Minutus

The tricky word here is "it" as in "it" will ionize.......

There are two different "it"s ivolved.
The above link form John is not related to ionization of MOLECULES IN SOLUTION at all.
It has to do with ionization of individual ELEMENTS.

Two separate subjects.
"Ionize" is a term used in different contexts according to WHAT is to be "ionized".
When we speak of ionization of eletrtolytes, that involves inorganic molecules of at least two different atoms (like Na and Cl) joined by an ionic bond. Ionizing THAT struture IN WATER makes charged ions in water.

Jon is good at finding liks to one thing when he wants to prove another thing, and confusing the two, becasue the application of a term is to a differrent subject.
Here his link applies "ionize" to elements. That has nothig to do with dissociation of atos into ions.
there is not even a positie char ge i sight to make a balanced pair. It is just that chemists like to know what is possihble an it IS possible to chase an element from a atom, if you apply enough energy. Justbecasue the result is necessarly a charged element, they call it "oinizing" the element. They go on to see what it takews to chase away two electrons and three electroes etc.
It is nothing to do with ionic BONDS (as between Na and Cl) in WATER - which is what gets split to make ions of the kind we were talking about (like Na+ and Cl- in water, which are neutral when put together).
That is separate.
If you heat a solution, molecules in it wlll usually (not always) dissociate more readily and in greater percentage, from molecules with ionic bonds, to individual ions with the ionic bond broken (dissociated, actually).
But this is still not about elements as in Jon's non-applicable link.
Yet it was a confusion also not seeing that kicking out electrons from elements for fun, is a separate subject from ionic bonded molecules dissociating in water. Energy or no energy:-)
It is "apples and oranges confused" as they say.
Something Jon apparently specializes in doing, which some of us find very frustrating as it misleads almost the entire list population.

Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.Furryboots.info
(Info on Feline health, genetics, nutrition & homeopathy)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

Dear Soroush,
Thank you for a chance to elucidate, and in advance for a good question. But please allow me to say that because this is such a contentious subject, ad hominem aside, I first presented the literature, if you can call it that, avoiding invention. I did not originate the principles of infinite dilution, asymptote or equilibrium constants.
In regards to the properties of the solute remaining in constant concentration, here are some of the references I am drawing from:
I have yet to find a reference directly stating why or how the concentration of the solute remains constant, but I can speculate . . however, since the message has been so exhaustively caviled, at this point speculation would only serve as a coefficient, don't you think?
Perhaps someone else would care to take a turn in the boats and say why the concentration remains constant. I haven't seen their assays that show it, but I've seen ours, and it backs it up, within a sinusoidal range.
best regards,
John Benneth
In a message dated 6/23/2015 8:33:08 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, minutus@yahoogroups.com writes:
John Benneth, Homoeopath
PG Hom - London (Hons.)
http://johnbenneth.com
SKYPE: John Benneth (Portland, Oregon)
503- 819 - 7777 (USA)

I think for a start, they are using a different meaning of "concentration" than what most of us would think of.

The second definition you posted:

"An infinitely dilute solution is one where there is a sufficiently large excess of water that adding any more does not cause any further heat to be absorbed or evolved. … The hydration enthalpy is the enthalpy change when 1 mole of gaseous ions dissolve in sufficient water to give an infinitely dilute solution. Hydration enthalpies are always negative.”"

maybe suggests the alternative definition -- to do with *reactions*, not the "amount of this, for each amount of that" definition that most of us are accustomed to.

By the way - Is that why James Bond has his drinks "SHAKEN - not stirred!"?

I thought we could do with a bit of humour.
Whilst on the subject of 'shaking', there are shops in Iran that sell herbs and herbal extracts. Some years ago I went to one of these and bought two bottles of 'Mint spirit'.

(This is non-alcoholic fluid - same as rose extract etc which are used to make perfumes.)
I emptied roughly the same volume off each bottle into another container and replaced the bung in one and succussed it 10 times by banging the base on thick carpet.

I then removed the bung and compared the perfume of the two bottles.
The succussed bottle had a much stronger and slightly different perfume. This was confirmed by a friend who was with me.
Succussion is an import part of potentisation and we see its cumulative effect when using LMs or even when C potencies are plussed.
Rgds

Soroush

Hello,

Sad to say I have only had time to skim this discussion but have saved it to one side.

I have also only had time to skim this article but thought I would forward the link in case it had some relevance.

http://medcraveonline.com/IJCAM/IJCAM-01-00011.pdf

I look forward to digesting all the meaty content that has been flowing through the discussion ... just as soon as I can find time. Good work to all contributors!

Fran.

Dear Soroush,
Thanks for the comment, it got me to think (but not as hard as Irene makes me think) and kick loose something I didn't understand by Copeland that maybe I now do
COPELAND: "The authorities agree that the dissociation increases with the dilution from the most concentrated solutions up to a dilution of about one one-thousandth normal. It is safe to assume that dissociation of the simplest drug is not complete under the sixth decimal dilution."

http://www.homeowatch.org/history/copeland.html

1/1000th is a 3X, right? So does that mean that at that point most of the remaining chunks of surviving starting material have been either reduced by hydrolysis, ionized or completely diluted out? 3X is usually the minimal attenuation used therapeutically, is it not?
What I didn't understand is why Copeland doesn't just say, that by the 6X we can expect ALL the starting material of ANY solute to be completely ionized . . but (thanks to Irene) it just dawned on me that not everything ionizes at the same rate, and so this is why it's ambiguously stated. Some materials, such as organic molecules, take more energy to dissociate.
I was studying "enthalpy" to see if it was possible to articulate a link to succussion when I first came across the term "infinite dilution." When I first saw the words "infinite dilution" in an article on enthalpy in standard chemistry I got so intrigued with finding a conventional definition for a process observed by homeopaths that I bolted for that and forgot to pursue the articulation of enthalpy, or more relevant, what enthalpy has to do with infinite dilution.
1.

Would enthalpy change then be the point in dilution when solvent temperatures stabilize? We don't know what the dilution scheme is for standard chemistry's tests for infinite dilution. Perhaps Irene could enlighten us on this.
The problem I'm having with this is that, with the exception to the one definition that characterizes it to be like "science fiction," the subject is treated prosaically, when it looks to me like there is no conventional explanation for the provenance of what testing reveals to be a perpetual concentration of the solute in step dilutes.
This prosaic attitude is what sickens and angers me about "science," the arrogant inability to show any wonderment, curiosity, surprise or even recognition of an anomaly or simply the admission of the inexplicable.
What Tolstoy noted in his time I have experienced sometimes daily in the past 16 years of mine when discussing physical and biochemical assays for "homeopathic remedies", actual tests that I was told by homeopaths and skeptics alike didn't exist. Not only do they exist, there are reviews of them and a system for scoring them.
Then, in this past year, I learn that 106 years ago Royal S. Copeland, an accomplished medical doctor who led the nation in crafting the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, published what I think is an amazing explanation of the chemistry of the "homeopathic remedy" in 1909, naming four assays to confirm it.
Now, do I get any recognition for bringing this to the table? Of course not. Does anyone thank me for it? No, it's not expected, why should they thank me for something they run from and have never show any interest in except to condemn and criticize? So why do I bother presenting it, defending it? Maybe it's because of a perverse nature. Or maybe it's because I expect a little more from people.
According to the Washington Post, homeopathy is one of the two most contentious subjects in the Western world, and I think ossification of the subject as described by Tolstoy is why. Understanding the chemistry of the "homeopathic remedy" is the fulcrum of medicine, and those who refuse to accept that should drop out.
Currently the craft is limited and misguided by the misnomer of its medical materials. It's time to identify them conventionally for what they really are, and the place to start is

The Scientific Reasonableness of Homeopathy by Royal S. Copeland, A.M., M.D. http://goo.gl/q0jvtM

.
John Benneth
In a message dated 6/23/2015 12:24:21 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, minutus@yahoogroups.com writes:
John Benneth, Homoeopath
PG Hom - London (Hons.)
http://johnbenneth.com
SKYPE: John Benneth (Portland, Oregon)
503- 819 - 7777 (USA)

I think you are closer but still misunderstanding a basic aspect, which then derails your thinking process.
Your starting assumption is still false. if you fix that and then build on it, that will be a lot more effective.
You are taking "the dissociation" to mean "everything dissociates into ions"
and that is a fase assumption.

Start with:
Any ionic bond (but no covalent bond) can be disassociated to form ions,
either:
by ionic dissociation of inorganic molecules into component charged ions (eg NaCL ro Na+ and CL-), which can be recombined into their original structure;
or:
by chemical reaction of an ionic bond of an organic compound, to form new molecules which make a different substance if recombined.
(eg CH3-COOH acetic acid, has ONE ionic bond to the H atom, so it can dissociate but it needs to steal an H2O and make CH3CO- ion and H3O+ ion, it cannot make H+ ion. If you combined the ions you would NOT get acetic acid.)
No other part of the acetic acid molecule can dissociate as there is no other ionic bond.

Covalent bonds DO NOT dissociate into ions in solvents, regardless of energy added.

Start there as your basic assumption, and build on that.
I agree with you but it still needs correct assumptions as a starting place, when trying to explain the not yet explicable.
But it is not contentious.
(IMO you are far too keen on WIkipedia as a supposed source of truth and fact.)
See the video Roger posted. (It ought to be viewed daily till memorized
Just becasue they do not see it your way?
yes
not at all, I feel its use is well guided
Not really. Just ebcasue a few Big Pharma propagandists are spouting whatever fiction their peabrains can come up with, all over the planet and wiikpedia, does not make their toxic emanations valid
Why?
It only detracts from the more important fact that homepathy WORKS.
Big pharma is trying to say it does not work bercause it is not well explained. DO not buy into that propaganda!
They WANT to distract you from "THAT it works" to "HOW it works" so they can sneer at the how, instead of seeing the relevant fact that it works...like aspirin, it doesn't matter how....big pharma needs their nose rubbed into the right perspective.

Nor was aspirin explained, but nobody stopped using it (more's the pty; it accounted for nearly all the 1918 flu deaths)

Explaining homeopathy's mechanism/s is a nice to have thing for the curious minded.
It is not relevant to its use in medicine.
That is where you want to start.
So far your reasons given have begun with chemically incorrect assumptions (rationalizations perhaps, but invalid), which cannot lead anywhere worth going. Just get the basic knowns right first - (seriously, It's not that hard if you are tad less stubborn about them!@!!!)

... then you can theorize with integrity and credibility.
After all, not many others are even trying

Namaste,
Irene

--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.Furryboots.info
(Info on Feline health, genetics, nutrition & homeopathy)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

Jon,

May I ask...WHY do you so badly want organic (covalent) bonds of molecules to behave in solution as it they were inorganic (ionic) ones?
What's wrong with accepting the way organic molecules normally dissolve?
WHY do you desirre them to do "turn into ions" in solution, like electrolytes?
(They don't.... but why do you expect or want them to do that? DO you cosider one form of dissoluton superior to the other, and if so why?)

....Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.Furryboots.info
(Info on Feline health, genetics, nutrition & homeopathy)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

In a message dated 6/25/2015 6:45:05 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, minutus@yahoogroups.com writes:
I don't want to be a stenographer for the voices inside my head. Sometimes I make a few conventional inquiries before shooting my mouth off because I'm not looking for an argument, I'm looking for consensus. If I'm wrong, or if the idea is wrong, I want to be made right on it, so I stand to be corrected. So when contradicted with nothing but what appear to be hollow assertions, I go back and check definitions.
Such as the definition of electrolyte:
So by this definition, organic matter ionizes, after it dissolves.
John Benneth

You are very good at interpreting things the way you want them to be instead of the way they are.
ONLY the electrolytes are being defined here, nothing else. There is a lot else in a cell:-)
The organic molecules are NOT electrolytes and cannot ionize.
ONLY the electrolytes ionize per this def.
Again - you fall over the basic words of chemistry and your complete lack of understanding of what they refer to.

YO say yo woudl like to be put straight where yo go wrong.
This NEEDS you to learn what the difference is between atoms, element, electons, eletrolytes, etc.

....Irene

--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.Furryboots.info
(Info on Feline health, genetics, nutrition & homeopathy)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."