Deposition on Glass Bottle Walls?
Kumar
It is observed that glass bottles & proclain jars still retain smell
taste and colour of many substances which were previously kept in
these containers & don't go for prolonged time even after through
cleaning.
Can it be possible that molecules of most of the substances kept in
such containers may be absorbed & retained by containers walls, but we
can sense only few but not the others in routine but still molecules
of all substances are still present on containers walls?
Will you please tell how it happens scientifically? Whether container
walls absorb & retain some molecules of all stored substances OR
otherwise? If so, whether molecules of stored substances can pass into
next stored items in these containers?
Best wishes.
Androcles
"Kumar" <lordsh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b1482b43-6381-4c6a...@f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
You don't smell anything unless some molecules of the substance
reach your olfactory receptors, usually airborne. Thus if an odour
is present then so is a trace of the substance. Interior surfaces
of glass can be washed, but that alone doesn't guarantee complete
removal of the substance. Fingerprints are depositions of sweat
from eccrine glands in your skin that adheres to the surface of glass
and porcelain. Fired clay that is unglazed, as may be found in
ancient amphorae, is porous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphora
Kumar
> "Kumar" <lordshiva5...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thanks.
Does it mean that molecules of previously stored substances can remain
present on walls of containers for prolonged time? Can it be common to
most substances kept in such containers? Is it due to some material/
absorbant (probably silica) composed in glass or procelain?
Igor
Glass may feel smooth, but microscopically, it's actually very rough,
pockmarked with nooks and crannies where liquid molecules can hide,
even after a what appears to be a thorough cleaning.
Uncle Al
>
> Hello,
>
> It is observed that glass bottles & proclain jars still retain smell
> taste and colour of many substances which were previously kept in
> these containers & don't go for prolonged time even after through
> cleaning.
Learn how to clean them properly. Microporosity, cracks, surface
roughness... adsorption all trap stuff. Base bath, paranha solution,
reactive plasma, ozone, ClO2, hot aqueous ammonium persulfate, hot
concetrated nitric acid, oven annealing... leave a clean surface.
CrO2/H2SO4(conc) leaves chromium on the surface.
> Can it be possible that molecules of most of the substances kept in
> such containers may be absorbed & retained by containers walls, but we
> can sense only few but not the others in routine but still molecules
> of all substances are still present on containers walls?
Learn how to clean them appropriately.
> Will you please tell how it happens scientifically? Whether container
> walls absorb & retain some molecules of all stored substances OR
> otherwise? If so, whether molecules of stored substances can pass into
> next stored items in these containers?
Learn how to clean them appropriately.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
Salmon Egg
<51113c9f-8fb2-46dc...@p33g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
Igor <thoo...@excite.com> wrote:
> Glass may feel smooth, but microscopically, it's actually very rough,
> pockmarked with nooks and crannies where liquid molecules can hide,
> even after a what appears to be a thorough cleaning.
If that indeed is the case, why does the slightest scratch on a piece of
glass tubing greatly ease snapping the tubing at that point? Why do
Prince Rupert drops reqire breakage of the surface?
Bill
--
As the years go by, dying just before having to fill out a tax return has merit.
alie...@gmail.com
> Hello,
>
> It is observed that glass bottles & proclain jars still retain smell
> taste and colour of many substances which were previously kept in
> these containers & don't go for prolonged time even after through
> cleaning.
"Thorough" to a layman does not even approach "thorough" to a
chemist. I remember a teeny bit of glass cleaning procedure lecture
from High School chemistry class. There was no lab for that though, it
involved chemicals students weren't allowed to handle.
> Can it be possible that molecules of most of the substances kept in
> such containers may be absorbed & retained by containers walls, but we
> can sense only few but not the others in routine but still molecules
> of all substances are still present on containers walls?
Not necessarily "all" or even "most"; try "some" or "many".
We "sense" molecules when they latch onto sensory nerve endings in
our nasal membranes or taste buds, or if there's a lot of them, when
they selectively block light passing through them and we see a cloud
of vapor.
If the molecules are trapped in/on the glass surface, they can't
escape to _be_ sensed, can they?
> Will you please tell how it happens scientifically? Whether container
> walls absorb & retain some molecules of all stored substances OR
> otherwise? If so, whether molecules of stored substances can pass into
> next stored items in these containers?
Look up "adsorption" and "diffusion".
Mark L. Fergerson
Cwatters
"Kumar" <lordsh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b1482b43-6381-4c6a...@f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> Hello,
>
> It is observed that glass bottles & proclain jars still retain smell
> taste and colour of many substances which were previously kept in
> these containers & don't go for prolonged time even after through
> cleaning.
Is it?
Our dish washer seems to work ok.
Salmon Egg
<7ad22f3e-77a1-49de...@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
"nu...@bid.nes" <alie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 13, 11:27�pm, Kumar <lordshiva5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > It is observed that glass bottles & proclain jars still retain smell
> > taste and colour of many substances which were previously kept in
> > these containers & don't go for prolonged time even after through
> > cleaning.
>
> "Thorough" to a layman does not even approach "thorough" to a
> chemist. I remember a teeny bit of glass cleaning procedure lecture
> from High School chemistry class. There was no lab for that though, it
> involved chemicals students weren't allowed to handle.
That depends upon the chemist. I once needed a nickel Q-switching dye
reported by IBM chemists called BDN for short. I even remember the name
Drexhage for one of them. This dye was for neodymium lasers. The trick
was to produce a photostable dye for the near infrared. IIRC, the
preparation method first published was very sketchy. The patent issued
thereafter was somewhat better.
Anyway, I went to that part of the company that had organic chemists.
They actually were able to synthesize the dye. I then had them put in
polymethyl methacrylate. I told them that they would have to keep it
very clean for use in a laser resonator. The chemist proudly showed me a
piece while bragging about its cleanliness. Just a quick look told me
that there was all kinds of debris incorporated in the plastic. Later a
friend there told me that organic synthesis, at least the way they did
it, was dirty chemistry.
The good surprise was that the WQ-switch worked!
Later on, Eastman made the dye commercially available. They also made
cellulose acetate film containing the dye. There still was a problem
putting the dye into monomers. It seems that the dye did not like the
catalysts use to polymerize PMMA.
Mark Thorson
>
> Later on, Eastman made the dye commercially available. They also made
> cellulose acetate film containing the dye. There still was a problem
> putting the dye into monomers. It seems that the dye did not like the
> catalysts use to polymerize PMMA.
Peroxide catalyst? :-)
Kumar
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thanks. Silica is composed in glass. It is good absorbany. As such,
whether molecules hide on walls due to roughness or porosity OR
absorbed by Silica? Furthur, can we consider that molecules of all
substances which were kept in bottles hide in glass walls, but we
feel only few due to our sensing capabilty?
Kumar
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
Do molecules nof go by routine water cleaning even by 50 to 100
repetiions? Whether such deposited molecules can pass to next
substance stored in same bottle?
Kumar
Thanks. Can't they escape if some heat is applied or hard shaking is
done?
Kumar
<colin.wattersNOS...@TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> wrote:
> "Kumar" <lordshiva5...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Sorry I meant regular cleaning not clinical cleaning. Molecules may
still be present microscopically but we may not be able to feel due to
our sensing range.
Kumar
> In article
> <7ad22f3e-77a1-49de-87a1-d092e499e...@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Thanks.I meant normal cleaning not clinical cleaning. Does it indicate
that molecules of all substances stored in bottles or jars can remain
present on walls for prolonged time? We may feel few but not others
due to our sensing range & type & quantity of molecules.
alie...@gmail.com
> Thanks. Can't they escape if some heat is applied or hard shaking is
> done?
Heat _is_ hard shaking. Too much and a molecule can break up rather
than be broke loose. How much is too much? Depends on the molecule.
As I said, look up "adsorption" and "diffusion".
The subject is way too complex for adequate coverage in a newsgroup.
You have an internet connection, use Google and Wikipedia to start.
Wikipedia articles can be full of crap but often have useful
references.
Mark L. Fergerson
Salmon Egg
Kumar
Thanks. In this consideration, can we get molecules of origional
substance stored in glass bottle or jars even after 25 to 100 ordinary
washing of containers by water or with soap water?
alie...@gmail.com
> On Nov 15, 10:07 am, "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 14, 7:24 pm, Kumar <lordshiva5...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Thanks. Can't they escape if some heat is applied or hard shaking is
> > > done?
>
> > Heat _is_ hard shaking. Too much and a molecule can break up rather
> > than be broke loose. How much is too much? Depends on the molecule.
>
> > As I said, look up "adsorption" and "diffusion".
>
> > The subject is way too complex for adequate coverage in a newsgroup.
>
> > You have an internet connection, use Google and Wikipedia to start.
> > Wikipedia articles can be full of crap but often have useful
> > references.
>
> substance stored in glass bottle or jars even after 25 to 100 ordinary
> washing of containers by water or with soap water?
Obviously, if the materials are not soluble in water, or adhere to
the surface more strongly than soap can pry them off.
No more answers from me until you show some evidence of having done
some research. As screwed up as it is, Google is still your friend.
Mark L. Fergerson
alie...@gmail.com
> In article
> <7ad22f3e-77a1-49de-87a1-d092e499e...@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > On Nov 13, 11:27 pm, Kumar <lordshiva5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hello,
>
> > > It is observed that glass bottles & proclain jars still retain smell
> > > taste and colour of many substances which were previously kept in
> > > these containers & don't go for prolonged time even after through
> > > cleaning.
>
> > "Thorough" to a layman does not even approach "thorough" to a
> > chemist. I remember a teeny bit of glass cleaning procedure lecture
> > from High School chemistry class. There was no lab for that though, it
> > involved chemicals students weren't allowed to handle.
>
> That depends upon the chemist.
(horror story snipped)
I graduated High School in 1970. Teacher was a hard-ass of the Uncle
Al stripe (probably partly because he had to clean all the glassware).
OTOH when I recounted the description of the manufacture of Iodoazide
in _Farnham's Freehold_, he actually made a little bit and
demonstrated one of the more fun aspects of chemistry; things that go
BANG!
Mark L. Fergerson
Kumar
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sorry lastly, In this consideration, if same container is used for
preparing different potencies of homeopathic remedies, molecular
presence of origional substance can be justified?
alie...@gmail.com
Sorry, this is a _science_ newsgroup. Homeopathy is not science.
Mark L. Fergerson
Kumar
Am I not trying to understand science of homeopthy?
alie...@gmail.com
> On Nov 15, 5:13 pm, "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Sorry, this is a _science_ newsgroup. Homeopathy is not science.
>
> Am I not trying to understand science of homeopthy?
There is no science to Homeopathy. If it were valid, all water on
the planet must be considered a totipotent preparation of dinosaur
urine.
Mark L. Fergerson
tadchem
No. Water rinsing will not touch certain contaminants, especially
greases, oils or transition metals which will adhere to the oxide
structure of the glass. Silicone stopcock grease is especially
intractable.
Boat hulls are rinsed with water continually for years, but the paint
never rinses off.
When I was working with alkali metal-ammonia solutions in vitro (IIRC,
it was in the early 80's) we cleaned with an alcohol/KOH bath, rinsed
with ethanol, then DI water, then conductivity water three times. The
slightest trace of any transition metal would catalyze reaction of the
solvent (liquid ammonia) with the solute (an alkali metal) to form an
amide, whihc would further catalyze decomposition in a chemical chain
reaction.
Other contaminants would require other cleaning protocols.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
Kumar
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thanks. Please tell me if simple washing with water or even no washing
is done but water is changed several times in same glass bottle &
shaked vigorously, molecules of stored substances will remain present
beyond Avogadro numbers or not? Actually we used one empity glass
bottle as water bottle in refrigretor in which one syrup(Roohafza) was
stored. Strong smell feel like taste also of that syrup is not going
inspite we changed and used this bottle 100 times. I think it can also
be common in perfume & other strong smelling substances stored in
bottles. Probably all or most materials may be behaving in this manner
but as they are odourless to us, we may not be able to recognise their
molecular presence but actually present. Is it ok?
Kumar
Whether all water in universe is pure? Science is always open to new
understandings so can't be absolute & final. If science of homeopathy
is known, it be endorssed as scientific. AsmMillion people felt its
effects all over the world, it leaves a duty to science people to
understand its science. Moreover there are common(routine to which we
are evolved or habituated)) & odd effects. Things with common exposure
to us may show common & unfelt effects & odd as odd(healing or toxic)
effects.
Uncle Al
5 gallon plastic bucket with a lid. Add 4 gallons of biological
denatured ethanol. Wear good rubber gloves and goggles. Pound jar
of KOH pellets. Mix with equal weight of crushed ice to make a hot
dense syrup. Pour with stirring into the ethanol. Stir some more.
That is your base bath. Cover against evaporation and CO2 entry.
Glassware gets an acetone squirt wash, water rinse, drain, then soak
overnight. Drain into bucket, wash with water, dip into 0.1 M HCl,
washed with DI water. Drain and dry. It's clean of everything except
metal oxides and such. NEVER clean graduated glassware (pipettes,
burettes; volumetric cylinders or flasks) to a base bath.
Wear heavy rubber gloves and goggles. KOH bath erodes skin and
instantly blinds.
--
Uncle Al
Kumar
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sorry, I am not asking about perfect cleaning or lab type cleaning, I
just want to know if molecules of previously stored substances in
glass bottles or procelain jars will pass on to water kept for many
times after simple washing?
Androcles
===============================================
Asked and answered. Quit whining and fuck off, you poxy troll.
*plonk*
Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated;
you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive,
unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic
subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting cheapskate free advertising
for profit, because you are a troll, simply insane or any combination
or permutation of the aforementioned reasons; any reply will go unread.
Boringly stupid is the most common cause of kill-filing, but because
this message is generic the other reasons have been included. You are
left to decide which is most applicable to you.
There is no appeal, I have despotic power over whom I will electronically
admit into my home and you do not qualify as a reasonable person I would
wish to converse with or even poke fun at. Some weirdoes are not kill-
filed, they amuse me and I retain them for their entertainment value
as I would any chicken with two heads, either one of which enables the
dumb bird to scratch dirt, step back, look down, step forward to the
same spot and repeat the process eternally.
This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing
that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry
or crackpot theories without challenge.
You have the right to free speech, I have the right not to listen. The
kill-file will be cleared annually with spring cleaning or whenever I
purchase a new computer or hard drive.
I'm fully aware that you may be so stupid as to reply, but the purpose
of this message is to encourage others to kill-file fuckwits like you.
I hope you find this explanation is satisfactory but even if you don't,
damnly my frank, I don't give a dear. Have a nice day and fuck off.
Darwin123
> Hello,
>
> It is observed that glass bottles & proclain jars still retain smell
> taste and colour of many substances which were previously kept in
> these containers & don't go for prolonged time even after through
> cleaning.
>
> such containers may be absorbed & retained by containers walls, but we
> can sense only few but not the others in routine but still molecules
> of all substances are still present on containers walls?
>
> walls absorb & retain some molecules of all stored substances OR
> otherwise? If so, whether molecules of stored substances can pass into
> next stored items in these containers?
>
I think the word is "adsorption." Molecules can stick to the top
surface of the container. Some molecules diffuse a short distance into
the container material, and fill up some defects in the material.
The molecules don't penetrate more than a couple of molecule
diameters into a nonporous substance like glass. So the substances
can't get out of the container that way, since the glass is millions
of molecules in thickness.
However, molecules that are adsorbed on a surface can unstick
later. They can contaminate substances stored in the container at a
much later date.
This is why washing containers in chemical laboratories can be
so complicated. There are several methods of doing so. Soap doesn't
remove the material. The best way to clean glassware is to use a
corrosive substance that basically destroys a layer of container wall
which is only a few hundred molecules thick. The natural diffusion out
of the glass also helps decrease the adsorbed material. So one fills
the container with water, and lets the molecules dilute out.
Glassware in chemistry laboratories has to be cleaned carefully.
Adsorption is the worse enemy of a chemist. For organic chemistry
laboratories, soap is usually good enough. Small amounts of material
aren't going to ruin a synthesis. However, analytical chemistry
requires almost absolute purity.
Cleaning glassware for analytical chemistry is as much an art as
a science. If done incorrectly, it can add to the contamination. When
I worked in a laboratory, I preferred to use nitric acid (12%
solution) to clean the laboratory. Then I would use lots of tap water
to dilute whatever material was on the newly exposed surface. I would
fill the container and spill it out at least 10 times after the acid
treatment. Then, there would be that final rinse with distilled water.
If you leave the acid in to long, the glass surface is damaged and
the molecules go really deep in the glass. Then, one has to throw the
container away. How do you know when the glass is badly damaged? Well,
fill the container with distilled water and let it soak for a day.
Then test the water for contaminates.
The properties of a surface are extremely complicated. The surface
of a material is much harder to control then the bulk. Look up
"surface chemistry" and "adsorption." You will get a million different
studies of surfaces. What you call a clean surface is what an
analytical chemist would call a quagmire.
Kumar
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hi,
Thanks for most relevant awnswer & correcting me. I assume that Silica
composed in glass(may be in porcelain also) can act as a good
adsorbent. Now to conclude, simply we can take that molecules of
previously stored material can contaminate/pass to the next solution/
water kept in same container. Best regards.
Autymn D. C.
Strawmen. Homeopathy and allotropy/memory of watter are supported in
peer-reviewed journals. Look up succussion, by the way. Google is
your friend. Owner of theproving eGroup had already applied for Randi
but latter wouldn't comply, with complaint the experiment was too
complicated.
-Aut
Helmut Wabnig
Intermixing paid advertisements with paid peer reviews
in homeopathy journals marks them as a pathological lies,
which is only one half of the truth, the other half is,
that they are all 100% liars, which makes the picture complete.
w.
Martin Brown
Never underestimate the power of the placebo effect (or its evil twin).
As for homeopathy lets see a few believers protected from malaria by it.
And we can start by testing its efficacy on some of the con-artists
selling homeopathic remedies for malaria prophylaxis.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Kumar
>
> - Show quoted text -
Does it mean million of people usuing & benefiting from homeopathy all
over the world, even from educated community, are idiots or gullible?
Why it can't be a weakness to understand its science? Are scienific
understanding absolute & final? I don't understand why people try to
put stones on the road leading to understand its science? You want to
look at molecular presence, I am trying. Don't you want it?
Kumar
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
If anyone can be cured by an healing agent with no or minimal side/
adverse/toxic effects, even no or minimum chemical, is it not still
better?
David Bostwick
[you don't have to include 3 pages every time]
>
>If anyone can be cured by an healing agent with no or minimal side/
>adverse/toxic effects, even no or minimum chemical, is it not still
>better?
Find people with real diseases. Do a blind study. Do it for a while. See
who's cured. Then come talk about it. Until the studies are done, it's all
snake oil.
Darwin123
I misunderstood the reasons for your question. Let me
embellish my little essay on washing glassware.
Repeated dilution weakens the effect of materials adsorbed on the
walls. That is why repeatedly rinsing of the container eventually
reduces the amount of contaminant to a small level. If the strength of
the contaminant increased with dilution, then rinsing the container
would not work at all. It could only make the problem worse.
Many cleaning methods involve etching away the exposed layer of
glass, exposing deeper layers that are cleaner. This then decreases
the effect of the contaminate, because there is less of it. Still, the
final step in cleaning the conainer is repeated rinsing. The effect
does NOT get stronger with repeated rinsing. There is no spectroscopic
evidence that the contaminate gets stronger with dilution. It can only
get weaker.
There is no good analog to pertussion in real science. Banging
the solution does not "potentiate" any chemical known to science. The
chemical and spectroscopic methods of determining chemical properties
weaken with dilution, even after banging.
Yes, hitting the glass causes slip defects that weaken the glass. A
crack, especially soaked in water, deepens. This crack can provide a
"pocket" for storage of material. However, the medicinal effect of a
drug in such a pocket does not increase with dilution.
Heating the glass can also force contaminate deep into the
glass. Still, one can dilute a contaminate to less than an atom per
liter. At that point, one milliliter of solution is worthless.
Electromagnetic fields don't preserve memories of molecules in
solution. Electromagnetic fields have been studied to a large degree.
Electromagnetic radiation eventually randomizes, becoming thermal
energy. There is no long term memory that strengthens with dilution.
If the beliefs of homeopaths were correct, there would be no way
to analyze chemicals. In order to analyze a substance, one needs
containers clean enough that contaminates don't matter. If
electromagnetic fields could store memory like the homeopaths
describe, there could be no precise measurements using laser
radiation. The electromagnetic fields would store a memory of what was
there before, and the experiments won't work.
Homeopathy is based on correlations of "symptoms". The studies
are based on the intuitive feelings of patients. There is no way to
correlate fractional atomic concentrations with "symptoms." Analytical
chemistry is based on precise measurements of unambiguously defined
phenomena. The effect of dilute adsorbants are constantly monitored by
experiments with controls.
All real chemists have the experiencing of repeating an experiment
with an empty container, and getting a signal. The response is to
throw the glassware out. A homoeopath ignores "blank signals," and
assumes that his glass ware is clean. He has to, since "homeopathic
remedies" are empty anyway.
I was describing the interesting problem of cleaning glass ware.
Cleaning glass ware is a science. Homeopathy is a con. Do not confuse
the noble bottle washer for a homeopathic physician. True dilution
weakens effects, it doesn't strengthen them.
alie...@gmail.com
> On Nov 16, 2:33 am, "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 15, 5:18 am, Kumar <lordshiva5...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 15, 5:13 pm, "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Sorry, this is a _science_ newsgroup. Homeopathy is not science.
>
> > > Am I not trying to understand science of homeopthy?
>
> > There is no science to Homeopathy. If it were valid, all water on
> > the planet must be considered a totipotent preparation of dinosaur
> > urine.
>
> understandings so can't be absolute & final. If science of homeopathy
There IS no "science of homeopathy". It is fraud.
> is known, it be endorssed as scientific. AsmMillion people felt its
What people "feel" is irrelevant to whether it has any curative
value for actual disease. It has not been shown to have any such.
> effects all over the world, it leaves a duty to science people to
> understand its science. Moreover there are common(routine to which we
> are evolved or habituated)) & odd effects. Things with common exposure
> to us may show common & unfelt effects & odd as odd(healing or toxic)
> effects.
I see. For you homeopathy has the status of religion; it requires no
proof, and anything that shows it to be false must be disregarded or
claimed to be "proof of conspiracy".
Since you are determined to follow this path I must assume you
intend to defraud sick people and kill them while taking their money.
Welcome to my killfile.
Mark L. Fergerson
Darwin123
principles of adsorption. Unfortunately, there is no prperty of
adsorbed substances that can explain the alleged homeopathic
phenomena.
Such a small concentration would not be stronger than a dose at
higher concentrations. The fact that a molecule has been adsorbed onto
a surface does not make it stronger.
When preparing a homeopathic remedy, one spills most of the material
down the sink. There, eventually diluted by all the water in the
world.
This would have the effect of making the homeopathic remedy
worthless. It wouldn't cure all the people in the world. Do the math.
The concentration would still be too high to cure anybody. So
basically the first person to use a homeopathic remedy ruined it for
the rest of us.
I heard some banging. There is a concept in homeopathy called
pertussion or succusion, I forgot which. If one shakes or hits the
material, that triggers the "potentiation" of the dilute substance.
Again, there is no evidence disturbing the solution in any way
changes the activity of the material. Take a molecular solution of any
organic dye, and use a laser to measure the fluorescence spectrum. The
shaking does not affect the spectrum. Nor is there any physical reason
that a molecule changes any property after being adsorbed or beaten.
Further, an electromagnetic field can't be beaten into remebering
molecular structure.
Again, if homeopathy worked then analytical chemistry would be
impossible. Once one cleaned the glass ware, then nonexistent
molecules in the solution would be "potentiated" by any vigorous
mixing process. This would make most analytical methods worthless.
However, you have brought up an interesting point. Adsorption on
glass is a real phenomenon, known to every analytical chemist.
Homopathic physicians probably don't take the extreme cleaning
procedures used by chemists. They don't use corrosive substances, for
example. This being the case, how do they dilute their "remedies?" The
adsorbed material would make the solutions too strong to be
"potentiated."
If you keep diluting something, at some point the adsorbed
material reaches a type of equilibrium where further dilution does not
work. I have personal experience with this. However, there are
spectroscopic ways to assess the damage. How do homeopathic
physicisans know their glassware is clean enough to permit
"potentiation?"
I suspect they don't know how clean their glassware is. So they
really don't know the "concentrations" of their "homeopathic remedy."
So most of these studies have to be phony.
I would love to meet a homeopathic practitioner who worked in an
analytical chemistry laboratory. The homeopathic physicians that I
meet usually don't have the patience for really cleaning glassware.
Salmon Egg
<b9201024-412d-4238...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Darwin123 <drose...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I misunderstood the reasons for your question. Let me
> embellish my little essay on washing glassware.
> Repeated dilution weakens the effect of materials adsorbed on the
> walls. That is why repeatedly rinsing of the container eventually
> reduces the amount of contaminant to a small level. If the strength of
> the contaminant increased with dilution, then rinsing the container
> would not work at all. It could only make the problem worse.
> Many cleaning methods involve etching away the exposed layer of
> glass, exposing deeper layers that are cleaner. This then decreases
> the effect of the contaminate, because there is less of it. Still, the
> final step in cleaning the conainer is repeated rinsing. The effect
> does NOT get stronger with repeated rinsing. There is no spectroscopic
> evidence that the contaminate gets stronger with dilution. It can only
> get weaker.
In many ways,cleaning glassware is analogous to pulling a vacuum. Tucked
away contominants in vacuum systems are virtual leaks.
> There is no good analog to pertussion in real science. Banging
> the solution does not "potentiate" any chemical known to science. The
> chemical and spectroscopic methods of determining chemical properties
> weaken with dilution, even after banging.
> Yes, hitting the glass causes slip defects that weaken the glass. A
> crack, especially soaked in water, deepens. This crack can provide a
> "pocket" for storage of material. However, the medicinal effect of a
> drug in such a pocket does not increase with dilution.
How does using ultrasonic cleaning fit in with your methods?
> Heating the glass can also force contaminate deep into the
> glass. Still, one can dilute a contaminate to less than an atom per
> liter. At that point, one milliliter of solution is worthless.
> Electromagnetic fields don't preserve memories of molecules in
> solution. Electromagnetic fields have been studied to a large degree.
> Electromagnetic radiation eventually randomizes, becoming thermal
> energy. There is no long term memory that strengthens with dilution.
> If the beliefs of homeopaths were correct, there would be no way
> to analyze chemicals. In order to analyze a substance, one needs
> containers clean enough that contaminates don't matter. If
> electromagnetic fields could store memory like the homeopaths
> describe, there could be no precise measurements using laser
> radiation. The electromagnetic fields would store a memory of what was
> there before, and the experiments won't work.
I once asked Richard Feynman why there are compounds with solubilities
that decrease with increasing temperature. He did not know specifically.
He did state that for low solubility material, the solubility will
always increase with temperature. The rationale is that no matter
strongly the substance binds together, if there is a large enough number
of unbound states for the solute to enter, some will.
> Homeopathy is based on correlations of "symptoms". The studies
> are based on the intuitive feelings of patients. There is no way to
> correlate fractional atomic concentrations with "symptoms." Analytical
> chemistry is based on precise measurements of unambiguously defined
> phenomena. The effect of dilute adsorbants are constantly monitored by
> experiments with controls.
> All real chemists have the experiencing of repeating an experiment
> with an empty container, and getting a signal. The response is to
> throw the glassware out. A homoeopath ignores "blank signals," and
> assumes that his glass ware is clean. He has to, since "homeopathic
> remedies" are empty anyway.
> I was describing the interesting problem of cleaning glass ware.
> Cleaning glass ware is a science. Homeopathy is a con. Do not confuse
> the noble bottle washer for a homeopathic physician. True dilution
> weakens effects, it doesn't strengthen them.
I do have something good to say about homeopathy. During the period that
brought about homeopathy, mainline physicians bled, purged, froze, and
did other nasty things to obtain a cure. During that period,it was
healthier to use ineffective homeopathic medicine than conventional
medicine. Sometimes I wonder if things are much different now.
Kumar
Thanks again. First I am not homeopath or blind homeopathic supporter
but do take some different type of remedies based on inorganic
biochemical & its low potentised potencies(12Tissue remedies) & do
feel not placebo type effects. Therefore I want to be sure about its
logic or science.
At current status I think energy passing to molecules & their memory
is non-scientific. I just feel there should molecular presence so
trying to understand it. There are theories which indicate that low
stimuli can increase physiological activities whereas higher resist
it. Hormesis is one. It is logical to think that whaterever quantity
is exposed to our neurological system it can sense & behave
accordingly. Mostly homeopathic system exposes lower odd(not normal)
quantity to neurological system then which behave accordingly(means
take it as defficient quantity). Under this consideration, it can be
possible that lower abnormal quantity promote more physiological
activities which homeopaths try to do. But we have just to justify
such lower quantity in homeopathic remedies. Low energetic quantity is
no as per current science but molecular presense, if there can
justify.
> Many cleaning methods involve etching away the exposed layer of
> glass, exposing deeper layers that are cleaner. This then decreases
> the effect of the contaminate, because there is less of it. Still, the
> final step in cleaning the conainer is repeated rinsing. The effect
> does NOT get stronger with repeated rinsing. There is no spectroscopic
> evidence that the contaminate gets stronger with dilution. It can only
> get weaker.
Weaker is better in homeopathic sense.
> There is no good analog to pertussion in real science. Banging
> the solution does not "potentiate" any chemical known to science. The
> chemical and spectroscopic methods of determining chemical properties
> weaken with dilution, even after banging.
> Yes, hitting the glass causes slip defects that weaken the glass. A
> crack, especially soaked in water, deepens. This crack can provide a
> "pocket" for storage of material. However, the medicinal effect of a
> drug in such a pocket does not increase with dilution.
> Heating the glass can also force contaminate deep into the
> glass. Still, one can dilute a contaminate to less than an atom per
> liter. At that point, one milliliter of solution is worthless.
Can banging cause some heat generation or take out some molecules from
wall of containers or to make solution uniform so that molecules stick
to all surface?
> weakens effects, it doesn't strengthen them.- Hide quoted text -
In homeopathic sense, cleaning is not the issue exept bacteria
freeness. I do feel energetic passing or memorizing it or its presence
in higher potencies can be bit doubtful unless new research confirm
it. best regards.
Kumar
Bostwick) wrote:
> In article <6189564a-6772-43b1-ac91-83717d2eb...@b25g2000prb.googlegroups.com>, Kumar <lordshiva5...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [you don't have to include 3 pages every time]
>
>
>
> >If anyone can be cured by an healing agent with no or minimal side/
> >adverse/toxic effects, even no or minimum chemical, is it not still
> >better?
>
> Find people with real diseases. Do a blind study. Do it for a while. See
> who's cured. Then come talk about it. Until the studies are done, it's all
> snake oil.
Being delicate effects. Moreover being minimal quantity & adversities,
individuality in its actions can show variations in hard studies.
These remedies are stillwith in the scope of body controlled not durg
controlled.
However many diseases, treatments & durgs can be the property of any
system & individual to those. I don't think any system if absolute,
complete & final.
Kumar
Not like that.I am not homeopath or its blind supporter. I just want
to know its science(as very much yet unclear) Reseach is an ongoing
process not yet final, so we can hope any outcome at any later date
till science is absolute, complete & final. Many things even in
medical system are still unclear but still practiced on observation
basis but not on science basis.
Kumar
> In article
> <b9201024-412d-4238-9870-b228249a4...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Sorry but it is yet to ascertain homeopathic remedies are ineffective.
Till people in mass accept & endorss its healing effects with least
advesities repeatedly ot till science is absolute & final, it become
duty of science to continue to know its science. It can just be a
weakness or miss to understand its science.
Owen Jacobson
There are people -- trained scientists, even -- spending their valuable
time and energy determining whether the practices categorized as
"homeopathy" have medical benefits. Consider (note: the following links
are to abstracts; you can read the full papers yourself, if you're
interested, but scientific journals are not in the habit of giving out
free articles):
* "Evidence of clinical efficacy of homeopathy. A meta-analysis of
clinical trials. HMRAG. Homeopathic Medicines Research Advisory Group."
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10853874>
> CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence that homeopathic treatments are
> more effective than placebo; however, the strength of this evidence is
> low because of the low methodological quality of the trials. Studies of
> high methodological quality were more likely to be negative than the
> lower quality studies. Further high quality studies are needed to
> confirm these results.
"Higher quality" studies refers only to the experimental methodology
and reproducibility. That the study found that higher-quality studies
were less likely to find statistically signifigant benefits from the
studied treatments strongly suggests that the treatments don't work.
* "Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects?
Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and
allopathy.
" <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16125589>
> INTERPRETATION: Biases are present in placebo-controlled trials of both
> homoeopathy and conventional medicine. When account was taken for these
> biases in the analysis, there was weak evidence for a specific effect
> of homoeopathic remedies, but strong evidence for specific effects of
> conventional interventions. This finding is compatible with the notion
> that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects.
This doesn't directly mean that homeopathic "cures" are only placebo
effects, but it does strongly suggest it and does mean that homeopathy
as presented in that study is no more effective than taking something
known to be totally ineffective under the belief that it will cure you.
Not exactly promising.
* "Effectiveness of a classical homeopathic treatment in atopic
eczema. A randomised placebo-controlled double-blind clinical trial"
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19887810>
> CONCLUSIONS: In this study, individualised homeopathic remedies did not
> prove to be superior to placebo in atopic dermatitis.
Lest you forget, topical eczema is one of the problems Hahnemann
developed homeopathy to treat. Under controlled study, it doesn't seem
to work any better than wishful thinking. Oops.
Claiming that we "don't understand" or "haven't studied" the science of
homeopathy is wishful thinking at best. Studies exist that use the same
methodology and criteria that would be applied to mainstream medical
developments; homeopathy time and time again fails to deliver.
-o
Kumar
>
> - Show quoted text -
DBPC studies may be weak or invalid to weak & delicate stimulis.
Individuality & delicate effects(body controlled not drug controlled)
can cause variations in strict scientific DBPC studies. Still results
are variable & inconsistent(not nil). I think visting many
homeopathic clinics can be a right idea to study in field instead in
lab. for such weak stimulis
Owen Jacobson
If homeopathy works even a little bit, there will be statistical
evidence of it, even if any given patient shows no or almost no change
from the treatment being tested. The lack of strong statistical
evidence that homeopathy works is strong statistical evidence that
homeopathy doesn't work.
Modern statistical methods have been around since somewhere between
1600 and 1800. Homeopathy has been around since roughly 1800.
Statistics has a strong track record as a tool for detecting very small
changes in outcome. Homeopathy has a track record of being
indistinguishable from the placebo effect when studied.
It is certainly possible to apply the scientific method to determine
whether homeopathic cures work. The answer has been overwhelmingly "no
better than doing nothing".
But hey - drinking more plain water is rarely a bad idea, so bottoms-up
on your 12C preparation of bee stings! Tap water's cheaper, though.
-o
Kumar
Do millions follow it without getting benefit? Govt. recognized
colleges, hospitals, institutions etc. in many countries are also
there since long back. I also experianced its effects & those don't
look like plain water effect to me. I have understandings about
dilution or minimal moleculer effect but not yet satisfied about
enegetic memory in homeopathic remedies though I think brain also
memorize energetic interactions with it eg. a reflective spectrum from
an image/photo.
David Bostwick
[...]
>
>Sorry but it is yet to ascertain homeopathic remedies are ineffective.
>Till people in mass accept & endorss its healing effects with least
>advesities repeatedly ot till science is absolute & final, it become
>duty of science to continue to know its science. It can just be a
>weakness or miss to understand its science.
You try to prove a positive. Show that homeopatic remedies are as good or
better than what's currently used, and you have a case. Do the studies, or
it's still snake oil. Your lack of knowledge about science is showing.
David Bostwick
[...]
>
>Thanks again. First I am not homeopath or blind homeopathic supporter
Bzzt. False answer. You're a True Believer who is swayed more by anecdotes
than by actual evidence, and you dismiss study results if they disagree with
your conclusions. Don't pretend you're at all scientific.
David Bostwick
[...]
>Are millions not accepting it, using it & getting benefits from it?
Yes, and snake oil peddlers have always been able to fool people, often a
large number.
>Being delicate effects. Moreover being minimal quantity & adversities,
>individuality in its actions can show variations in hard studies.
Translation: Snake oil doesn't work all of the time, but if the condition
improves, it has to be because of the snake oil.
>These remedies are stillwith in the scope of body controlled not durg
>controlled.
Translation: If the condition improves in a week, the body did it itself. If
snake oil is used and the condition improves in seven days, the snake oil did
the trick.
>However many diseases, treatments & durgs can be the property of any
>system & individual to those. I don't think any system if absolute,
>complete & final.
I don't generally use killfiles, but you win. This is not a discussion on
your part, it's just you putting your fingers into your ears and telling
everyone how good snake oil is. Your scientific language is a pretense.
Bye.
Salmon Egg
I guess I was too subtle with my praise for homeopathy. I was trying to
get across that ineffective and harmless homeopathy was a better
treatment than the very effective and dangerous treatments of
physicians. There was no antimony, mercury, or strychnine in homeopathic
remedies.
Salmon Egg
The closest thing that I know of to homeopathy that works is
vaccination. I do not know what the real amount is, but I suspect that
it takes a few femtoliters of virus to do the job. But that needs to be
there. I have not heard of homeopathic vaccines with no active antigen.
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
The placebo effect is vastly underrated.
It's only "medical ethics" that prevents its systematic use on a large
scale.
--
Dirk
http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
Martin Brown
> In article <6189564a-6772-43b1...@b25g2000prb.googlegroups.com>, Kumar <lordsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [you don't have to include 3 pages every time]
>
>> If anyone can be cured by an healing agent with no or minimal side/
>> adverse/toxic effects, even no or minimum chemical, is it not still
>> better?
It is pretty harmless when the worried well hypochondriacs waste their
money on harmless impotent junk. But far more dangerous when people who
are really ill stop taking real drugs that would save their life and
rely on mad quackery instead.
>
> Find people with real diseases. Do a blind study. Do it for a while. See
> who's cured. Then come talk about it. Until the studies are done, it's all
> snake oil.
It is still snake oil even then. The Placebo effect is powerful.
A homeopathic remedy has to be able to beat both the placebo effect with
absolutely no active ingredient whatsoever and the even more potent
irrelevant drug with some minor side effects. People can get better
spontaneously if they believe the medicine is beneficial.
Testing homeopathic practitioners and their "remedies" against malaria
mosquitoes using other homeopaths will sort the sheep from the goats.
Regards,
Martin Brown
alie...@gmail.com
> On Nov 15, 1:33 pm, "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 15, 5:18 am, Kumar <lordshiva5...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 15, 5:13 pm, "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Sorry, this is a _science_ newsgroup. Homeopathy is not science.
>
> > > Am I not trying to understand science of homeopthy?
>
> > There is no science to Homeopathy. If it were valid, all water on
> > the planet must be considered a totipotent preparation of dinosaur
> > urine.
>
> Strawmen. Homeopathy and allotropy/memory of watter are supported in
> peer-reviewed journals. Look up succussion, by the way. Google is
> your friend.
I have done far more that Google the subject(s), "Homeopathy and
allotropy/memory of watter [sic]" are fraudulent, succussion is
nonsense, you're an idiot.
Thank you for reminding me to put you in this laptop's killfile.
Mark L. Fergerson
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
> David Bostwick wrote:
>> In article
>> <6189564a-6772-43b1...@b25g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
>> Kumar <lordsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> [you don't have to include 3 pages every time]
>>
>>> If anyone can be cured by an healing agent with no or minimal side/
>>> adverse/toxic effects, even no or minimum chemical, is it not still
>>> better?
>
> It is pretty harmless when the worried well hypochondriacs waste their
> money on harmless impotent junk. But far more dangerous when people who
> are really ill stop taking real drugs that would save their life and
> rely on mad quackery instead.
>>
>> Find people with real diseases. Do a blind study. Do it for a
>> while. See who's cured. Then come talk about it. Until the studies
>> are done, it's all snake oil.
>
> It is still snake oil even then. The Placebo effect is powerful.
So powerful that homeopathic remedies are very useful.
Owen Jacobson
> <There is too much stuff to quote>
>
> I guess I was too subtle with my praise for homeopathy. I was trying to
> get across that ineffective and harmless homeopathy was a better
> treatment than the very effective and dangerous treatments of
> physicians. There was no antimony, mercury, or strychnine in homeopathic
> remedies.
No, the humour came through just fine here. I got a grin out of it, anyways
Cheers,
-o
Kumar
Bostwick) wrote:
> In article <d69ddf43-356a-4e6c-86c2-c037cda88...@h14g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, Kumar <lordshiva5...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>
>
> >Sorry but it is yet to ascertain homeopathic remedies are ineffective.
> >Till people in mass accept & endorss its healing effects with least
> >advesities repeatedly ot till science is absolute & final, it become
> >duty of science to continue to know its science. It can just be a
> >weakness or miss to understand its science.
>
> You try to prove a positive. Show that homeopatic remedies are as good or
> better than what's currently used, and you have a case. Do the studies, or
> it's still snake oil. Your lack of knowledge about science is showing.
Here, I am just trying to understand possibilty of molecular presense
of active substances beyong avogdro number as a result of adsorption.
Does these discussions justify it?
Kumar
Bostwick) wrote:
> In article <2abdcf75-ebca-44cb-b534-b33f0e109...@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com>, Kumar <lordshiva5...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>
>
> >Thanks again. First I am not homeopath or blind homeopathic supporter
>
> Bzzt. False answer. You're a True Believer who is swayed more by anecdotes
> than by actual evidence, and you dismiss study results if they disagree with
> your conclusions. Don't pretend you're at all scientific.
It is quite possible that when a person use & experiance something but
yet unclear in science, he can have curicity to understand it & to
protect himself. Is it unscientific?
Kumar
Bostwick) wrote:
Killfile can deviate people to get possibilty of new understandings.
You may opt accordingly. One example may not be valid for every
system. If placebo is so strong, can't we also get healing effects
from few durgs by placebo but side effects by durgs?
Kumar
wrote:
> David Bostwick wrote:
Still science is not absolute & final. We can expect any out-come till
then. Don't new understandings come sooner or later or old
understandings reverses? I am just trying for new understandings or
waiting. Limitations in tretments are kept by different system as per
their social status & acceptance.
Darwin123
> In article
> <b9201024-412d-4238-9870-b228249a4...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
>
chemistry courses. The answer is easily inferred from Le' Chatier's
principle. For a system that is near equilibrium, a response of the
system resists the change in the environment. Here is a quote from an
old textbook on the subject
From "Chemistry" by Clyde Dillard and David E. Goldberg
(Macmillan, 1971) page 430.
"The variation of solubility with temperature can be predicted
from the heat of solution. If DH_soln is negative, the solubility of
the solute decreases as the temperature increases; if DH_soln is
positive, the solubility increases with temperature."
In other words, if the solvation process releases heat energy,
solubility decreases with temperature. If the solvation process
absorbs energy, solubility increases with temperature.
This seem to me to be a rather obvious special case of
Le'Chatiers Principle. Near equilibrium, the change in rate constants
resists the change in the environment. Temperature increases the
available heat energy, therefore it can only speed up processes that
decrease the available heat energy.
I know Feynmann really knew his physics. You obviously caught him
on a very bad day.
> He did state that for low solubility material, the solubility will
> always increase with temperature. The rationale is that no matter
> strongly the substance binds together, if there is a large enough number
> of unbound states for the solute to enter, some will.
conclusion here. He did not state what temperature has to do with the
number of unbound states, or what low solubility has to do with the
number of unbound states.
I think what is missing here is the assumption that low
solubility materials always have a positive heat of solvation. In
other words, it takes energy to break the bonds between molecules if
the molecules have strong bonds. Again, this sounds a little too mushy
for any scientist, let alone Feynmann. However, maybe he forgot his
high school chemistry.
Kumar
>
> - Show quoted text -
It is an approved/encouraged system in many countries. Regular
(medical system like) studies are there. Many hospitals allow its
practicing. It has mass presence even in educated people. Even some
doctors try alike they try gem/spritual therapy. But the prblem with
this system is that its higher potencies don't justify either
energetic or molecular presence(though homeopaths claim to have
energetic presence in higher potencies but it is beyond scientific
understandings as yet). I think it is the only alternative system
where stimuli in its healing agent can be seen in science, so it is
much suspicious, confusing or contradictory. If memory of such
presence is proved then things become quite easy to justyfy its
physiological effects due to low concentration(weak stimuli can
increase physiological activities whereas strong can resist). Sparks
of light can be more attentive & remembering than sunlight though
sunlight is mass quantity than spark light. Likewise, if you see a dot
on your computer screen you need more concentration(physiological
activity) than when you see whole screen. Try & tell? Regards.
Darwin123
can explain why a molecule is in a solvent stored in a container that
has had those molecules before. However, adsorption does not change
the properties of the molecule. If the molecule could be detected by
spectroscopic techniques like fluorescence, it will still be
detectable after coming off the surface.
The dilution process used in homeopathy supposedly decreases the
concentration of the remedy. Homeopathic practioners actually quote
low concentrations that they can't possible measure. In order to
provide these numbers, they have to assume there is no adsorption in
the glass.
If there has been adsorption in the glass, then the numbers they
quote are wrong. They are actually giving their patients
nonhomeopathic concentrations of the remedies. If the remedies are
effective in high concentrations, then I suppose it could explain why
a positive correlation is found. However, the remedy is then
technically not homeopathic.
As an example, consider sulphur. Now, sulphur is a well known
antibiotic used before penicillin. Sulfur can have a bad effect on the
patient at high concentrations. Homeopathic tables indicate that
sulphur stops infection even at high concentrations. However, the
homeopathic belief is that sulphur is effective at less than an atom
per liter. If sulphur is adsorbing to the surface, I can well believe
that high dilutions don't decrease the effectiveness in sulfur.
However, this merely means that the high dilution was completely
unnecessary. What the homeopathic physician is giving their patient is
an antibiotic, sulfur. He is misrepresenting his product.
This is a perfect example of two mistakes countering each other:
wrong concentration assessment with a wrong concentration table.
> Does these discussions justify it?
Darwin123
>& to
> protect himself. Is it unscientific?
understand it, you can not assume that you are protecting yourself.
You may be hurting yourself.
"Curiosity" and "protecting oneself" are logical opposites.
Curiosity means examining something, the good as well as the bad. When
you said "protect oneself," you indicated that you don't really have
any curiosity about it. You think you know. This is unscientific. Let
me give you an example of the sort of quetions you would ask if you
were really curious.
Is there any way to use homeopathy as a weapon? Are there any
substances that can become more harmful by subAvogrado level
dilution, ways to kill people on less than a molecule per megaliter?
There seems to be this assumption that homeopathic techniques can
NEVER harm a person.
I am very curious about offers that has no risks and no costs.
Like, how come the there is no poison that gets stronger with
dilution? Of course, given the assumptions of homeopathy, we would
have to start with something good. A green vegetable that tastes good
and is healthy. The symptom of this green vegetable is being healthy.
Dilute it to less than one molecule per megaliter. Beat it mercilessly
to "potentiate" it.
Wouldn't this green vegetable, which is healthy in large
concentrations, become a deadly poison at "homeopathic"
concentrations? Why or why not? Use your curiosity.
Kumar
>
> - Show quoted text -
First, I think it is very clear now that molecular presence beyond
avogdro nimber of active substances can be possible in higher
potencies provided same container is used for preparing higher sub-
avogdro potencies. Ok?
2nd, we can get odd effects--healing or toxic by odd quality and
quantity exposed to us. Normal or natural exposures can just be
passing effects or food effect to which we are already evolved or
become habituated, resistant or developed tolerance eg. sunlight as
compared to spark of light. Logically, odd can be on both side,
concentrated or diluted which can bring odd effects. In one
understanding(I think hormesis) weak stimuli can cause enhanced
physiological activities. We do have to apply more concentration
(physiological activity) for looking at a dot than whole screen. I
think brain memory is enegetic or sub-molecular. It it true that
homeopaths do claim both diluted molecular effects in lower potencies
whereas energetic effects in higher potencies. But I think real
interactions with our neurological system it energetic which energy is
released from any molecule. If dilutions to few molecular level can
signal weak stimuli or defficiency to our neurological system, & cause
physiological activities accordingly, we can't say it is non
homeopathic. The main purpose is to get healing effect by least side
effects. If homeopathic can bring such effects, it can still be said
as homeopathic property. I think it is the quantity, which can either
be odd or normal to us giving odd or normal effects.
Btw, I also want to know, due to dilution effect, can there be
differance in exposure as individual molecule or comlexed molecule
structure to us? I mean can we get individual or lesser adhered
molecules exposure to us after application? Vehicle in remedies may
cause as a medium to such seprating impact.
Salmon Egg
<5298dd2a-fb45-48ec...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Darwin123 <drose...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I once asked Richard Feynman why there are compounds with solubilities
> > that decrease with increasing temperature. He did not know specifically.
> I am very surprised, since the answer is taught in high school
> chemistry courses. The answer is easily inferred from Le' Chatier's
> principle. For a system that is near equilibrium, a response of the
> system resists the change in the environment. Here is a quote from an
> old textbook on the subject
> From "Chemistry" by Clyde Dillard and David E. Goldberg
> (Macmillan, 1971) page 430.
> "The variation of solubility with temperature can be predicted
> from the heat of solution. If DH_soln is negative, the solubility of
> the solute decreases as the temperature increases; if DH_soln is
> positive, the solubility increases with temperature."
> In other words, if the solvation process releases heat energy,
> solubility decreases with temperature. If the solvation process
> absorbs energy, solubility increases with temperature.
> This seem to me to be a rather obvious special case of
> Le'Chatiers Principle. Near equilibrium, the change in rate constants
> resists the change in the environment. Temperature increases the
> available heat energy, therefore it can only speed up processes that
> decrease the available heat energy.
I do not find this argument useful. I presume that DH_soln is a change
in enthalpy. What determines the sign of such a change in concentrated
solutions? In a nutshell, what is the physics of a reduction of
solubility of some calcium salts as you heat up the water solvent? The
DH_soln is just another way of quantifying the same fact,
> I know Feynmann really knew his physics. You obviously caught him
> on a very bad day.
> > He did state that for low solubility material, the solubility will
> > always increase with temperature. The rationale is that no matter
> > strongly the substance binds together, if there is a large enough number
> > of unbound states for the solute to enter, some will.
> I don't see the logical connection between the argument and the
> conclusion here. He did not state what temperature has to do with the
> number of unbound states, or what low solubility has to do with the
> number of unbound states.
> I think what is missing here is the assumption that low
> solubility materials always have a positive heat of solvation. In
> other words, it takes energy to break the bonds between molecules if
> the molecules have strong bonds. Again, this sounds a little too mushy
> for any scientist, let alone Feynmann. However, maybe he forgot his
> high school chemistry.
The basis arises from statistical mechanics. At a temperature the
probability of a particle having an energy E is proportional to
exp(-E/kT). Thus, the relative probability decreases in an exponential
way with energy. For negative energies corresponding to a binding energy
the probability becomes large for the same reason.
Consider a container containing some water vapor. At low temperatures,
it becomes highly probable that a water molecule will bind to an ice
crystal. But there still is some some probability for a water molecule
isolated from any ice. Not only that, but a sufficiently large container
will offer many more states for water vapor than the ice surface does.
If large enough, all the ice will sublime into vapor even at a low
temperature.
The same idea is applicable to solute and solvent. Slightly soluble
substances will have large binding energies. Nevertheless, a large
volume of solvent can offer many states to be populated by solute. If
large enough volume, the exponential Boltzmann probability can be
overcome. For the corresponding dilute solutions how any interactions
will upset the Boltzmann distribution.
Salmon Egg
<c1f5df14-c88a-4fe0...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
Darwin123 <drose...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I am very curious about offers that has no risks and no costs.
> Like, how come the there is no poison that gets stronger with
> dilution? Of course, given the assumptions of homeopathy, we would
> have to start with something good. A green vegetable that tastes good
> and is healthy. The symptom of this green vegetable is being healthy.
> Dilute it to less than one molecule per megaliter. Beat it mercilessly
> to "potentiate" it.
>
There certainly is! Dilute the air so that there is no oxygen. You do
not need to use poison gas--just plain nitrogen will do.
Darwin123
>
>
>
> Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > I once asked Richard Feynman why there are compounds with solubilities
> > > that decrease with increasing temperature. He did not know specifically.
> > (Macmillan, 1971) page 430.
> > "The variation of solubility with temperature can be predicted
> > from the heat of solution. If DH_soln is negative, the solubility of
> > the solute decreases as the temperature increases; if DH_soln is
> > positive, the solubility increases with temperature."
>
why you needed an explanation of the solubility-temperature
relationship. Therefore, I can't really know what type of explanation
could be useful to you. I can only tell that Feynmann really was off
his game that day.
>I presume that DH_soln is a change
> in enthalpy. What determines the sign of such a change in concentrated
> solutions?
one which is intuitively satisfying, is pretty evident from the
theory..
In introductory chemistry, we learn about chemical bonds. By
chemical bonds, I refer to covalent, ionic, and dipole forces. Bonds
provide the force that hold molecules and atoms together. The breaking
of a bond takes a work (force integrated over distance), so energy is
required to break a bond. When a bond forms, the molecule is doing
work (force integrated over distance) so energy is released. The
change in enthalpy is determined by the difference of energy being
released and energy required to break the bonds. The sign is negative
when there is more energy released than required to break bonds. The
sign is positive when there is more energy required to break bonds
than is released.
If more energy is released than required to break a bond, the
energy released will break the bonds even without an increase in
temperature. In fact, the energy in the environment is more likely to
force the molecules together so a bond is formed. So higher
temperature temperature lowers solubility if the enthalpy is negative.
Precipitation of a salt means more bonds are forming between salt
atoms than between solute and water molecules. Dissolving means the
bonds between salt atoms are breaking and more bonds are forming with
water molecules.
This representation glosses over details. Actually predicting how
the energy of bonds forming and breaking from first principles is way
hard. Therefore, enthalpies are usually measured rather than
calculated from principles. However, I suspect your purpose for asking
has noting to do with first principles. I conjecture that you want to
a visual picture that you can relate to forces between atoms. On this
level, introductory chemistry is sufficient.
>In a nutshell, what is the physics of a reduction of
> solubility of some calcium salts as you heat up the water solvent? The
> DH_soln is just another way of quantifying the same fact,
talking about. I do not have an article describing this specific
process in the detail I am talking about. I am placing what I read in
chemistry texts in my own words. However, I don't think I am making
any of this up. What I describe is pretty implicate in the description
given by chemistry texts.
The ionic bonds between calcium and the carbonate radical are
very strong. There is a strong and long range force between the
calcium and the carbonate. Basically, what holds the calcium and the
carbonate together is an electrostatic attraction between monopole
charges. However, there is a weak and short range force between the
ions of the salt and water molecules. The water molecules form
electric dipoles, which provide short range forces. At high
concentrations, the salt molecules are close enough together so the
long range forces between ions are overcome by the short range forces
of the water molecules. So ions stick together and the salt
precipitates.
Let that salt crystal grow out from the solution. Now raise the
temperature. The water molecules and the salt ions are moving around
faster. The water molecule hits a salt ion in the crystal. Enough
force is provided to move the ion slightly away from the rest of the
crystal. Now, water molecules have more surface to pull at the ion. So
the ion stays in solution.
See. All forces, and a pretty clear picture. I haven't done any
calculations based on the picture, but as an intuitive picture it
isn't bad. Maybe Feynmann was too busy to spell it out.
The DH_soln is not a different way to quantify the same fact since
DH_soln is measured separately from solubility. The heat of solvation
can be measured separately from the solubility. Tables exist
solubility on one side and enthalpy on the other. A correlation has
been made, post measurement, between solubility and the sign of the
enthalpy. Therefore, there is no circularity in the theory.
Now, the question can be asked on why that correlation exists.
It's forces between atoms. With maybe a quantum mechanical correction
to explain why the carbonate atom sticks together.
If you think more study is needed on enthalpy, then I agree. I
would love to have a model that accurately predicts enthalpies. Lots
of scientists are doing molecular dynamics simulations and detailed
bonding calculations to come at exact enthalpy values. It usually
takes computers. One would like a simpler model that doesn't use
computers, even if it isn't 100% accurate.
However, I don't consider the correlation between solubility and
enthalpy a great mystery. Its forces.
Owen Jacobson
I doubt there's one mole (which you keep calling an "Avogadro's
Number") of *anything* adsorbed into the walls of any reasonably-sized
glass container. Keep in mind that one mole of water weighs around 18
grams and that most interesting compounds are heavier than water.
-o
Androcles
"Owen Jacobson" <angryb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2009111919302216807-angrybaldguy@gmailcom...
clean? I can SEE a film on it when the sunlight comes in through
the window and Mr. Muscle doesn't clear it.
http://tinyurl.com/ygpqcza
Kumar
>
> - Show quoted text -
Then, what it that which stick to container's walls by adsorption? How
Avogdro related to mole?
Kumar
> "Owen Jacobson" <angrybald...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
We don't have microscopic eyes but we may need for understanding
microscopic presence.
Kumar
>
> - Show quoted text -
Do you mean atom bomb? No risk & not cost but possible cure to certain
level can be prefered choice. Not only me, but whether many in science
& other communities are curious to know its science, so that limitless
benefits from it can be scientifically obtained.
Owen Jacobson
Once again, it's "Avogadro".
One mole of a substance is a specific number of molecules or atoms of
that substance. One mole of methane and two moles of oxygen gas will
burn fully, by the reaction
CH_4 + 2 O_2 → CO_2 + 2 H_2O
to produce one mole of carbon dioxide and two moles of water, and this
scales easily (half a mole of methane and one mole of oxygen turn into
half a mole of carbon dioxide and one mole of water, for example), so
moles are often used in chemistry and biochemistry settings where
chemical reactions are more important than weights and volumes.
That number is Avogadro's constant: 6.0221415 × 10 ^ 23 particles per mole.
See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mole_(unit)> and
<http://www.google.com/search?q=Mole+unit> for more details.
Any substance stored in a container will interact with the walls,
either physically (for example, by adsorption onto and absorbtion into
the walls) or chemically (by reacting with the material of the
container to form new compounds). Glass has the nice property that very
few chemicals in common use react destructively with it and that very
few chemicals adsorb onto or absorb into it in noticable
concentrations. Over the surface of a flask previously used to store
elemental chlorine, which is both small and highly reactive, you might
find somewhere between millions and billions of chlorine atoms in
silica compounds and stuck to the surface of the glass.
"Billions" of atoms sounds like a lot, but consider that one billion
chlorine atoms weighs around 60 attograms. If one billion chlorine
atoms all came off of the glass at once into 500ml of water placed in
the flask, the chlorine concentration in the water would be on the
order of 120 parts per quintillion by mass -- or about 9C, on your
crazy dilution scale. Assuming that's the only source of chlorine in
that water, you could drink it down without seriously affecting your
body, even though elemental chlorine is a powerful oxidizer and caustic
agent (it's in the same family as chlorine and fluourine) and a
powerful poison.
If you didn't already know what a mole is, your criticism of what
medical science has and has not done loses what little credibility it
had: this is part of basic scientific literacy.
-o
Benj
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 04:12:41 -0800 (PST), "Autymn D. C."
> >> There is no science to Homeopathy. If it were valid, all water on
> >> the planet must be considered a totipotent preparation of dinosaur
> >> urine.
>
> >Strawmen. Homeopathy and allotropy/memory of watter are supported in
> >peer-reviewed journals. Look up succussion, by the way. Google is
> >your friend. Owner of theproving eGroup had already applied for Randi
> >but latter wouldn't comply, with complaint the experiment was too
> >complicated.
>
> >-Aut
>
> Intermixing paid advertisements with paid peer reviews
> in homeopathy journals marks them as a pathological lies,
> which is only one half of the truth, the other half is,
> that they are all 100% liars, which makes the picture complete.
Obviously you are not into science, only politics. I see no reason to
only spew ridiculing attack rather than to sensibly and reasonably
discuss the subject as Aut has done. I see this puts you in the
Amazing Randi's camp of professional liars and foolers. But Randi just
runs when confronted with real evidence. He's just promoting a
political agenda as are you.
Why don't you come back here when you have something to add to a
scientific discussion. Take your namecalling to your friends at
recess.
Benj
wrote:
> Never underestimate the power of the placebo effect (or its evil twin).
>
> As for homeopathy lets see a few believers protected from malaria by it.
> And we can start by testing its efficacy on some of the con-artists
> selling homeopathic remedies for malaria prophylaxis.
Well, if allopathic vaccines can protect people then please explain
the case in recent times where the number of people dying from the
vaccines were greater than those dying from the flu.
The point is, Martin, that you are a moron like Helmut, who has NO
desire to scientifically investigate anything. All you both want to do
is thump your bibles and give "proof by assertion" of your faith-based
beliefs.
If you were interested in science, then you'd be interested in finding
out what exactly is true and what is not true. All you are doing is
setting up straw men so you can knock them down for political effect.
Just what is so scary to you about homeopathy? Why are you so
frightened of these claims that you feel compelled to destroy all
scientific interest that might develop in them.
Benj
> All real chemists have the experiencing of repeating an experiment
> with an empty container, and getting a signal. The response is to
> throw the glassware out. A homoeopath ignores "blank signals," and
> assumes that his glass ware is clean. He has to, since "homeopathic
> remedies" are empty anyway.
> I was describing the interesting problem of cleaning glass ware.
> Cleaning glass ware is a science. Homeopathy is a con. Do not confuse
> the noble bottle washer for a homeopathic physician. True dilution
> weakens effects, it doesn't strengthen them.
And the way you "know" that homeopathy is "impossible" is? Oh that's
right. You used your God-like powers to examine everything in the
universe. Moron.
But wait, since saying something is "impossible" is the mathematical
equivalent of saying "I'm a moron!", I shouldn't have to prove it. But
I will. Let's ask the chemical question: are homeopathic dilutions too
weak to be effective in any way? Is it even possible for the body to
detect such concentrations? Suppose instead of your stupid reliance on
traditional chemistry (many chemists in my experience are scientific
idiots, anyway) one takes some concentrated radio active isotope in
solution. NOW lets do some homeopathic dilutions. Can we still detect
an effect? Hell yes. Why we can detect a SINGLE molecule if it decides
to emit a particle. So now your "impossible" clearly shifts to "I'm a
moron".
The bottom line is that saying "traditional chemistry as we understand
it does not seem likely at these concentrations" is NOT the same thing
as noting that molecules can have vibrations, frequencies, even
radioactive emissions that DO and CAN have some kind of effect at
those concentrations. Hence your arguments are babble. But one should
ALSO note that being ABLE to have an effect is not the same thing
providing effective curative powers. THAT is a different question
taking a different kind of study.
But to show how much BS circulates in the pharmaceutical field one
should observe that many drugs that are APPROVED as "safe and
effective" often have shown lower cure rates than placebos in trials.
Benj
Bostwick) wrote:
> In article <6189564a-6772-43b1-ac91-83717d2eb...@b25g2000prb.googlegroups.com>, Kumar <lordshiva5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >If anyone can be cured by an healing agent with no or minimal side/
> >adverse/toxic effects, even no or minimum chemical, is it not still
> >better?
>
> Find people with real diseases. Do a blind study. Do it for a while. See
> who's cured. Then come talk about it. Until the studies are done, it's all
> snake oil.
Now David has the scientific attitude! Please note: No name calling.
No ridicule. No a priori beliefs assumed!
Good for David!
Kumar
Container cleaning for making it free from all organic & inorganic
molecules is a big work. Why it is so big work if adhering is
unimportant & cleaning is simple?
One so claimed odd in homeopathy it non-presence of any molecule of
active substance in higher potencies. "Dilutions are in water or
alcohol whereas trituration are with lactose. (1X = 1/10, 3X =
1/1,000, 6X = 1/1,000,000). Likewise 1C = 1/100, 3C = 1/1,000,000, and
so on. Actually, the laws of chemistry state that there is a limit to
the dilution that can be made without losing the original substance
altogether. This limit, which is related to Avogadro's number,
corresponds to homeopathic potencies of 12C or 24X ". However this
calculation of limit of dilution or trituratiom don't cover moleculer
presence due to adsorption. I am trying to check it with your
knowledge.
In homeopathic sense, lower concentration can bring more healing
effects subject to indidual condition. It lokks logical that what ever
we sense to our neurological system it can behave accordingly. Weak/
diluted exposures can express deficiency & strong exposures excesses
which may cause neurological system to behave accordingly eg.
metabolism as per deficiemcies & excessiveness--hunger, excretions,
resistances, tolerances, addictions etc. In 3rd law of motion
considerations actions can react in equal & opposite manners. Is it
not?
Kumar
Thanks Benj. Biggest odd with current & strictly controlled DBPC
studies that they can't conduct life long studies for diseases with
life long impacts--with & without medicines. How can one be sure/
scientific, what is causing complications--disease, practices followed
or medication. Modern medicines are also known for their side &
adverse effects. In my personal observation of my inhouse diabetic
patients, I am not convinced & happy with strict medication programme
followers. Just look:-
"The process of downregulation occurs when there are elevated levels
of the hormone insulin in the blood."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downreg...d_upregulation
"The oscillations are believed to be important for insulin sensitivity
by preventing downregulation of insulin receptors in target cells."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin_oscillations "
Usually, insulin's exposue in type2 diabetics with IR is increased &
continual inspite of above understandings. Many durgs do show
ineffectiveness or adverses in field trials inspite strict previous
studies eg.DBI. If we search google we can find many. Many mistakes
can be possible even in prescribing most prime durg for acidity-
antacids.
Martin Brown
> On Nov 17, 3:37 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> All real chemists have the experiencing of repeating an experiment
>> with an empty container, and getting a signal. The response is to
>> throw the glassware out. A homoeopath ignores "blank signals," and
>> assumes that his glass ware is clean. He has to, since "homeopathic
>> remedies" are empty anyway.
>> I was describing the interesting problem of cleaning glass ware.
>> Cleaning glass ware is a science. Homeopathy is a con. Do not confuse
>> the noble bottle washer for a homeopathic physician. True dilution
>> weakens effects, it doesn't strengthen them.
>
> And the way you "know" that homeopathy is "impossible" is? Oh that's
> right. You used your God-like powers to examine everything in the
> universe. Moron.
Another drooling fool wades into the morass. I suppose since it is a
harmless way to separate the worried well from their money and there are
no side effects from drinking small amounts of pure water the standard
rule of CAVEAT EMPTOR applies.
The homeopathic remedy if it owes its efficacy anything will be
dominated by the impurities in the water that it was diluted with.
>
>
> But wait, since saying something is "impossible" is the mathematical
> equivalent of saying "I'm a moron!", I shouldn't have to prove it. But
> I will. Let's ask the chemical question: are homeopathic dilutions too
> weak to be effective in any way? Is it even possible for the body to
YES. Next question...
> detect such concentrations? Suppose instead of your stupid reliance on
> traditional chemistry (many chemists in my experience are scientific
> idiots, anyway) one takes some concentrated radio active isotope in
> solution. NOW lets do some homeopathic dilutions. Can we still detect
> an effect? Hell yes. Why we can detect a SINGLE molecule if it decides
> to emit a particle. So now your "impossible" clearly shifts to "I'm a
> moron".
The limits of detection for most techniques are low but not that low.
And the haphazard way that homeopathic practitioners work suggests that
without extreme clean room technology as used in the semiconductor
industry to keep ultra pure materials clean they are making up junk.
> The bottom line is that saying "traditional chemistry as we understand
> it does not seem likely at these concentrations" is NOT the same thing
> as noting that molecules can have vibrations, frequencies, even
> radioactive emissions that DO and CAN have some kind of effect at
> those concentrations. Hence your arguments are babble. But one should
> ALSO note that being ABLE to have an effect is not the same thing
> providing effective curative powers. THAT is a different question
> taking a different kind of study.
You are in cloud cuckoo land if you thing that water can remember what
molecules it has been in contact with for more than a fraction of a
second. It is your arguments that are incoherent babble.
>
> But to show how much BS circulates in the pharmaceutical field one
> should observe that many drugs that are APPROVED as "safe and
> effective" often have shown lower cure rates than placebos in trials.
Never underestimate the power of the placebo effect. Irrelevant drugs
with very minor side effects work even better in clinical trials.
But because there is a placebo effect means that almost every "cure"
claimed by homeopaths is already explained by conventional science.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Martin Brown
> On Nov 17, 9:13 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> Never underestimate the power of the placebo effect (or its evil twin).
>>
>> As for homeopathy lets see a few believers protected from malaria by it.
>> And we can start by testing its efficacy on some of the con-artists
>> selling homeopathic remedies for malaria prophylaxis.
>
> Well, if allopathic vaccines can protect people then please explain
> the case in recent times where the number of people dying from the
> vaccines were greater than those dying from the flu.
Which recent case where the vaccine has been killing more people than
the flu? Although it is just possible since flu vaccine is typically
given to people who are already at considerable health risk for other
reasons. Most fatalities of H1N1 have underlying health problems.
Lets see you go to a malaria country and rely on homeopathy then.
> If you were interested in science, then you'd be interested in finding
> out what exactly is true and what is not true. All you are doing is
> setting up straw men so you can knock them down for political effect.
I know enough about ultra trace chemistry to see through a magic snake
oil scam when I see one. The public may be stupid enough to buy vastly
overpriced water and believe it does them good, but it is a disservice
to science to allow them to believe that it works beyond the placebo effect.
>
> Just what is so scary to you about homeopathy? Why are you so
> frightened of these claims that you feel compelled to destroy all
> scientific interest that might develop in them.
That people end up swapping effective conventional medicines for useless
quack remedies that do more harm than good.
Regards,
Martin Brown
David Bostwick
>On Nov 17, 11:10=A0am, david.bostw...@chemistry.gatech.edu (David
>Bostwick) wrote:
>> In article <6189564a-6772-43b1-ac91-83717d2eb...@b25g2000prb.googlegroups=
>..com>, Kumar <lordshiva5...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >If anyone can be cured by an healing agent with no or minimal side/
>> >adverse/toxic effects, even no or minimum chemical, is it not still
>> >better?
>>
>.. =A0See
>> who's cured. =A0Then come talk about it. =A0Until the studies are done, i=
>t's all
>> snake oil.
>
>Now David has the scientific attitude! Please note: No name calling.
>No ridicule. No a priori beliefs assumed!
>Good for David!
Dang! I forgot to use the name-calling program to generate the post. My
reputation is shot.
Darwin123
Take something that in high concentrations promotes health. Apply
serial dilution to it. Hit it after each dilution to potentiate it.
The result should be a lethal poison.
Someone else used the example of nitrogen. However, the gas is
displacing something that is supposed to be healthy. I see no
corresponding part of homeopathy that suggests that a "potent" remedy
displaces anything. The main principle, implied in the word
homeopathy, is that a potentiated substance should produce the
opposite effects as the symptom produced by the normal concentrations
of the substance.
So I am doing what I always do when examining a new theory or a
new phenomenon. I consider the limiting conditions. One gains
knowledge of a new phenomenon by studying the extreme limits of the
phenomenon. One studies the phenomenon, the opposite conditions, etc.
That's how a computer program can be checked. A computer program
based on a complex theory is always suspect. There is a bug in EVERY
program. However, one considers limiting cases of physical phenomena
where there is an analytically closed solution. If the computer model
is accurate, it should deliver the same answer as the analytical
solution.
If the homeopathic theory is at all valid, it should be possible
to make something unhealthy using the same principles. If not, then I
misunderstand the scientific basis of homeopathy |:-)
Allow me to restate my inquiry. Supposedly, a substance at high
potencies canm never harm someone. I actually heard a homeopathic
practitioner say this. Well, why not? What is there about serial
dilution that only amplifies "good" effects?
Kumar
> On Nov 19, 9:57 pm, Kumar <lordshiva5...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Do you mean atom bomb?
>
> No. I mean a homeopathic chemical weapon.
> Take something that in high concentrations promotes health. Apply
> serial dilution to it. Hit it after each dilution to potentiate it.
> The result should be a lethal poison.
How it can be lethal poison?
> Someone else used the example of nitrogen. However, the gas is
> displacing something that is supposed to be healthy. I see no
> corresponding part of homeopathy that suggests that a "potent" remedy
> displaces anything. The main principle, implied in the word
> homeopathy, is that a potentiated substance should produce the
> opposite effects as the symptom produced by the normal concentrations
> of the substance.
Hormesis is one theory to it.. Our brain can react as per the
exposures to it. Normal exposures can simply be taken normal & are
just passing reactions but abnormal exposures--either on higher/toxic
side or on lower side(which are not our common exposures to which we
are not yet evolved or became habituated) can be taken odd by our body
system and as such body can react accordinly--healing or toxic side.
Normal exposures can act just like foods.
> So I am doing what I always do when examining a new theory or a
> new phenomenon. I consider the limiting conditions. One gains
> knowledge of a new phenomenon by studying the extreme limits of the
> phenomenon. One studies the phenomenon, the opposite conditions, etc.
I do agree & respect it. Probably I also follow it.
> That's how a computer program can be checked. A computer program
> based on a complex theory is always suspect. There is a bug in EVERY
> program. However, one considers limiting cases of physical phenomena
> where there is an analytically closed solution. If the computer model
> is accurate, it should deliver the same answer as the analytical
> solution.
Yes.
> If the homeopathic theory is at all valid, it should be possible
> to make something unhealthy using the same principles. If not, then I
> misunderstand the scientific basis of homeopathy |:-)
Cause & cure from same substance is one Law of similars in homeopathy.
Eventhoug it is bit contradictory but I feel quanity variations is the
true reason to it. To get variable effects, we should just keep in
mind that uncommon/unnatural or odd exposures to us can cause uncommon/
unnatural or odd results--may it be on higher side or on lower side.
Truth is not one sided.
> Allow me to restate my inquiry. Supposedly, a substance at high
> potencies canm never harm someone. I actually heard a homeopathic
> practitioner say this. Well, why not? What is there about serial
> dilution that only amplifies "good" effects?-
Serious Aggravations are also noted on applications but these are not
classified as toxic. It may be due to that, a substance is accumulated
in body due to previous excesses. Body become suppressed,
resistant,addicted or tolerated to it so that its normal use to body
is restricted(eg.alcohol addiction). When it is stimulated by altering
physiological activity it can be exposed in excessto body at a time
(somewhat shocking effect) & cause aggravations. Anyway pls forget
homeopathy & simply tell whether molecular presence is possible due to
adsorption or surface science beyond avogdro constant on seriel
dilutions. I also read it;-
"Adsorption, the binding of molecules or particles to a surface, must
be distinguished from absorption, the filling of pores in a solid. The
binding to the surface is usually weak and reversible. Just about
anything including the fluid that dissolves or suspends the material
of interest is bound, but compounds with color and those that have
taste or odor tend to bind strongly. Compounds that contain
chromogenic groups (atomic arrangements that vibrate at frequencies in
the visible spectrum) very often are strongly adsorbed on activated
carbon. Decolorization can be wonderfully efficient by adsorption and
with negligible loss of other materials.
http://www.rpi.edu/dept/chem-eng/Biotech-Environ/Adsorb/adsorb.htm ""
How compounds with color and those that have taste or odor that
contain chromogenic groups tend to bind strongly? Will these cover all
substances?
Regards.
Darwin123
> On Nov 21, 4:43 am, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 19, 9:57 pm, Kumar <lordshiva5...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> How compounds with color and those that have taste or odor that
> contain chromogenic groups tend to bind strongly? Will these cover all
> substances?
> Regards.
>
I don't fully understand your question. However, I think it has
to do with the problem of contamination as it relates to spectroscopy.
I have professional experience with this. Let me describe some.
I have done a lot of research on photoluminescence spectroscopy.
Some substances have a strong photoluminescence. Many of these
substances with strong luminescence are used as laser dyes. Most
substances have a very weak photoluminescence. This includes many
biologically active substances. Proteins have a relatively weak
photoluminescence (compared to laser dyes)
There is no strong correlation or anticorrelation between being
biologically active and have a strong photoluminescence. However,
spectroscopists ofthen have different projects. For instance, one
could have one project that involves studying laser dyes and another
project involving identifying proteins with photoluminescence.
Glassware is expensive. In chemistry laboratories, there is highly
specialized glassware. There is limited space to store the glassware.
Disposing of glassware is expensive and dangerous. Broken glass is a
hazard, and provides a danger even to garbage men. Disposable plastic
containers are often not useful.
Plastic tends to adsorb materials even more than glass.
Furthermore, plastic itself has a very high photoluminescence
strength. Residue from a plastic can light up as bright as from a
laser dye. Plastics turn into toxic pollutants, while ground glass
eventually becomes sand. So disposable containers are not a good
replacement for reusable glass ware. Few keep highly detailed
histories on the use of individual pieces of glassware (some really
careful scientists do!). The records involved in individual jars can
accumulate.
Therefore, scientists have to reuse their glassware quite a lot.
So there is a problem. As someone else stated, the process of
adsorption is slightly reversible. So if a glass container is used for
one substance, some of the material can come out of the glass later
and contaminate the results.
If one is doing only one type of experiment, using high
concentrations of material, this is not too bad. For instance, if one
uses a container only for laser dyes, in study that only concerns
laser dyes, there is not too much of a problem. The high quantities of
laser dye will photoluminescence much brighter than the small
quantities of laser dyes that come off the glass.
However, suppose one is trying to detect extremely small
concentrations of a laser dye. You want to measure picomolar
concentrations of laser dye in the environment. Then the adsorbed
laser dye that comes back into solution can create photoluminescence
that masks the smaller amount in the environment. Or suppose one is
looking for picomolar concentrations of a particular protein in the
environment. A small amount of adsorbed laser dye can completely mask
the emission of the protein.
One of the strongest photoluminescent materials around is soap
and detergent. So detergent molecules adsorbed on glass can wreak
havoc on a photoluminescent experiment. That is why for really
sensitive measurements of photoluminescence, one can't use detergents.
So yes, adsorbed material can and does often cause problems in the
experiments. Molecules adsorbed in a piece of glass ware ten years ago
can ruin an experiment done today.
I once was doing a concentration study of lanthanide complex.
However, I kept finding a sudden increase in photoluminence at a
certain concentration, followed by a decrease. If I was less
skeptical, I would have accepted it as an effect. However, it seemed
big. So I ascertained that the sudden increase was associated with the
use of one particular jar. Note: I had cleaned all the jars very
carefully including this one. I used the same procedure.
I then added distilled water to that jar, left it overnight,
and then measured the photoluminescence from the distilled water.
Naturally, I also placed distilled water in the other jars I was
using. I then compared the photoluminescence of the water in all the
jars.
The photoluminescence of the water from the jar in question was
very strong. The other jars of water had no photoluminescence. So the
contamination came from that jar. I looked at the photoluminescence
spectra from that distilled water left in the bad jar, and discovered
it was the same as a laser dye. Therefore, I concluded that someone
somewhere had used that jar in a laser dye experiment.
I know not where that laser dye came from. I could have tried
cleaning that jar. I through it out and rejected all data taken with
that jar. Note: If I didn't get a strong signal with that jar, I would
have probably kept all that data and gotten an erroneous result.
That is only one example. Real chemists come up with stories like
that all the time. That is why the blank in an experiment is
important. In fact, one blank is not enough. One has to use blanks to
cover many such contingencies. A blank for each jar would be better
than a blank from one jar. This part of the experiment seldom gets
into the final article, but chemists are expected to make such fine
experiments all the time. They all have numerous stories like this. It
is a surprise that any progress is made in chemistry, given this
problem with adsorption.
So yes. Not only can molecules adsorbed on glass surfaces effect
experimental results, experimental scientists expect that to happen.
They always check for it. A lot of pseudoscientists prefer experiments
without blanks, without references.
Now here is the problem with a field experiment. By the very
nature of a field experiment, it is almost impossible to find a blank.
If one is studying photoluminescence in the field, and restricts the
study to field data, there are no blanks. Blanks and references can
only examined under laboratory conditions. Or maybe with some field
experiments where the field is so highly controlled, it is effectively
a laboratory.
I know people who do field experiments with lidar. I know
paleontologists. All these scientists working in the field require
laboratory experiments to test the assumptions make in the field. I
had a set of managers who convinced themselves that laboratory
experiments were "redundant," and that the scientists working in the
field didn't need a laboratory. These guys destroyed the usefulness of
their facility.
Just as a coincidence (?), some of these managers were big
believers in homeopathy. They the same type of logic to their division
scientists as they did to the homeopaths. They had the idea that
"field" experiments were somehow more "real" than laboratory
experiments.
So there is a bias on my part. Whenever I hear anyone say that
"field" experiments are more accurate than laboratory experiments, I
dive under a laboratory bench. Field experiments are no better than
the laboratory experiments that support them.
Salmon Egg
<b1e4e2c4-94bc-44d0...@j11g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
Darwin123 <drose...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 20, 9:37�pm, Kumar <lordshiva5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 21, 4:43�am, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Nov 19, 9:57�pm, Kumar <lordshiva5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
> >
>
> > How compounds with color and those that have taste or odor that
> > contain chromogenic groups tend to bind strongly? Will these cover all
> > substances?
> > Regards.
> >
> I don't fully understand your question. However, I think it has
> to do with the problem of contamination as it relates to spectroscopy.
<snip?
> I know people who do field experiments with lidar. I know
> paleontologists. All these scientists working in the field require
> laboratory experiments to test the assumptions make in the field. I
> had a set of managers who convinced themselves that laboratory
> experiments were "redundant," and that the scientists working in the
> field didn't need a laboratory. These guys destroyed the usefulness of
> their facility.
> Just as a coincidence (?), some of these managers were big
> believers in homeopathy. They the same type of logic to their division
> scientists as they did to the homeopaths. They had the idea that
> "field" experiments were somehow more "real" than laboratory
> experiments.
> So there is a bias on my part. Whenever I hear anyone say that
> "field" experiments are more accurate than laboratory experiments, I
> dive under a laboratory bench. Field experiments are no better than
> the laboratory experiments that support them.
I found this post extremely interesting. My snipping was to keep the
reply short.
The first sentence in the question asked was a nonsentence. The second
was the question about a meaningless statement.
I am interested in what you know about dyes. Have you looked into
Q-switching dyes and what limits their long wavelength absorption? I
guess it is not all that difficult to design a long wavelength dye. The
real problem to me is making one that is thermally and photo stable.
Darwin123
on the spectroscopy of dyes provided by chemical companies that make
laser dyes. Once, I was really interested in infrared dyes. I wanted
to study fluorescence at infrared wavelengths. I noticed something
really interesting that I have no model for.
Dyes with short emission wavelengths usually have a large Stokes
shift. That is, the peak of their exicitation spectrum lies at a much
shorter wavelength than the peak of their emission spectrum. However,
IR dyes have almost no Stokes shift. Their emission spectrum and
excitation spectrum have almost total overlap. They peak at the same
wavelength.
Stokes shift is caused by phonons (i.e., vibrations). When an
electron in an electronic excited state relaxes, goes into the
electronic ground state. However, it doesn't necessarily go into the
vibrational ground state. Some of the energy in the excited electron
state goes into making the molecule vibrate. That cause the emission
photon to generally be lower in energy than the excitation photon.
Somehow, the vibration is being suppressed in dye molecules
which have a small difference in electronic energies. I am not sure
why this is so.
I would love to have a model that explains that, even a rough one.
It sounds like we may be talking about the same phenomenon.
Darwin123
> On Nov 17, 3:37 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
Suppose instead of your stupid reliance on
> traditional chemistry (many chemists in my experience are scientific
> idiots, anyway) one takes some concentrated radio active isotope in
> solution. NOW lets do some homeopathic dilutions. Can we still detect
> an effect? Hell yes. Why we can detect a SINGLE molecule if it decides
> to emit a particle. So now your "impossible" clearly shifts to "I'm a
> moron".
high potency remedy is so high that presumably there are no molecules
in the solution. The detection of a single molecule by radioactive
means would prove that the solution wasn't truly potenized.
That is the entire point of what Kuma calls "super Avogrado
numbers." At least he recognizes the problem. Presumably, there are no
molecules in the homeopathic solution. What is left is presumably the
"memory" of having once contained molecules in that solution.
It would be interesting if the radioactivity increased with
dilution. Imagine getting radioactivity from a solution so weak it had
no radioactive atoms in it! I think that would probably convince even
me that "potentiation" did something.
It also would make a great weapon.
>
> The bottom line is that saying "traditional chemistry as we understand
> it does not seem likely at these concentrations" is NOT the same thing
> as noting that molecules can have vibrations, frequencies, even
> radioactive emissions that DO and CAN have some kind of effect at
> those concentrations. Hence your arguments are babble. But one should
> ALSO note that being ABLE to have an effect is not the same thing
> providing effective curative powers.
differentiating between physical effects and "curative" effects. I
myself know a lot about spectroscopy, a physical effect.
I was addressing Kumar's question. Can a container that once
contained a solution with a substance contaminate solutions made in
the same container? This is a question that can easily be answered
with spectroscopic methods. I myself have performed experiments that
show that the molecules come off of the surfaces.
I don't think "curative effects" would be as reliable or
convincing. Symptoms are not really signatures associated with certain
substances. Spectra are. If a homeopath thinks he has to connect
mainstream physics with homeopathy, he better start with spectroscopy.
Mainstream physics doesn't start with symptoms. If you think your
experience is more "real" than a photoluminescence spectrum, then I
can't argue. I simply request that you start using blanks to separate
the "physical" from the "curative" properties.
Yes, molecules adsorb to a surface. The spectroscopic effects at
some point weaken with dilution. In fact, I can think of some
situations where dilution up to a certain point can strengthen the
photoluminescence of a solution. Photoluminescence occassionally
saturates due to self absorption, changes in pH, etc. However, once
you start diluting to a point less than an atom per container, you
will get a weakening photoluminescence.
>
> But to show how much BS circulates in the pharmaceutical field one
> should observe that many drugs that are APPROVED as "safe and
> effective" often have shown lower cure rates than placebos in trials.
I agree. Having a lower cure rate that a placebo means the
remedy is ineffective. I don't know what legal fiction allows anyone
to say that such a remedy is effective.
I would say that homeopathic remedies are safe. I don't know any
substance that has a 50% lethality at dosages less than one atom.
Homeopathy may also be useful in that it makes people drink more
water. The alcohol in the tinctures proabably prevent heart disease.
However, the alcohol would probably prevent heart disease even without
the homeopathic remedy.
I approve a daily dose of wine, which tastes much better and is
probably less expensive than a homeopathic tincture.
It may be that people are better off avoiding any medicine
whatsoever. This is a position held by some religions, including
Christian Science.
I am waiting for those studies which will show that second hand
smoke has been preventing cancer. After all, if you allow the tar to
spread it should get potentiated. Then, it should cure cancer.
However, second hand smole can be detected spectroscopically. So
I am talking about subspectroscopic concentrations :-)
Salmon Egg
<9a501d30-b057-461b...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
Darwin123 <drose...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I have looked into all sorts of dyes. There is a lot of information
> on the spectroscopy of dyes provided by chemical companies that make
> laser dyes. Once, I was really interested in infrared dyes. I wanted
> to study fluorescence at infrared wavelengths. I noticed something
> really interesting that I have no model for.
> Dyes with short emission wavelengths usually have a large Stokes
> shift. That is, the peak of their exicitation spectrum lies at a much
> shorter wavelength than the peak of their emission spectrum. However,
> IR dyes have almost no Stokes shift. Their emission spectrum and
> excitation spectrum have almost total overlap. They peak at the same
> wavelength.
> Stokes shift is caused by phonons (i.e., vibrations). When an
> electron in an electronic excited state relaxes, goes into the
> electronic ground state. However, it doesn't necessarily go into the
> vibrational ground state. Some of the energy in the excited electron
> state goes into making the molecule vibrate. That cause the emission
> photon to generally be lower in energy than the excitation photon.
> Somehow, the vibration is being suppressed in dye molecules
> which have a small difference in electronic energies. I am not sure
> why this is so.
> I would love to have a model that explains that, even a rough one.
> It sounds like we may be talking about the same phenomenon.
I am not a professional chemist. I also change the subject line to start
a new thread.
The first Q-switching dyes were low soluble pthalocyanines and silver
halide photo-sensitizers. My thought was that laser Q-switch operation
would lead to multiple excitation of the dye until the the molecule
disintegrated. Such a cascade would be easier to excite for an infrared
dye compared to short wavelength dye.
Then, some IBM researchers came up with a nickel complex dye abbreviated
BDN bis-(4-dimethylaminodithiobenzil)-nickel for 1.06 microns. It was
much more photostable than other Q-switching dyes of the day. The US
Army was sponsoring development of longer wavelength dyes. This was more
than 20 years ago and I lost track of the developments.
If this is of interest to you, we can have more discussion.
Kumar
> On Nov 20, 9:37 pm, Kumar <lordshiva5...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 21, 4:43 am, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 19, 9:57 pm, Kumar <lordshiva5...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > How compounds with color and those that have taste or odor that
> > contain chromogenic groups tend to bind strongly? Will these cover all
> > substances?
> > Regards.
taste, order & chromogenic groups) tends to bind strongly?
Hi Darwin, Thanks for best & neutral unbiased views. I really
respected these. May GOD bless.
Difference in strict studies outcome & in field experiances can well
be noted otherwise any new introduction after so much studies should
be absolue. Probably those managers who study adsorption & lab
cleaning problem, do also feel molecular presence is possible in
homeopathic remedies due to these reasons therefore may believe in it
& those who don't just by looking grossly don't believe in antimation
of no molecular presence. Further commercial cauuen atmosphere may
also cause deviations due to vested interest(minimal cost vs.
maximum).
Anyway now, I thing there can be three type of contaminations by using
same bottles for seriel dilutions. 1. adsorbed substances2. glass
molecules 3. environmental & water contaminations if any. Ok? As such,
can you tell which contaminations out of these three can be abnormal
or odd to us & which can just be routine/normal to us?
About effect from weak stimuli, hormesis may very well cover it. This
is a good article on hormesis which all should read to undertand
substancial benefits(for which beings are evolving to handle modern
toxic hazzards).
"The term hormesis (see Calabrese et al., 2007 for a detailed
consideration of the definition and uses of hormesis) has been most
widely used in the toxicology field where investigators use it to
describe a biphasic dose response with a low dose stimulation or
beneficial effect and a high dose inhibitory or toxic effect. The
response of the cell or organism to the low dose of the toxin is
considered an adaptive compensatory process following an initial
disruption in homeostasis. Thus, a short working definition of
hormesis is: ‘a process in which exposure to a low dose of a chemical
agent or environmental factor that is damaging at higher doses induces
an adaptive beneficial effect on the cell or organism’....Hormesis is
a fundamental concept in evolutionary theory. From the beginning
through the present time, life on earth has existed in harsh
environments in which cells are often exposed to free radicals and
toxic substances. To avoid extinction organisms have developed complex
mechanisms to cope with the environmental hazards.
Hormesis Defined
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2248601/
Previously: Arndt-Schulz rule or Schulz' law :For every substance,
small doses stimulate, moderate doses inhibit, large doses kill.
Arndt-Schulz rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia "
Best regards.
Kumar
> In article
> <b1e4e2c4-94bc-44d0-900e-fc73d44b6...@j11g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Why science people resist in trying to make pseudoscientific
scientific? Are there no pseudoscience in science, understandings
though applied but whose science could not yet be understood in
science?
Kumar
> In article
> <b1e4e2c4-94bc-44d0-900e-fc73d44b6...@j11g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
>
Sorry to interrupt. It looks, you being somewhat spritually gifted
person to me.
I suspected that some variations in subatomic motions(not in structure
in short term) may occur on all intereactions which probably be a
cause to "memory of substances". Does your above post awnser to my
following questions in Motions measurements in this forum?
Kumar
> On Nov 20, 2:10 am, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:> On Nov 17, 3:37 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Homeopathic dilutions don't contain molecules. The dilution of a
> high potency remedy is so high that presumably there are no molecules
> in the solution. The detection of a single molecule by radioactive
> means would prove that the solution wasn't truly potenized.
> That is the entire point of what Kuma calls "super Avogrado
> numbers." At least he recognizes the problem. Presumably, there are no
> molecules in the homeopathic solution. What is left is presumably the
> "memory" of having once contained molecules in that solution.
Sorry to interrup again.
Lower potencies below 12 C or 24X are with in avogdro calculation,
still called potenized remedies, do contain molecules of active
substances. In higher potency I feel molecules can be present due to
adsorption provided same container is used. In one process different
containers are used(H method) Whereas in other K method same container
is used. Though energetic presence is yet to be understand(probably it
may happen in change in sub-atomic motions(exitations) of used vehicle
on interactions) but still there can be some deviation in real &
practiced method in preparation of remedies. I am also concerned about
H method using different bottles for dilutios upto avogdro constant.
> It would be interesting if the radioactivity increased with
> dilution. Imagine getting radioactivity from a solution so weak it had
> no radioactive atoms in it! I think that would probably convince even
> me that "potentiation" did something.
> It also would make a great weapon.
Yes true, it can prove non-molecular energetic presence. If so then my
adsorption thought can be immaterial.
>
> > The bottom line is that saying "traditional chemistry as we understand
> > it does not seem likely at these concentrations" is NOT the same thing
> > as noting that molecules can have vibrations, frequencies, even
> > radioactive emissions that DO and CAN have some kind of effect at
> > those concentrations. Hence your arguments are babble. But one should
> > ALSO note that being ABLE to have an effect is not the same thing
> > providing effective curative powers.
>
> "Curative properties" are a type of effect. I think you are
> differentiating between physical effects and "curative" effects. I
> myself know a lot about spectroscopy, a physical effect.
> I was addressing Kumar's question. Can a container that once
> contained a solution with a substance contaminate solutions made in
> the same container? This is a question that can easily be answered
> with spectroscopic methods. I myself have performed experiments that
> show that the molecules come off of the surfaces.
Can you also add, till how much more seriel dilutions this effect can
continue, if no or normal water washing is prefered?
> I don't think "curative effects" would be as reliable or
> convincing. Symptoms are not really signatures associated with certain
> substances. Spectra are. If a homeopath thinks he has to connect
> mainstream physics with homeopathy, he better start with spectroscopy.
> Mainstream physics doesn't start with symptoms. If you think your
> experience is more "real" than a photoluminescence spectrum, then I
> can't argue. I simply request that you start using blanks to separate
> the "physical" from the "curative" properties.
These were done but due to delicacy, these were inconsitent not nil.
In DBPC studies also, outcome was inconsitent but not nil. which they
relates to placebo. But remedies are different to concentrated drugs &
so can behave as per delicacy & individuality resulting inconsistency.
> Yes, molecules adsorb to a surface. The spectroscopic effects at
> some point weaken with dilution. In fact, I can think of some
> situations where dilution up to a certain point can strengthen the
> photoluminescence of a solution. Photoluminescence occassionally
> saturates due to self absorption, changes in pH, etc. However, once
> you start diluting to a point less than an atom per container, you
> will get a weakening photoluminescence.
How it can be possible with no atom?
>
>
> > But to show how much BS circulates in the pharmaceutical field one
> > should observe that many drugs that are APPROVED as "safe and
> > effective" often have shown lower cure rates than placebos in trials.
>
> I agree. Having a lower cure rate that a placebo means the
> remedy is ineffective. I don't know what legal fiction allows anyone
> to say that such a remedy is effective.
> I would say that homeopathic remedies are safe. I don't know any
> substance that has a 50% lethality at dosages less than one atom.
> Homeopathy may also be useful in that it makes people drink more
> water. The alcohol in the tinctures proabably prevent heart disease.
> However, the alcohol would probably prevent heart disease even without
> the homeopathic remedy.
Unless true curative effects are not there, nothing can be taken as
safe,if practiced. It can simply deviate one to take true curative
treatments but can also lead to take no side effects.
> I approve a daily dose of wine, which tastes much better and is
> probably less expensive than a homeopathic tincture.
> It may be that people are better off avoiding any medicine
> whatsoever. This is a position held by some religions, including
> Christian Science.
> I am waiting for those studies which will show that second hand
> smoke has been preventing cancer. After all, if you allow the tar to
> spread it should get potentiated. Then, it should cure cancer.
> However, second hand smole can be detected spectroscopically. So
> I am talking about subspectroscopic concentrations :-)
In biew of 12 tissue remedies system, I suspect curative effects in
low moleculer or sub-atomic agents vest in inorganic bio-chemicals.
Can you comment about possibility of it?
Herman Family
"Kumar" <lordsh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4810c164-e2b7-4897...@x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
Sorry to interrup again.
------
I've just been watching your conversation back and forth.
Are you perhaps trying to justify some sort of selective reality?
You seem to be hoping that some way you can trick chemists in to saying that
somehow the impurities left on glass will impart some properties on water.
My guess is that if you get that far, you could then make the argument that
once you fill a bottle with some material that it would always be in the
bottle, even after the bottle was emptied and cleaned many times.
You also want to get us to somehow validate that a cure becomes more potent
as you remove the active ingredient, and that this effect would be due to
some magical memory of the water molecules. Furthermore, there is something
even more magical in that the less of some substance there is, the more
memory the water has of it. Simply experimenting with the color of a
vegetable dye in water upon dilution would show otherwise.
It isn't going to work. If it did work, then water would have memory of
every substance it had ever come into contact with, not just the stuff you
wanted it to have a memory of. Your cure for a headache would include a
cure for appendicitis, as well as cause a dozen different cancers and blow
up on contact with air, all simultaneously. You could not choose what the
potion did. Every potion you had would do the same everything that each
other potion did. In this respect, each potion you sold would be
indistinguishable from tap water, though by your logic, tap water would do
everything. In a more normal logic, tap water does quite little.
Michael
Kumar
<the_saw_dust_place_remove_underli...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
> "Kumar" <lordshiva5...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sorry you remained negative during half cooked state. I simply wanted
to know possibility of moleculer presence of active substances due to
adsorption process. Whether few molecules,if present, can be effective
in curing as claimed is different subject. By these discussions, i
feel it is clear that molules of active substanes can remain present
beyond avogdro constant. I am neither advocator of homeopathy nor a
homeopath but i do use & feel That I am getting curing effects, though
I don't take risk for serious conditions esp. infection. In some way,
when I am discussing, I am also a skeptic/doubtful--so trying to clear
my doubts.To think dynamically, I think, justifying molecular presence
may not be in the interest of homeopathy but can be good to
conventional system--they can grab it. Hope this will help. Pls
contribute. regards.