Sciencemadness Discussion Board

More chemists is the best tactic for more acceptance of chemistry.

watson.fawkes - 10-7-2009 at 18:54

Thesis: More chemists is the best tactic for more acceptance of chemistry.

This is pretty obvious for me. Political acceptance is always universal when "everyone does it" or, at least, enough people do it that it's common, not sequestered out of sight, and familiar. Any discussion of tactics, I believe, has to acknowledge the basic truth that there is safety in numbers. Any tactic that has, even as a side effect, the consequence of significantly reducing those numbers is almost certainly a self-defeating tactic.

The easiest chemists to make are hobbyist chemists, not professional ones, because they take less time and effort to make. There's a pipeline in the creation of chemical expertise, and it begins with clueless newbies. Indeed, clueless newbies with a nascent interest in chemistry are the single most important population segment in creating more chemists. On one side, people with no interest can't be persuaded. On the other, people who have already started will tend to continue. (In the event that this population bogs down, it will mean that we're dealing with problems of success.) This forum, Sciencemadness, is a part of that pipeline. As an open discussion forum on the internet, it is a principal point of entry for clueless newbies. These people are not a problem; they are the beginning of the long-term solution.
These are general points about goals, not about how to achieve them. I could, of course, go on about what to do. I'm not here to lecture, but to induce further participation. Your turn. Reply here or start some new threads.

JohnWW - 10-7-2009 at 19:20

But they would have to obtain some education in chemistry and related sciences (including chemical engineering). After that, they would probably be looking for jobs as chemists or similar to make use of that education (especially if they are encumbered with student loans), unless they are financially independent through inheritance. Where would all the jobs for them come from, in a deep rece$$ion (especially in the U$A due to its overvalued currency, and the UK), which I predict will be MUCH worse in 2010?

[Edited on 11-7-09 by JohnWW]

starman - 10-7-2009 at 19:31

I think your logic here is sound and your approach admirable,however I think we are too far down the road of social prejudice against our hobby for it to be sucessful.
In my home state here in Western Australia it is illegal to own fitted glass of any description,its not 'war on drugs' its 'war on home chemistry' period.
Trying to recruit enough people to build something akin to a lobby group just isn't going to happen under these conditions.It would be similar to trying to star something like the NRA here,maybe if we started 50 years ago,but not now.

Sedit - 10-7-2009 at 19:59

See your all wrong about it and watson is right. If there was more of us or more importantly if we would come out of the shadows for a change alot of things would happen. Bad things at first I must admit but after that laws would be forced into recession.

There is a topic in whimsy that I can't quite remeber the name of but im sure many of you do where an old man that practiced chemistry had his house catch fire and they came into his basement to find a lab. Right away it was assumed a drug lab and seized costing him years of research and alot of money in equipment.

If there was more honest chemist out in the open people would not jump to the conclusion as much the way they do now because it would be more common place but as I stated in the other threed it is human nature to fear what we don't understand. Our main goal as a collective should be to educate those that do no understand and show them that even if we are working with chemicals we know what where doing with them and it can be a fun thing.

One thing I do when showing a new person that I practice chemistry is throw some Al foil into some muratic acid for them and explain to them whats going on. There eyes will light up like a child in awe most of the time showing fear and excitment all at the same time. Many times they will ask you.."What else you got:D". This is what we need more of before people understand us and no longer view us as the village witch doctor even if thats what we are. The day that people view chemistry as excitment is the day that all our problems go away so im with watson and the more of us that crawl out from our scared little rock the faster this freedom train will come a rolling.

First the will accuse... then they will aquit.... then most important of all, they will accept and enjoy!

Magpie - 10-7-2009 at 20:22

I think the general philosphy of your idea is good - be kind, encouraging, and helpful to new people.

I would think that it is tough to be really interested in chemistry today for a young person high school age or younger. They are looked on by their classmates as druggies, kewls, or nerds. When you are at the age where peer acceptance is so important being thought a nerd or "brainiac" (damn I hate that word) is probably the worst thing that can happen. So they probably come to the internet where they can pursue their interest anonymously. If so, I think they would find SMDB very quickly.

I'm being facetious here but I couldn't help but think of some programs we could start:

"Adopt a Kewl"
"Take a Newbie to Lunch this Week"
"Recipe of the Month Club" :D

[Edited on 11-7-2009 by Magpie]

Sedit - 10-7-2009 at 21:41

"They are looked on by their classmates as druggies, kewls, or nerds"

How do the "brainiacs" gain any recognition and no longer live in the hell that is high school? They either become a drug synthesiser, Kewl saying they could synthesis XY and Z, or nerd.....

The later already has been fulfilled hence the reason most start here with questions that bother the old and unforgiving because they forget what its like to need to impress ones freinds for acceptance.



[Edited on 11-7-2009 by Sedit]

watson.fawkes - 11-7-2009 at 07:35

Quote: Originally posted by starman  
I think your logic here is sound and your approach admirable,however I think we are too far down the road of social prejudice against our hobby for it to be sucessful. In my home state here in Western Australia it is illegal to own fitted glass of any description,its not 'war on drugs' its 'war on home chemistry' period.
The strategy of making more chemists is the right strategy no matter where you are on the acceptance curve. Consider the alternative. If there are no home chemists, you are heading down the road of full professionalization combined with complete illegality for everything else. Admittedly, progress in your location will be slower, simply because one ordinary kind of equipment will be unavailable. But just because one way of doing chemistry is unavailable, doesn't mean others are.

From a global point of view, more chemists elsewhere in the world will eventually put pressure on your jurisdiction. By analogy, I won't stop advocating free speech just because there are repressive regimes in the world. Eventually, at a time scale not to be predicted, things will change. In the interim, you can either live to an ideal or submit to despair and give up. I always consider choosing despair to be stupid; there's never an upside in it.

entropy51 - 11-7-2009 at 07:45

questions that bother the old and unforgiving ?

Who you calling old, young man? LOL

It's not just the old, or even mainly the old who flame the kids.

I was actually trying to be helpful to one (who shall remain nameless) until he posted pictures of chemicals stored in ways that chemicals should never be stored.

But I certainly subscribe to the viewpoints expressed. When I was a kid I was befriended by science teachers, lab technicians and pharmacists. In many ways they were my peer group more so than most kids at school. But there were at least a half dozen of us in high school who did experiments together. Life was boring enough without computers and iPods that chemistry could actually be exciting.

But the bullies should be careful about abusing the nerds. When they grow up, the nerds will be their bosses.

Sedit - 11-7-2009 at 07:57

:D Im not pointing fingers entropy. Just making mention of the fact that tolerance goes down with age because we may forget what its like to be young and enthusiastic.

I seen the pictures from the nameless fellow also and thats one time where someone needs to speak up so thats a slightly different case. The cyanide's are what worryed me the most.

watson.fawkes - 11-7-2009 at 08:52

Quote: Originally posted by entropy51  
I was actually trying to be helpful to one (who shall remain nameless) until he posted pictures of chemicals stored in ways that chemicals should never be stored.
Yes, the case you mention was on my mind; not the only one, mind you, but definitely relevant.

So here's the subtlety about making more chemists: you don't need to accept in everyone who's interested in order to make new chemists. In other words, don't be desperate. Some people are definitely bad for the field. Vitally important, though, is that there just aren't that many people that fall into these categories. I have a pretty short list:Note that these categories are all extremes of one sort or another. The mild versions of these are all acceptable, because, well, people eventually grow up. It behooves our community to help them grow up.

Now to rhetorical techniques. In the case you mention, the question to my mind is how you warn such a person about what's going to happen without just flaming them. I admit this is a balancing act, because you have to simultaneously tell them (1) that what they're doing in this particular case is wrong and (2) that their interest in the general area is right. There's something of an apparent contradiction here. The first trick is to always speak simultaneously about both aspects: near-term danger and long-term promise.

The second trick is how to couch this advice well. We need both a stern tone about near-term danger and a warn tone about long term promise. All the good ways of doing this I can think of have a common principle at heart: the thought "I am concerned for your welfare." The way that this ramifies in rhetoric is something like this: "I'm glad you're doing chemistry. What your doing will eventually stop you from doing chemistry. Here's why. Here's what you can do differently." Said this way, you are putting yourself on their side against the world. This kind of message is essentially affirmative, a "Yes", and the counsel becomes an assistance rather than an obstacle.

Now I've seen people here admonish clueless newbies in other ways, and it doesn't work. The one that immediately comes to mind is this: "What you're doing makes me look bad." The criticism here has been about both unsafe practices and prohibited substances. The ordinary reaction to such criticism is pretty basic: "Fuck you." And I have to say, I agree with this reaction. I think it's completely well founded and even deserved. If you're going to pursue amateur chemistry, a not fully-accepted practice, you already have to assume that people are going to tell you "No" in any number of ways. When you (you-nonspecific) approach a clueless newbie with a criticism that's about you and not about them, you're simply reiterating the "No" they hear from others. So their reply is a repetition of their basic motivation to experiment in the first place. Good for them.

watson.fawkes - 11-7-2009 at 09:09

A specific example of counsel that clueless newbies may need is the insistence upon eye protection. I recall in my high school chemistry class the teacher plopped raw eggs into relatively concentrated acid and base at the beginning of one class. At the end he opened them up for the class to see. That day I learned that strong bases are nothing to scoff at.

If I were doing this today for internet publication, I'd do the same kind of demonstration on cow eyeballs. Given that they are slaughterhouse by-products, I understand that they are inexpensive (but a cursory search query turned up no sources). In any case, it would be a pretty straightforward project to make video showing what happens to ocular tissue under the action of various common lab substances. There's another video about "why you should wear your gloves", although no easily-available analogue for human skin tissue immediately comes to mind. (Maybe skin-on bacon from a carniceria; hmm.) I can't really volunteer for this, having no video equipment.

In any case, there's a whole genre here to develop. It could even be kind of fun, if you like blowing things up. Purely for educational value. The "don't use a boiling flask with a star crack while distilling sulfuric acid" one would be particularly amusing.

The message here fits directly into the context "I am concerned for your welfare", where safety is the particular kind of welfare at issue. The factual statement is "This really could happen to you". The counsel is "Please don't let it, because then you couldn't take pleasure in doing chemistry".

entropy51 - 11-7-2009 at 09:20

"Im not pointing fingers entropy. Just making mention of the fact that tolerance goes down with age because we may forget what its like to be young and enthusiastic."

Sedit, you and I point fingers in good natured fun. But I haven't forgotten what it's like to be young. I'm still too enthusiastic. I am not so sure that tolerance goes down, but maybe caution goes up as the passing years teach you how bad things can get if you're not careful. A burned child dreads the fire, or something like that.

Mark Twain said something like "When I was 18, I knew my father to be a fool. When I was 21 I was amazed at how much the old man had learned.":D

Watson is making some very good points! The young ones typically feel invulnerable to all harm and thus discount advice, but they are more likely to listen if they are not lectured to as if they were children.

As an example, I resisted the temptation to flame the guy who just double-posted!

Watson said "The "don't use a boiling flask with a star crack while distilling sulfuric acid" one would be particularly amusing." I wonder if we shouldn't be teaching them not to distill H2SO4 at all. My experience is that Rooto works for 95% of what I do and I keep a little ACS reagent grade for the rest. You have to pause for a second when dead chemists like Henry Roscoe caution you about something, since warnings were most uncommon in the old books. And Roscoe did lots of perchloric distillations, so he was no wuss.



[Edited on 11-7-2009 by entropy51]

[Edited on 11-7-2009 by entropy51]

watson.fawkes - 11-7-2009 at 09:24

Quote: Originally posted by Magpie  
I would think that it is tough to be really interested in chemistry today for a young person high school age or younger. [...] I think they would find SMDB very quickly.
[...]
"Take a Newbie to Lunch this Week"
"Recipe of the Month Club" :D
High school social outcasts are indeed finding Sciencemadness, as has become apparent. Unfortunately, there's not a whole lot for them to do once they arrive. We don't really have a place dedicated for them. Even "Beginnings" can be too far ahead of them. As a first thought, perhaps a forum "First Lab Procedures" with plenty of sticky threads, each starting with an illustrated procedure.

People learn concepts based upon activities they perform. This idea informs my advice that folks should be given procedures to do before being forced to learn the theory. The "Recipe of the Month Club" is a solid, serious idea to promote this way of bringing clueless newbies into the fold of chemistry. The academic style of teaching people concepts and after-the-fact justifying them in the lab is, I believe, harmful to engaged learning.

Direct mentoring, taking newbies to lunch, for example, is also a good idea, albeit harder to do in purely electronic form. I'd love to see some formalization of this idea with a bit of software support, but that's not going to happen immediately.

Your message also touches on issues of visibility and pride, which I acknowledge but do not address now.

watson.fawkes - 11-7-2009 at 10:00

Quote: Originally posted by Sedit  
How do the "brainiacs" gain any recognition and no longer live in the hell that is high school? They either become a drug synthesiser, Kewl saying they could synthesis XY and Z, or nerd.....

The later already has been fulfilled hence the reason most start here with questions that bother the old and unforgiving because they forget what its like to need to impress ones freinds for acceptance.
This is a very good point, psychologically valid, and offers an entry in crafting an intervention strategy for these people.

I have nephew, 15, who has recently taken up an interest in pyrotechnics. He wants to make some devices and wants to know how to get away with it. His father (my brother) had some advice for him that is just excellent: "Don't get away with it. Just do it." What he was saying was to take pride in his activities and to do them openly. This is counter-intuitive to most people, because they are so used to accepting influence from other people. So what my brother's advice was also saying was to be a leader rather than a follower.

Teenagers primarily look to each other for acceptance. Those who have even a modicum of self-composure tend to become centers of social attention, simply because they have put themselves in that position by not relying solely on their peers for validation. While teenagers look to each other, they don't look only to each other. And here is where Sciencemadness can play a role. If we encourage technically-minded youngsters to do interesting things, we provide them with an external source of validation. This both alleviates their need for peer validation, making it more likely that they'll continue technical pursuits, as well as (in the best case) allows them to entrain their friends into those same technical pursuits.

What to encourage them to do? Pyrotechnics, actually, seems like quite a good subject matter. There's very little chemistry that's both interesting and completely safe. On balance, playing with fire is one of the easier ones to manage because the risks of fire are immediately visible, unlike, say, those involved with cumulative toxins.

So, what to advise teenagers to do with fire? I'd say an interesting activity with only modest entry cost is to fiddle around with gunpowder formulations for, say, speed of combustion. I can even imagine a science contest where teams compete in a gunpowder race. In the practice phase, teams are given a certain amount of gunpowder ingredients from a common store to experiment with. Since charcoal affects so much of gunpowder behavior, this is a real mini-research project. In the race phase, teams are given aliquots of each ingredient and have an hour to submit their sample. The team with the fastest gunpowder wins.

watson.fawkes - 11-7-2009 at 10:04

Quote: Originally posted by entropy51  
Watson said "The "don't use a boiling flask with a star crack while distilling sulfuric acid" one would be particularly amusing." I wonder if we shouldn't be teaching them not to distill H2SO4 at all.
Well, this point is orthogonal to mine. Substitute a distillation of any hazardous substance, preferably an oxidizer, though, so it can go Horribly Wrong, and you get the same effect I'm looking for.

Polverone - 11-7-2009 at 11:26

Watson, you have obviously thought about this a lot and have some very good ideas. Like many good ideas a lot of it is going to depend on the implementation as much as the original concept. Is the Home Chemistry Society site still active? I think it would form a great complementary site to Sciencemadness itself.

Refined instructional material is better delivered through a wiki than a series of forum posts, and I think the HCS wiki would be a natural location for it. We can still have sticky threads here for discussing activities, but I think the first post in the thread should link to the wiki entry rather than contain the full instructions.

Magpie - 11-7-2009 at 16:39

I believe that newbies come to this forum for the same reasons the older and more experienced members come. We come to talk about our experiences and to learn of the findings of others. But also a big part of it is just social, ie, just having someone to talk to who understands and loves chemistry.

We sometimes get too impatient with newbies for asking questions that they could easily find answers to by searching, either here or on Google. They may already know this. What they're really here for is some of that socialization.

basstabone - 11-7-2009 at 18:30

Watson: I am actually a living account of the mentoring and tutoring of older more experienced mentors. The one person in my life who got me into chemistry was my high school AP chem teacher. Before that I was dieing to go into some medical field but she changed my whole outlook. Her name was Doc, appropriate because she had received her graduate degree in organic synthesis, and she allowed me to come in fourth period and after school and do any experiment I ran by her first. Granted a high school lab is not equipped with everything a chemist would need, but it served it's purpose with what I had planned for it.

Everyday for a year I was in the lab doing everything I could even think of. I worked with black powder formulas, flash powder, did dozens of demos from aluminum in bromine to the "barking dog" and combustion of acetylene and chlorine. It was an incredible time in my life just to have her there to guide me along and set me up with something that I had a passion for.

Haha so I guess the point I'm trying to make it is that mentors really do make a difference and I think it would be very beneficial to set something up like that. Almost like a big brother/sister program where you pair an experienced chemist with a not so experienced person to allow for growth and bonding.

Just my two cents on the whole matter!

~Bass

starman - 11-7-2009 at 21:08

WF:- The strategy of making more chemists is the right strategy no matter where you are on the acceptance curve.

I agree with your strategy.Just pointing out that members in different locations face varying degrees of difficulty implementing it.

WF:- Simply because one ordinary kind of equipment will be unavailable. But just because one way of doing chemistry is unavailable, doesn't mean others are.

Having to get by with home made equipment for many years I know to which you refer.Indeed I learned a great deal about chemical/plastics compatibility,sometimes disasterously:D.
But having at last acquired enough litre-scale glassware to approach things more seriously(prior to the enaction of this draconian legislation) I'm not putting it at risk by proclaiming to all and sundry what I am into.
I love my hobby/research.I even risk imprisonment for the equipment I currently possess.I won't let a few inconvenient laws get in my way.But I will keep a low profile and keep my mouth shut.
This kind of initative has my whole support,just can't see us here in Australia being able to contribute.

watson.fawkes - 12-7-2009 at 16:14

Quote: Originally posted by Polverone  
Watson, you have obviously thought about this a lot and have some very good ideas.
Thank you.
Quote:
Like many good ideas a lot of it is going to depend on the implementation as much as the original concept. Is the Home Chemistry Society site still active? I think it would form a great complementary site to Sciencemadness itself.
HCS is pretty inactive. There have been 13 changes (including talk) in the last 90 days. I myself haven't been on it in almost a year. I spent some time fiddling about with how to make something useful. What I came up with is best illustrated in the page Synthesis of Sulfuric Acid. I wrote a wiki-macro that makes it easier to reference Sciencemadness threads, but it still requires URL wrangling (which would be easier with a bookmarklet or the like). My experience in doing even this much is that it's a fair amount of work to get all the cross-referencing right. On the other hand, the thing that makes wiki work is that you can do this incrementally. And many hands make light work.

So we need more hands. It would be greatly beneficial if HCS were to become the official wiki of SM and SM the official discussion board of HCS (or something similar). Even just a link to HCS would be useful. I'll volunteer for this task--if you'd like me figure out how to put the link into the XMB theme for the board, I'll do that. Also, in the user profile page, where there are fields for "Other Information", with Aim and ICQ addresses, it would be useful to have their HCS login (formatted as a direct link to the relevant user page). I can look into this, as well.

Edit: I just changed my "Site" information in my profile here to point to my user page at HCS: http://www.homechemistry.org/index.php?title=User:Watson.fawkes

There is plenty to figure out what to do with a wiki, but all those questions aren't really ripe yet, given that we need more wiki users first.

Who even runs the HCS wiki, anyway? The information page on the site is empty.
Quote:
Refined instructional material is better delivered through a wiki than a series of forum posts, and I think the HCS wiki would be a natural location for it. We can still have sticky threads here for discussing activities, but I think the first post in the thread should link to the wiki entry rather than contain the full instructions.
I'm with you there. Discussion boards just aren't good for reference material. Lacking anything else to do, the default here is to tell people to UTFSE to get background information, an instruction as singularly unhelpful as it is the only real answer at the moment.

As for a completely practical matter, what existing forum section on SM would you recommend for discussion about making reference material on the wiki? In many ways it's not really discussing chemistry so much as discussing pedagogy about chemistry. I'd put it in "Miscellaneous" lacking anything better.

[Edited on 13-7-2009 by watson.fawkes]

watson.fawkes - 12-7-2009 at 16:19

Quote: Originally posted by basstabone  
I guess the point I'm trying to make it is that mentors really do make a difference and I think it would be very beneficial to set something up like that. Almost like a big brother/sister program where you pair an experienced chemist with a not so experienced person to allow for growth and bonding.
We could do that with a sticky thread named "Beginners Seeking Mentors", a thread for posting a rather narrow sort of personal ad.

kclo4 - 12-7-2009 at 16:27

I think to get more home chemists we need to get more people interested in pyrotechniques. I really think that is the gateway. Thats how I got started, and I know most people get interested in high explosives after a few fireworks are made. Kids, and I'm sure adults love things that go boom. It would be nice to have a forum that is both pyrotechniques and chemistry related that is extremely friendly to the noob, but encouraging to become better and interested in chemistry itself, and not just the pretty colors it can produce.

What forums like that exist at the moment?

watson.fawkes - 12-7-2009 at 16:43

Quote: Originally posted by starman  
having at last acquired enough litre-scale glassware to approach things more seriously(prior to the enaction of this draconian legislation) I'm not putting it at risk by proclaiming to all and sundry what I am into. [...] This kind of initative has my whole support,just can't see us here in Australia being able to contribute.
I completely appreciate your need to conceal your identity. Pseudonymity is one of the things the internet is quite good at. So while I would not ask you to proclaim "to all and sundry" in an identifiable manner, you can do so safely under a pseudonym.

But when you say that folks in Australia can't contribute, you may be overlooking ways that you can. Certainly not in every way, given the constraints of pseudonymity, but that doesn't exclude everything.
So, there are some suggestions. If you think of more, which you're more capable of, since you're in your own shoes and I am not, please do post them (even if you don't do them), because you might inspire further action by others.

watson.fawkes - 12-7-2009 at 16:49

Quote: Originally posted by kclo4  
It would be nice to have a forum that is both pyrotechniques and chemistry related that is extremely friendly to the noob, but encouraging to become better and interested in chemistry itself, and not just the pretty colors it can produce.
I am in agreement. I'll just point out that it's easier for people with general chemistry experience to comment usefully on pyrotechnics than it is vice-versa. That means to cross the pyrotechnics to chemistry threshold is easier for a chemistry group than a pyrotechnics group. What this means to me is that one belongs here.

kclo4 - 12-7-2009 at 21:08

I don't know if one belongs here, it could lead to some serious noob problems in the Energetic material section as well as others.. I would think at least. This could annoy a lot of the members who are really into exotic explosives, primaries, etc.

I think kids at a younger age get interested into making rockets, etc. more so then other people, though I could be totally wrong about that.

Also you'd want to have sections of rockets, smoke bombs, colors, and the other crap pyrotech has to do with, not simply a "pyrotechnics" section.. of course thats my opinion. Forums that have to many topics get sort of "jack of all trades, master of none"problem I think. There is a physics forum that tries to have everything from chemistry, biology, engineering, computer, etc and I don't know if it is doing as well as it would be if it were a single subject.


I'm sure you'd end up with posts like this more often then we do now in the energetic materials section..

"How to do make nitrogylcern and wut does it mean to be an explosive primary?

I've been considering getting another URL/site totally unrelated to the one I have now and getting a forum of pyro/chem going, which is why I asked if there were any other forums that did this in an encouraging way. I remember one pyro site that was rather nice, but I can't ever remember its name, and it may have gone down (APB pyrotechniques forum or something?) and other ones I've seen are normally sub-terrorist forums or in a different language.

The_Davster - 12-7-2009 at 21:53

Pyrotechnics chemistry has always been fine in the energetic materials section. The construction of devices( shells, rockets, mines, etc) is what has tended to have been avoided.

I believe the forum you think of is APC (apcforum.net).

watson.fawkes - 12-7-2009 at 21:58

Quote: Originally posted by kclo4  
I don't know if one belongs here, it could lead to some serious noob problems in the Energetic material section as well as others.
The section I was thinking of would not be the existing Energetic Materials section, which would continue to be for relatively advanced topics. If we are to treat pyrotechnics as a gateway to chemistry, we need a section specifically for that purpose, where newbies are welcome to ask their clueless questions.

I don't think device construction needs to be a focus, however. We can refer folks elsewhere for (the bulk of) that.

kclo4 - 12-7-2009 at 22:10

I think the noobs would post over at the EM section, even though they had their own little place.

So this other forum would just be pyro compositions or what is it you have in mind?

I think it would be more effective to have a forum mostly built around pyro and simple chem but then slowly build it into a more chemistry related site, though I could be wrong.

Also though probably not nearly as effective since it would likley target the wrong croud but soap and biodesiel making could encourage some people to get into chemistry as well. It could show steam distillations, solvent extractions, and other stuff to get their own fragrances, maybe eventually synthetic scents such as methyl salicylicate, or some other simple to make esters that smell nice.
Those people tend to be interested in saving the world, etc so you could also do different types of batteries to show them you can use non-toxic compounds and that silly junk.

perhaps not more chemists are needed, but more people who get involved with chemistry, such as soap, biodiesel, pyro, etc. While these people aren't really chemists to the sense that we are, I'm sure they would still make home chemistry more accepting.

watson.fawkes - 13-7-2009 at 04:09

Quote: Originally posted by kclo4  
I think the noobs would post over at the EM section, even though they had their own little place.

So this other forum would just be pyro compositions or what is it you have in mind?

I think it would be more effective to have a forum mostly built around pyro and simple chem but then slowly build it into a more chemistry related site, though I could be wrong.
As a rule, if you tell folks what behavior is expected of them, they generally do the right thing. Generally. What little remains can be dealt with by moderators moving threads from an advanced section to a basic section. This has worked OK to date. It's unusual for a new user to screw this up more than once. If we can get clearer posting of these expectations, it should be even less of a problem.

As for starting a new forum, building a new community is notoriously hard. There's got to be a reason for people to participate in it, and there's little upside for the experienced people to use a new forum over Energetic Materials.

Apropos the subject of such a forum, the practical answer has to be "whatever a clueless newbie wants to know about pyrotechnics that intersects chemistry". You're not going to get subject-matter purity, so don't look for that as a goal. What you can get is a useful resource for newbies, where they can ask "why" questions about the recipes they find elsewhere (or even, to a limited extent, find in that forum).

watson.fawkes - 13-7-2009 at 04:31

Quote: Originally posted by kclo4  
Also though probably not nearly as effective since it would likley target the wrong croud but soap and biodesiel making could encourage some people to get into chemistry as well. [...] While these people aren't really chemists to the sense that we are, I'm sure they would still make home chemistry more accepting.
This sentiment is basically right. I dislike the term "wrong crowd", though, because that phrase properly refers to people who are doing harm to society. What you are pointing out, though, is that the pipeline includes many entry points. You named biodiesel and soap as two of them. Some of these people will continue on to do more chemistry, some won't. If they continue on to do more chemistry, we have a new chemist.

Even if they don't, however, we achieved a win in a different way. Chemistry is in many ways a service field, something that informs and accentuates other endeavors. So while more chemists is an ultimate goal to protect amateur science, an adjunct to that is the public perception that chemists are open and helpful.

Open. Sciencemadness has done an excellent job in being open. Polverone's basic policy here is stellar. I feel a bit remiss in not having openly praised it before, but there it is. Honest people have nothing to hide, and the public picks up on this. A forum that is full of secretiveness signals that its participants are doing Bad Things. A forum where people are candid and frank about what they do is another matter entirely. The righteous do not skulk. There is, admittedly, a small segment that is doing bad things and simply brazen about it. They mainly select themselves out into prison relatively quickly.

Helpful. Here's the place where Sciencemadness could be better. Being helpful as a structural goal means supporting two different kinds of conversations. The first is chemists discussing chemistry amongst themselves. The second is experienced chemists discussing chemistry with non-chemists, including both soon-to-be-chemists and never-to-be-chemists, because at this stage these are indistinguishable. There are many ways to support both kinds of conversations. Most of the ways I have thought of involve designating different places for them.

basstabone - 13-7-2009 at 13:01

Quote: Originally posted by The_Davster  
Pyrotechnics chemistry has always been fine in the energetic materials section. The construction of devices( shells, rockets, mines, etc) is what has tended to have been avoided.

I believe the forum you think of is APC (apcforum.net).


Maybe there could be another section or subsection that could deal with hobbies like that. I guess hobbies that go hand in hand with chemistry? Such as the shells rockets and things.

hissingnoise - 13-7-2009 at 13:27

Your suggestion has a lot to commend it basstabone; "The Art and Science of Practical Pyrotechnics" has a nice ring to it. . .
I wonder what Go---er, I mean what Polverone thinks?

basstabone - 13-7-2009 at 14:05

Quote: Originally posted by hissingnoise  
Your suggestion has a lot to commend it basstabone; "The Art and Science of Practical Pyrotechnics" has a nice ring to it. . .
I wonder what Go---er, I mean what Polverone thinks?


Yeah that's what I was thinking but that it would necessarily only deal with pyrotechnics but all hobbies that have chemistry in them? Maybe that would be too large of a category.

JohnWW - 13-7-2009 at 14:25

Quote: Originally posted by The_Davster  
Pyrotechnics chemistry has always been fine in the energetic materials section. The construction of devices( shells, rockets, mines, etc) is what has tended to have been avoided. I believe the forum you think of is APC (apcforum.net).

A good page from that site:
http://www.apcforum.net/forums/lofiversion/index.php?t1672.h...
See also:
http://www.freepyroinfo.com/pyrotechnic_links.html

ammonium isocyanate - 17-7-2009 at 15:52

Honestly the best way to make home chemistry more accepted would be to make ourselves more visible.

However, particularly in countries like the USA or Australia, doing so comes with risks.

Much of what we do, although it shouldn't be, is illegal. Production of Iodine (or phosphorus, ether, toluene, MEK, methylamine, ethylamine, nitroethane, acetone, etc.) in the US in any quantity qualifies you as a Bulk Manufacturer according to the DEA (I know- they really need a dictionary). You need a liscence as a legitimate business w/ security measures in place for List 1 chemicals and need to report every batch you make directly to your local DEA office for List 1 or List 2 chemicals (and they charge fees for all this paperwork, too!:mad:)

This is probably the best way to go in terms of gaining acceptance. Heck, I might even give it a try. But you can't expect people to put themselves at risk like this.

entropy51 - 17-7-2009 at 16:33

The regs say "Bulk manufacturers that produce a listed chemical solely for internal consumption shall not be required to report for that listed chemical".

You are only required to report quantity manufactured for sale or distribution or manufacture of a controlled substance.

In the pharmaceutical industry "bulk" is used to refer to the unfinished (not in capsules, tablets, etc.) drug substance. It doesn't mean "a whole wheelbarrow full".

[Edited on 18-7-2009 by entropy51]

watson.fawkes - 17-7-2009 at 18:07

Quote: Originally posted by ammonium isocyanate  
Honestly the best way to make home chemistry more accepted would be to make ourselves more visible.
Increased visibility is useful, to be sure, but there are too few home chemists as of today to have any significant political influence. Visibility is even a necessary means to make more chemists, because you're not going to reach clueless newbies unless they know something about you. But merely visibility, without the effort of getting more people involved, is just not going to cut it by itself.
Quote:
However, particularly in countries like the USA or Australia, doing so comes with risks.

Much of what we do, although it shouldn't be, is illegal.[...]
Comparing the modest regulations in the USA with the far more draconian ones in Australia isn't fair when discussing visibility. There's nothing in an ordinary lab that would preclude publishing photographs of it in the USA, but there is in Australia (standard taper joints). (And by ordinary, I mean one not in possession of controlled substances. Duh.) I believe your understanding of US regulations is rather more restrictive than the actual law, as well, but that's another topic for a different thread.

kclo4 - 3-8-2009 at 01:06

So is anything being done, such as what was suggested in this thread, to encourage people to be more open minded about home chemistry? I would have hoped this thread would have sparked someone to do something..

watson.fawkes - 3-8-2009 at 06:01

Quote: Originally posted by kclo4  
So is anything being done, such as what was suggested in this thread, to encourage people to be more open minded about home chemistry? I would have hoped this thread would have sparked someone to do something..
I've received one private message from a member here who's preparing an Instructables posting. That's reasonably quick, in my view, for something to start happening. It's typical that people have mull over strategy for a while before acting on it.

12AX7 - 3-8-2009 at 06:30

Someone could start a vblog!

Heck, Woelen already has a number of excellent videos; unfortunately for his audience, he would have to narrate them in a couple of languages, which is a little impractical. :P

My "lab" is a little messy to put on camera, I think.. otherwise I could videograph some specific reactions and procedures. Maybe we should do a group vblog, that would allow members of diverse interest to post their things on one channel. Oooh, but I bet more than a few members are unpracticed and rambling when it comes to recording and narrating video... that's a problem...

Still, it would be a good complement for things, like the myriad photographs strewn throughout active threads (like the Anodes thread, the Chlorate thread, the Phosphorus thread, etc.), and could provide visual media for Prepublications.

Tim

Sedit - 3-8-2009 at 07:54

Quote:
It's typical that people have mull over strategy for a while before acting on it.


Mulling over strategy isn't exactly my style:D. However mulling over how to build an instructible is proving harder then making the damn thing to begin with.

kclo4 - 3-8-2009 at 11:06

I like that idea 12AX7, although I don't know how much I'd be up for talking in a video. Perhaps we could get kipkay (metacafe superstar) or someone to do it

I was planning on writing a few simple articles and maybe videos of some things like distillation of HNO3, making KNO3 via NH4NO3+KCl, and some various other things like that, but I have not yet got around to it since I've been a bit busy doing other things.

The instructables is a great Idea as well, I'd like to see how that is going.

I am seriously considering a pyrotechnic forum, or another chemistry forum. I know for a fact that if it weren't for this site I wouldn't be interested in chemistry, or at least not nearly as much, and that the interest in chemistry would have never have been started if it weren't for some old pyro forums I used to read. Forums have been a great influence to me, and I think the more forums like this, and pyro the better off home chemistry will be when it comes to public acceptance, and availability of chemicals, etc.

Making a decent chemistry forum would be a lot harder to do then the pyro forum, simply because SM seems to really take care of chemistry and i have a hard time thinking how one would create a forum that isn't just a cheap rip off of SM.

Maybe I am crazy to think that more forums = more people interested, but I like to think that it does. :)


12AX7 - 3-8-2009 at 11:44

Forums are nice and all but they're useless without popularity. SMDB happens to be fairly popular, and this is where we are, after all.

And don't forget that, although your time may be worthless (as mine is, this summer), others have priorities over checking new posts on twenty forums. Might as well keep it simple.

Although forums for discussion prohibited here (drugs, practical pyrotechnics and explosives, and personal arguments and politics) might be useful. Although some already exist.

Tim

donlaszlow - 3-8-2009 at 13:22

Sciencemadness is a great forum :D I like it. And Chemistry is cool. Everybody knows that. :cool::D;):)

ammonium isocyanate - 3-8-2009 at 19:17

I plan on starting a chemistry club at my high school. That is, If I can get at least ten people to sign up (the minimum requirement by the administration).

kclo4 - 3-8-2009 at 23:26

Quote: Originally posted by ammonium isocyanate  
I plan on starting a chemistry club at my high school. That is, If I can get at least ten people to sign up (the minimum requirement by the administration).



Good luck! What sort of things do you think you'd be doing?

watson.fawkes - 4-8-2009 at 08:27

Quote: Originally posted by 12AX7  
Heck, Woelen already has a number of excellent videos; unfortunately for his audience, he would have to narrate them in a couple of languages, which is a little impractical. :P
[...]
My "lab" is a little messy to put on camera, I think.. otherwise I could videograph some specific reactions and procedures. Maybe we should do a group vblog, that would allow members of diverse interest to post their things on one channel.
The point about language is well-taken. More languages available tends to create more chemists. I have three suggestions along this line.As for messiness, home science is messy, as a rule. If people feel like they need a spotless lab to do science, many fewer will do science.

As for a group video blog, I do believe that youtube already supports this. I'll have to check.

watson.fawkes - 4-8-2009 at 08:37

Quote: Originally posted by kclo4  
I am seriously considering a pyrotechnic forum, or another chemistry forum. [...]
Maybe I am crazy to think that more forums = more people interested, but I like to think that it does. :)
More forums is a consequence of more interest, but not necessarily vice-versa. Any social group which gets big enough will fragment.

On the other hand, too many forums will dilute the attention of people. If these places don't achieve a minimum threshold, they will tend to dilute existing interest and generate little new interest, and are thus a net loss.

As for pyrotechnics, I do think there's an opportunity for that one. I'd prefer to see it happen here: Pyrotechnics, for practical matters (beginners) and Energetic Materials, for theoretical one (engineering and science). As with the rest of Sciencemadness, there's no reason to promote recipe-seeking, since there are existing places for that.

watson.fawkes - 4-8-2009 at 08:42

Quote: Originally posted by ammonium isocyanate  
I plan on starting a chemistry club at my high school. That is, If I can get at least ten people to sign up (the minimum requirement by the administration).
Would you share your experience with folks here? Say, by starting a new thread for it? One of the things we could do here would be to build an advice sheet for how to start a chemistry club. Times change, though, so many members old experience would need to be updated with current conditions and recent experience.

ketel-one - 26-9-2009 at 14:53

Problem is... what are the purposes of becoming interested in chemistry for the average person? I asked somebody a couple years ago, what is the purpose of organic chemistry besides making drugs? And they said "making nylon". And this does seem like a very reasonable answer. Problem is that curiosity is not in itself a good enough driving force for most people. You can be amazed by interesting reactions in themselves, but how long can you do that for without a darker reason- especially either making drugs or making fun to watch explosions? Both drugs and explosive stuff are equally hated by the cities. And unless you're getting paid to make nylon what else are you going to do?

chloric1 - 26-9-2009 at 16:11

I really believe there is a light at the end of the tunnel. First you have all these new biodiesel chemical suppliers springing up. This affords access to common alkalies, acids and solvents at a cost significantly less that traditonal lab supply companies. Plus biodiesel can be a springboard for soap making and, being a green activity, advocates sound use of resources in a positive way.

Secondly, garage science type literature is becoming more common. The more notable examples are the recently published works by Robert Bruce Thompson and Theodore Grey. The latter, MAD SCIENCE, is DEFINATELY, on my to buy list:D:D Both books are fascinating, teach responsibility, and are professionally written. I firmly believe most if not all of the membors here have something special to contribute to this hobby. One or more of us actually getting something published would greatly help to accelerate the movement.

In this climate of economic uncertainty, it imperitive we as a people become more technically educated, more creative, and more self reliant. Having a wave of tens of thousands of teens become like Adam Savage, Robert Bruce Thompson or Theodore Grey would most assuradly usher in new technolgies in energy, material science, and resource management.

[Edited on 9/27/2009 by chloric1]

S.C. Wack - 26-9-2009 at 17:41

None of this will change the feelings towards home chemistry [EDIT: or rather, mere possession of chemicals that you can't safely ingest a pound of] of fire marshals, insurers, code inspectors, and most importantly - mortgage companies. The attempt in the USA to remove any risk from life, via legislation or otherwise, continues to spiral out of control.

[Edited on 27-9-2009 by S.C. Wack]

Sedit - 26-9-2009 at 17:51

I agree. The fact that the government feels as though we need them to protect us from ourselfs means that they will always treat chemist the way they do now or if Im write much worse then they do at the present. I feel a time will come when no pure chemicals can be ordered without a special permit and same with glassware as well. Texas has already started on this road and you can expect the rest of the states to follow soon enough.

All a sad state of affairs really when everyone that WE voted into office do not trust our judgement... LMAO whats that say about them?

entropy51 - 26-9-2009 at 17:57

It's not as if there's no reason for the mistrust of garage chemistry. I don't like it, but I can understand it.

Sedit - 26-9-2009 at 18:38

There in lies the problem. All the government ever sees from home chemist anymore is bomb makers and drug makers. Those who are legit they almost never hear from or know next to nothing about. So like entropy started I can understand how they are bothered when ALL they ever see from home chemist are terrorist in there eyes. Even though the odds are say for the sake of argument 1 drug maker out of every 100 home chemist from there point of view they see one true home chemist out of every 100 drug makers.

Given this hypothesis the only thing that could be done in an attempt to alter the way things are now would be for legit home experimenters to look suspicious and draw the attention of the DEA who lets face it are the main shot callers in the suppression of the home chemist. This would cause more lawsuits such as that of Victor Deebs(IIRC) where they get pressured to make up for the wrong they have caused. There would be so many sacrifices in a tactic such as this that a mass uprising so to speak of home chemist is just completely unreasonable.

chloric1 - 26-9-2009 at 19:11

Sedit, your absolutely right:P:P:P! There is no use in trying! Just bury the heads in the sand and give up.

On a more serious note, I don't really care what the DEA, fire marshall or other blow hard thinks. We merely need to create a, for lack of better word, create and open geek culture. Buy publishing works, constructive and usefull videos, and giving pubic presentations, eventially the DEA and DHS will that there is meth cooks, bombers, AND people exploring and making discoveries. Granted, most of us are exploring victorian realms of experimentation but when you combine old tech with high tech you would be surprised at what you may discover.

Sedit - 26-9-2009 at 19:36

Quote:
Sedit, your absolutely right! There is no use in trying! Just bury the heads in the sand and give up.


:) Im not suggesting that even if thats how it sounds. I just don't feel the possibility of a mass exodus of home chemist into the limelight is a reasonable thing to expect even if it would help our cause greatly. Think about it. How many here would be willing to post there full names and adresses here? If you can't trust those here enough to expose yourself the odds of doing so in person drop dramaticly.

What should be done and whats practical are sadly two different things. I know sound like a pessimist but Im just taking things for what they are. There can not be improvment as long as we live in shadows but the odds of getting people to come out are lower then the odds of the government accepting us at this point.

Magpie - 26-9-2009 at 19:44

I'm not out to make discoveries for the betterment of mankind, or even to push back the foreskin of science. I'm merely practicing a legitimate hobby that I enjoy. This should be no different than people enjoying wood working, knitting, bowling, or golf. Our (US) Constitution guarantees our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

It really irritates me that I can't do this openly without fear of unjust persecution. But that's the times in which we live. Terrorists and drugmakers are largely responsible for creating this environment.

S.C. Wack - 26-9-2009 at 20:00

Quote: Originally posted by chloric1  

On a more serious note, I don't really care what the DEA, fire marshall or other blow hard thinks.


If you come to the attention of a fire marshal and you are in violation of NFPA codes, your attitude will please him greatly, and he will make you care. Same story if your storage of flammables, oxidizers, fireworks, environmentally hazardous chemicals, etc. in any amount come to the attention of your landlord, insurer, or mortgage company.

The chemicals will go, and you'll be getting a bill for "cleanup" costs.

[Edited on 27-9-2009 by S.C. Wack]

ketel-one - 26-9-2009 at 20:26

What do legit organic chemists make anyways? Aside from making nylon and that Deeb guy's rubber sealant, what application of what they make have in real life? From what I've seen so far everyone is trying to create not even so much drugs themselves, but definitely precursors or reagents for such reactions (for example one of the stickied pages in organic chemistry is 2,5-something benzaldehyde). I mean I don't have a problem with that, but realistically until drugs become legal, government isn't going to be too fanatic about organic chemists.

UnintentionalChaos - 26-9-2009 at 21:56

Quote: Originally posted by ketel-one  
What do legit organic chemists make anyways? Aside from making nylon and that Deeb guy's rubber sealant, what application of what they make have in real life? From what I've seen so far everyone is trying to create not even so much drugs themselves, but definitely precursors or reagents for such reactions (for example one of the stickied pages in organic chemistry is 2,5-something benzaldehyde). I mean I don't have a problem with that, but realistically until drugs become legal, government isn't going to be too fanatic about organic chemists.


I make dyes, mostly, fragrance compounds, and polycyclics. I just think they're neat. There's no money in it at all for me, making it a true hobby. ;p

However, I have need of things like benzaldehyde and acetic anhydride in these syntheses, which are usually "OMG, drugs!!!!" chemicals. Some of my planned preps use birch reductions as well, which is another "omg, drugs!!!!!" thing.

Sedit - 26-9-2009 at 21:59

You have so much to learn ketel. Do you like esters? I sure do... thats one thing legit chemist make. Sights scents and smells.... That should be the home chemist goal if you ask me. Even if you like to make mind altering substances you should still have the sights and smell of the reagent as your top priority.... if you don't your going to fail anyway so whats it matter?

Damn man you have no defense what so ever setup for when the boys in blue raid your house do you? Good luck with that.

ketel-one - 26-9-2009 at 22:39

Ah how could I forget? Making good smells!

Seriously though I'll be like that guy in fight club and start making soap. 3,4,5-trimethoxybenzaldehyde, nitroglycerin? Well those are just catalysts in my soap making process!

watson.fawkes - 27-9-2009 at 06:46

Quote: Originally posted by chloric1  
On a more serious note, I don't really care what the DEA, fire marshall or other blow hard thinks. We merely need to create a, for lack of better word, create and open geek culture.
That open culture you're talking about, if it is to be successful, is going to care about the DEA and the fire marshal (but not, thankfully, the busybody blowhards). It is going to do so openly and forthrightly. Secrecy on a tactical time scale is an unfortunate necessity for many. Secrecy on a strategic time scale on the other hand, is a death knell.

Disregard of other people's concerns is a sure way for them to feel free to disregard yours. At the end of the day, it's as simple as that. It certainly can feel good to be all full of piss and vinegar and say "I'll do it no matter what." And that induces an equal and opposite reaction in authoritarians: "I'll teach those scofflaws a lesson." This dynamic is a recipe for failure, disaster, and misery.

Showing respect for the reasonable concerns of others is a tactic, not an end in itself. The result of applying this tactic is to defuse authoritarian reaction. You say "I respect your concerns" and their response is "They're not a scofflaw, and a man's home is his castle". This dynamic is not only sustainable, it's a foundation for growth of home chemistry and amateur science.

As to the fire marshall, the fire code should be treated as a treasured body of collective wisdom about how not to kill yourself or cause harm to other people and their property. The fact that it's not an open publication itself and is couched in its own jargon and cant is a hurdle, but not an insurmountable one. Every time I've needed to understand a particular piece of the fire code, it's been eminently sensible. Take solvent storage, for example. The principle is that if you have large amounts of solvents, that you segregate them from sources of ignition. So don't store multiple gallons in your lab. You store them elsewhere, with at least a door separating the lab space from the storage space. It's really that simple. It's slightly more work to have "day flasks" of solvent and to refill them, but it greatly reduces the consequences of an accidental fire. Indeed it changes it from something that you can clean up to something that the fire department has to clean up, and that, finally, is the real point.

As for the drug enforcers, their concerns are more or less reasonable, unless, that is, your goal is making controlled substances, in which case I can't help you. While I think the current policies are broken (briefly, because they create economic incentives toward large producers and consequent government corruption), my opinions are beside the point when it comes to compliance with current regulation. To emphasize this, it is not a contradiction to comply with regulation and, at the very same time, agitate to change that regulation. Take the example of the DEA Diversion program and the List I restrictions. They are both annoying and hardly the end of the world. In particular, they're not prohibitions on simple possession. If you make it yourself, for your own use, and don't sell it, you're not breaking any law. In many ways, the regulators have provided a list of synthetic products that every home chemist in the US should learn.

Magpie - 27-9-2009 at 08:03

Quote:

As to the fire marshall, the fire code should be treated as a treasured body of collective wisdom about how not to kill yourself or cause harm to other people and their property.


Fire codes are an interesting subject to me. At the last place I worked industrial fire codes were strictly enforced. There was a limit to how many pounds of combustible material could be stored per 100ft2. We would go to such lengths as using metal pallets vs wood or plastic pallets in order to comply with the fire code. We were subject to periodic inspections by a fire marshall.

Now compare this to the typical domestic residence, which is just crammed with combustible material: furniture, clothing, wood, cardboard, and paper. Also there are no inspections by a fire marshall, unless you ask for one.

A week doesn't go by in my community that someone's house, trailer, or apartment doesn't catch on fire. If it is an apartment it very likely will catch the neighbors' residences on fire also. These fires are almost always caused by electrical deficiencies, carelessness, or some little kid with a butane lighter or matches. Granted, on a percentage basis these incidences may be considered rare. But where is the hue and cry about these tragedies? I guess people are comfortable with fires they understand and involve material goods that everyone has.

Now if a fire would be caused by a (gasp) home chemist's accident there would be hell to pay. What hypocrisy.

watson.fawkes - 27-9-2009 at 10:01

Quote: Originally posted by Magpie  
I guess people are comfortable with fires they understand and involve material goods that everyone has.

Now if a fire would be caused by a (gasp) home chemist's accident there would be hell to pay. What hypocrisy.
I don't think this is hypocrisy, simply because it's not in the central meaning of that word to be inconsistent with something that you have no conception of. The lack of understanding, thus, is much more central to the actual problem. Ordinary dwellings may be packed with simple combustibles, but all those combustibles are completely typical in their aggregate behavior, and this leads to a fair measure of predictability. On the other hand, the same kind of "typical" isn't present in science or industry. There are too many possible variations. The two kinds of solutions to this uncertainty are engineering and over-caution. The fire code embodies the second principle, because it's generally cheaper than the first.

chloric1 - 27-9-2009 at 11:00

OK my meaning has been misconstrued. My apparent defiance was not so much contempt for authority but more for making the point that I am not doing anything illegal and I am on constant watch for possible dangers not only to me, my family, and my property but also my neighbors.

I have to agree that taking extra steps to like keeping flammable liquids separate and only having what you need in your lab at the moment does minimize risk. Also, chemicals that do not store well should be maintained at low volumes, sythesized when needed, or replaced by safer substitutes. Examples like solid hypochlorites, ethers, and formic acid.

The skills I have learned in amatuer science have proven their worth many times over. Even if we don't make a discovery to help mankind, we are more able to enlighten ourselves and our peers. Hell, the one sythesis you have done 100 times before may just present itself with a more efficient method to the same end results. Sometimes you not even realize the value of what you are doing. For example, 20 years ago I figured out that adding hydrogen peroxide to bleach produced an unstable mixture that evolved copious amounts of O2 and wat very good at converting common metals to their oxides. For me is was just a lab curiousity but mostly forgotten until 10 years ago the maker of Clorox decided to make a drain opener from this reaction by putting each component in a divided bottle. When I saw this I was shocked but filled with inspiration and wonder. I was 17 playing around with household ingredients and inadvertantly made a consumer commodity 10 years before its time. Only I used it to rust nails and copper wire.:P

watson.fawkes - 27-9-2009 at 13:38

Quote: Originally posted by chloric1  
My apparent defiance was not so much contempt for authority but more for making the point that I am not doing anything illegal and I am on constant watch for possible dangers not only to me, my family, and my property but also my neighbors.
It's not enough to be responsible. What's needed is to be visibly responsible. The difference between these two is that between your knowledge of the situation and someone else's, not in any underlying activity.

ketel-one - 2-10-2009 at 21:16

Quote: Originally posted by Magpie  
It really irritates me that I can't do this openly without fear of unjust persecution. But that's the times in which we live. Terrorists and drugmakers are largely responsible for creating this environment.


No! What you're doing is accepting the government's rules as unchangeable. Have you heard of stanford prison study? That's what you're doing, accepting that the government won't freely let you practice chemistry. Terrorists and drugmakers should be the government's problem, not yours or the environment you live in.

watson.fawkes - 3-10-2009 at 07:17

Quote: Originally posted by ketel-one  
Terrorists and drugmakers should be the government's problem, not yours or the environment you live in.
The difference here is that between de facto and de jure. The de facto situation, that as it actually is, is indeed as Magpie described it, that there's an atmosphere of suspicion about home chemistry. The de jure situation, that as justice would demand, is as you describe it, is that it should not be the case that there is this suspicion. What you are saying is that the world should be just. Yes, it should. What Magpie is saying is that the world is not just. No, it's not.

So terrorists and drugmakers have harmed you. Can you seek redress against them directly? You might, but that would be itself unjust, and two wrongs do not make a right. Can you seek redress against them indirectly, through law enforcement? Perhaps, but the underlying problem is that you and the drugmaker are indistinguishable in the eyes of law enforcement, barring other information. Indeed this lack of distinction is the mode through which drugmakers harm you.

So you, and all other home chemists, are at the wrong end of an injustice, with little immediate hope of changing this. So what to do? First, don't cry over spilt milk. This is the way of the world right now, and accepting this reality is more productive than not. Second, get on with the business of making it easy and ordinary to distinguish you from the drugmakers, both by educating the larger world and by working within these circles of home chemists to make this culture distinct, recognizable, and respectable.

chloric1 - 3-10-2009 at 08:39

Ok fine then the response to the most recent post and the response to my last post is this. Simple steps like being organized,(ex. not storing chemicals wherever), keeping a lab manual filled out to university standards, and becoming a part of a home schooling group. The later might be really convenient for me as I have a child close to kindergarten age. I am still sticking with my point about writing a book or article with an established publishing media(palladium press not a good choice). IF writing is not practical then a series of Youtube videos of a professional approach is very helpful. The main point is that you openly recognize safety precautions, obey local laws, and demonstrate your knowledge and expertise is a structured and professional way.

vulture - 3-10-2009 at 09:38

You are not going to change the mind of the DHS or the DEA in any way, even if you come up with the most frigging awesome PR stunt the world has ever seen. These organizations exist on the behalf of lobby groups and thus large corporate muscle. It all boils down to money and protecting your interests.

Alot of people are laughing all the way to the bank because of their participation in the war on drugs and terror.

[Edited on 3-10-2009 by vulture]

S.C. Wack - 12-12-2009 at 07:59

Since I mentioned NFPA codes...a little searching of the gigapedia shows

NFPA codes 1-5000 as of 2002:
http://rapidshare.com/files/23535086/NFPA2002.part1.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/23583434/NFPA2002.part2.rar
It's a windows program for installation.

Just the

Standard on Fire Protection for Laboratories Using Chemicals
(2000) http://ifile.it/zmr5hno

Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code
(2000) http://ifile.it/s2ni1j

entropy51 - 12-12-2009 at 09:51

Thanks, S.C. Those sure bring back memories. Years ago when our labs underwent the annual inspection by the fire marshall, we could almost always shut them up by pulling out NFPA 45 and showing them that we were in compliance. Before we got that standard, there was a certain arbitrary and capricious flavor to those inspections.

quicksilver - 13-12-2009 at 15:26

I'm not entirely sure if you've touched upon this but the three (or 4) letter agencies have many many people who are gainfully employed by same....

......A "hobby" is not going to hold a candle to the loss of the income of thousands of people. We are NOT talking about money against money such as why we still have gasoline engines....we are dealing with the same discussion-path as "Could you please tear down the Municipal Court; I want to use that area for a football field".
In effect, the proposal is an exaggeration of "I have a hobby and my recreation may threaten the expansion of your job"...... is a NO WIN proposal.

Some of these agencies (like the DEA) are DAMN strong politically as they also function as Intelligence agencies in addition as their prime target. NO ONE who makes decisions that MAY curtail that platform will even give a wink at the idea of slowing up an agency that may seriously have national security interests as some of it's agenda.

entropy51 - 13-12-2009 at 17:35

Quote: Originally posted by quicksilver  
I'm not entirely sure if you've touched upon this but the three (or 4) letter agencies have many many people who are gainfully employed by same....

......A "hobby" is not going to hold a candle to the loss of the income of thousands of people. We are NOT talking about money against money such as why we still have gasoline engines....we are dealing with the same discussion-path as "Could you please tear down the Municipal Court; I want to use that area for a football field".
In effect, the proposal is an exaggeration of "I have a hobby and my recreation may threaten the expansion of your job"...... is a NO WIN proposal.

Some of these agencies (like the DEA) are DAMN strong politically as they also function as Intelligence agencies in addition as their prime target. NO ONE who makes decisions that MAY curtail that platform will even give a wink at the idea of slowing up an agency that may seriously have national security interests as some of it's agenda.
You seem to believe that the Three Letter Agencies sole purpose is to imprison amateur chemists. I think we just get caught up in their net, every now and then. But how often does it happen, really? At one time or another, I've read every thread on this forum. I can't recall a single instance of an innocent amateur chemist going to prison. Have I missed something? I think the people who rant against regulation may actually have something to hide.

kclo4 - 13-12-2009 at 17:54

Quote:
I think the people who rant against regulation may actually have something to hide.

That, or they can't get the chemicals they would like to play with...

quicksilver - 14-12-2009 at 08:35

Quote: Originally posted by entropy51  
[/rquote]You seem to believe that the Three Letter Agencies sole purpose is to imprison amateur chemists. I think we just get caught up in their net, every now and then. But how often does it happen, really? At one time or another, I've read every thread on this forum. I can't recall a single instance of an innocent amateur chemist going to prison. Have I missed something? I think the people who rant against regulation may actually have something to hide.


I think you may have misunderstood where I was going with that statement. My point is that IF someone steps over the line & gets in trouble: then the likelihood of a defense is very weak.
I really don't think that's (3-letter agencies sole purpose) their hunting down of a guy with a chemistry hobby.....but there is a thin line between esoteric hobby's & a new cook on the radar. ...... What's more however, most agencies need to prove their worth by statistics. :(

....That those agencies have so much power - that should they decide that you are guilty of something, you're going to have a tough time. Their inquiries are expensive and most everyone knows that if a cop follows you long enough, he will get SOMETHING to pull you over for to write a citation ( we've all been there). For ANY scrutiny to be abandoned is a waste of money & therefore, it's a subtle "black mark" to their superiors if it happens with any degree of frequency.

I do agree however that person has to really do something pretty foolish to attract their attention and that (in all likelihood,) they are not out there looking for amateur chemists per se'. But make a foolish mistake like ordering a List 1 chemical & I DO believe they won't let it slide if either the office is slow that day OR there has attention attraction previously. In that case you've moved from a amateur chemists to a likely cook.
You could go further & ask what the public believes "amateur chemistry" is, in their view/.....I'd bet it has somewhat negative connotations.



[Edited on 14-12-2009 by quicksilver]

entropy51 - 14-12-2009 at 14:56

quicksilver, I'm sorry if I misunderstood you. I agree that if you get on their bad side, you're in for a world of hurt. But I think that they sometimes do ignore stupid things like ordering a small amount of something, if the other pieces of the puzzle don't fit:
Quote: Originally posted by entropy51  

I would be interested to hear your opinion of how regulatory discretion plays into all of this. In loose terms, regulatory discretion is a practice sometimes engaged in by the federal agencies wherein they ignore the strict letter of the law for the greater good, typically when the harm done by the violation of the law is minor or non-existent and there is no intent to violate the law. Believe it or not, sometimes the regulators just show good judgement, especially when pursuing a violation is just not worth their effort.

In other words, unless it's a very slow day the DEA has better things to do than go after amateur chemists for no good reason. I think that is the reason that many of us order questionable supplies in small amounts all the time, get reported by the supplier, but generally do not hear the dreaded Knock On The Door.
Along these lines, I suspect that many of us here have been watched at some time or other, and having bigger fish to fry, they did indeed give us a pass as just some science geek.

quicksilver - 21-12-2009 at 10:01

@ entropy51 :

I was looking all over the Board for a few of those examples (& perhaps I truly misread them) - but I seem to remember some time back some people getting really harassed just for a snoopy meter-reader or mail-man's perception. One of the examples was in the newspaper of the local area where it happened; others had simply added to it with examples of individual inequity.
It was really grotesque, as the legal bills alone would have ruined the "average Joe". But we all know that both perceived & true injustice stands out like a sore thumb.
....I really wish I could have found some of those. One was a "Mom & Pop" science web site or something that got "raided". The authorities smashed up his home on someone's word; not solid evidence.



I did read with interest your own post: "Canadian College Student Arrested for Supposed "Meth Lab""....But I was looking for more vicious examples. I remember when most all of the members of a pyrotechnics club got a "letter" from the CPSC written on Justice Dept. stationary that scared the day-lights out of most everyone. The point was "don't make M80's" (kids get hurt). That's like saying "don't skate blindfolded".....
Reality points to the fact that the harmless majority of us are just too small in number to make any difference.

[Edited on 21-12-2009 by quicksilver]

entropy51 - 21-12-2009 at 10:35

quicksilver, I think Polverone may have been noticed by a meter reader. My recollection is that someone came out to talk to him about it and that was the end of it. The thread is here somewhere.

Undead Alchemist also had an incident, which he reported here, but that ended well too.

And of course, there is the hapless Mr. Deeb, who apparently had his lab "cleaned up" because of haphazard storage of large amounts of chemicals, but there were no criminal charges, just a bill for cleanup which he was fighting in court, I believe. I certainly would fight it under those circumstances.

Another reported incident involved someone who had other issues with LEO, which I think is a different situation altogether.

I'm sure that innocent chemists have been investigated and harassed, but I just don't think it's that common. I don't think anyone here has reported serious legal difficulties, but maybe they're just not saying. Based on what I read on SM it doesn't occur often enough to justfiy all the whining and paranoia.

I think that if they were really going after amateur chemists, there wouldn't be enough of us left to keep the forum going.

quicksilver - 22-12-2009 at 11:02

What's funny is that in the broadest sense I agree with you but I am apprehensive to loose my "paranoia". I am one of those folks that thinks that as soon as you stop looking for the bus, you get squashed.

Have a safe & relaxed Holidays!

entropy51 - 22-12-2009 at 11:06

quicksilver, I am all for being careful and not doing anything dumb. I think keeping a low profile is essential for our hobby, unfortunately.

You enjoy the holidays too.