![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
complementary and alternative medicine, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
New article, briefly explaining the process. Adam Cuerden talk 08:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Homeopaths claim that such diluted solutions can have therapeutic effects despite the absence of solute. A proposed explanation invokes water memory, a controversial idea that shaking (or "succussing") at each stage of the dilution can leave an "imprint" of the original molecules on the solvent. However, no mechanism by which this could take place is apparent, and liquid water has been shown to lose memory of any structure within 50 femtoseconds. [1] Consequently, the proposed mechanisms of homeopathy are generally considered highly implausible by mainstream science. [2] [3] [4] [5]
While this may be useful later, I agree that, as the article stands, this is too much information. Adam Cuerden talk 14:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok fair enough. As long as one tries to avoid confusion on notation.-- Filll ( talk) 17:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Ernst2005
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).While it is mathematically correct that no molecules of original substance are present in 12C or higher potencies, only a few test tubes of water are actually used in dilution and succussion. Homeopaths believe that the repeated agitation of the water with each successive dilution causes some physical alteration of the structure of the water which they consider biologically active.
If editors are going to present a mathematical argument about relative volumes of water it should be stated that we're not actually talking about very much water at all here. — Whig ( talk) 04:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it is clear from
A typical serial dilution might involve a factor of ten dilution at each stage, done as follows: Start with the original substance to be diluted, at whatever starting concentration you may have it at, or which is convenient to create. 1 mol/L for example. Take 1 millilitre of it, place in a 10 millilitre volumetric flask, and top the volumetric flask. As there is now 1 mL of the original substance in 10 mL of solution, the concentration is 1/10th what it was originally, or 0.1 mol/L. Take 1 mL of the 0.1 mol/L solution, add it to another 10 mL flask, and fill that up to 10 mL. We now have 1/10th the concentration of the 0.1 mol/L solution, giving us a 0.01 mol/L solution. This process may be continued as far as the experiment or purpose requires, and (in this case) gives 9 mL of all the intermediate concentrations (10 mL less the 1 mL used to make the next dilution), which may be useful if it is desired to test at these concentrations as well.
that the volumes handled at each time are comparatively small. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 05:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Within chemistry M = molarity = mol/L. This is an article about a simple chemical process so 1 M should suffice to mean 1 mol/L. But it seems that some religion defines M otherwise, it can't be used in describing a chemistry process? Severe undue weight problems here.
I removed a belief qualification from the homeopathy section - the section should be cut to no more than a one sentence see also ... for use in ... or whatever - where the beliefs and nonchemical use of M can be discussed at length - per
WP:UNDUE.
Vsmith (
talk)
05:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I thought the whole point of homeopathy was that it does not use serial dilution, but serial dilution AND succussion? I'd favor a minor mention in See also. David D. (Talk) 06:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) David, you're verging on bad faith here. If there's a problem with the article, focus on the article, not on other editors. Whatever may have been, this article is best benefited by working on the article. FT2 ( Talk | email) 12:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the second paragraph, which seemed to be unhelpful. Basically, this is an article on a method of dilution, not a staging post for the dispute on homeopathy. The introduction states what serial dilution means, the first paragraph of this section states it's used in homeopathy in a way that "no molecules of the original substance are likely to remain". The second paragraph then says the exact same again as an example, and adds nothing more, except for the impression it's trying to re-make the point. No need. It already says everything. For more information, direct readers to Homeopathy, whjich is now linked as the main article. Looks better balanced now. Hope that helps?
FT2 ( Talk | email) 12:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
complementary and alternative medicine, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
New article, briefly explaining the process. Adam Cuerden talk 08:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Homeopaths claim that such diluted solutions can have therapeutic effects despite the absence of solute. A proposed explanation invokes water memory, a controversial idea that shaking (or "succussing") at each stage of the dilution can leave an "imprint" of the original molecules on the solvent. However, no mechanism by which this could take place is apparent, and liquid water has been shown to lose memory of any structure within 50 femtoseconds. [1] Consequently, the proposed mechanisms of homeopathy are generally considered highly implausible by mainstream science. [2] [3] [4] [5]
While this may be useful later, I agree that, as the article stands, this is too much information. Adam Cuerden talk 14:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok fair enough. As long as one tries to avoid confusion on notation.-- Filll ( talk) 17:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Ernst2005
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).While it is mathematically correct that no molecules of original substance are present in 12C or higher potencies, only a few test tubes of water are actually used in dilution and succussion. Homeopaths believe that the repeated agitation of the water with each successive dilution causes some physical alteration of the structure of the water which they consider biologically active.
If editors are going to present a mathematical argument about relative volumes of water it should be stated that we're not actually talking about very much water at all here. — Whig ( talk) 04:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it is clear from
A typical serial dilution might involve a factor of ten dilution at each stage, done as follows: Start with the original substance to be diluted, at whatever starting concentration you may have it at, or which is convenient to create. 1 mol/L for example. Take 1 millilitre of it, place in a 10 millilitre volumetric flask, and top the volumetric flask. As there is now 1 mL of the original substance in 10 mL of solution, the concentration is 1/10th what it was originally, or 0.1 mol/L. Take 1 mL of the 0.1 mol/L solution, add it to another 10 mL flask, and fill that up to 10 mL. We now have 1/10th the concentration of the 0.1 mol/L solution, giving us a 0.01 mol/L solution. This process may be continued as far as the experiment or purpose requires, and (in this case) gives 9 mL of all the intermediate concentrations (10 mL less the 1 mL used to make the next dilution), which may be useful if it is desired to test at these concentrations as well.
that the volumes handled at each time are comparatively small. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 05:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Within chemistry M = molarity = mol/L. This is an article about a simple chemical process so 1 M should suffice to mean 1 mol/L. But it seems that some religion defines M otherwise, it can't be used in describing a chemistry process? Severe undue weight problems here.
I removed a belief qualification from the homeopathy section - the section should be cut to no more than a one sentence see also ... for use in ... or whatever - where the beliefs and nonchemical use of M can be discussed at length - per
WP:UNDUE.
Vsmith (
talk)
05:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I thought the whole point of homeopathy was that it does not use serial dilution, but serial dilution AND succussion? I'd favor a minor mention in See also. David D. (Talk) 06:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) David, you're verging on bad faith here. If there's a problem with the article, focus on the article, not on other editors. Whatever may have been, this article is best benefited by working on the article. FT2 ( Talk | email) 12:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the second paragraph, which seemed to be unhelpful. Basically, this is an article on a method of dilution, not a staging post for the dispute on homeopathy. The introduction states what serial dilution means, the first paragraph of this section states it's used in homeopathy in a way that "no molecules of the original substance are likely to remain". The second paragraph then says the exact same again as an example, and adds nothing more, except for the impression it's trying to re-make the point. No need. It already says everything. For more information, direct readers to Homeopathy, whjich is now linked as the main article. Looks better balanced now. Hope that helps?
FT2 ( Talk | email) 12:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)