Minutus

I have got a bit confused by this exchange - So pls let me add a few words:

Firstly the definition: from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avogadro's_number
The Avogadro constant (symbols: L, NA), also called the Avogadro number and,
in German scientific literature, sometimes also known as the Loschmidt
constant/number, is formally defined to be the number of "entities" in one
mole,[1][2] that is the number of carbon-12 atoms in 12 grams (0.012 kg) of
unbound carbon-12 in its ground state. The current best estimate of this
number is [3]: 6.02214179 +/- 0.000 000 30 x 10 to the power of 23 per
mole.
========

So if we take 12 grammes of Carbon, there will be 6.02214179 +/- 0.000 000
30 x 10 to the power of 23 atoms in it.

Let us use this as a yard stick.

It is important to note that when producing homoeopathic remedies, there are
detailed instructions and weights and measures are carefully adhered to.
But for this argument we do not need to measure a mole as you will see why.
Because even if we try to make a remedy out of hydrogen, we would use less
than 1 gramme of hydrogen, so our dilution is always going to be less than
if we started with a mole.

When we use materials to make a remedy - say Puls, then one drop (of 40%
solution) is added to 99 drops of water. = C1
so we have a dilution of less than 10 to the power of minus 2 or 1/100

(If you wanted to keep to carbon we could use Carbo Veg, we would use one
portion of the carbo veg and add it to 99 portions of sac lac to give us
1/100)

At C2, the dilution is less than 10 to the power of minus 4
At C3, the dilution is less than 10 to the power of minus 6
At C4, the dilution is less than 10 to the power of minus 8
At C5, the dilution is less than 10 to the power of minus 10
At C6, the dilution is less than 10 to the power of minus 12
At C7, the dilution is less than 10 to the power of minus 14
At C8, the dilution is less than 10 to the power of minus 16
At C9, the dilution is less than 10 to the power of minus 18
At C10, the dilution is less than 10 to the power of minus 20
At C11, the dilution is less than 10 to the power of minus 22

When you go to 12 C, the dilution is less than 10 to the power of minus 24.
So we are far past the Avogadro constant.

Do not forget that we have started with less substance than our 12 grammes
of Carbon or mole therefore the dilution is much greater than Avagadro's
constant.

This means that the probability of finding any molecules of the compound or
atoms of element is ZERO.

This is where the traditional scientist have difficulty in understanding how
such homoeopathic solutions could have curing properties. But obviously we
see the response of the patients. Also just because we cannot measure
something, it does not mean it does not exist. Before Marconi invented the
Radio it did not mean that Radio waves did not exist - of course the do and
we have been receiving them from the stars for as long as we have been on
the Earth - only till then we knew nothing about them.

Rgds
Soroush

Finrod wrote:

A yardstick for what?
It does not apply to homeopathy:-))
That is not true.
MEasurements of volume are adhered to, not weights.
Also - if you get a real definition instead of Wikipedia, you see
clearly the substance must have known atoms or molecules (or known
smaller particles) - NONE of which is known in homeopathy.
It doesn't matter - it still dopes not apply.
If you put one molecule of a substance into a bathtub of water - you can
NOT say there is none of the substance in the bathtub.
If you take out a cup of water fromt eh bathtub you can also NOT say
whether the one molecule you added is in the cup or not:-)))
Exactly.
One drop is to do with volume.
There is no such thing as weight used, nor woudl you know the molecular
weight of Pulsatilla to be able to give any estimate of particle numbers
))))
YEs but that's noting to do with Avogadro and everything to do with
"parts substance per parts solvent" as I was saying.
So stick to the description of "parts per..." and do not confuse it with
something that does not apply.
Carbo veg is not carbon:-))
You are still talking about parts - which is correct - not weights of
known molecular weight as needed for Avogadro.
No.
The avogadro constant can not be aplied here because it ONLY applies
when you know the molecular formula of the starting substanceas well as
the weight of it - and yo do not:-)

In any case - it is silly to try to use something that does not apply,
when the thing that does aqpply gives a better result:-)))

The fact remains, no matter how large the dilution - the original
sbstance did NOT go away - there is still a chance of it being in any
selection of the sybstance no matter how dilute. The chances of finding
some are a statistical issue to do with the dilution number (a known) -
not an avogadro issue to do with a known weight of a known molecular
weight starting substance (an unknown) ))
No it is not zero. It never will be.
The probablility of finding the original substance is equal to the
dilution. It's that simple.
If the dilution is 1 in a hundred - you have a 1 in a hundred chance of
finding the original substance - no more no less:-)

If the dilution is 1 in 100000000000000000000, then you have a one in
100000000000000000000 chance of finding original substance.
But the chance of finding it, however small, will ALWAYS be there.
And misapplication of Avogadro's law that, will never change that.
Only because they are thinking of chemical action when homeopathy works
by energy action.
We just need to redirect their thinking to energy instead of the carrier
of the energy.

Namaste,
Irene
--
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."

Thank you Soroush!
This is exactly the point. The use of Avogadro's constant in the discussion is in explanation of the dilution. Irene's point is that it's not applicable because we don't measure remedies in this way. This is true in reality of our use of them. But it is not true in discussion of dilution as you have aptly examplified in your message.
Truly,
Erica
Soroush wrote:
When you go to 12 C, the dilution is less than 10 to the power of minus 24.
So we are far past the Avogadro constant.

Do not forget that we have started with less substance than our 12 grammes
of Carbon or mole therefore the dilution is much greater than Avagadro's
constant.

This means that the probability of finding any molecules of the compound or
atoms of element is ZERO.

Hi Soroush,

Like you, I was interested in a definition. I checked Yasgur's and this is what I found:

"Avogadro's number (6.023 X 10 23 (the 23 is small numbers). the number of molecules contained in one mole of a substance. One molecule of a remedy substance in a mole is approximately equivalent to the 24x (12C, Q3) dilution level. In other words, mathematical calculations show that not one molecule of the original substance or material can be found in a homeopathic remedy of the 24x or 12c dilution leve. Amadeo Avogadro (1776-1856), the physicist for whom this principle was named, stated his observation in 1811. It was not officially recognized as a mathematical or physical constant until 1865 when J. Loschmidt (1821-1895) calculated the exact number which Avogadro had proposed. Loschmidt's number, which some confused with Avogadro's number, is the number of molecules in 1 cc of gas at standard temperature and pressure, 2.67 x 10 19 (19 in small numbers). It is because Loschmidt did the calculations to come up with 6.023 x 10 23 (23 is small numbers) that his name is associated with that figure."

Jay Yasgur is a licensed pharmacist, homeopathic pharmacist and author of "The Homeopathic Dictionary".

Dear Irene

It seem that you do not know how remedies are made. You may wish to study
how mother tinctures are made, and how things are triturated. Then you will
learn that things are weighed out carefully. This applies whether things
are going through the Mother Tincture process or the Tritrations method.

For example if a plant is going to be made into mother tincture, then a
sample is weighed and then dried so that it can be estimated how much water
it carries so that the correct amount of alcohol may be added to it.
I was trying explain how the Avagadro's number applies to extreme
dilutions - it seems that you have difficulties in appreciating the logic I
was trying to apply.

Firstly I did not say that you will not find any particles or molecules
after 12C - I said that the probability of you finding a molecule is ZERO.
You may find out that you are the lucky one - like the ones who take part in
a lottery - but the number 10 to the power of 24 is much greater than any
real number you may have come across.

It is not like finding something in a bath tub, it is much worse than that.
Before you get to 30C, it is like 1 drop in a volume bigger than the Earth
and you soon pass the volume of the sun and before you get to 200C the
volume would be 1 drop in the whole of the solar system. If you do not
believe me, do the mathematics.

( Remember the prize the inventor of the chess game asked for from the king?
put 1 grain of wheat in the first square and keep doubling for each square.
So you find that soon there is not enough wheat on Earth to cover the square
and you have not even got to the 64th square.

Here it is worst as we x 100 at each step!)

========

I agree that carbo veg is not 100% carbon - neither is diamond or graphite!
But it is the nearest thing that we have.

It seems that you have not understood the concept of Avagadro's number.

Let me give you another example.
For the sake of the argument, let us assume that carbo veg was pure carbon
with a mole of 12.

So to make a C1 or 1:100 tritration, I would need to add in the ratio of 12
grammes of carbon to 1188 grammes of sac lac.
We would then progress from there by taking 1 portion out the mix and add it
to 99 portion of sac lac and so on as explained before.
After 12 steps of dilution we have passed Avogadro's number.

To avoid using huge volumes and quantities of sac lac, we use a much smaller
amount of carbo veg. This means that we pass the limit much earlier.

What must be appreciated and very IMPORTANT, is the function of succussion
and Potentisation. We are not dealing with just diluted solutions - but
with energised solutions. This is where the difference comes from and again
science has no real explanation for it. But as I had explained before,
just because we do not understand how something works, it does not mean it
does not.

How many of us know how the carburettor of our car works, yet we use our car
daily.

Rgds
Soroush

leilanae@verizon.net wrote:
this is what I found:
number of molecules contained in one mole of a substance.

So far so good.

>

It definitely is a mathematical and physical constant that apples to
molecular weights (or ratios of these) of substances. That is not in
question. It's just that it does not apply to homeopathy because we do
not use molecular weights - molecular weights are unknowns in homeopathy.

We need to stop using something that does not apply:-)
Leave Avogadro's constant (with or without adjustment for accuracy since
his time) to the uses for which it is valid. That excludes homeopoathy:-)

author of "The Homeopathic Dictionary".>

But apparently not versed in physical chemistry

Namaste,
IRene
--
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."

Finrod wrote:

Thanks but I not only make remedies, I teach this, and it is not the
area where you have misunderstood.
Your misunderstanding has to do with the difference between a weight and
a molecular weight. You are thus confusing amount by weight, with amount
by particle numbers.
You have assumed they are the same. They are not. They are very
different, and that is the issue.
Homeopathy ONLY uses weights, not particle numbers as Avogadro's law
provides a way to use (and then only if one knows the molecular weight
of the substances involved.)
Yes things are weighed out carefully - that is the point. The particles
in them are not counted - they are just weighed.

If you want to talk about particles or molecules of original remedy
substance in the diluent (saclac or solvent) then you have to change
form weights to particle numbers.
THEN you can use Avogadro's law to calculate particle numbers of each to
compare, starting from molecular weight- and multiplying by actual
weight - and by Avogadro's constant.

So for example the yellowjacket remedy which I made used a known weight
of yellowjacket and I added 99 times the weight of saclac - 99 PARTS of
saclac. But Avogadro is not usable to determine anything about that
because yellowjacket and saclac of SAME "weight per part" do NOT have
the same number of units/molecules/particles as they have different
molecular weights (and yellowjacket has no known molecular weight -
which would be needed to make any Avogadro statements at all!)
What solvent to use and how much - is not related to Avogadro's number
of particles in any way either:-)
But it does not.
There is no example that can show a plant remedy for example having any
relationship whatsoever to Avogadro's number.
The only way to *determine* Avogadro's number for any amount of any
substance, involves knowing the molecular weight of that substance - in
addition to the actual weight used - and then using the molecular weight
to determine how much actual weight to use for the right PARTICLE ratio.

But we do not know molecular weight for remedies. (even if we did, it
would be different for every remedy and we'd need to redefine every
remedy accordingly!)
The point is that if you cannot know the molecular weight - then you can
not determine the particles involved using Avogadro's law - and then you
of course you can also not compare unknown particles in the remedy used
with known or unknown particles in the diluent used to make any
statements about when there is no particle left.
The lack of known molecular weight of remedies - Pulsatilla or
yellowjacket for example - makes Avogadro's law inapplicable, even if we
wanted to use it.

You can carefully weigh the Pulsatilla plant or yellowjacket all you
like - but you can not calculate the particles involved using Avogadro,
because his formula requires molecular weight.
Avogadro's law is not usable unless you know weight AND the molecular
weight.
With respect, there are no holes in my logic.
I believe you made the mistake of thinking that a known weight of
substance used to make a remedy is sufficient to calculate by Avogadro
the number of particles in the substance. It is not. You ALSO need the
molecular weight of the substance to calculate number of particles. We
do not know the molecular weight of Pulsatilla - or nearly any other
remedy either. Even where we do know the molecular weight - we do not
use it to make remedies in thagt we do not make remedies with particle
ratio of 1 in 100 - we make them with simple weight ratios of 1 in 100,
and we completely ignore how many particles are in that weight used.
Avogadro is about particles!

Hence you can not show a calculation of number of particles in say
Pulsatilla, either as a substance, or in a remedy of ANY potency or
Puls, using Avogadro - it just can not be done - it does not apply.
Whoever thought it did, was mistaken.
I realized that but with respect, again that is not strictly correct.
There is never ZERO probability of finding remedy.
There is what we can call "negligible" statistical chance of finding it
in a remedy after considerable dilution - such as 4C or higher would
provide - but the original substance is where we put it - it does not
somehow "evaporate" out of the remedy during dilution.
Even if we used only one molecule accurately weighed out, and from it
made a 30C remedy - it is still POSSIBLE that the one molecule you
started with will be in your next dose of remedy.
The chances are VERY small - negligible but not zero - specifically the
chances are 1 (probably BIG molecule) hidden in
100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 (probably
small molecules) of solution for a 30c remedy, that you get the one big
molecule in your dose.
We are in accord on that and I have yet to win the lottery:-))

More relevant to the current discussion - the Avogadro constant is no
help in telling us when the chances get small for a specific remedy.
The simple ratio of dilution factor - not particle numbers - is what
tells us the statistical chances of there being any remedy to find - and
it's perfectly elegant - there is no need to mess around with fiction
about Avogadro.
Well it depends what potency you are talking about. I used one grain of
sugar in a bathtub as my example, as even that dilution gives no
detectable change in sweetness. My mother could readily detect one grain
of sugar in a cup of tea for example however:-)

My point was that it does not need all that much dilution for the remedy
to have negligible original substance - it's why I used the "one part
per million or one part per billion" example - as those indeed are
common usage examples to denote LACK of toxicity in allopathy.
I consider that when talking to allopaths - start with what we have in
common, and parts per million or parts per billion to denote
NON-toxicity - is common:-)

Avogadro is (thankfully) not a common topic at tea parties.

Any MORE dilution that one part per billion (4C or 5C area) is only a
cherry on top kind of effect. It's already too dilute to care about
toxicity by then:-)

The false and incorrect use of "Avogadro" (in quotes as it is not
actually used, just claimed to be used) points to unnecessarily high
potencies to denote lack of toxicity! and does so with zero
applicability or accuracy! We can do better than that as homeopaths:-)
30C is certainly very dilute yes - far too dilute to worry about
original substance.
But then 5C is already too dilute to worry about it:-).

Volume of earth
= 1.0832073×10 to 12th power km3
A cubic kilometer holds 1,000,000,000,000 liters
20,000 drops are in a liter
So multiplying the three factors together the volume of earth would be
2.1664146 times 10 to 28th power drops
which is a little more than 14C
Nothing wrong with my Mathematics, thanks - we have no difference of
opinion on how dilute higher potency remedies are, just on whether
Avogadro's constant can be used to calculate it:-)))
Au contraire, *I* know it well.
))
Let's rather leave out the fiction.
I am happy to use Carbon-12 isotope to make Carbon-12 remedy in this
example.
So, making a remedy called Carbon-12, from the the molecular weight 12
isotope of carbon.
This is why you need 12 grams - because carbon-12 has molecular (or
atomic) weight of 12.
For Avogadro we need that molecular/atomic weight.

Then to be able to compare number of particles in saclac by Avogadro you
need the molecular weight of saclac.
Assuming that saclac is 50% sucrose (molecular weight 342) and 50%
lactose (molecular weight 360.32) and assuming (incorrectly but let's
pretend as they are not that different) that an average molecular weight
is acceptable to use (351.16).

Now by Avogadro's law, 12g of carbon (one mole or one mlolecular weight)
has the same number of particles as 351.16g of saclac (also one mole or
one molecular weight).
So we need to adjust any calculations about particles by that ratio when
looking at a remedy made from carbon. The ratio means 1 part carbon is
equivalent in number of particles to 29.26 parts of saclac.

So: You need 29.26 times as much saclac as carbon to get EQUAL numbers
of particles in the two substances by Avogadro's law.
If we then want 99 times as many PARTICLES of saclac as carbon - we
need 12g carbon with 34760g of saclac(29.26x12x99), and not as you have
it here:
Yes per Hahnemann. No per Avogadro.
This is why we are not using Avogadro anywhere in homeopathy.
If we were, then we'd be using 12g carbon and 34760g saclac and calling
it 1C - because THIS way, there is a ratio of actual particles
(molecules) of 1 particle of carbon to 100 particles of saclac.

In homeopathy we do not consider particles. We only look at weight, and
we are blind to the fact that a particle of carbon or saclac is a
completely different size and weight and that 12g of one is NOT the same
number of PARTICLES as 12g of another.

So thus - as you go up the scale to 30C, if you use Avogadro the error
(the difference between using Avogadro and using what homeopaths
actually do per Hahnemann) of course is multiplied.

So what YOU are doing in your example (and which is correct for
homeopathy) is NOT counting particles or molecules as Avogadro does when
making a 1 in 100 mixtures - but it it is counting weights as if every
molecule was the same size and weight - even though in actuality they
are vastly different sizes and weights in different remedies.
(Particles present are in proportion with molecular weight).

So because in any case in homeopathy - molecular weight is incalculable
- we can't use Avogadro even if we want to - which hopefully if I have
explained well enough, we do not want to pretend to do any more!

The bottom line is that you HAVE to use molecular weight to get
Avogadro's law to apply.
This couild be done IF we knew all the relevant molecular weights and
adjusted our calculations of PARTICLE dilution by the ratio of the
starting substance molecular weight to the diluent molecular weight.
But we do not know the molecular weights. And we do not adjust our
calculations to account for particles by Avogadro law, within a
substance. We use simple weights (per Hahnemann) and ignore particle
size and particle (molecular) weight (per Avogadro).
And you have to adjust the particles again at each dilution to suit
Avogadro's ratios by molecular weight.
You did not do that.
You can not say that from your remedy method as your calculations did
not use Avogadro's particle calculations. You failed to use Avogadro at
all in your calculations.
You usd only Hahnemann's method which uses simple weights - no particles.
As we all do in homeopathy:-)
This is a topic away from Avogadro - but I agree with you fully.
It's the energy that makes the medicine medicinal = not the dilution.

Namaste,
Irene
--
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."

Hi Soroush,
cut

Not really, the way I figure, but perhaps you can correct me.

Let us say we start with the C4 - after trituration

We have one drop of this to 99 drops of alcohol or warer or whatever,
I'll call it the medium. We surmise that it has an energy level of
e.0. Together with the drop of the substance we have added it is a
solution we may call (medium + remedy). We shake say 100 times and
have a certain amount e.x of the kinetic energy we applied added to
the energy level of the (medium + remedy). The energy level of the
(medium + remedy) is now e.0 + e.x.

So far so good.

Then we add 1 drop of (medium + remedy) to 99 drops of further medium
at e.0, which then has the energy level of (1 e.0 + e.x) / 99 e.0

Let me give an example from heat energy to clarify what I mean.

We have 100 ml of water at 1 degree centigrade. We heat it up to 100
degrees.

Then we mix 1 ml of the 100-degree-water with 99 ml of 1 degree water.
The resulting mixture will only be 2 degrees now.

We would need 100 steps of this kind to get water of 100 degrees.

I. e. the heat energy level at 100 steps of supplying heat energy and
diluting would be only as high as the heat energy level of the 100
ml after heating just once.

Applied to potentizing and diluting the energy level at C 103 would be
no higher than the energy level at C 5.

Wrong? Why?

Regards

Luise
--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========

Hi Luise,
What do these notations mean?
I don't think that analogy works... E.g.,
1) heat dissipates, which "the energy of the substance" apparently
does not;
2) Heat is quantifiable and additive; "the energy of the substance" is
only partially quantifiable, and does not seem to be additive (e.g.
biological effect of 24c is *not* twice that of 12c, etc.)
And also 3) the process of adding heat (adding hot water to cooler
water) does not actually *generate* more heat, but the process of
potentizing (which potentizes the single added drop right along with
the substrate, passing on to it (apparently) the *enhanced* potency,
not the original one.

Does that address your point?
Cheers,
Shannon

Dear Irene

Some homoeopaths make the explanations difficult for people to understand.

These discussions have involved some basic and simple chemistry and physics
ideas and I suggest that if people do not know they educate themselves.
The 'mole' of a complex substance can also be measured by the way is reduces
the freezing point or elevates the boiling point of water.

The orders of magnitude in the dilutions we are talking about are so great
that the differences in 'molecular weights' of different substances become
insignificant.
So in reality, although the 'mole' of Puls (if there was such a beast) would
be much greater than that of hydrogen, a couple of steps of dilution would
take care of it.
Please let us not argue about how many angels can dance on the end of a pin!

Rgds
Soroush