# Dilution?

Discussion in 'Free Thoughts' started by BeachMountainYY, Oct 18, 2005.

1. ### BeachMountainYYRegistered Member

Messages:
1
is there a rate of dilution that can be calculated, for example if u have a bottel of soda and pour half out and fill it with water and repeat how many times would u have to do that until it was only water in the bottle?

- BeachMountainYY
- My Software
- Freeware Shareware

3. ### RomanBannedBanned

Messages:
11,560
(1/2)^x=0

The bigger x is, the closer your dilution gets to zero. When x approaches infinity, the dilution will approach pure water.

5. ### espRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
908
And then there's the philosophical arrow which covers half the remaining distance to it's target in t time. And never reaches it.

Surely the bottle could never contain only pure water.

7. ### RomanBannedBanned

Messages:
11,560
But if you do that enough times, the bottle will contain so much water it will be mostly pure. Getting pure water is hard, almost impossible. Tap water has so much crud in it, anyway.

8. ### espRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
908
Roman wrote...
Very true. There are many methods of measurement by which we can determine the 'purity' of water, and it is almost impossible to obtain water of total purity unless a form of molecular synthesis is used.

However, the query was...

and really you could never realise that goal.

But I admit, for the probable intent of the thread, the formula appears sound

Last edited: Oct 18, 2005
9. ### RomanBannedBanned

Messages:
11,560
Never ever not in a million years. Well, on a molecular level could you? I mean, you'd get down to 10 soda molecules, then 5, then 2.5? 3? 1.5, 0.75.... What would happen when you got down to fractitious molecules?

10. ### espRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
908
Fascinating. In a purely mathematical excercise this may merit further debate!
But in reality, the statistics required to ensure that those last few molecules of contaminant are in the portion of liquid removed from the whole... would you care to calculate? And what is the molar mass of 'soda'?

Last edited: Oct 19, 2005
11. ### Fraggle RockerStaff Member

Messages:
24,690
Have you guys looked further down the list and noticed that there's a Math and Physics forum for this kind of stuff?

12. ### bbcboyRecovering christianRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,104
A brief word on homeopathy:
The more you dilute a medicine in water the stronger it becomes!
It's abit like the difference between off white and Beige!
it's only a theory and I think personally it's hokum but a small spanner in small workD:

13. ### RubiksMasterReal eyes realize real liesRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,646
If you keep doing this, eventually there would be only water left. Let's say you got down to 8 soda molecules, then 4, then 2, then 1. Eventually that one molecule will make its way to the mouth of the bottle and come out.

Physically speaking (and this is a physical problem bounded by reality) you wouldn't achieve fractions of a soda molecule using this method.

14. ### RomanBannedBanned

Messages:
11,560
But what's the chance that you'd have those 8 soda molecules in half the container?

15. ### espRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
908
refinement

Ok. Let's get scientific!

So we get to one molocule of contaminant.
Then (mathematically) it's split.
But in the case of a molocule that requires there to be a whole molocule of itself for it to be itself, there must be either some or none.

So...
For the purpose of this thread, we always remove half of the contaminant.

By simple dilution there cannot be a fractionization of the molocule.

We are compelled to round up.

The mixture will always be impure.

Scientifically, that is.

16. ### PeteIt's not rocket surgeryRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,167
After ten times, you'd have less than 100 g/L of the dissolved solids from the original soda. This would be completely indistinguishable from tap water.

Fourteen times would give you 6 g/L, which would be indistinguishable from distilled water.

But even if you want absolutely pure water, it doesn't take forever.

A 1.5L bottle of soda contains about 5 x 10<sup>25</sup> molecules.
If the bottle was perfectly mixed each time so that you always lost half the remaining molecules of soda, you'd be down to 1 molecule left after about 80 dilutions.

After 100 dilutions, there's an excellent chance (a million to one on) that you'd have only water left.

17. ### PeteIt's not rocket surgeryRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,167
I don't think so. If there's one molecule left, there's a 50% chance that it will be tossed out in the next dilution.

Last edited: Oct 24, 2005
18. ### espRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
908
pete wrote...

I refere you to the start of thread.

Each time the contaminant and the prime solution is halved.

Would you like to titrate?
We are compelled to round up.

BTW, you sound a little like my advanced level chemistry and physics tutors.

Last edited: Oct 24, 2005
19. ### PeteIt's not rocket surgeryRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,167
Nope, doesn't follow.
You agree that in the case of an odd number of molecules, the number staying in the bottle and the number thrown out must differ by one.

There is no reason to dictate that the extra molecule must stay in the bottle.

Hmm... I'm a lecturer in a business faculty (information systems).

20. ### espRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
908
pete wrote...
Of course.

The idea of simply splitting a 'soda molocule' at will in a bottle...

How absurd.

Please let me know when a branch of chemistry accepts fractional molocules.

Which is why for the purpose of his thread, when there is one molocule left, there must continue to be one molocule left.

Last edited: Oct 24, 2005
21. ### PeteIt's not rocket surgeryRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,167
Silly.
Why must the half staying in the bottle have one more than the half thrown out?
Why not the other way around?

22. ### espRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
908
Ok. I will use the chemical treatments library of the facility where I work. I will investigate the relationships of molar masses, avagadro's constant and potential conductivity in relation to empirical contaminants, factoring theoretical, absolute and base scientific statistics.

On my next off-shift, I will post my unbiased findings.

--

And I suppose if you were employed in any practical field, you would always err on the side of conservatism.

Just because something can change, it does not follow that it will.
:bugeye:

An old aphorism in the field of engineering:

Those who can: DO...

I'm sure you can fill the rest in.

Last edited: Oct 24, 2005
23. ### PeteIt's not rocket surgeryRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,167
OK... you have fun with that! :bugeye: