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.
This puzzle has now been solved, and a proper scale of comparison between C and LM potencies is in my book (section 184.108.40.206 and 220.127.116.11). (For best understanding, get the print book. Though, Kindle book too offers the same, or gives a right understanding, if read with interest.)
Here’s the scale, or the comparison, on how potencies stand, till CM and LM16…
30C, LM1, 200C, LM2, LM3, 1M, LM4, LM5, LM6, LM7, 10M, LM8, LM9, LM10, LM11, LM12, LM13, LM14, LM15, CM, LM16…
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, and even how LM16 is higher than CM! One maynot have thought so, and with this, if LM8 stands above 10M, and LM16 stands above CM, 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.