Arrhenius
Hazard to Others
Posts: 282
Registered: 17-8-2008
Location: US & A
Member Is Offline
Mood: Stochastic
|
|
Forwarding Legitimate Chemistry with Sci. Madness
Overall I'm quite satisfied with the aptitude and sophistication of the work and discussion that goes on in this forum. But I think this would be
better put to work with collective goals. This is, essentially, how academic research takes place. So why not do the same? It's unrealistic to
expect that we should be of any competition to modern chemistry, but there are several distinct advantages to this forum. Here are a few:
open discussion of techniques, methods, etc. *highly collaborative*
repeating previously published work is acceptable & encouraged
photographs can be included with work
Conciseness is encouraged, but brevity is not necessarily. Where published journals require brief articles, we can accept and encourage longer
discussion of things like mechanisms and theory.
there is free access to this website
I believe effort should be placed heavily on progressing experiments to the point that they deserve placement in the 'publication'
section. Essentially, I think we need to work more as an amateur science journal. Why? Because people will notice.
If this is a realistic goal, we would need some sort of criteria to standardize, streamline and 'peer review' publications.
While I personally don't have a problem with energetic materials or biologically active molecules, this likely hampers the image of Science Madness.
And while I'm not saying we ought to shift focus, I'm saying we definitely ought to be open to experiments that are indeed legal, legitimate and yet
an enjoyable challenge.
Some ideas:
tropinone synthesis (early 1900s)
polarimetry
magnetic susceptibility
Salen ligand
Jacobsen's catalyst
biocatalyzed transformations (e.g. yeast reductions, carrot peel reductions)
What do you think?
|
|
|
12AX7
Post Harlot
Posts: 4803
Registered: 8-3-2005
Location: oscillating
Member Is Offline
Mood: informative
|
|
Wait, what is that?
http://www.google.com/search?q=carrot+peel+reduction
Sounds delicious, whatever it is.
As for the idea, sounds fair. One might argue that we already have such a system, it's just informal. After all, the Prepublication articles are
peer reviewed by the whole forum: if someone doesn't like it, they bitch about it, and maybe cause a revision.
If you desire a more explicit division of results and articles and such, that could be a lot like, say, formalizing the home chemistry wiki with well
drawn schemes. Kind of like... heh, crossbreeding Org. Syn. with Sci. Mad. 
Tim
|
|
|
Ozonelabs
Hazard to Others
Posts: 120
Registered: 5-4-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: Oligomerised
|
|
That sounds like a stellar idea- we are all for it.
Let us know what we need to do to help (either PM here or ozonelabsinc@googlemail.com)
We have on the way-
Lithation (Formylation with a Lithiation step)
Dichloromethyl methyl ether formylation
Various azo dyes
Lidocaine
Vielsmier-Haack formylation
Dess-Martin periodinane (and Iodoxybenzoic acid)
BH3/TEA complex reduction of a carboxylic acid
[Edited on 28-9-2009 by Ozonelabs]
|
|
|
woelen
Super Administrator
Posts: 7977
Registered: 20-8-2005
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline
Mood: interested
|
|
This is a very good idea, but I think it is wise to gain much more insight in how many of us really like this. There also are quite a few persons over
here, who are not really interested in the science of chemistry, but more in things like making big bangs and that kind of things. Fortunately we have
a good base of knowledgeable people, but a serious scientific effort should not be cluttered with noob posts and k3wl stuff. I am afraid that the
noble goal also can have a nasty side effect, being that young/inexperienced people are scared away. We should keep a friendly atmosphere, also for
inexperienced people who need a lot to learn. Attitude towards newbies (not the kewl-newbies, but young eager people) must be more important than
knowledge for overall good atmosphere, while at the same time, knowledge must be more important for a sub-section of sciencemadness. Maybe we should
create a general forum (like it is now) and a more strict forum for the higher level scientific stuff. The more strict forum should remain open for
everyone, but posts in that part must have a certain level.
Implementing such a thing probably is not easy at all, it might require a lot of moderator effort and it might be hard to get consensus on how to
moderate.
Having said these critical things, the idea is very good and I really would be happy if we could create such a thing. It certainly would draw positive
attention.
|
|
|
psychokinetic
National Hazard
Posts: 558
Registered: 30-8-2009
Location: Nouveau Sheepelande.
Member Is Offline
Mood: Constantly missing equilibrium
|
|
This sounds like the sort of thing that would have to be moderated, maybe a case of a 'permission to enter' or 'permission to post' board - just to
keep the casual n00bs like myself out.
I'm not just in chemistry for the bangs and smells, so it's something I'd love to watch evolve.
Anyway, maybe some sort of poll is in order? Though, the aforementioned 'big-bangs+k3wls' etc will likely be voting on it too, and if they're not
going to contribute, what's the worth of their vote? (For instance, I'd vote yes - but wouldn't be submitting). Anyway, just an idea to bat about.
-EDIT- I just re-read the last post and noticed it pretty much says the same thing about restrictions, In which case - I concur.
[Edited on 28-9-2009 by psychokinetic]
“If Edison had a needle to find in a haystack, he would proceed at once with the diligence of the bee to examine straw after straw until he found
the object of his search.
I was a sorry witness of such doings, knowing that a little theory and calculation would have saved him ninety per cent of his labor.”
-Tesla
|
|
|
Magpie
lab constructor
Posts: 5939
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Chemistry: the subtle science.
|
|
Novices learn by watching masters. That fluorishes here. We must be careful not keep the elites in their own cloister.
The single most important condition for a successful synthesis is good mixing - Nicodem
|
|
|
Arrhenius
Hazard to Others
Posts: 282
Registered: 17-8-2008
Location: US & A
Member Is Offline
Mood: Stochastic
|
|
12AX7 - Check out Journal of Chem. Education. "Enantioselective Reduction by Crude Plant Parts: Reduction of Benzofuran-2-yl Methyl Ketone with Carrot
(Daucus carota) Bits" (2006) 83(7) p. 1049
Good thoughts all around. I definitely 100% agree that in no way should this be an elitist move. This site is absolutely about fostering chemistry
at all levels, including 'newbs'. But I do think that someone with very little experience is going to find Org. Syn. or even some textbook chemical
transformations rather difficult to understand. I think proposing a mechanism and discussing theory along with a publication would be highly useful
to anyone reading it, regardless of skill level. Almost no 'real' chemical journals do this, because "space costs money" or something like that.
I think we have sufficient moderation as is. In fact 95% of what I'm proposing is already in place! But do notice that the Pre-Publication section
(not to mention the publication section) is extremely scanty. Nothing should need permission to be accessed, as this would defeat the whole idea.
Here are some of my thoughts:
A recent thread discussed the preparation of anhydrous isopropanol and subsequent preparation of aluminum isopropoxide. References were pulled
from the literature, and atleast one person claimed to have successfully made the material. Why not write this up and place it in the pre-publication
section? It merely takes time and effort on the authors part.
Discussion threads are intended to aid the author, not the reader. Regularly do I see "UTFSE". Why?? because it's very difficult to find the
useful info on here. It makes sense to me that valid, functional procedures ought to be encouraged to progress to publication here.
I recently read a thread trying to make acetaldehyde from ethylene glycol. One contributor noted high yield of 1,4-dioxane and no formation of
acetaldehyde. Why not publish the prep of 1,4-dioxane? Again, it just takes time & effort.
Here are a few more relatively simple ideas that I think would be publishable & relatively OTC:
-preparation, titration(standardization) and reaction of a Grignard reagent.
-fractionation of essential oils and ID of desired component by BP or bench tests. (e.g. camphor, cinnamic acid, etc.)
-DIY Thiele tube (BP & MP determination)
I feel it's important that this board foster *good* (this is a subjective term, I know) practices in chemistry. I'm an organic chemist so here's a
few things I see as good practice:
1.) know the mechanism before you perform the reaction.
2.) use TLC to follow reactions, check purity, ID products
3.) characterization is absolutely essential. Most of us can only take MP, BP, and a select few have access to spectral instruments. Something is
better than nothing.
4.) follow IMRAD style for formal writeups. We would need to brainstorm how to incorporate theory, mechanisms, etc. though.
So let me pose some more fundamental questions, then. Why are young chemists here? Do they just want to learn, or do they want to do some
chemistry? I think only a handful of people are here seeking truly basic chemistry, because this is easily found elsewhere on the net. What is NOT
easily found is intermediate to advanced home chemistry, and I would argue that's what we should strive for. Holding ourselves to certain standards
will make sure that young chemists find guidance, not recipes.
|
|
|
entropy51
Gone, but not forgotten
Posts: 1612
Registered: 30-5-2009
Member Is Offline
Mood: Fissile
|
|
Arrhenius, I think you make some good points, and I like your concept. But one problem in implementing it is the level of mistrust on the forum.
Case in point: Quote: Originally posted by Arrhenius  | | A recent thread discussed the preparation of anhydrous isopropanol and subsequent preparation of aluminum isopropoxide. References were pulled from
the literature, and at least one person claimed to have successfully made the material. |
Actually, I think at least three of us reported having made aluminum isopropoxide. I sure your choice of words was an unconscious slip, but
I think it revealing. From what I can tell, our claims would have been considered more reliable had we posted images proving that we actually own a
RBF and reflux condenser. I'll admit that remarkable claims require remarkable proof, but as panziandi said in that thread he made this compound on
the first try when he was 14 years old. It's in no way a difficult prep, but there was a trace of mistrust that we'd actually done it.
Sorry to make an issue of it, but I think it's one of the issues that might hinder the execution of your concept. We just seem not to trust each
other, but part of that of that is the constant influx of new voices, some of which seem to come from dark places that are foreign to some of us.
|
|
|
Arrhenius
Hazard to Others
Posts: 282
Registered: 17-8-2008
Location: US & A
Member Is Offline
Mood: Stochastic
|
|
Hmm. That was certainly not my intent. What I do mean to convey is that I cannot repeat a preparative procedure based on the fact that you've made
it. Nor can acetaldehyde based on someone having observed an apple smell from a reaction. One should be skeptical even of their own work. How do
you know you've got what you think you've got without characterization of some sort? And how is it useful to anyone but the inventor unless they
write up the experiment?
|
|
|
entropy51
Gone, but not forgotten
Posts: 1612
Registered: 30-5-2009
Member Is Offline
Mood: Fissile
|
|
I know that wasn't your intent, and I took no offense, but mistrust is sort of prevalent here. And is sometimes necessary, because outrageous claims
are made daily.
Those are also very good, but somewhat different questions. Characterizations are certainly necessary. Those of us with experience, but no access to
IR or NMR, measure MP and BP and other properties as is possible. Actually I find the characterizations based on smell and so forth entertaining.
But the fact that they are reported here indicates that those of us who are serious cannot expect peer review here. We are all at such different
levels that there are probably four or five peer groups represented on the forum. How to sort them out? There probably should be areas of the forum
that are not open to everyone who thinks it's cool to post some nonsense here. I know that's politically incorrect, but random passersby aren't
allowed to post drivel in the ACS journals.
As to how useful it is to anyone but ourselves, some of us write up the experiment in our own notebooks but don't feel the need to share our notebooks
because we seek not recognition but just personal satisfaction from the hobby.
I think another problem is that some of us just don't have time to pursue our hobby as seriously as we'd like. Some of us have day jobs! It's just
not always possible to chase down all the loose ends and get something in shape to share with a peer group. But as I said, I think you have a good
concept here.
|
|
|
franklyn
International Hazard
Posts: 3026
Registered: 30-5-2006
Location: Da Big Apple
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Wiki-science & dark data
- Hey this sounds like us
http://www.livescience.com/culture/080902-open-science.html
- Information yearning to be free
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/magazine/15-10/st_e...
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
