Any homeopathic dilution can be equaled to a ratio of volumes, for instance, one drop in a liter, etc.

I have made a spreadsheet that shows those ratios given in various units of measure, up to 100C. FOr each potency, it shows the ratio of one drop (0,1ml) to a number of volumes: Liter, m2, etc, and to some more pictoral units like a swimming-pool, an ocean, etc.

Here is a short list of potencies where the volume of water to one drop (0.1 ml) is related to something in the real world:

6C = 4 Olympic class swimming-pools.
13C = 3/4 of all Earth's oceans.
16C = Sphere the size of Earth.
19C= 10 Spheres with same diameter as our Solar System
22C = 1 cubic light-year
26C = 1 Sphere with same diameter as the Milky Way

The very popular 30C equals one drop of mother tincture in nearly a hundred million galaxy-sized balls of water .

Perhaps this explains why skeptics are saying that there is no active substance in remedies.

Hans

__________________
<i>You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.</i>

Sorry, whatever you are showing is not clear. Pls simplify it.

Do yo want to say that water used in making 1ml of remedy? As per calculation it comes out to: water used per 100ml of remedy per potency; 594 ml for 6C, 2970ml for 30C, 19800 ml for 200C.

Edited: to correct the meaning.

__________________
Homeopathic & Biochemic system existed because Drs.Hahnemann & Schuessler thought differently.
Successful people don't do different things, they do things differently..S.Kh.

I say water, but it could be alcohol, of course. I show the amount of carrier used per drop of mother tincture, if you were to make the dilution in one step. The reason you do not see these amounts is because you only take a small part out and use in the next step. I don't know how you get the figures you mention, but I can tell you they are way off. Each dilution step is multiplicative, so you have:

1C = 1/100
2C = 1/10000
3C = 1/1000000
...etc.

Hans

__________________
<i>You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.</i>

Say one drop=1ml.

1C= 1ml MT+99ml water

2C= 1ml 1C+ 99ml water

3C= 1ml 2C+99ml water

And so on......

It means to prepare 100 ml 3C you just require 99+99+99=297 ml of water & for 100 ml(sorry I mentioned 1 ml now edited in previous post) 6C you furthut require 297 ml i.e. 594ml of water. What is wrong in this calculation? Why homeopaths need to prepare all rhe quantitities, they will prepare as much needed/workable?

Editted to correct typing mistake.

__________________
Homeopathic & Biochemic system existed because Drs.Hahnemann & Schuessler thought differently.
Successful people don't do different things, they do things differently..S.Kh.

There is nothing wrong with that calculation. It is just that you are calculating something quite different: You are calculating the amount of water needing to be added for the actual preparation of a given potency.

And since you throw away 99% of the dilution from each previous step, you do not need to use an ocean of water, which is exactly the reason a stepwise dilution is used for high dilution ratios, both in homeopathy and elsewhere.

I am talking about the resultant dilution RATIO, however. And for a C30 preparation, that is 1/10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000 ( there is 60 zeroes).

Hans

__________________
<i>You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.</i>

kv and hans,

kv, for 6C, you would of course need 594 ml of water, not 597 (297 for the 3C + 297 for 4C, 5C, and 6C). so this is a bit of miscalculation in simple addition, just to edit for precision here.

but hans is talking, i believe, about the ratio of original substance to end-volume of diluent (water, alcohol). sooo, the amount of water used to prepare a 6C may only be 594ml, but the ratio of MT to water is still - as hans correctly stated - on the order of 1 drop in 4 Olympic class swimming-pools, or, a ratio of 1:1000000000000.

but hans also states that "Perhaps this explains why skeptics are saying that there is no active substance in remedies." i am confused by this statement, hans, because everybody (i.e., including homeopaths, that is, not just skeptics) agrees that there is no active (molecular) substance in homeopathic remedies, at least past 12C.

hans, aren't we in agreement on this point?

the method of preparation, further, does not alter the final ratios: preparing a 13C through 13 stages of serial dilution results in a final ratio of 1:100000000000000000000000000, but one gets the same ratio by taking one drop of MT and dropping it in a vat the size of 4 olympic class swimming-pools. but there are a number of interesting differences between the "final solutions" (hmmm, what an ironic turn of phrase ):

1. in the 13C, one has used only 1287 ml of water, compared to ... well, however many ml of water there are in 4 olympic class swimming pools.

2. in the swimming pool, many molecules of the MT most definitely still exist.

it reminds me of making gravy: if you dump all the flour in the broth at once, you'll get lumpy gravy, kinda like skeptical theory-making. but if you blend the flour in a little bit at a time, being sure to mix thoroughly, you get a nice, smooth sauce. my point in this frothy little paragraph, is that one can not compare the final product only on the basis of ratio ....

i would suggest, hans, that this tired old pictogram you've dredged up out of the skeptical archives does nothing to address the question, what is the mechanism of action of homeopathic remedies, and why does it make a difference that they are prepared serially, instead of in one grand gesture. the question is adequately put, imho, by referencing the well known fact that homeopathic remedies are diluted to a point exceeding avogadro's limit. if someone doesn't know what that means, they need to look it up, but waxing eloquent about swimming pools and galaxies really adds nothing to the discussion.

bach

__________________
"The need to perform adjustments for covariates...weakens the findings." BMJ Clinical Evidence: Mental Health, (No. 11), p. 95.... It's that simple, guys: bad numbers make bad science.

hans,

actually, i suspect we also agree that there is no way to settle the dispute at this time, since:

1. we don't have - from our pov - the technology to demonstrate the accuracy of our observations, and ...

2. ... you can't, in the nature of things, prove the negative - you can only point out how unlikely it is that we are correct, based on your understanding of current science.


bach

__________________
"The need to perform adjustments for covariates...weakens the findings." BMJ Clinical Evidence: Mental Health, (No. 11), p. 95.... It's that simple, guys: bad numbers make bad science.

but hans is talking, i believe, about the ratio of original substance to end-volume of diluent (water, alcohol). sooo, the amount of water used to prepare a 6C may only be 594ml, but the ratio of MT to water is still - as hans correctly stated - on the order of 1 drop in 4 Olympic class swimming-pools, or, a ratio of 1:1000000000000.

Exactly

but hans also states that "Perhaps this explains why skeptics are saying that there is no active substance in remedies." i am confused by this statement, hans, because everybody (i.e., including homeopaths, that is, not just skeptics) agrees that there is no active (molecular) substance in homeopathic remedies, at least past 12C.

Ideally you are right. However, we have just been in touch with a contingent of Pakistani homeopaths, apparantly led by a Dr. MAS, who seemed to put a lot of emphasis in molecular content (just read "Forget about Avogadro's law" here).

And, of course, seen from the skeptical POV, these dilution ratios remain absurd as long as no mechanism for transferring an effect can be even suggested.

Finally, it opens the question of why homeopaths keep diluting past some 12C, since logically it should do to just give the stuff the appropriate number of succussions?

hans, aren't we in agreement on this point?

Yes, WE are in agreement that any effect of high potency remedies does NOT rest on molecular content.

the method of preparation, further, does not alter the final ratios: preparing a 13C through 13 stages of serial dilution results in a final ratio of 1:100000000000000000000000000, but one gets the same ratio by taking one drop of MT and dropping it in a vat the size of 4 olympic class swimming-pools. but there are a number of interesting differences between the "final solutions" (hmmm, what an ironic turn of phrase ):

1. in the 13C, one has used only 1287 ml of water, compared to ... well, however many ml of water there are in 4 olympic class swimming pools.

100000000000000000000000000, obviously .

2. in the swimming pool, many molecules of the MT most definitely still exist.

In fact, all of them exist. However, if you take a vial out of them, the probability that you get one of them in the vial is less that 1.

*snip* my point in this frothy little paragraph, is that one can not compare the final product only on the basis of ratio ....

That is true, provided you can show that something beside mere mixing happens.

*snip*the well known fact that homeopathic remedies are diluted to a point exceeding avogadro's limit. if someone doesn't know what that means, they need to look it up, but waxing eloquent about swimming pools and galaxies really adds nothing to the discussion.

Actually, I had hoped we were past this point, too, but it seems some missed out .

[/QUOTE]

Hans

__________________
<i>You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.</i>

So, you see all this is not directed at people like you, with whom the debate has stopped at a quite different point, but at others, with whom we are, unfortunately, more or less back to square one .

Hans

__________________
<i>You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.</i>

hans,

*snip* my point in this frothy little paragraph, is that one can not compare the final product only on the basis of ratio ....

That is true, provided you can show that something beside mere mixing happens.

quibble: it is true, period. the rub is, that we can not demonstrate that there is more going on than mere mixing, just as you can not demonstrate that there is not. so i would paraphrase you here, thus: "that is true, until such time as you can show that something beside mere mixing happens ... or we can prove the negative."

actually, i suspect we also agree that there is no way to settle the dispute at this time, since:

1. we don't have - from our pov - the technology to demonstrate the accuracy of our observations, and ...

No, but nothing should keep you from demonstrating the EFFECT.

well, of course, hans, this brings us back to where we left off. but now, i will be happy to demonstrate that effect, if you can supply me with staff and cash to construct my little experiment. have you seen my article in the april ezine at hpathy, btw, on proving homeopathy?

bach

__________________
"The need to perform adjustments for covariates...weakens the findings." BMJ Clinical Evidence: Mental Health, (No. 11), p. 95.... It's that simple, guys: bad numbers make bad science.