Minutus

I did know - that math was in my email as well.
It is not relevant how many drops one starts with, it is the ratio that matters - and 1 ml is a lot more convenient to measure accurately than one drop (which varies a lot accordig to what way the drop is taken)
It only matters to have a 1 plus 99 RATIO.

With 1 ml to 99 ml, it is much more accurate than trying to measure drops accurately.

I just do not know any homeoapth who uses a drop and makes oly 3.4 ml of 30C final product.
I've only ever done that when my starting amont was tiny, and i have quckly change to larger amounts after 1C.

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."

Although Avogadro's number is indeed relevant to homoeopathic potencies -- it is, after all, the entire point of why high potencies have a credibility problem*, and Irene and I have had this discussion before** -- Irene raises (intentionally?) a very good point: that a radioactive element bombarding water may (depending on what it is) make the water itself and the silica surrounding it radioactive, potentially increasing the number of radioactive atoms as time goes by. The removal of all the radium, therefore, does not necessarily mean that what surrounds it has not been altered in some way in the meantime.
From what I can make of the information available at >, Ra-226 will decay, by alpha and beta emissions, ultimately to stable lead, as Irene says (but Pb-206, not Pb-207). Although some of the intermediate products have half-lives as short as 1.8 seconds (polonium-215), for all of the Ra-226 to reach this state of breaking down into Pb-206 will take just short of forever.
Until then, whatever is left of the sample in the intermediate potencies is in transition and contains intermediate unstable products of that decay process: mainly radon-222, polonium-218, lead-214, bismuth-214, polonium-214, lead-210, bismuth-210, and polonium-210. (Some other isotopes of those elements, and a little astatine-218, thallium-210 and-206, and mercury-206, evidently will appear in small quantities too.) Then there are the other forms of radium -- Ra-223, Ra-224, Ra-225, and Ra-228 -- and these have other decay products again (including, in the case of Ra-223, carbon-14). The point is that all of these processes are emitting alpha and gamma (and a little beta) radiation, potentially altering the composition of the water (and silica and other contaminants) surrounding them.
This much is easy to read from the information on that site, but beyond this my powers of interpretation are severely constrained. Can any of the physicists here work out the details of the following?
In a nutshell, along the way, the radium and its series of decay products emit alpha particles, beta particles (though relatively few and, from what I’ve seen, at not particularly high energies), and gamma radiation. The alpha and gamma radiation will be particularly capable of altering certain atoms around them. The decay products themselves (as listed above) will be fairly safely eluted by 30c, but in the meantime there’s been plenty of opportunity for the alpha particles and gamma radiation in particular to affect the solvent (water) and anything it contains (silica).
Of course gamma radiation is directly dangerous to DNA, but the point is that the alpha particles may be capable of changing the composition of the water itself and of the silica particles in it by virtue of the glass.
So the chief question seems to be: what becomes of water bombarded by alpha particles (gamma radiation doesn’t particularly affect it, I think), and of silica bombarded by alpha and gamma? Anybody steeped in nuclear physics may laugh at how easily this is answered; but I can’t answer it.
Cheers --
John
* As Irene says, Avogadro’s number arose from looking at gases, and Avogadro’s Law is useful there. But Avogadro’s number is not the same as Avogadro’s Law.
The number expresses how many of a certain atom or molecule are in the amount of that substance whose mass in grams is the same as its atomic/molecular mass number, which is its mass expressed in Daltons. So there are one mole (Avogadro’s number) of Daltons in a gram, one mole of hydrogen atoms in 1.008 grams of hydrogen (with an average atomic mass of 1.008), and so on.
The relevance of the number to the question of when we run out of molecules in a liquid potency is this: the number allows us to calculate what size of container should, statistically speaking, contain exactly one atom or molecule of the starter substance -- as I demonstrate below.
** Here is how, on 16 September 2011, I explained to Irene (on the forum Homeolist, under the topic “Homeopathy in the News”) the relevance of Avogadro’s number to the question of whether particular potencies retain any of the original substance:
--------
Take the densest material you can find. If it's soluble, dissolve as much as possible in some water; if it's not, first triturate it to 3c, then dissolve as much as possible of the resultant trituration in water. Dynamise to 12c. No matter how soluble the original material was (for instance even if 25 ml of it dissolved in a single molecule of water), a teaspoonful of the resultant 12c potency will, statistically, probably not contain even a single molecule of the starting material. Now, repeat the process from the beginning, this time replacing some of original material with something else. Same result.
That's because, even though Avogadro's law refers specifically to any single molecule, the limits it places on how many times you can cut up a certain quantity of very dense matter is even lower on larger and less dense ones.
To look at this concretely: regardless of a substance's molecular size and mass, there is no way to squeeze much more than a mole of it (in its normal state; we're not creating neutron stars here!) at normal temperatures and pressures into a teaspoonful.
We may manage to fit into such a volume a reasonable fraction of a mole of a substance with a small atom that packs densely; we can squeeze into the same space only a lesser fraction of a mole of large molecules, simply because they take up more space; and any mixture of substances won't occupy any less space than the substance that takes the most space unmixed. (We could actually pack about 1.46 moles of purest diamond into a teaspoon. But after trituration to 3c and succussive dynamisation from 3c to 12c, we'd still have at most 1.46 / (10E24) moles of diamond in that teaspoon, or just under half a carbon atom; and any substance with fewer moles per teaspoonful, no matter now mixed with other substances, must also be present in lower concentrations in the teaspoonful of 12c potency!)
So Avogadro's law prescribes perfectly well the dilution limits even of unknown mixtures of unknown substances.
--------
--

“Many corporations are led by executives who do not grasp the reality that people have identities and corporations do not.”
—D. Ramonte Rawis, commenting on Whitney Johnson, “It’s time to dream for a living”,

P.S. I forgot to mention something that may help in determining the effect of this on the water etc.: that the alpha energies in the breakdown of radium-226 and its daughters seem to be confined to a maximum of 6 MeV. (I'm not suggesting that that's not a lot of energy. It's plenty.)

John
--

“Many corporations are led by executives who do not grasp the reality that people have identities and corporations do not.”
—D. Ramonte Rawis, commenting on Whitney Johnson, “It’s time to dream for a living”,

I'd like to suggest that particles/mass does not exist. There's only
organised/structured energy. Some organisations/structures are
loose/soft/open to others/malleable etc., some are strict, rather closed
characters, and there's anything in between, but none are static forever
(nothing is). All organised/structured energies, or combinations
thereof, manifest themselves in some form or other.

Hennie
Op 11-9-2013 3:37, John Harvey schreef:

You're in good company there, Hennie; some serious physicists have suggested the same thing.

But in relation to homoeopathy, it seems to me that essentially it's a claim that atoms are not atoms: that their nature persists below the level of the single atom. And it would seem to imply that all aspects of a substance -- including, for instance, its most toxic qualities -- should persist in high potencies and even in simple high dilutions. Wouldn't it? Can you expand on the idea?

Thanks --

John

I'll sleep on that, but just as a thought - a thought is some form of
organised energy (but the 'organisation' of, say, radium will not easily
be impressed by it).

Hennie

Op 11-9-2013 4:37, John Harvey schreef:

If the plutonium in the plutonium nitrate happened to be in plutonium's only naturally occurring form, Pu-244, then it’s relatively slow to decay, with a half-life apparently of 80 million years (which is why it occurs in nature). It’s still radioactive, but both it and its byproducts can easily be eluted away faster than they’re created.
But five other forms of plutonium have shorter half-lives and emit alpha and beta particles as well as gamma radiation. As with radium's alpha (and its daughters' beta) emissions, those particles too potentially can change the nature of certain other atoms.
It’s conceivable that an alpha particle might stop in the solution, float around in it, and be dynamised in the process; but it would be unlikely to have much influence in comparison with the greater numbers of other substances floating around. A beta particle, which is an electron or positron, if its energy is not sufficient to cause a nuclear change of some kind, could be captured there also, but it would simply participate (as an electron) in the general chemistry or (as a positron) eventually meet an electron and its own demise (a process that would instantaneously release some energy).
The ionising energy itself, though, is something released only at the moment of nuclear decay. It’s difficult to picture that the process of potentisation could capture that energy, any more than it could capture heat. Yes, I’m aware that we have medicines potentised from water and alcohol supposedly infused with or affected by sunlight, by moonlight, and by mobile-phone radiation. But I suspect that whatever activity they exhibit arises not from capturing those frequencies as such but either from changes they cause or from unintended contaminants -- or else from the particular energies that the water (and silica etc.) move with under the influence of those radiations. In a nutshell, the ionising radiation itself can’t be perpetuated; it’s like light. Just as Sol 30c doesn’t glow in the dark with the colour of sunlight and Luna 30c doesn’t emit moonlight, neither will Plutonium nit. 30c glow with the colour of ionising radiation.
Cheers --
John

I think it wouldn't imply that, because in homeopathy, we are not
'dealing' with the qualities/organisation/structure of any substance as
such/in its self, but with the match it has (on various levels) with
some sort of 'pattern' in patients.

Hennie

Op 11-9-2013 4:37, John Harvey schreef:

Hmm. Well, I'm not getting that it can have significance unless it means that certain qualities are entirely independent of (any) material quantity. And of course they do persist, as we know, with encouragement to do so, even having eluted the substance entirely from solution in its material form. I take it, though, that you're meaning more than this. But I am uncertain just what it is that you meant by it.

Cheers --

John

Dear Irene
What you are implying is that the original contact of Radium in the glass and water, caused the glass and that water to exhibit radioactivity.
I put it to you that the short duration would cause very little interaction between radium and the surrounding materials.

Then one drop of this taken and added to 99 drops of fresh water in a fresh glass and so on - Therefore the surrounding interaction is minimal and would go through the same dilution process.
What I am saying is that for there to be any detectable radioactivity at C60, there must be radium decay and this is the issue that throws the Avogadro's number out of the window.
Rgds

Soroush
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Irene de Villiers
Sent: 10 September 2013 15:55
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Avogadro's number and homeopathy
It does not apply to homeopathy.
That is relatively unrelated to dilution and is related to radioactivity.
It will be radoactive because it dissolves readily in water and makes the dilution water radioactive.
The radium does not keep itself to itself - it breaks down continuously into other elements (plural) plus radiation particles (multiple) - which goes in all directions. All isotopes of radium are radioactive. As they decay, they emit radiation and split to form new (and unstable) radioactive elements, plus a lot of radiation particles - then split and emit radiation again...and so on until they reach stable lead. (It is a nuclear reaction not a chemical one, and the number of particles increases greatly.)
SO you are not starting with a specific number of elements as in a normal remedy, and the starting numer of elements in the soluton for radium *grows* as the radiation occurs.
SInce radium emits gamma rays (as well as alpha ones) these go through many materials and are not easy to contain.
Plutonium emits mainly alpha radiation which does NOT go through skin unlike beta and gamma rays. I'd be more worried about the radium remedy.
BUT if plutonuim is swallowed and gets INSIDE cells, it does 1000 times the damage to DNA that gamma and beta rays do.
In what way?
Depends how you make it.

If you dilute 1 ml in 99 ml for each dilution you will need (100x30=) 3000 ml = 3 liters of water.

TO make it with only 105 ml, you would have to dilute each C potency using 0.035 ml of starting remedy (wich by the way is only 7/10 of a drop!) plus 3.4 ml water and succuss. I do not know anyione who makes 30C in such small quantities.

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."