Homeopathic chemistry (so to speak)...

[Charlie in Dayton]

Fill me in on this one...I'm assembling some ammunition for (?) someone who only believes the science that backs her particular view, which means there's a whole lot of incomplete and out of context stuff here.

Homeopathic dilutions:
X = 10, C = 100, M = 1,000
A 5X dilution is Y/10/10/10/10/10 = Y/1,000
A 5C dilution is Y/100/100/100/100/100 = Y/1,000,000
A 5M dilution is Y/1000/1000/1000/1000/1000 = Y/1,000,000,000

Right?

So a dilution of 24X, or 12C, or 8M should get past the theoretical limit of the odds of there being no active molecule of the original substance in quantitiy Y of the diluted substance...right?

What I'm trying to do is come up with how much water total you're talking about to get a dilution below Avogadro's Number. So far, a dilution that takes it below 1.638 molecules per whatnot (meaning a dilution of at least 1*10^24) means a fluid volume of the whatnot dissolved in:
whatnot = 1 drop: 17,100,000,000,000,000,000 GALLONS, 84,800,000,000,000,000cubic yards, or 15,554,564 cubic MILES of water... ps, thanks to xouper for source info on the numbers...

Someone wanna check the math here? I gotta go home and grab the other calculator. I'm missing something with the internal calculator in Windoze -- it keeps telling me that 6.023*10^23 = 6.023*10^24. Think I can sell the IRS on that calculation?

 

[xouper]

Charlie in Dayton: Homeopathic dilutions:
X = 10, C = 100, M = 1,000
A 5X dilution is Y/10/10/10/10/10 = Y/1,000
A 5C dilution is Y/100/100/100/100/100 = Y/1,000,000
A 5M dilution is Y/1000/1000/1000/1000/1000 = Y/1,000,000,000

Right?

Not quite.

5X is 1 : 100,000

5C is 10X is 1 : 10,000,000,000

5M is 5,000C is 10,000X is 1 : (1 with ten thousand zeros after it)

So a dilution of 24X, or 12C, or 8M should get past the theoretical limit of the odds of there being no active molecule of the original substance in quantitiy Y of the diluted substance...right?

24X is 12C but that is not equal to 8M. And it depends on how much water you have (or whatever the solvent is). For example, five gallons of 24X will have 640 molecules of active ingredient in it. A dilution factor doesn't tell you how many molecules are in the solution unless you also know the quantity of solution.

What I'm trying to do is come up with how much water total you're talking about to get a dilution below Avogadro's Number.

I'm not sure what you mean by "get the dilution below Avogadro's number". Are you asking what the dilution factor is when there is one molecule of active ingredient per 6 * 10²³ molecules of water? There is no simple way to express that in homeopathic notation, but obviously it's somewhere between 23X and 24X.

One fluid ounce of water contains about 10²⁴ molecules (cite). Therefore one fluid ounce of 24X contains one molecule of active ingredient.

 

[Charlie in Dayton]

Re: Re: Homeopathic chemistry (so to speak)...

Not quite.

5X is 1 : 100,000

5C is 10X is 1 : 10,000,000,000

5M is 5,000C is 10,000X is 1 : (1 with ten thousand zeros after it)

24X is 12C but that is not equal to 8M. And it depends on how much water you have (or whatever the solvent is). For example, five gallons of 24X will have 640 molecules of active ingredient in it. A dilution factor doesn't tell you how many molecules are in the solution unless you also know the quantity of solution.

I'm not sure what you mean by "get the dilution below Avogadro's number". Are you asking what the dilution factor is when there is one molecule of active ingredient per 6 * 10²³ molecules of water? There is no simple way to express that in homeopathic notation, but obviously it's somewhere between 23X and 24X.

One fluid ounce of water contains about 10²⁴ molecules (cite). Therefore one fluid ounce of 24X contains one molecule of active ingredient.

Tolja that calculator in Windoze wasn't doing what I knew it oughtta do...

I was under the impression that the dilution factor designators followed Roman numerals: X=10, C=100, M=1000. Where'd them ten thousand zeros come from?

Yes, I was looking for the dilution factor that crosses the line from solution to pure water. From the info on your site, i sorta figgered that a 23X dilution gives 1.638 molecules per unit of what you started with (for consistency, we're using 'drops' here). At 24X dilution, that leaves .1638 molecules per drop -- which isn't possible, because that's not chemistry, it's nuclear fission. Any dilution past 23X means that the odds are against any active substance being in there (some will have it, some won't, and the math to figure the odds are a bit past me at this hour).

At that rate, my math tells me that starting with one drop of pure whatnot, by the time we get to a 24X dilution, we're talking about the equivalent of 1 drop in 15 million cubic miles or so of water (someone who's real good at math/volumes/conversion units check my math on this one).

Isn't the key to the math here to be talking in common units? One drop pure to 10 (or 100 or 1000) drops water? Have I missed something in the chemical process here, other than the title of the book ya gotta smack the test tube against?

 

[xouper]

Charlie in Dayton: I was under the impression that the dilution factor designators followed Roman numerals: X=10, C=100, M=1000. Where'd them ten thousand zeros come from?

M is defined as 1000C, not 1000X. Thus 5M = 5,000C = 10,000X. The number in front of the X is the exponent of 10.

10,000X = 1 : 10^10,000

That's where the 10,000 zeros came from.

Yes, I was looking for the dilution factor that crosses the line from solution to pure water.

There is no such thing. That's like asking how many mpg (miles per gallon) will get you from Cleveland to Detroit. The way you phrased it leads me to suspect you have a misunderstanding somewhere.

Let me take a shot at probing this and see if we can clear it up. If I say my car gets 24 miles per gallon, then is it reasonable to ask how many miles I can go? Not without also saying how many gallons I have. Likewise, it is not reasonable to ask how many molecules of ingredient are in a 24X dilution. That question is only meaningful if we are also given the number of gallons (or ounces, if you prefer).

From the info on your site, i sorta figgered that a 23X dilution gives 1.638 molecules per unit of what you started with (for consistency, we're using 'drops' here).

The way you phrased that is not correct. 23X means there's one molecule of ingredient per 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules of water. There is no "per unit" in the dilution factor.

At 24X dilution, that leaves .1638 molecules per drop

If you are talking about one fluid ounce of 24X, then no, that's not correct. Given 16 drops per cc and 30 cc per fluid ounce and one molecule of ingredient per fluid ounce at 24X, that gives 1/480 = 0.002 molecules of ingredient per drop.

-- which isn't possible, because that's not chemistry, it's nuclear fission.

Agreed.

Any dilution past 23X means that the odds are against any active substance being in there

That statement all by itself is not correct. That's not what it means at all. For example, if you have five gallons of 23X dilution, then you have 6400 molecules of ingredient in that jug. If you then dilute it one more X, you will still have 640 molecules of ingredient.

At that rate, my math tells me that starting with one drop of pure whatnot, by the time we get to a 24X dilution, we're talking about the equivalent of 1 drop in 15 million cubic miles or so of water

To verify your calculation, we want to know how many cubic miles of water is equal to 10²⁴ drops.

We begin with the conversion factor of 16 drops per cc of water.

10²⁴ drops / 16 drops per cc = 6.25 * 10²² cubic centimeters.

Given 2.54 centimeters per inch, one cubic inch is 2.54³ = 16.4 cc

6.25 * 10²² / 16.4 = 3.8 * 10²¹ cubic inches.

Given 12³ = 1728 cubic inches per cubic foot,

3.8 * 10²¹ / 1728 = 2.2 * 10¹⁸ cubic feet.

Given 5280³ = 147,197,952,000 cubic feet per cubic mile,

2.2 * 10¹⁸ / 147,197,952,000 = 15 * 10⁶ cubic miles.

So yes, I would agree that 24X is the same ratio as one drop in 15 million cubic miles of water.



Edited to fix a typo and also clarify a comment.

 

[tedly]

Just for interest

When you see those numbers, like 10x dilution repeated 200 times, it's interestiing to compare it to this result.
Number of atoms in the universe

 

[Rolfe]

Fill me in on this one...I'm assembling some ammunition for (?) someone who only believes the science that backs her particular view...

Xouper is technically correct - as the homoeopaths don't tell you what the concentration of the substance is in the mother tincture, there isn't an exact answer to the question. However, it's still generally true that anything more than 12C or 24X will be essentially solute-free for any practical purpose (the statistical probability of even one molecule being present is pretty low).

I'm intrigued by the definition of M. I once saw a homoeopath claim a miracle cure by a 1M remedy. Now in my book, that's 1 molar, or 1 mole/litre. But not from the homoeopath's point of view, obviously - though this is very confusing when the terminology is used in a scientific journal. Anyway, he also expressed the potency as an exponential, just to rub it in, I thought. His arithmetic didn't seem to me to make any sense, but if this definition of M is right, that might explain it.

Do you have any particular assertion you require dissected? I'm sure there are plenty of us here would be only too pleased to oblige.

Rolfe.

 

[xouper]

Re: Re: Homeopathic chemistry (so to speak)...

Rolfe: ... it's still generally true that anything more than 12C or 24X will be essentially solute-free for any practical purpose ...

Trick question - I have a container here that's been diluted to 26X. How many molecules of solute are there remaining (theoretically, not statistically).

 

[Rolfe]

Re: Re: Re: Homeopathic chemistry (so to speak)...

Trick question - I have a container here that's been diluted to 26X. How many molecules of solute are there remaining (theoretically, not statistically).

That is a bloody trick question, too. How big is this container?

(Do I look like I came up the Clyde on a banana boat?)

Rolfe.

 

[xouper]

Rolfe: That is a bloody trick question, too. How big is this container?

That's exactly my point. It is meaningless to talk about how many molecules are in a dilution ratio, such as 24X, without also mentioning the quantity of solution.

So when someone makes a blanket statement such as, "there are no molecules in dilutions greater than 24X," what size solution is he talking about? A cubic mile? One fluid ounce? One sugar pill? None of the above?

Even worse is when someone says there are no molecules beyond a dilution ratio of Avogadro's Number.

 

[Rolfe]

That's exactly my point. It is meaningless to talk about how many molecules are in a dilution ratio, such as 24X, without also mentioning the quantity of solution.

Of course. But from the point of view of the original enquiry, where one may reasonably assume manageable quantities of solution are implied, the usual statements are reasonable for practical purposes. Even a single molecule in (say) a 25ml bottle isn't going to make much difference.

But when people start getting tricky, we do know where the bodies are buried.

Rolfe.

 

[xouper]

Rolfe: Of course. But from the point of view of the original enquiry, where one may reasonably assume manageable quantities of solution are implied, the usual statements are reasonable for practical purposes.

Agreed. I just wanted to make sure that was clear.

Even a single molecule in (say) a 25ml bottle isn't going to make much difference.

Agreed, again.

 

[Charlie in Dayton]

Well, never let it be said that education for education's sake is a waste of time...if I'm going to point out the errors in someone else's thinking, there d*mn well better not be any in mine...

Referring to the original situation, I started out referring to a 'drop', and staying with that quantity throughout. ( 1 drop pure, diluted 10:1, one drop 10:1 diluted 10:1 = 100:1, one drop 100:1 diluted 10:1 = 1000:1, and so on.) Is there a better 'quantity' to start with that will reduce confusion? As long as there is consistency in the quantities (drops, quarts, gallons,
whatever) and the ratios (X, C, M) throughout, does it particularly matter? Isn't the concentration in the end going to be the same?

(By the way -- here's a neat little conversion program I ran across, it's FREEWARE, distribution is encouraged, I've scanned it with the latest and greatest virus scanner and spyware detector, and it's hiding here as a zipped file. It's also here on the author's homepage. In its latest incarnation, there is a conversion table for 'Concentration', and I do believe this is what we're looking for, to get to common terminology.)

According to xouper, I'm generally on the right track, in that my calcs of a 24x dilution equal one drop in 15 million cubic miles of water...apparently I need to ask the question a bit differently for clarity.

In the 'mother tincture', if the concentration is anything less than pure, isn't that going to lead to reaching Avogadro's magic number before 24x? I mean, there's a dilution or three to start in the original substance. Doesn't that need to be taken into consideration? Or do homeopathists feel that substance of diluted concentration Y is the proper start point, as opposed to the 'pure' substance?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Yes, if the master tincture is already diluted 1X, then a 24X dilution is really a 25X dilution. But I don't think the homeopaths care all that much about 24X vs. 25X vs. 28X. It all comes out in the wash, so to speak.

Hey, I asked a couple of homeopaths what they do with their medical waste and they said they flush it down the drain. Somehow I don't think they are taking it all that seriously.

~~ Paul

 

[Rolfe]

Or do homeopathists feel that substance of diluted concentration Y is the proper start point, as opposed to the 'pure' substance?

I really, really don't think they think about it that clearly. Or even at all. I'm in the middle of a long and very public argument with a few homoeopathic colleagues, and they do seem to keep saying that you have to think about things in a different way (that's in between declaring how scientifically rational and well-proven it is ). They're just not working to the concept of concentration of a solution in the way we are.

I think they just start off with "some stuff", and get diluting and succussing. I've even heard it said that it's the number of dilution steps that's important, not the dilution ratio each time, but then others will contradict that.

For all practical purposes, doing the procedure as they dictate (taking a small aliquot and diluting up to the same volume repeatedly), 12C and 24X are the limits of there being anything in there beyond a stray molecule in every squillionth bottle. It shouldn't be too hard to work out a "proof" of this. The hard bit is when your friend comes back with her erroneous calculations, and you have to spot the mistake.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Hey, I asked a couple of homeopaths what they do with their medical waste and they said they flush it down the drain. Somehow I don't think they are taking it all that seriously.

They seem to be working on the assumption that the homoeopathic product is an "energised" substance which will ONLY interact with the body of the designated patient, and then only in the desired, beneficial way.

It never does anything the homoeopath doesn't want it to do, like have adverse effects, affect someone who takes it by accident, show any effects attributable to contaminant substances in the solution, or behave as anything other than plain water once it's discarded.

They say it isn't magic. I fear this is merely a disagreement in semantics.

Rolfe.

 

[Charlie in Dayton]

They seem to be working on the assumption that the homoeopathic product is an "energised" substance which will ONLY interact with the body of the designated patient, and then only in the desired, beneficial way.

It never does anything the homoeopath doesn't want it to do, like have adverse effects, affect someone who takes it by accident, show any effects attributable to contaminant substances in the solution, or behave as anything other than plain water once it's discarded.

...but...but...but...this means that they can never be wrong!! What shall we do, what shall we do?

They say it isn't magic. I fear this is merely a disagreement in semantics.

Rolfe.

I have no fear in agreeing with you.

Are we into 'energies' and 'vibrations' and 'frequencies' that are unique to each of us, and these various poultices and infusions are somehow "tuned" to the recipient? If that's so, someone tune me to the 20 meter amateur radio band...there's a dxpedition to Outer Farblungistan coming on the air soon, and I need that country on CW...

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Hmmph. Water that is geared to individual requirements? Eh? Stop with the stupid dilution crap already, we all know it is water with more dirt in it per zillion liters than any type of active ingredient molecule.

Who cares if they know what they are talking about? It's water. Water water water. I pay one water bill already, and I'm not buying a weenie little vial of water from any quackpot when I can get a whole bath tub full at a fraction of the price.

I dump a widdle bit of salt in it, and I have seawater compared to their crap.

 

[xouper]

Charlie in Dayton: According to xouper, I'm generally on the right track, in that my calcs of a 24x dilution equal one drop in 15 million cubic miles of water...

Yes, I think you are definitely on the right track, as does Rolfe, apparently (and who is far more expert than I am about this stuff).

Referring to the original situation, I started out referring to a 'drop', and staying with that quantity throughout. ( 1 drop pure, diluted 10:1, one drop 10:1 diluted 10:1 = 100:1, one drop 100:1 diluted 10:1 = 1000:1, and so on.) Is there a better 'quantity' to start with that will reduce confusion?

I don't have a good answer for that. I prefer one fluid ounce, since that's a common retail quantity (in the U.S.). But a drop seems just as valid.

As long as there is consistency in the quantities (drops, quarts, gallons, whatever) and the ratios (X, C, M) throughout, does it particularly matter?

The dilution ratio at which there is theoretically no more molecules of solute will be different for drops, quarts, etc. For one fluid ounce (which is about 10²⁴ molecules), that dilution is anything greater than 24X. For a drop size quantity (which is about 2*10²¹ molecules), that dilution is anything greater than 21X. As Rolfe pointed out, you can use 24X for either, as a practical matter.

In the 'mother tincture', if the concentration is anything less than pure, isn't that going to lead to reaching Avogadro's magic number before 24x?

I guess I'm having a problem with using the term Avogadro's Number in that way. It's not clear to me what you mean by that. But I think Rolfe and Paul both addressed the essence of your question.

Rolfe: 12C and 24X are the limits of there being anything in there beyond a stray molecule in every squillionth bottle. It shouldn't be too hard to work out a "proof" of this.

What kind of "proof" are you asking about?

How about showing that one fluid ounce of water (a typical retail bottle) has about 10²⁴ water molecules in it? This is rather easy to do (cite). From that, a one ounce bottle of 24X will have about one molecule of solute, theoretically.

Is this what you are asking about for a "proof"? Or have I missed your point?

 

[Rolfe]

My eyes start to glaze over once dilutions get beyond the femtomole per litre (which is about the limits of what I usually analyse in my day job).

However, look at Stephen Barrett's explanation. Then for a bit more fun, Peter Bowditch is well worth a read. The rows of zeros in the lower half of the page are particularly arresting. I'm not sure he's right about the waste water volume, but he might be - like I said, I glaze over. Anyway, despite his use of words like "steal" and "dishonest", nobody seems to have successfully sued him yet.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

It's water. Water water water.

To be striclty accurate, it's not. Most of them seem to use a water/alcohol mixture for the preparation (how that squares with last year's mode-of-action theory entitled "the memory of water", I'm not at all sure.)

This bunch of fraudsters here does make a virtue out of using only water. They even managed to beat off a consumer protection lawsuit by inducing the judge to rule that it wasn't sufficient for the plaintiffs to declare that pure water wasn't medicine, if they hadn't done tests on the actual water in question.

However, a lot of what gets dispensed isn't liquid but pills. These pills are lactose (a disaccharide predominantly derived from milk). They become a homoeopathic remedy when a drop of the final dilution is placed on the pill (or I think sometimes a bottle-load of pills is briefly immersed in the dilution). Whichever, the water +/- alcohol obviously evaporates quite soon. Leaving just the lactose, and of course any molecules which might have been dissolved in the water. Except that there weren't any. But in any case, the water doesn't actually get ingested by the patient.

Now, back to the "memory of water" fairy-tale. Why did I never hear any theories about how this amazing memory these water molecules have gets transferred to the dry lactose pill? Oh, I forgot. Because it's a fairy-tale.

Which is partly why they're now into quantum entanglement as the new cutting-edge flavour-of-the-month explanation.

(Note on individualisation - the trick is to spend hours interviewing the patient about anything and everything, and then decide which remedy best "matches" not only the totality of the symptoms described, but the patient's "constitutional type". Even with animals, apparently. Some people are described as - for example - "pulsatilla types", so that shaken-up energy-imprint of windflower will probably cure almost anything they have wrong with them. And if you believe any of this, could I interest you in this very nice bridge which has recently come on the market?)

Rolfe.