remedy - to avoid any reaction.

[steenkh]

I don't necessarily believe his accounts of how these things are done, as they seem rather different from what we know from other sources. In particular, the adding of fresh alcohol and water seems doubtful.

Do not forget that he and Dr. MAS are using this fantastic automatic potentising machine, and it can appararently move straight from MT to 30C. So perhaps they are really adding fresh alcohol or water to the dilution all the time!

Dr. MAS has not revealed exactly how, but he has hinted that his "proof" of MT molecules present at high dilutions is connected to the use of this machine. We suspect that the machine is not sufficiently rinsed between potentisations that traces of MT will always contaminate each potentisation.

I wonder how common such machines are.

[Rolfe]

By 12C, the whole weight of the starting extract was reduced to 5.0 x 10-26 grams per ml. Since this is less than the weight of a H atom, it means that the probability is that not even one atom from the starting extract remains.Exactly! Just the calulation I was anticipating when I asked Sheikh to tell us what weight of belladonna he was planning on starting with.

Great minds think alike.

Hey, if this only works with the fantastic MAS potentising machine, then how come all those other homoeopaths (starting with the Great H himself) all say it works for them?

Rolfe.

[Dr. A Sheikh]

Do not forget that he and Dr. MAS are using this fantastic automatic potentising machine, and it can appararently move straight from MT to 30C. So perhaps they are really adding fresh alcohol or water to the dilution all the time!

Dr. MAS has not revealed exactly how, but he has hinted that his "proof" of MT molecules present at high dilutions is connected to the use of this machine. We suspect that the machine is not sufficiently rinsed between potentisations that traces of MT will always contaminate each potentisation.

I wonder how common such machines are.

The molecules of plumb met were traced in 200 potency due to this method.

[Mojo]

Do not forget that he and Dr. MAS are using this fantastic automatic potentising machine, and it can appararently move straight from MT to 30C. So perhaps they are really adding fresh alcohol or water to the dilution all the time!

Dr. MAS has not revealed exactly how, but he has hinted that his "proof" of MT molecules present at high dilutions is connected to the use of this machine. We suspect that the machine is not sufficiently rinsed between potentisations that traces of MT will always contaminate each potentisation.
The molecules of plumb met were traced in 200 potency due to this method.What method? Do you mean not cleaning your equipment properly?

[Z]

I get the sneaking suspicion that these machines don't dilute very much at all - that the exchange of solvent happens at the top of the containers, while solutes settle into the bottom. Like 'rinsing' the upper layers of the solution.

In other words - a fraud even among homeopaths.

[Nucular]

The molecules of plumb met were traced in 200 potency due to this method.
Sounds like a silly method, if so.

By what method were the molecules traced? In what sort of quantity were they present? Was the research published?

[flume]

Another point (which has been mentioned here in the past): I made the calculations to show that all the Na, Ca, etc. ions from the starting material would be gone from my hypothetical sample by the 12C dilution.
But there could still be some amount of those minerals in the 12c dilution - or the 200C dilution - if there is a constant small amount of contaimination in the solvent itself.

[Rolfe]

Yes, that's why we refer to homoeopaths being able to distinguish the potentised remedy from the stock solvent. No solvent will ever be entirely pure, so like must be compared with like.

Rolfe.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I get the sneaking suspicion that these machines don't dilute very much at all - that the exchange of solvent happens at the top of the containers, while solutes settle into the bottom. Like 'rinsing' the upper layers of the solution.
Holy crap! Are you suggesting that homeopaths don't do a quality check on the occasional vial to make sure the active ingredients are diluted to the proper level? That could be downright dangerous!

~~ Paul

[Z]

Holy crap! Are you suggesting that homeopaths don't do a quality check on the occasional vial to make sure the active ingredients are diluted to the proper level? That could be downright dangerous!

~~ Paul

Suggest hell - I'm acusing outright.

[Mojo]

Another point (which has been mentioned here in the past): I made the calculations to show that all the Na, Ca, etc. ions from the starting material would be gone from my hypothetical sample by the 12C dilution.
But there could still be some amount of those minerals in the 12c dilution - or the 200C dilution - if there is a constant small amount of contaimination in the solvent itself.Let's face it, as a contaminant, there could be a little bit of pretty much anything you care to mention! How on Earth can the preparation know what it is supposed to remember?

These homoeopaths are crazy!

[Zep]

http://home.webnorge.no/hovdingen/images/large/obelix.jpg

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Suggest hell - I'm acusing outright.
You must be mistaken. Aren't they using a way-the-hell-past-Avogadro sampling machine to make sure that the potency is exactly 30X or 100C or whatever? The machine looks something like the one at the left of my post.

~~ Paul

[Mojo]

http://home.webnorge.no/hovdingen/images/large/obelix.jpgI've been looking for a picture of him doing that for ages! :D

[Zep]

You must be mistaken. Aren't they using a way-the-hell-past-Avogadro sampling machine to make sure that the potency is exactly 30X or 100C or whatever? The machine looks something like the one at the left of my post.

~~ PaulI'd say these poor old Pakistani homeopaths have been thoroughly bamboozled and swindled out of much money by some crafty manufacturer of crap machines, while lead to believe that their "automatic remedy potentiser" actually does what it is supposed to do! Just like the Radionics swindles, and so on. I'm sure we can all find examples of similar technical jokery!

[steenkh]

I'd say these poor old Pakistani homeopaths have been thoroughly bamboozled and swindled out of much money by some crafty manufacturer of crap machines, while lead to believe that their "automatic remedy potentiser" actually does what it is supposed to do! Just like the Radionics swindles, and so on. I'm sure we can all find examples of similar technical jokery!
But is it a swindle when the preparations made by this machine work exactly as well as preparations made in the traditional manner? :)

[Rasmus]

But is it a swindle when the preparations made by this machine work exactly as well as preparations made in the traditional manner? :)

No.

There are rules or instructions on how to prepare a homoopathic medicine solution.

These involve a lot of mixing, pouring things from A to B and some occasionall shaking. I have read elsewhere that an employee in a pharmacy took around two hours to prepare a single bottle and ended up with her arm hurting from all the hard work.

So I think it is reasonable to design, build and sell a machine that takes over some or all of the steps required and sell it as such. (Heck, it doesn't even have to be a machine for homeopathy as such. A machine that can create clean solutions of 10% something in 90% something else seems like a useful thing in some circmstances. You would only need to add very little functionality to derive at a device that can perform all the steps for a homeopathic solution.

Rasmus.

[steenkh]

All that is needed to build a homoeopathic remedy manufacturing machine is a device that drains the supplied mother tincture, fills up the bottles with solvent (or lactose pills) and prints out a nice label with specification of the desired name and potetisation level.

Oh, and to ensure that the remedies produced by this machine will work as specified, it should be built to block production of remedies below 10C (or to be safe, 13C)

To ensure that customers feel they have got value for their money, the machine should be equipped with a nice finish, fancy lights and a number of dials and buttons. And of course a thick manual.

[Mojo]

All that is needed to build a homoeopathic remedy manufacturing machine is a device that drains the supplied mother tincture, fills up the bottles with solvent (or lactose pills) and prints out a nice label with specification of the desired name and potetisation level.

Oh, and to ensure that the remedies produced by this machine will work as specified, it should be built to block production of remedies below 10C (or to be safe, 13C)

To ensure that customers feel they have got value for their money, the machine should be equipped with a nice finish, fancy lights and a number of dials and buttons. And of course a thick manual.The machine would also need to succuss the solution after each dilution. Maybe if the manual was leather bound, the machine could tap the bottle on that.

[Crispy Duck]

It seems that the number of succussions is important, according to the SkepDic entry on Hahnemann. So, although 2X and 1C dilutions are both 1 part per 100, the 2X dilution gets two succussions while the 1C only gets one. This has a significant effect on the power of the product, apparently. Not sure how the continuous dilution machine handles that.

I was quite staggered to see that they actually make, sell and 'prescribe' 200C remedies. If my maths is correct, this dilution is 1 part in 10^400. The total number of elementary particles in the entire universe is around 10^70, I believe. So, to get a single proton of active ingredient from a 200C dilution, one would have to take a dose the size of 10^330 universes. I don't think I've got a glass big enough.

You can just imagine them sitting around, planning their next product... Homeo 1 says 'these 30C dilutions are selling well and are very effective, shall we make something ten thousand times more powerful? That would be 32C, a nice round number, and we could cure all human disease by tea-time.' Homeo 2 says 'No, that hardly sounds any different from 30C. Let's go for 200C, that sounds cool.' Their trainee, Homeo 3, starts saying '...but that's 1 part in 10 to the power of....' when Homeos 1 and 2 punch him in the face and tell him to get back to his books while they go to the pub.

[Mojo]

There are also potencies such as 1M or CM, where the M (I think) stands for a thousand, but I'm not sure exactly how they are prepared. Rolfe?

The alleged flu remedy "Oscillococcinum" is marketed in a 200c potency; all the more amusing as the bacterium it is supposed to contain, Oscillococcus, supposedly from the heart and liver of an unfortunate duck, turns out to be a figment of someone's imagination.

Hmm. I wonder if it's suitable for vegetarians.

[Rolfe]

I was quite staggered to see that they actually make, sell and 'prescribe' 200C remedies. If my maths is correct, this dilution is 1 part in 10^400. The total number of elementary particles in the entire universe is around 10^70, I believe. So, to get a single proton of active ingredient from a 200C dilution, one would have to take a dose the size of 10^330 universes. I don't think I've got a glass big enough.Oh, you want to hear about 1M and 10M potencies. (No, not molar or 10 molar solutions, these are something else.) I can't entirely remember how they're prepared (Geni knows, we had a discussion about it on another thread, in which it became apparent that one homoeo web site actually had it all wrong), but I have it on good authority that the 10M potency is a dilution of 10^20,000. (Darat, can we have html back for the superscripts please?)

Rolfe.

[geni]

There are also potencies such as 1M or CM, where the M (I think) stands for a thousand, but I'm not sure exactly how they are prepared.

Continious flow. They take a contianer and poor water into itand let it flow out again untill they have poured enough water through it to get whatever level of potency they wanted. I assume that 3C (assuming 1cm3 of starting material) would = 300cm3 of water put through (since any thing requires insane amounts of water.

The other option is to put a vial of water or pills into a remedy machine (don't ask) type in the code and press the on button. Aparently this produces the correct remedy. The closest I've seen homeopaths trying to explain this one is to start talking about resonence.

[Ririon]

$\pi 10^{20,000}$


Edit: Wrong button. Sorry. See actual post 3 posts down.

[The_Fire]

ririon, how many decimals in the Pi?;)

[Mojo]

Continious flow. They take a contianer and poor water into itand let it flow out again untill they have poured enough water through it to get whatever level of potency they wanted. I assume that 3C (assuming 1cm3 of starting material) would = 300cm3 of water put through (since any thing requires insane amounts of water. So they don't bother with succussion? What about all the homoeopaths who claim that this is the vital bit which somehow impresses the remedy on the solvent?

The other option is to put a vial of water or pills into a remedy machine (don't ask) type in the code and press the on button. Aparently this produces the correct remedy. The closest I've seen homeopaths trying to explain this one is to start talking about resonence.I seem to remember a thread about one of those.

ETA: Actually, two threads, here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=43425) and here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=33549).

[Ririon]

Oh, you want to hear about 1M and 10M potencies. (No, not molar or 10 molar solutions, these are something else.) I can't entirely remember how they're prepared (Geni knows, we had a discussion about it on another thread, in which it became apparent that one homoeo web site actually had it all wrong), but I have it on good authority that the 10M potency is a dilution of 10^20,000. (Darat, can we have html back for the superscripts please?)

Rolfe.
If you really really want it, this is how you get it: $\scriptstyle 10^{20,000}$

The LaTeX font size is not well matched to the rest of the text here. That's the reason for the scriptstyle command. It looks OK on my system at least. Your mileage may vary.

[Mojo]

Can't you still do it like this: 1020,000?

[geni]

So they don't bother with succussion? What about all the homoeopaths who claim that this is the vital bit which somehow impresses the remedy on the solvent?


I assume the contianer is continiously shaken but I don't know much about the details.

[steenkh]

So they don't bother with succussion? What about all the homoeopaths who claim that this is the vital bit which somehow impresses the remedy on the solvent?

I am shocked!
:rolleyes:

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

To ensure that customers feel they have got value for their money, the machine should be equipped with a nice finish, fancy lights and a number of dials and buttons. And of course a thick manual.
And on the front of the machine, in large block letters: RTFM.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

So they don't bother with succussion? What about all the homoeopaths who claim that this is the vital bit which somehow impresses the remedy on the solvent?
Sweet Jesus in a minivan! Succussion better be required, or all the water on the planet contains homeopathic quantities of millions of compounds. The entire point of succussion is to make a homeopathic remedy something other than a drink of tap water!

~~ Paul

[MRC_Hans]

The continuous flow method is certainly not "Hahnemann approved". The K (Korsakov) method is, however. In this, you shake the vial, then pour out the content. The remains sticking to the sides are assumed to be the fraction transferred to the next stage. The vial is then refilled, shaken, ..etc, repeat as needed. This method is very easy and simple to automate. In fact, I already have the draft plans for such an equipment in my drawer, just in case somebody should prove homeopathy works. Such a proof would be followed immidiately by a demand for registration with the FDA and similar authorities worldwide, since homeopathy could no longer be considered harmless, and with my knowledge of both sides, I expect to be among the first on the market with a fully validated and approved process. I expect to make millions. I'm only waiting for Bach, Dr. Sheikh, or some other ..... ehr, knowledgeable person to carry out the test.

Hans

[Psiload]

The continuous flow method is certainly not "Hahnemann approved". The K (Korsakov) method is, however. In this, you shake the vial, then pour out the content. The remains sticking to the sides are assumed to be the fraction transferred to the next stage. The vial is then refilled, shaken, ..etc, repeat as needed. This method is very easy and simple to automate. In fact, I already have the draft plans for such an equipment in my drawer, just in case somebody should prove homeopathy works. Such a proof would be followed immidiately by a demand for registration with the FDA and similar authorities worldwide, since homeopathy could no longer be considered harmless, and with my knowledge of both sides, I expect to be among the first on the market with a fully validated and approved process. I expect to make millions. I'm only waiting for Bach, Dr. Sheikh, or some other ..... ehr, knowledgeable person to carry out the test.

Hans

The machine in the picture Sheikh keeps posting was purchased from Boiron. The machine pictured is indeed a Korsakov method machine. You can see animated descriptions of the Hahnemannian and Korsakov methods on the Boiron website... scroll down and click on the 'Hahnemannian dilution' and 'Korsakov dilution' links in the lower right-hand corner:

http://www.boiron.com/en/htm/06_homeo_histoire/aventure_medicaments_2.htm#

Of course, elsewhere on the Boiron website they acknowledge that highly diluted homeopathic preparations contain not a single molecule of the original "active ingredient":

http://www.boiron.com/en/htm/01_homeo_aujourdhui/connaitre_homeo.htm

The infinitesimal: a scientific challenge
Homeopathy confirms that substances diluted beyond the known limits of matter...

So it does seem that MAS et al need to RTFM- 'Read The Flippin' Manual' on their hippy hippy shaking machine

[Ririon]

Can't you still do it like this: 1020,000?
:blush:

[Mojo]

The continuous flow method is certainly not "Hahnemann approved". The K (Korsakov) method is, however. In this, you shake the vial, then pour out the content. The remains sticking to the sides are assumed to be the fraction transferred to the next stage. The vial is then refilled, shaken, ..etc, repeat as needed. Isn't that called "not doing the washing up properly"?

[MRC_Hans]

AH, yes, good illustrations, although I notice that they still have the flask faintly colored at 30C to make it seem that something is still there. However I'm in no doubt about Boiron's stand in this; they know full well that it is a sham, and are just in it for the easy money.

The idea that there is any substance left is peculiar to the Pakistani contingent, more or less. The rest of the homeopathic community readily acknowledges that this is not the case.

About the "direct flow" method if such really exists: I see no reason to assume that this would leave better chance of MT remaining, although, of course, the potency resulting from such a process will be mainly guess-work, so their "12C" could be anything between, say, 3C and 24C.

Oh, btw, Dr. Sheikh, Hahnemannian preparations are labelled CH or C, remedies made with the Korsakov method are labelled CK. How are "flow through" remedies labelled?

Hans

Hans

[Mojo]

The K (Korsakov) method is, however. In this, you shake the vial, then pour out the content. The remains sticking to the sides are assumed to be the fraction transferred to the next stage. Do they still call these "X" and "C" prepatations? How can they get the one tenth, or one hundredth, dilution accurately?





Not that it matters, of course...

[Ririon]

Question: If a homeopath was to manually make homeopathic "medicine" using bottles and his hands for shaking: HOW would he shake the bottles? What is the difference between plain old shaking a bottle and succussion?

[Mojo]

The idea that there is any substance left is peculiar to the Pakistani contingent, more or less. And Indian (http://www.chennaionline.com/health/Homoeopathy/2004/12homoeopathy19.asp
), apparently: Here we can quote some theory to substantiate the presence and action of the drug in dilutions and minute doses.

1) When atom gets split, tremendous energy is released. Rutherford was awarded with a Nobel prize for the break up of an atomic nucleus for converting it into energy FOOM!

[Mojo]

Question: If a homeopath was to manually make homeopathic "medicine" using bottles and his hands for shaking: HOW would he shake the bottles? What is the difference between plain old shaking a bottle and succussion?Hahnemann recommended tapping it on a leather-bound book.

[MRC_Hans]

And Indian (http://www.chennaionline.com/health/Homoeopathy/2004/12homoeopathy19.asp</p><p>), apparently: FOOM!Mmmmokay, make that the Asian contingent, then :rolleyes:.

Hans

[Ririon]

Hahnemann recommended tapping it on a leather-bound book. (Got the manual joke now.) Once? Many times? It doesn't seem like a lot of work. If you had to shake a one liter bottle for minutes for each dilution, a machine would make more sense.

[MRC_Hans]

Question: If a homeopath was to manually make homeopathic "medicine" using bottles and his hands for shaking: HOW would he shake the bottles? What is the difference between plain old shaking a bottle and succussion?There is no physical difference between a vigorous shaking and succussion. The only difference appears to be in the context:

Are you preparing a homeopathic remedy? Then the process imprints a purified and amplified medicinal effect on the solvent.

Or, are you cleansing the vial for later reuse? Then the process removes all traces of whatever was earlier in the vial.

Hans

[Mojo]

Mmmmokay, make that the Asian contingent, then :rolleyes:. Don't forget the Asean contingent, wherever he is! ;)

[The_Fire]

And Indian (http://www.chennaionline.com/health/Homoeopathy/2004/12homoeopathy19.asp%3Cbr%20/%3E), apparently: FOOM!

OMG! The Homeopaths are constructing WMD'S! :jaw-droppQuickly, someone call Bush!!!!:eek:

:D

[Psiload]

OMG! The Homeopaths are constructing WMD'S! :jaw-droppQuickly, someone call Bush!!!!:eek:

:D

Weapons of Mass Delusion

[The_Fire]

True....

[Dr. A Sheikh]

STOP PRESS

we have reached at reasonable conclusion.

[Donks]

STOP PRESS

we have reached at reasonable conclusion.
Oh, you now agree homeopathy is bullsh*t? Good.

[Crispy Duck]

That's interesting, Sheikh. What conclusion have you reached?

I'd be interested to know: do you agree with my simple maths above, showing that a 200C dilution is equivalent to 1 part in 10^400? Do you understand how mind-bendingly huge that number is? You must surely agree that, if homeopathic remedies have an effect at all, it must qualify as "paranormal"?

[Rasmus]

when Homeos 1 and 2 punch him in the face and tell him to get back to his books while they go to the pub.

Somehow, this whole homeopathy thingamajingy doesn't appear to be the kind of idea that people would devise outide the boundaries of a pub...

Rasmus.

[petre]

STOP PRESS

we have reached at reasonable conclusion.

How exciting! We may witness the birth of a new understanding! Let us anxiously await a description of the conclusion.

[geni]

Do they still call these "X" and "C" prepatations? How can they get the one tenth, or one hundredth, dilution accurately?



Sometimes labled K. They are gerneraly considered equiverlent to C

[Mojo]

Sometimes labled K. They are gerneraly considered equiverlent to CBut effectively they're just guessing at the actual dilutions used, right?

[geni]

But effectively they're just guessing at the actual dilutions used, right?

Yes

[Aepervius]

Yes.

Does it matter anyway after 5 or even 10K anyway ;) ?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

401K is particularly important.

~~ Paul

[geni]

.

Does it matter anyway after 5 or even 10K anyway ;) ?

Perhaps if you assume a largley insoluble compound with a high afinity for glass.

[Hellbound]

I've always wondered just what, exactly, is proved by showing that there are molecules of the original remedy left.

This would, actually, detroy the whole basis of homeopathy. If they are relying on the properties of the MT, the molecules of it left in the final solution, then why bother with the diluting and such? And what happens to the "like cures like" idea? It all gets tossed out the window.

The only thing homeopathy can cling to and still maintain any simblence of internal consistency is the idea of some ethereal, undetectable force. Any attempt to "scientize" it will shoot it in it's own foot.

All these attempts to prove "water memory" or that molecules of solute are left pretty well undermine every other principle of homeopathy; so, Sheikhy, I don't think you're helping your cause any here.

[Nucular]

It's been sounding to me for quite a long time like the(se) homeopath(s) from Pakistan has/have been thinking up an idiosyncratic 'mechanism' for homeopathy - one which most homeopaths in the rest of the world would vehemently disagree with (and which is sounding less and less coherent the more it's hinted at).

Definitely sounds like they need MT molecules left in the preparation, doesn't it. Sheikh's also mentioned something about few molecules having more room to 'vibrate' in a homeopathic preparation. I wonder where all this is heading.

[Hellbound]

I wonder where all this is heading.

Somewhere equipped with a handle to flush it, we can hope :)

[steenkh]

Sheikh's also mentioned something about few molecules having more room to 'vibrate' in a homeopathic preparation. I wonder where all this is heading.
I do not think it is leading anywhere. In desperate need of anything that sound "scientific" they just grab anything that somebody with a flair for words has floated.

It is interesting that homeopaths are very loath of criticising each other on scientific grounds. They can freely complain that Hahnemann's procedure is not used, or that somebody has committed the lesser sin of isopathy, but nobody would protest against a ridiculous scientific sounding method of working for homoeopathy.

[jnelso99]

Stupid question, but out of curiosity, what if we went the other way with the calculations:

Start with 1L of 20C potion and assume that it has exactly one single molecule of whatever. What amount of the "whatever" (i.e. how many molecules) would be needed at the start of the process to achieve this result?

I'd try to figure it out myself, but my math skills ain't that great.

If it's been detailed elsewhere, never mind...there are a lot of these threads floating around...