User talk:Filll/homeopathyscales

Original Proposal for explanation of potency metrics (from homeopathy talk page archives)
When this article was in the sandbox, I got Peter to carefully explain EXACTLY what the potency measures meant, and wrote this up. I propose to expand this, potentially as a subsiduary daughter article to this one (or as a footnote, but I am not sure there is room). I feel this would be an extremely valuable contribution because in my surveys of the online literature, I have never seen this well described anywhere. It can be something that WP can really use to set WP apart; the one source that completely and clearly explains what exactly the potencies in homeopathy mean. Comments?--Filll (talk) 02:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

A daughter article would be preferred as this section of this article is way too long and boring as it stands, and any thought of extending it further would be opposed by many. My ten pennorth. Peter morrell 07:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * How about a side box? Like on W. S. Gilbert? Vanished user talk 17:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

There is already a daughter article on potentisation (can't recall the exact title) so that's where it should go. Peter morrell 18:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that got redirected to Homeopathy at some stage. Vanished user talk 18:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No daughter article is needed. The info can be explained in a single small paragraph if done right and can be put somewhere so that it doesn't get in the way of the flow of the article.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 18:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think Filll had something quite longer and more ambitious in mind than a short para! Peter morrell 18:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I was thinking about something more extensive and complete, as Peter suggests. What I propose to do is to collect some of that information (hopefully it is not yet deleted Wikidudeman?) and try to format it into a presentable form. Then we can see how long it is, how much it overlaps what we have in this article already, and where we might put it; an infobox, a footnote, a subsiduary daughter article, or wherever. My goal would be to make a reference article that anyone studying homeopathy could look at to understand in very full and complete detail any and all of the metrics used to measure potency in homeopathy, as well as the mathematics involved. My anticipation (which ScienceApologist and a few others also felt) is that this would be a very valuable contribution and one of the places where Wikipedia can make a unique and extremely important piece. This is one of the most confusing and irritating areas for someone from mainstream science who is trying to investigate homeopathy, and with a very small amount of effort, we can write some text that will clear this up forever and make it available to everyone.--Filll (talk) 20:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What I would love to see is a table summarizing homeopathic dilutions and their corresponding values in concentration units. The first column would be homeopathic dilutions, in decreasing order.  The second would be the corresponding values in molar units (mol/L), and the third would be values in mg/mL for a typical homeopathic remedy, say, potassium dichromate or another small molecule.  We'd have to use scientific notation.  Would this violate the no original research policy?  My HTML skillz are, well, nonexistent, but I could do the calculations.  Cheers, Skinwalker 13:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Barbary duck
What exactly is a barberry duck? Is it a duck that has been fed barberry?--Filll (talk) 18:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't know but will find out...I assume it is a species of duck!


 * Barbary duck. Vanished user talk 18:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Peter's points
A couple of points...first you do not mention trituration or grinding in mortar and pestle which is the start of the whole process for any insoluble substance like flint or lycopodium pollen. This is usually carried out to 3x or 6x potency and then transferred to a solution. Second, decimal scale was never used by Hahnemann. It was invneted by Dr Hering c.1830 in the USA and then became popular in Europe and throughout the homeopathic world esp. 3x and 6x potencies. Fourth the LM and Q scales are the same thing, so it should read LM or Q scale. I'll check again tomorrow, cheers Peter morrell 20:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * So do you grind up the flint or other insoluble material with water, to get it to 3X or 6X ? Or some soluble material like baking soda? I am not sure how this works to be honest.--Filll (talk) 22:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It is ground up with lactose (milk sugar); there is a video of this on the Tinus Smits homepage which google will find for you. He is a Dutch homeopath. If not, I will send the url in due course. The video describes very clearly the entire process. I will also expand the cites...more tomorrow. Peter morrell 22:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Because the centesimal scale was historically the first its para should therefore logically come in the article BEFORE the para about the decimal scale. Peter morrell 05:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not sure how to order it. I put the C scale first in the "common potency" section but since the D and X scales are easier I put their sections first in the article. Comments?--Filll (talk) 20:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Not only were the centesimal scales in use BEFORE decimal but they are by far the most important in homeopathy. Decimal scales are not used very much these days. For these reasons centesimal scale should come FIRST in this article. Peter morrell 17:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. In the revised version, I realize that I cannot build on information about the D and X scales to make the C scale easier to understand. So there should be no problem with this.--Filll (talk) 17:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

1C vs. 2X
First, a disclaimer: I don't know much about homeopathy, but the little I know leads me to believe it's pseudoscience.

Now that that's out of the way, in the part about the "C" scales (and similarly with later scales) you mention that 1C is the same as 2X. For those who think homeopathy is complete nonsense, I'm sure that's true. However, for those who believe in it, doesn't the fact that there's that succussing in between dilutions in the 2X make it magically different? Ben Hocking (talk 20:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes this is a very good point. And I should make sure I note that.--Filll (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Unbelievable
Do they spin around and do the hocky pocky between dilutions? Swarm Internationale (talk) 06:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Very funny. But no, of course.--Filll (talk) 18:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Barbary duck parts
One source (from Peter0 says that the duck lungs and heart are used:


 * British Homeopathy During Two Centuries, Peter Morrell, 2000

The other source (from US News and world report) says the duck liver and heart are used:


 * Flu Symptoms? Try Duck: Why sales of homeopathic products are soaring today, Dan McGraw, U.S. News & World Report, February 17, 1997.

What should we do? --Filll (talk) 20:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it is liver and heart to be honest but will try and find out. Another point...how much detail will you include, if any, about the methods of dilution? did you check the video on Tinus Smits website? and do you want info on the machines they use to make the high potencies? they use a vial that is emptied, filled and shaken at high speed repeatedly to make the very high potencies and they run for hours on an automated basis to make the 10M CM potencies etc. There is also historical info about how these devices were first invented in the 1830s. Up to you but just a thought. It depends how complete you want the article to be or if you want to merely confine it to the numerical aspects. Peter morrell 21:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I am watching the Smits video. I am not sure how much information to put in about dilution methods. I mainly wanted to focus on the numbers. I will take advice from others on these issues of course. I have not heard from Tim or Wikidudeman yet and I am hoping to get some feedback from them.--Filll (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Questions

 * Does the dilution stage involve placing 1 part of the active material and 99 parts of water in a container, and then succussing the resulting mixture, or 1 part of the active material and 100 parts of water in a container and then succussing?


 * For example, one drop of milk, and 100 drops of water, then succussion? Or one drop of milk and 99 drops of water, then succussion?


 * The mother tinctures are diluted with water or 30% alcohol?


 * Is 30% alcohol or other fluids ever used to dilute the active material, rather than water?


 * Are the insoluble materials like oyster shell eventually suspended in water or some other fluid? Are they diluted by repeatedly triturated them with some benign non-medicinal material, or once they are in a powder form so they can be put in suspension, are they put in a fluid and then this material diluted by adding successively more and more water to the dose?


 * When triturating to 1C, does one grind up 1 part of the active ingredient with 100 parts of the inactive ingredient, or 99 parts of the inactive ingredient?


 * Does one use upper case or lower case letters for X, D, C, M, LM and Q? Or both?


 * When creating a tincture with potency of 1C, does one mix 1 part of the plant material with 99 parts of the 30% alcohol, or 100 parts of the 30% alcohol?


 * I will probably have a lot more questions.--Filll (talk) 22:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Watch this movie and you will see it done! it lasts 17 mins Peter morrell 22:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

More questions after the movie
I have now seen a good chunk of the movie. They suggest it is not one part diluted with 9 parts, or 99 parts, but one part diluted with 10 parts or 100 parts. They also discuss sugar balls or globules which I did not understand. --Filll (talk) 05:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

M dilution
Is it worth mentioning in that section that there are approximately only 1079-1081 elementary particles in the universe, so that a dilution of 1/102000 means that if the solution was 1020 times the size of the universe there would still be a ridiculously small fraction of a single particle (about 1/101900) of solute in the solution? I'm sure someone has pointed out the bleedingly obvious fact somewhere (albeit possibly in slightly different words). Ben Hocking (talk 04:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I have thought of this. I think maybe this might be valuable to discuss.--Filll (talk) 05:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Confusion
From :

However, the Tinus Smits video suggests something else, at least on the C scale. It suggests that 1 part of crude to 100 parts of dilutant. What is correct?--Filll (talk) 20:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, from ,

which disagrees also with the video.

The LM potency description is

which seems confusing to me. One drop of the 3C dose is used to saturate 500 pellets? One of these pellets is then dissolved in 100 drops of water/alcohol? This then is LM1 dose? This looks sort of funny to me. The concentration of the material in one of the pellets is roughly 1 part in 50,000,000 (assuming that the centismal scale involves 1 part dissolved in 99 parts of dilutant, and each of the 500 pellets gets the same amount of the 3C dose). Assuming dissolving the pellet in 100 drops of water alcohol does not change the volume (not necessarily a good assumption), then the LM1 dose has a concentration of 1 part in 5 billion, not 1 part in 50,000. --Filll (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Another question
From some more reading, I wondering if solids (soluble solids, insoluble solids) and fluids (miscible and mixable fluids) are treated differently in preparation of remedies.

For example, here is a guess:

1. to make a 1C remedy based on soluble solid medication, 1 part of soluble solids are disssolved in 100 parts of diluent.

2. to make a 1C remedy based on a fluid medication, 1 part of fluid is mixed with 99 parts of diluent.

3. to make a 1C remedy based on an insoluble solid medication, 1 part of soluble solids are suspended in 99 parts of diluent. In the case of insoluble solid medications, however, usually they are "diluted" with soluble solids and then the mixture is placed in the diluent. Therefore, probably 1 part of the mixture are dissolved in 100 parts of diluent and the extra displacement of diluent is caused by the presence of the small parts of insoluble solids. However, this insoluble part is ignored, and these tiny particles go into suspension.

Is this reasonably accurate?--Filll (talk) 03:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Still more questions
Looking at, I see the potencies 1Mc, 10Mc, 50Mc, CMc, DMc, MMc. What are these exactly? My guess is
 * 1Mc is C dilutions by 100, repeated 1000 times
 * 10Mc is C dilutions by 100, repeated 10,000 times
 * CMc is C dilutions by 100, repeated 100,000 times
 * DMc is C dilutions by 100, repeated 500,000 times
 * MMc is C dilutions by 100, repeated 1,000,000 times

I also see the claims


 * 4CH is equal to 6K
 * 5CH is equal to 3C
 * 7CH is equal to 200K
 * 9CH is equal to 1MK
 * 10CH is equal to 10MK
 * 18CH is equal to CMK

I am not sure I understand these.

I also see the question of whether these are equivalent:


 * 6X potency instead of 3C (seems like yes to me except for succussion)
 * 24X potency instead of 12C (seems like yes to me except for succussion)
 * 60X potency instead of 30C (seems like yes to me except for succussion)
 * CMX potency instead of 50Mc (this makes no sense to me???)
 * 5C potency instead of LM /1 (this makes no sense to me)
 * 17C potency instead of LM /6 (I do not understand this)
 * 73C potency instead of LM/30 or vice-versa? (I do not understand this)

Can anyone help?--Filll (talk) 06:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Please check this homeopathic pharmacopeia where you should find many answers and use it is as a good/reliable source; sorry I don't have time today to go thru your list. Peter morrell 08:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Here are some examples of how homeopathic remedies are initially prepared, taken from Dewey:

"Chop and pound the whole fresh plant to a fine pulp. Enclose in a piece of new linen and press out juice. Mix with equal quantities of alcohol. Pour in well stoppered bottle and stand for eight days in dark, cool place, agitating it daily, and then filter. Drug power, ½. The tincture is of a clear orange color, acrid taste, slightly bitter, odor like fresh plant, and acid in reaction."Dewey, re Millefolium herb

"The spores must be severely triturated for hours, first dry, then with alcohol enough to make a thick paste, then sufficient alcohol is added to make five parts, by weight, to each part of Lycopodium. Stand in well stoppered bottle eight days in dark, cool place. Decant, strain and filter. Drug power, 1/10. The tincture is straw colored. Triturations are more reliable." Dewey, re Lycopodium pollen

"Chop and pound the fresh root to a fine pulp and weigh. Add gradually two parts of alcohol, by weight to each part of pulp. Stir thoroughly, pour into a well stoppered bottle and stand in a dark, cool place for eight days, shaking it daily. Decant, strain and filter. Drug power, 1/6. The tincture is clear, slightly brownish orange color, of a pleasant bitter taste and slightly acid reaction." Dewey, re Gelsemium root

Details of how trituration and 'dilution' are performed to follow as time permits. Peter morrell 13:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Those K potencies are Korsakoff ones made with a continuous fluxion device that fills, shakes then empties then refills itself mechanically over and over; mathematically they are weird. I don't know much more than that. You might find something online maybe in French where the scale is in use. Not sure it is used anyplace else. Peter morrell 15:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Having read a bit more
It appears to me that addition of dilutants in power of 10 quantities is performed sometimes in the preparation of homeopathic remedies. It also appears to me that crude substances are diluted by powers of 10 as well in the preparation in homeopathic remedies. It is probably true that similar pairs of procedures for the LM potencies are also both used, although the descriptions are so convoluted I am still mystified.--Filll (talk) 23:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Roman numerals
It might help to mention that the "names" of many of the scales derive from Roman numerals. This makes them easier to remember. Wanderer57 (talk) 18:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The M scale
Is the M scale called the "millesimal scale" ? When I do a search for it, on the internet, it does not come up prominently so maybe this term is not used, or it is very uncommon. Comments? --Filll (talk) 01:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No, M is just an abbreviation for 1000c and is not a scale in its own right. hence 50M CM means 50,000C and 100,000C potencies. Peter morrell 15:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Continuous Fluxion
I see CF or FC used as a designation of Continuous Fluxion. What is Continuous Fluxion?--Filll (talk) 01:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Look for Jenichen and Korsakoff who invented the continuous fluxion potentiser for continuous emptying, refilling and fluxion of a single vial instead of using a long series of vials. It is a method of making high potencies in hours rather than days....check it on google. Peter morrell 15:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Confusing homeopathy reference
This one describes a millesimal scale, or M scale, that is different:. Millesimal dilutions are by 1 part in 1000, so 1M is 3X. Also, it implies that 4X is identical to 2C. I do not understand.-Filll (talk) 14:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No, this is BS. Peter morrell 15:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Other sources state that 1M=1000C, including US patents on homeopathic technology.--Filll (talk) 14:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That is correct! Peter morrell 15:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

In straight molecular terms 4x and 2c are identical as they are both 1 part in 10,000, but one has received more succussion than the other, so they are not considered the same. Have you also checked the Korsakoff potency scale invented by Korsakoff and still widely used in France? Peter morrell 15:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I do have a bit on the Korsakoff scale in the draft if you look, but my understanding of the Korsakoff scale was that there is just reuse of containers during preparation. This leads to doses that are designated as 1CK, 2CK, 3CK, DK1, DK2, DK3 etc. I have not found 1XK, 2XK, 3XK yet although I presume they exist; is this true? The only other reference to a Korsakoff scale I found is at but it does not make it clear what it is referring to. Is there a better place to look?--Filll (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Check this seems a good source, and this  and also this  will try to find more. Peter morrell 15:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Preferences in countries
Does europe prefer the C scale? The US? Does europe prefer the D scale or the X scale? Does the US prefer the D scale or the X scale? What scales are preferred in India?

What is the most popular potency in Europe? In India? In the US? in other places?--Filll (talk) 15:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Potassium dichromate
Quoting from Comparision Table section: "Potassium dichromate has a molar mass of 294.19 grams/mole, a density of 2.676 grams/cm3, and a solubility in water of 4.9 gram/100 ml at 0°C. Therefore, the most potassium dichromate that can be dissolved in a milliliter of water is 49 grams at 0°C."

I think the last sentence is meant to read:

Therefore, the most potassium dichromate that can be dissolved in a liter of water is 49 grams at 0°C. Wanderer57 (talk) 16:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes that is obviously a typo. This draft has a ton of errors and mistakes of various kinds in it.--Filll (talk) 16:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Another source that I wonder about

 * describes LM or Q as the millesimal scale (is this correct?)
 * it describes a complicated method used to get the 1LM dose. Is this correct?
 * describes the Kersokovian method as not just reusing vials, but retaining a single drop and diluting this. Is this accurate?
 * describes a mixed hahnemann and kersokovian method. Is this accurate?
 * The Jennichen method is described, which makes no sense to me
 * Fincke and Skinner's methods sound like CF/FC/Continuous Fluxion method. Is this accurate?--Filll (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Size of doses
Here are some good sources for you to extract info re the size of the dose:   and 266-271 of I hope that helps cheers Peter morrell 07:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

See also 249-259 sections of for a detailed account of doses like: ''though the sulphur be given in the very smallest dose, though only a globule of the size of a mustard seed moistened with tinct. sulph X° be smelt, and let the patient smell a single time strongly at a globule the size of a mustard seed moistened with mercur metall. X, and allow this olfaction to act for about nine days.'' This gives some idea of the issue. Hahnemann states that the dose can be incredibly small but if homeopathic to the case it can produce a beneficial response. He also alludes to teaspoon sized doses of liquid remedies in water, but, as with so much, he changes his methods as he goes along and even today no universal consensus among homeopaths can be determined anywhere on this subject of size of dose. thanks Peter morrell 08:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Samuel Swan's Potencies
My guess is that these are non standard definitions:

3 1/3 revolutions, or 333 1/3 cubic inches of water, with


 * 1 drop of tincture, makes the 1M potency.
 * 1/10 drop of 1M, makes the 10M potency.
 * 1/3 drop of 10M, makes the 30M potency.
 * 1/5 drop of 10M, makes the 50M potency.
 * 1/5 drop of 50M, makes the CM potency.
 * 1/5 drop of CM, makes the DM potency.
 * 1/10 drop of CM, makes the MM potency.
 * 1/10 drop of MM, makes the 10MM potency.
 * 1/5 drop of 10MM, makes the 50MM potency.
 * 1/5 drop of 50MM, makes the CMM potency.
 * 1/5 drop of CMM, makes the DMM potency.
 * 1/5 drop of DMM, makes the MMM potency.

From .--Filll (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

LM1, LM2 etc
This is very confusing to me.


 * Here is one procedure:.


 * Here is another procedure, introducing the #10 pellets


 * Here is a source noting the 1 part to 501


 * Here is another source

All are slightly different. There are many more. --Filll (talk) 17:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Some discussion of various pellet sizes .--Filll (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It states:

So what are those diameters? Weights? Volumes? What are they made of?--Filll (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Pellet sizes

 * says #35 is BB size, #20 is poppy seed size and #10 is grain of sand size (contradict statement above??)

also says 85% sucrose and 15% lactose


 * 

says Unmedicated Blank Pellets (Lactose Based). Blank pellets are 80% lactose and 20% sucrose. The default size is #40 (4.0 mm in diameter). We also offer sizes #10, #15, #25, #35


 * states that #10 is the size of a poppy seed and #35 is the size of a BB and #20 is about half the diameter of a #35 and about twice the diameter of a number 10.

--Filll (talk) 18:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * states while many of the homeopathic medicines are sold in small pellets, ranging from the 1/8” (.5cm) pellets to some the size of poppy seeds


 * states that No 10 globules are required for saturation of medicine in LM potency. 100 globules are equivalent to 1 grain (i.e. 65 mg)

Not sure if you have seen these  which give some answers to your questions. Most globules are lactose/sucrose mixture spherical about 4mm dia though some prefer to use poppy seed sized granules about 1mm dia. That's about all I know. Peter morrell 18:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Poppy Seed sizes

 * picture of poppy seeds with scale


 * seed size of 0·60–1·0 mm in


 * average diameter of 0.8 mm


 * comparable to the 0.7- to 1.4-mm size range of poppy seeds (Wagner 1982:128)


 * The poppy seed appears as a dark solid object 0.9 mm in diameter


 * 

Poppy seeds are about 1.25-1.50mm long and 0.8-1.1 mm broad (Godin and Spensley 1971). --Filll (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

BB shot sizes

 * BBB .190" (4.83mm), BB .180" (4.57mm), 1 .160" (4.06mm), 2 .150" (3.81mm), 3 .140" (3.56mm), 4 .130" (3.30mm), 5 .120" (3.05mm), 6 .110" (2.79mm), 7 1/2 .100" (2.41mm), 8 .090" (.2.29mm), 8 1/2 .085" (2.16mm), 9 .080" (2.03mm) from


 * 4mm


 * (4.34 mm to 4.39 mm) in diameter


 * 4.5 mm


 * 4.57 mm

And so on and so forth.--Filll (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, so what's wrong with all that? as I said they are about 4-5 mm pellets or about 1mm 'poppy seed-sized' granules. The latter can be tipped into a baby's or child's mouth and dissolve quick; the larger ones can be crunched or sucked until they dissolve. This is all pretty standard stuff, Filll, I can't see what you are asking? thanks Peter morrell 18:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well what I am doing is trying to compile a bit of information so we can accurately compute the exact dilution that is represented by LM1, LM2, LM3 and so on. To do that, we have to get a little bit of information first on which to base our calculations.--Filll (talk) 18:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, slight problemo; LMs are very often given in liquid doses though they are also available in granules and pellets. Hopefully you now have enough info for your calculation. Peter morrell 18:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well I plan to describe LM preparation at least 2 different ways. One method appears to be to wet 500 pellets of size #10 or maybe poppy seed size (the same? Different? Not quite clear at this point), and then place one of those drops in some solvent. Another technique appears to be to dilute one drop with 500 drops of something else and then proceed. There are actually quite a few methods which are slightly different. But I want to capture a couple of them in the document, and so we can at least fill out the table for comparison, and do that based on some reasonable information.--Filll (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

How much is a grain?
I am working on trying to understand some of the more obscure homeopathic scales and procedures, and it would be useful to have this page translated into English. I also wonder if you have any ideas on good sources for what might have been the value of the mass unit, the grain in Germany during Hahnemann's lifetime? Thanks.--Filll (talk) 17:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Alte_Maße_und_Gewichte gives the definitions of the grain as follows: 812 mg in case of gold and silver, 50 mg in case of jewels and perls, and the apothecary's grain is given as 63 mg. But these are fairly recent. I would guess that Hahnemann used the apothecary's grain.
 * According to Apothekergewicht, the apothecary's grain was almost standardised all over Europe since the middle of the 13th century. That's very astonishing, considering that very long (18th century?) many German states had their own versions of the basic units such as inches and feet. Perhaps it was because medicine and alchemy were always international.
 * The next astonishing thing here is that I am learning new mathematics in connection with this: The concept of smooth numbers. Unfortunately the article on apothecary's weights is a bit unclear in some respects. Apparently the continental apothecary's grain before 1811 (when it was reformed, though only in the German-speaking countries) was 62.1250 mg or 62.2080 mg. The article calls the first value "historical" and the second "7-smooth", so I guess the difference has to do with simplified calculations. The British system was exactly parallel, except it was based on the Troy pound instead of the original Charlemagne pound, and the ratio between the two was exactly 24:25. The British apothecary's grain was 64.799 mg or 64.800 mg ("historical" / "7-smooth").
 * Thanks for this interesting question! It seems that Wikipedia needs a lot of translation in both directions in this area, and also some more, interesting research. But the page you pointed to is a bit special and not very good, so it's perhaps not the best thing to translate. Are you happy with this, or do you need more / more reliable / more exact information? Where did the question come up? --Hans Adler (talk) 18:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I have been very slowly working on a draft here and there are several descriptions of the LM/Q scale which involve grains (presumably because Hahnemann originally used grains in his description? I have not verified this, but I suspect this is why). Unfortunately, all the descriptions are inconsistent and confusing. But I am trying to use a couple of them to produce entries for the table comparing these scale values to conventional chemistry values. As you can see, I am working on the LM values.--Filll (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That draft goes into extreme detail! Are you planning to bring this to FA quality??? — Why do you need to know how much a grain is? Is it for the case when a solid is diluted in a liquid that's not measured by its weight? --Hans Adler (talk) 20:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * For some reason I hadn't read your third fourth sentence, which answers my question. The best is probably to extend the article Apothecaries' system. Currently it covers only the British system. If we update it to cover the continental system as well, we are likely to get input from experts. And the kind of table that you have in mind is probably interesting for many topics in the history of science. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Doing some searches, I see there are many different definitions of a grain. But I suspect about 62 mg might be about right. I am planning to possibly present a range of values, depending on some variables, since this is a very big mess I think.--Filll (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems it is more complicated, after all. The German wikipedia articles seem to have serious issues with original research, and with ownership by someone who idealises the pre-metric systems. The following sources are all in German, I put them here mainly in case I need them again. In principle, the apothecaries' system was more or less standardised in 1555 (the Nurembourg system). But, presumably because this standard wasn't very exact, at the time when the metric system was introduced the local systems had diverged significantly. In a book from 1840 I found a table with columns for country or city / apothecaries' pound in g / civil pound in g / proportion between the two / nonstandard subdivisions.  There is also an apothecaries' handbook from 1835 that goes into incredible detail.  And I found a detailed proposal from 1847 for a common German system.  The system which Hahnemann used was probably that from the Electorate of Saxony / Kingdom of Saxony, where he lived. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Alternative Dilution factors

 * gives 1 part in 11 and 1 part in 101.--Filll (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * gives 1 part in 10 and 1 part in 100.

LM methods

 * 


 * 1) 1 grain of 3c trituration is placed in 500 drops to make LM/0 (1 to 501 dilution ratio ??? sounds wrong).
 * 2) One drop of LM/0 is added to 100 drops of diluent and succussed 100 times. This is then LM/1 potency (one drop to 100 drops is more like a 1 to 101 dilution ratio of course)
 * Claims that this dilution factor is close to 6C, but is it?
 * 1) Then this LM/1 is used to moisten 500 poppy seed size pellets
 * 2) One pellet is then placed in 3.5 ounces, and succussed. Then 1-3 teaspoons of this material are then placed in a "dilution glass of water" (how big???).
 * 3) 1-3 teaspoons given to patient as dose.


 * 

Overview: No 10 globules are required for saturation of medicine in LM potency. 100 globules are equivalent to 1 grain (i.e. 65 mg). 500 globules to be soaked in one drop of previous potency. One such medicated globule is required for next degree of dynamization in LM scale.

Hence 1/500 th of a drop instead of one full drop is used in LM potency. The material part of the medicine is reduced by (1/500 x 1/100 = 1/50,000) 50,000 times for each degree of dynamization and at the same time the curative power of the medicine increases tremendously. (makes little sense of course).


 * 1) start with trituration 1 drop or 1 grain (???) and 100 grains of sac lac, ground up for one hour is 1st trituration
 * 2) 1 grain of first trituration + 100 grains of sac lac ground up for one hour is 2nd trituration
 * 3) 1 grain of 2nd trituration + 100 grains of sac lac ground up for one hour is 3rd trituration
 * 4) 1 grain of 3rd trituration + 500 drops of diluent (100 drops water, 400 drops alcohol)= mother solution (LM/0 ??)
 * 5) 1 drop of mother solution + 100 drops alcohol + 100 succussions = LM/1
 * 6) 1 pellet #10 is soaked with LM/1 + 1 drop water + 100 drops alcohol = LM/2
 * 7) Claim that LM/2 is more potent than LM/1 by 50,000
 * Gives examples of using LM/8


 * 

Gives two different procedures:

LM (50 millesimal, Q) - the second potency scale developed by Hahnemann, introduced in the sixth edition of the Organon. Start with a 3c triturate of a remedy. One part is placed into 500 drops liquid (400 drops water, 100 drops alcohol). One drop is placed into 100 drops of alcohol. This is succussed by hand 100 times. One drop of this mixture is used to medicate 500 #10 pellets. This is the Q1 potency(sometimes written 0/1). The Q2 is made by taking 1 of these medicated pellets, putting it into 1 drop of water, and then mixing into 100 drops of alcohol. This mixture is succussed 100 times by hand.

Today, the HPUS standard differs from Hahnemann's. The following excerpt is taken from HPUS Abstracts - General Pharmacy:

LM (50 millesimal, Q) - the second potency scale developed by Hahnemann, introduced in the sixth edition of the Organon. Start with a 3c triturate of a remedy. One part is placed into 500 drops liquid (4 parts water, 1 part alcohol 95% v/v). One drop is placed into 2 ml alcohol 95% v/v. This is succussed by hand 100 times. One drop of this mixture is used to medicate 500 #10 pellets. This is the Q1 potency (sometimes written 0/1). The Q2 is made by taking 1 of these medicated pellet and placing it into 2 ml alcohol 95% v/v. This mixture is succussed 100 times by hand."

Main difference appears to be a confusion about what 95% v/v means.--Filll (talk) 20:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

-states one grain is 0.062 grams.
 * 

-States most of their remedies are processed to LM/120

-very confusing part about 8 successive triturations that makes no sense

-refers to subtriturations which I do not know about

dissolve one grain of trituration (supposedly 3CH) in 500 drops of water/alcohol (400 drops water, 100 drops alcohol 94%)

Then mix one drop with 100 drops alcohol and succuss to get LM1

Put on 500 "granules"

Take one granule, dissolve in one drop of water and put in 100 drops of alcohol.

This is LM/2

etc
 * 

Questions to investigate
--Filll (talk) 16:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * what is a grain? (several choices)
 * How big is a drop of water? Of alcohol? Of a mix of alcohol and water?
 * What is the volume of a mix of water and alcohol?
 * What size pellet is used?
 * How do various methods of producing LMs compare?

That's a start! Peter morrell 16:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * a grain is = 64.79891 milligrams [see: Grain (mass)
 * Drop of Water = 0.0251ml 0.025g
 * Sort of. Except I have found several sources that describe a grain as something else. Even homeopathic sources (although I would probably go with one around 60 some milligrams, according to historical sources from the time of Hahnemann). Unfortunately, a drop of water is a bit more complicated. The most common figure quoted is twice that large. It depends on temperature and surface tension and other factors.--Filll (talk) 16:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * ethanol surface tension calculation.

Excess volume information

 * Volume fraction
 * Partial molar volume
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * problems before

Grains and drops
Hello Filll, I have continued my work on the apothecaries' measures until I ran out of steam. I am going to copy the material from my sandbox into Apothecaries' system soon, but it would be great if you could look over it first, and tell me if it makes sense or if everything got lost behind the details.

In reply to your concrete questions above: For Hahnemann, a grain was 62 mg; this is based on a pound of 357.8 g and the same subdivisions as in the English apothecaries' system. The system was the same everywhere except in the countries with Romance languages. But the weight of a pound (and hence of a grain) depended on the state (in Germany sometimes: city), and was subject to occasional change.

The drop is more complicated. A drop was the amount of liquid that you got out of an ordinary little glass bottle, the brink of which you had to wet first. This was obviously not well-defined, similar to a "tablespoon". I found one source in English that just defines 1 drop = 1 minim. A German handbook of medicine prescription from 1835 says volume measures other than the drop and the (Prussian) quart had fallen out of use in Germany, in favour of weighing. It also states the equivalence of the English drop to the English minim (saying the equivalence is a good thing). It has a long paragraph on the meaning of a drop in Germany. If you are interested I can translate it for you. You might be interested in the table that indicates how many drops of various substances there were (supposed to be) in one drachm. It ranges from 40 (thin syrups) to 200 (sulphuric ether). --Hans Adler (talk) 19:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Oliver Cromwell's bladder quote
From part 2 of Enemies of Reason with Richard Dawkins --Filll (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)