C vs LM

-
How LM potencies compare with the C ones, how a particular LM potency stands wrt to a C one, is one of the intriguing questions that hasn't been answered till now. Some homeopaths though have given their “guidelines” and “assessment” for “very few” LM potencies, the initial ones, on how they stand as compared to the particular C ones.

C vs LMThis puzzle has now been solved, and a proper scale of comparison between C and LM potencies is in my book (section 2.1.18.3 and 2.1.11.4). (For best understanding, get the print book. Though, Kindle book too offers the same, or gives a right understanding, if read with interest.)
An example of the scale, rather the beginning part, on how potencies stand...
30C,   LM1,   200C,   LM2, LM3,   1M,   LM4, LM5, LM6, LM7,   10M,   LM8…

The scale is as per proper explanations, and one even can find where will any LM potency stand as compared to a C one, be it LM100, LM200, or any C one... So, something big on this front.


An interesting observation on the scale revealed above is how LM8 is higher than 10M. One maynot have thought so, and with this, if LM8 stands above 10M, it certainly raises our eyebrows on to how the rest of the LMs stand, and where does a particular one do as compared to the respective C ones.
And pls do know, the time for which an LM potency acts is longer. So, despite LM1 between 30C and 200C, if given more, it will act for more time. And therefore, these potencies need to be given in lesser doses, which even Hahnemann said.

 

In the absence of knowledge of “coefficient of absorption of power of alcohol”, sometimes dilutional equivalent is thought of to present potency comparisons (by some homeopaths). What is dilutional equivalent, and how though that doesn't hold for potency comparisons, can very well be known from this very important link. The ones who are not aware of difference in C and LM potency, also should have a good read on it. It gives the much needed information on why LM potencies are considered as high potency medicines (barring the initial lower ones), and what has been observed on them by some eminent homeopaths.

However, dilutional equivalent doesn't tell the potency, as the “absorption coefficient of power for alcohol” is not taken into account in this. Alcohol is very much expected to absorb more power on more dilution (including succession), and that's what happens in LM scale. So, each LM absorbs far more power than what happens in each C scale dilution, coz of more dilution ratio. The difference in the dilution ratio for two is quite a lot, 1 : 100, and 1 : 50,000. That's why LM potencies are feared too, even otherwise in general, and considered stronger. Here one can say that LM potencies rather act more gently. Then that's also true, as both the aspects hold, provided used rightly.



Apart from dilutional equivalent, I got to learn how some homeopaths even use Fibonacci Series numbers, in some multiples, to arrive at equivalence between C and LM potencies, wherein the power of C potencies are thought in those multiples of LMs. It’s done in the following way.


LM Potencies  /  For series number 3         /  It’s nothing but 3C /  C Potencies
LM1                 /  For the series number 5   /  It’s 3×5                    /  = 15C
LM2                /  For the series number 8   /  It’s 15×8                   /  = 120C
LM3                /  For the series number 13  /  It’s 120×13              /  = 1560C
LM4                /  For the series number 21  /  It’s 1560×21           /  = 32760C
Placing Fibonacci series in this way for potencies in a way means assuming the potencies in the two scales to be related in the above way as per this series. So, this thought, or any other one, of assuming it in any similar fashion, is certainly wrong. More so, if I may say, it’s the name Fibonacci here that attracts, and one thus thinks to relate potencies as per this series’ numbers!

There are many other mathematical series, so in good reason, one should stay away from getting influenced by an hip name. It sounds really crude, but one must be open to think this way too. Also, it sounds somewhat reasonable to possibly think of potencies in the above fashion, as it's not as per dilutional equivalent, rather in some higher multiples.

Thus, the two good “sounding reasons” than real reasons to think or rather assume in this way.

http://hmpathy.com

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Possible homeopathic medicine for Coronavirus

-
(Read on wordpress,  https://hmpathy.wordpress.com/2020/04/12/possible-homeopathic-medicine-for-coronavirus/ ) Today when the world is fighting with the deadly Coronavirus, I'm trying to put my thoughts on the possible homeopathic medicine for it, and after much deliberation over the past days, than in any hurry. Homeopaths are trying to find the medicine for it, and there even are possible thoughts or remedies, like by Manish Bhatia, in this article . We don't know which medicine would be right finally, though I think that the right medicine to combat Coronavirus should be Aconitum napellus . This medicine, if you would ask to homeopaths in general, is used for common cold, general influenza and even pneumonia, etc, which have a sudden onset . Though, very possibly, it won't be thought to be the possible remedy for Coronavirus. I however have seen that in majority of cases, where we feel that the onset of common cold, influenza, etc, is sudden, and try this remedy, are not
Read more

Three Successive 'Standard' Potencies

-
Image
What is the logic of using three potencies of a particular medicine on a person? Three successive potencies, the three successive 'standard' potencies! We would have seen it done on ourselves, any family person, or a friend, or would have heard of it. Why three potencies? Let’s ask some crude questions to ourselves, based on simple logic, that why three potencies, and see if we can arrive at any answer Do three successive 'standard' potencies act better? And give better solution of our health issues? If so, then how? Or is it that the homeopath is unaware of which potency to use? Or is it just a tradition that got started, and we don’t even know who started it, who propagated it, on which logic, but we still follow it, without being aware whether it’s right or not! Have we seen this rule written by Hahnemann, or by any other homeopath as per some new findings anywhere? No… then why we follow it? And why it’s used really a lot, and rather so blindly? Imagin
Read more

First Book

-
Image
I came with my book, my very first book , in 2010, expecting a great response, as if a blast would happen, and my book would be a super hit very soon. Though I didn't know that it had so many language errors, and was also coming with somewhat a poor sense of book writing. Despite good ideas thus, the book didn't gather much response, and even the ones who bought it, felt a sad taste in mouth, due to so many issues in language specifically. I put below some parts of my post, from Blogger, the one I wrote on book's release, on July 11, 2010 , along with requisite edits. I've found a grand new theory on homeopathy, that gives the true base of homeopathy itself, which despite the development of homeopathy, has still been an unsolved and mysterious matter. I also have discovered many new things in homeopathy, and they are part and parcel of this grand new theory, and without saying, are in the book too. The book answers all the unanswered and unexplained things in homeopathy
Read more