Hi, Irene --
Thanks for joining the party. I guess that the important point about confusing pressure and force is illustrated in this way: in two pipes or cylinders of two different pressures, the cylinder with the lower pressure may easily deliver the higher force. High pressure does not imply high force, and high force does not imply high pressure, any more than high voltage implies high current or high current implies high voltage. There is, therefore, no use in pretending that one may represent the other, and there is certainly no more usefulness in using one as an analogy for the other than there would be in using allopathy as an analogy to homoeopathy.
When we confuse these terms and thereby attempt to compare the incomparable (in what is often recognised as a category mismatch), we make an argument -- that is to say, a reason to believe something -- that is fundamentally flawed because it is literally absurd. Arguments based on such radical confusion are at least as fictional, meaningless, and useless as your (thankfully discarded) fictional categories disease force, energy force, and energy signature.
Kind regards,
John
Dry Dose?
-
Irene de Villiers
- Posts: 3237
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 10:00 pm
Re: Dry Dose?
They were not confused.
There are many things that exert force. If you press on something you are exerting force.
If a pneumatic tool is breaking the sidewalk, that's because it is exerting a force big enough to smash concrete - 6 times the force of a heartbeat.
If my blood pressure goes down on reading your email - that's because your email lacks force.
If you want to lecture in some other science instead of following what is written *here* concerning the force exerted by the heart, or by a pneumatic tool - in order to hide your ignorance about how hard the heart beats - (YOUR words "gentle squeeze ") - be my guest. It's not necessary to be rude and tal of a new subject here in order to try to distract folks from an area where your knowledge was lacking.
A gentleman would "have a heart" and admit he did not realize how strong a heartbeat is.
Namaste,
Irene
REPLY TO: only
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."
There are many things that exert force. If you press on something you are exerting force.
If a pneumatic tool is breaking the sidewalk, that's because it is exerting a force big enough to smash concrete - 6 times the force of a heartbeat.
If my blood pressure goes down on reading your email - that's because your email lacks force.
If you want to lecture in some other science instead of following what is written *here* concerning the force exerted by the heart, or by a pneumatic tool - in order to hide your ignorance about how hard the heart beats - (YOUR words "gentle squeeze ") - be my guest. It's not necessary to be rude and tal of a new subject here in order to try to distract folks from an area where your knowledge was lacking.
A gentleman would "have a heart" and admit he did not realize how strong a heartbeat is.
Namaste,
Irene
REPLY TO: only
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."
-
Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD
- Posts: 2279
- Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: Dry Dose?
And then again , you do not read what I write.
I certainly do not confuse dose and potency; what you seem to forget is their intimate and unbreakable link.
As for talking about ego, I suggest the purchase of a mirror.
I am not going to bother answering you directly any more.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD. "The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind". www.naturamedica.webs.com
I certainly do not confuse dose and potency; what you seem to forget is their intimate and unbreakable link.
As for talking about ego, I suggest the purchase of a mirror.
I am not going to bother answering you directly any more.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD. "The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind". www.naturamedica.webs.com
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: Dry Dose?
Hi, Cruella --
I was trying to let you off the hook, actually, but since you insist:
The problem in asserting "The standard pressure used for compressors and pneumatic tool industries, you might agree is a LOT of force. It is 760mm Hg" is that you have, right here, equated ("the standard") pressure with "a LOT of" force.
One has nothing at all to do with the other. That was the point of relevance to Dr Roz's observation about the pressure (which he gave as 100–150 mmHg, or no more than 2/11 of an atmosphere, or 2 metres of water) due to a heartbeat.
If you didn't mean to misuse one term for the other, then the simple way to proceed is to acknowledge a slip and correct it, not to bluster through as always with denials of what you've just said. Be that as it may, given that you now say you don't equate force and pressure, it's not at all clear what you did mean to say.
Look, one simple way to look at force and pressure is to take an example illustrating two opposite extremes. A very large swimming pool with just one millimetre of water in the bottom has very little pressure applied to its floor. That pressure may be measured as a millimetre of water, or expressed (roughly) as a kilogram's weight per square metre, or 9.8 Pascals (0.0098 kPa), or as as a thousandth of a Newton per square centimetre, or as .0014 pounds per square inch, or as a tenth of a millibar, or as .07 mmHg, or as one ten-thousandth of an atmosphere. (However you look at it, it's measured in units of a certain force per unit of area.) This is, by any standards, a relatively low pressure.
Now, let's, for simplicity's sake, assume that the horizontal dimensions of the pool are 100 metres in both directions. What is the total force of that water on the pool floor?
According to your own reasoning, because it is under low pressure, the pool floor must also be under a low force. But this is not so. The force on the pool floor is easily calculated in either of two ways: either multiply the mass of the water pushing on it (10 m cubed x 1000 kg / cubic metre = 10,000 kg) by the acceleration applied to it (9.8 m/s/s, the acceleration due to gravity) to obtain the force in Newtons (98,000 N), or multiply the pressure (9.8 Pa) by the area it is applied over (10,000 square metres), again giving 98,000 N.
Now, whilst a pressure of a millimetre of water is so low that it can hardly be felt, a force of 98,000 Newtons is capable of crushing a human being quick smart. Imagine the effect of trying to hold up 1000 kg; that's what we're talking about. That's the difference between pressure and force.
The human being with blood vessels under a systolic pressure of 150 mmHg is experiencing some 2000 times as much pressure as the floor of the swimming pool. It's less than a fifth of an atmosphere, but it may sound high. To equate that "high" pressure with force, though, is to ignore that the pressure exerts only the force obtained by multiplying it by the area it is exerted over. In the case of a vial (remember what this discussion is about -- succussion?) of, say, 2 square centimetres of area, the force that 150 mmHg would apply to the bottom of the vial would be equivalent to the weight of just 408 grams of water: not 408 grams succussed, but 408 grams just sitting there. Expressed in units of force, it is .408 kg * 9.8 m/s/s: no more than 4 Newtons.
To get an idea of what kind of force an actually succussed sample of water may undergo, let's make a few conservative assumptions: that the vial contains just 10 grams of water; that it strikes the "leather-bound Bible" at just 5 metres per second; that it decelerates smoothly upon striking that surface; and that such deceleration occurs over a relatively long two-hundredth of a second. Given these conservative assumptions, the deceleration is 5*200 m / s / s, or 1000 m per second squared. The force that such deceleration applies to the 10 g of water, we multiply 1000 m/s/s by 0.01 kg to get 10 Newtons.
Bear in mind that in reality succussion will likely apply significantly higher forces, because the deceleration is likely not to be very smooth or so slow and the striking arm is likely to be moving somewhat faster. A range from 10 N to 1000 N is a fairly safe bet. But, staying with 10 N, what pressure is applied over the 2 square cm of the vial's bottom? That pressure is 10N divided by 0.0002 square metres = 50,000 Pa.
So on the hand, the succussed liquid in a weakly succussed vial is under pressure of at least the very least 50,000 Pascals, given conservative assumptions, and very likely up to a million Pascals. On the other, the heartbeat places the blood under a maximum of 150 mmHg = 10,000 Pascals. As I stated when the heartbeat was posited as a succussive device obviating Hahnemann's work in devising a system to overcome the hazards of repetition in unchanged potency, the heartbeat applies a relatively low pressure and couldn't be relied upon as a potentising machine even if the medicine had not already affected the patient but had conveniently suspended its action till it had been taken into the bloodstream to be succussed according to the good doctor's directions.
Cheers --
John
I was trying to let you off the hook, actually, but since you insist:
The problem in asserting "The standard pressure used for compressors and pneumatic tool industries, you might agree is a LOT of force. It is 760mm Hg" is that you have, right here, equated ("the standard") pressure with "a LOT of" force.
One has nothing at all to do with the other. That was the point of relevance to Dr Roz's observation about the pressure (which he gave as 100–150 mmHg, or no more than 2/11 of an atmosphere, or 2 metres of water) due to a heartbeat.
If you didn't mean to misuse one term for the other, then the simple way to proceed is to acknowledge a slip and correct it, not to bluster through as always with denials of what you've just said. Be that as it may, given that you now say you don't equate force and pressure, it's not at all clear what you did mean to say.
Look, one simple way to look at force and pressure is to take an example illustrating two opposite extremes. A very large swimming pool with just one millimetre of water in the bottom has very little pressure applied to its floor. That pressure may be measured as a millimetre of water, or expressed (roughly) as a kilogram's weight per square metre, or 9.8 Pascals (0.0098 kPa), or as as a thousandth of a Newton per square centimetre, or as .0014 pounds per square inch, or as a tenth of a millibar, or as .07 mmHg, or as one ten-thousandth of an atmosphere. (However you look at it, it's measured in units of a certain force per unit of area.) This is, by any standards, a relatively low pressure.
Now, let's, for simplicity's sake, assume that the horizontal dimensions of the pool are 100 metres in both directions. What is the total force of that water on the pool floor?
According to your own reasoning, because it is under low pressure, the pool floor must also be under a low force. But this is not so. The force on the pool floor is easily calculated in either of two ways: either multiply the mass of the water pushing on it (10 m cubed x 1000 kg / cubic metre = 10,000 kg) by the acceleration applied to it (9.8 m/s/s, the acceleration due to gravity) to obtain the force in Newtons (98,000 N), or multiply the pressure (9.8 Pa) by the area it is applied over (10,000 square metres), again giving 98,000 N.
Now, whilst a pressure of a millimetre of water is so low that it can hardly be felt, a force of 98,000 Newtons is capable of crushing a human being quick smart. Imagine the effect of trying to hold up 1000 kg; that's what we're talking about. That's the difference between pressure and force.
The human being with blood vessels under a systolic pressure of 150 mmHg is experiencing some 2000 times as much pressure as the floor of the swimming pool. It's less than a fifth of an atmosphere, but it may sound high. To equate that "high" pressure with force, though, is to ignore that the pressure exerts only the force obtained by multiplying it by the area it is exerted over. In the case of a vial (remember what this discussion is about -- succussion?) of, say, 2 square centimetres of area, the force that 150 mmHg would apply to the bottom of the vial would be equivalent to the weight of just 408 grams of water: not 408 grams succussed, but 408 grams just sitting there. Expressed in units of force, it is .408 kg * 9.8 m/s/s: no more than 4 Newtons.
To get an idea of what kind of force an actually succussed sample of water may undergo, let's make a few conservative assumptions: that the vial contains just 10 grams of water; that it strikes the "leather-bound Bible" at just 5 metres per second; that it decelerates smoothly upon striking that surface; and that such deceleration occurs over a relatively long two-hundredth of a second. Given these conservative assumptions, the deceleration is 5*200 m / s / s, or 1000 m per second squared. The force that such deceleration applies to the 10 g of water, we multiply 1000 m/s/s by 0.01 kg to get 10 Newtons.
Bear in mind that in reality succussion will likely apply significantly higher forces, because the deceleration is likely not to be very smooth or so slow and the striking arm is likely to be moving somewhat faster. A range from 10 N to 1000 N is a fairly safe bet. But, staying with 10 N, what pressure is applied over the 2 square cm of the vial's bottom? That pressure is 10N divided by 0.0002 square metres = 50,000 Pa.
So on the hand, the succussed liquid in a weakly succussed vial is under pressure of at least the very least 50,000 Pascals, given conservative assumptions, and very likely up to a million Pascals. On the other, the heartbeat places the blood under a maximum of 150 mmHg = 10,000 Pascals. As I stated when the heartbeat was posited as a succussive device obviating Hahnemann's work in devising a system to overcome the hazards of repetition in unchanged potency, the heartbeat applies a relatively low pressure and couldn't be relied upon as a potentising machine even if the medicine had not already affected the patient but had conveniently suspended its action till it had been taken into the bloodstream to be succussed according to the good doctor's directions.
Cheers --
John
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: Dry Dose?
Hi, Dr Roz --
You're right; I deliberately untied the link between potentisation and dilution, but that is because the link was leading to confusion. In a nutshell, although dilution is necessary to potentise medicines by Hahnemann's methods (which ensure gentle potencies), it is not sufficient. As discussion of increasing potency had wandered onto the rather irrelevant and unhelpful territory of attempting to change potency using mere dilution and quantity, I was trying to point out that changing dilution and quantity does not change potency. Apparently you continue to disagree with this point. It's a misconception that is common enough among those unfamiliar with homoeopathy, but I'm surprised to see it persist in your good self.
The surprising fact is that sometimes what are thought to be mere ultradilutions (dilutions beyond Avogadro's number without succussion) have been known to continue to exhibit the dynamic properties of their original medicines. But the effect is weak and is undoubtedly due to a modicum of succussion in the dilution process.
Succussion of some kind, and with a sufficient degree of force, is an important, not to say vital, part of the process of increasing potency. My contentions are that the heartbeat is insufficient to be relied upon as a succussion machine, and that in any case by the time a potentised medicine reaches the arteries, if it ever does, it is far too late for us to be able to rely upon that machine to change the medicine's potency. And the truth of that is amply illustrated by the existence of the problem that Hahnemann solved in devising an easy way to increase potency from dose to dose.
Kind regards,
John
You're right; I deliberately untied the link between potentisation and dilution, but that is because the link was leading to confusion. In a nutshell, although dilution is necessary to potentise medicines by Hahnemann's methods (which ensure gentle potencies), it is not sufficient. As discussion of increasing potency had wandered onto the rather irrelevant and unhelpful territory of attempting to change potency using mere dilution and quantity, I was trying to point out that changing dilution and quantity does not change potency. Apparently you continue to disagree with this point. It's a misconception that is common enough among those unfamiliar with homoeopathy, but I'm surprised to see it persist in your good self.
The surprising fact is that sometimes what are thought to be mere ultradilutions (dilutions beyond Avogadro's number without succussion) have been known to continue to exhibit the dynamic properties of their original medicines. But the effect is weak and is undoubtedly due to a modicum of succussion in the dilution process.
Succussion of some kind, and with a sufficient degree of force, is an important, not to say vital, part of the process of increasing potency. My contentions are that the heartbeat is insufficient to be relied upon as a succussion machine, and that in any case by the time a potentised medicine reaches the arteries, if it ever does, it is far too late for us to be able to rely upon that machine to change the medicine's potency. And the truth of that is amply illustrated by the existence of the problem that Hahnemann solved in devising an easy way to increase potency from dose to dose.
Kind regards,
John
-
Irene de Villiers
- Posts: 3237
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 10:00 pm
Re: Dry Dose?
Speak for yourself - but to get unconfused, READ the books/emails/research.Hahnemann on it:-)
......Irene
REPLY TO: only
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."
......Irene
REPLY TO: only
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."
-
bluemax722
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2020 8:45 pm
Re: Dry Dose?
Hi John:
I've been following all you've said, and coming from a physics and electronics background I can see where you are coming from. Especially when you mentioned volts and amps are both needed in electricity, so it is with potency and dose are both needed in medicine. Based on what you've said "changing
dilution and quantity does not change potency", I am trying to understand that if Hahnemann mixed 1:100 in successive solutions thus changing the dilution as you say, then why does the potency go up..2C, 3C, 4C etc and not stay the original 1C? The only answer would be, assuming what you say is true, because of the succussion after each dilution, correct?
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, John Harvey wrote:
I've been following all you've said, and coming from a physics and electronics background I can see where you are coming from. Especially when you mentioned volts and amps are both needed in electricity, so it is with potency and dose are both needed in medicine. Based on what you've said "changing
dilution and quantity does not change potency", I am trying to understand that if Hahnemann mixed 1:100 in successive solutions thus changing the dilution as you say, then why does the potency go up..2C, 3C, 4C etc and not stay the original 1C? The only answer would be, assuming what you say is true, because of the succussion after each dilution, correct?
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, John Harvey wrote:
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: Dry Dose?
Hi, Blue --
Yes, succussion is a necessary step in creating that whatever-it-is that we call potency, at least potency of any significant degree. It seems, at least from anecdote, that a lot of succussion will increase potency more than a little succussion, even without a change in dilution. But there is some reason (see Colin B. Lessesl's The Infinitesimal Dose) to believe that only so much potentisation can be achieved through dynamising the one unchanging dilution; that making another dilution before succussing further will enable increase in the phenomenon.
That is a possible limit on an increase of some kind.
It's also been noticed on occasion, though, that a great deal of dynamisation of the one dilution can result in a more violent potency. This is presumably an increase of another kind. (There's an anecdote about this occurring in a Natrum mur. trituration, in Clarke's Dictionary or Kent's Lectures on Materia Medica. And Hahnemann speaks of it in a general way too, in introducing the fifty-millesimals.)
Quite what these two dimensions might be, I have little idea. But I'm confident that there are two different qualities that are enhanced in these two different ways (by dynamisation in unchanging dilution, and by limited dynamisation at each dilution).
There's very possibly a difference in potency quality between the decimal and the centesimal potencies; I can't say. Obviously there's a difference, at least for the first few potencies, in the amount of medicine in the potencies. Possibly, due to their lesser degree of dilution at each stage, the decimals are less gentle than the centesimals. But I really don't know.
Cheers --
John
Yes, succussion is a necessary step in creating that whatever-it-is that we call potency, at least potency of any significant degree. It seems, at least from anecdote, that a lot of succussion will increase potency more than a little succussion, even without a change in dilution. But there is some reason (see Colin B. Lessesl's The Infinitesimal Dose) to believe that only so much potentisation can be achieved through dynamising the one unchanging dilution; that making another dilution before succussing further will enable increase in the phenomenon.
That is a possible limit on an increase of some kind.
It's also been noticed on occasion, though, that a great deal of dynamisation of the one dilution can result in a more violent potency. This is presumably an increase of another kind. (There's an anecdote about this occurring in a Natrum mur. trituration, in Clarke's Dictionary or Kent's Lectures on Materia Medica. And Hahnemann speaks of it in a general way too, in introducing the fifty-millesimals.)
Quite what these two dimensions might be, I have little idea. But I'm confident that there are two different qualities that are enhanced in these two different ways (by dynamisation in unchanging dilution, and by limited dynamisation at each dilution).
There's very possibly a difference in potency quality between the decimal and the centesimal potencies; I can't say. Obviously there's a difference, at least for the first few potencies, in the amount of medicine in the potencies. Possibly, due to their lesser degree of dilution at each stage, the decimals are less gentle than the centesimals. But I really don't know.
Cheers --
John
-
bluemax722
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2020 8:45 pm
Re: Dry Dose?
Interesting, John. Along the same lines. It's been a while since reading Hahnemann, but if I remember correctly, potency has to do with how "deep" the medicine effects or stimulates the nerves in the part of the body or organ that has the disorder. What do you think would happen by increasing the size of the dose assuming the potency stays constant, which I guess would mean no succussion before taking each incremented dose size since succussion increases potency.
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, John Harvey wrote:
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, John Harvey wrote:
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: Dry Dose?
Hi again, Blue --
Hahnemann definitely noticed that larger doses of the same potency are more liable to induce unnecessary aggravation. Given that a particular patient responds to a second dose in unchanged potency by falling under its influence particularly strongly, I can't imagine that substituting a larger dose would particularly help.
A smaller one: conceivably.
The "vigorous stirring" that Hahnemann recommends in reducing the dose via tumblers of water presumably does a bit of both: reduces the dose of the strongly (very vigorously) potentised medicine (reducing its violence), and adds something to its potency number (but with a modicum of succussion). And for this reason it serves not only to make the medicine suitable for the very sensitive; it serves too to make the medicine suitable for repeat doses. The "higher" potency it creates is undoubtedly higher; but it's also been gentled in this dual process of dilution and relatively minor succussion.
As I mentioned earlier, merely diluting serially without intended succussion has been found (by materials scientists) to result in some potency effects, so it would seem that relatively gentle succussive impacts can have some effect in perpetuating the potency through successive solutions.
The dynamisation methods (that some manufacturers use) that depend upon merely vigorous squirting of one potency into the next solvent stage presumably have an impact that's a little stronger than purely unintentional bumps and so on; so their methods presumably result in potencies with a little more punch than that (though less than the punch of a couple of vigorous hand succussions).
Cheers --
John
Hahnemann definitely noticed that larger doses of the same potency are more liable to induce unnecessary aggravation. Given that a particular patient responds to a second dose in unchanged potency by falling under its influence particularly strongly, I can't imagine that substituting a larger dose would particularly help.
A smaller one: conceivably.The "vigorous stirring" that Hahnemann recommends in reducing the dose via tumblers of water presumably does a bit of both: reduces the dose of the strongly (very vigorously) potentised medicine (reducing its violence), and adds something to its potency number (but with a modicum of succussion). And for this reason it serves not only to make the medicine suitable for the very sensitive; it serves too to make the medicine suitable for repeat doses. The "higher" potency it creates is undoubtedly higher; but it's also been gentled in this dual process of dilution and relatively minor succussion.
As I mentioned earlier, merely diluting serially without intended succussion has been found (by materials scientists) to result in some potency effects, so it would seem that relatively gentle succussive impacts can have some effect in perpetuating the potency through successive solutions.
The dynamisation methods (that some manufacturers use) that depend upon merely vigorous squirting of one potency into the next solvent stage presumably have an impact that's a little stronger than purely unintentional bumps and so on; so their methods presumably result in potencies with a little more punch than that (though less than the punch of a couple of vigorous hand succussions).
Cheers --
John