| Pages:
1
2 |
Polverone
Now celebrating 21 years of madness
Posts: 3186
Registered: 19-5-2002
Location: The Sunny Pacific Northwest
Member Is Offline
Mood: Waiting for spring
|
|
chemistry set appreciation
When I was a child I had one complete chemistry set and several half-sets scavenged from garage sales by helpful relatives. These sets provided me
with many hours of satisfaction, especially in my younger years before I could afford to buy chemicals from vendors.
I recently came across a fascinating history of chemistry sets:
Three Centuries of the Chemistry Set: the 18th and 19th Centuries
Three Centuries of the Chemistry Set: the 20th Century
Some of the best posts here are effectively writing a new volume, telling the story of chemistry sets in the 21st century.
I recognize several of the chemistry sets in the second document from my second-hand finds. Did you ever have a chemistry set, either now or before
you started equipping yourself à la carte?
PGP Key and corresponding e-mail address
|
|
|
jamit
Hazard to Others
Posts: 375
Registered: 18-6-2010
Location: Midwest USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Nostalgic about those days when chemistry as a hobby was a right of passage for many children. I remember those days in the 70's doing chemistry in
my garage -- this was the decade when chemistry set's were on the way out. It was the sense of wonder and the possibility of discovering the 'secret'
inner workings of the natural world that got me exciting about doing chemistry and science in general.
I agree with you Polverone, that forums like Sciencemadness and others, as telling the story of hobby chemistry in the 21st century. And although we
can't buy some of the chemicals we once did in the past, the collaborative effort to share our experiments and discoveries - which existed in a very
very limited way in the past -- will make the future of home chemistry very bright! Take the potassium synthesis as an example. wow! i never
thought to make potassium.
The only negative thing about 21st home chemistry is the need to keep it 'low key' -- I can't tell other about it except those who i can really trust.
I'm with Magpie on this -- only my wife and kids know what i do in the garage. and like Woelen, if it's dangerous, I do it on a micro scale.
I do all the research online and glean as much information on a given subject/experiment and then make a plan and execute it in the garage. This
forum is so invaluable to future home chemists and I hope all the young people (ie teens and beginners) do their experiments responsibly and safely.
You young people are so lucky... i wish I had this forum when I was young!!!
Anyway, I've bought chemistry sets -- CHEM 3000, made in Germany -- for my kids they love it.
|
|
|
Hexavalent
International Hazard
Posts: 1564
Registered: 29-12-2011
Location: Wales, UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: Pericyclic
|
|
I am very similar to jamit . . . the first touch I had with the chemical world was an old chemistry set that I was given when I was about six. The
names of the chemicals seemed magical, and I was fascinated by the range of colours and reactions that could be performed. A small, 30cm^2 table
followed in the garage, where I kept all my supplies (back then about 10 vials of chemicals, 3 test tubes and a 100ml beaker), then a larger table,
and then finally my present workbench.
The chemistry sets these days almost seem useless IMHO. Some advertise as using 'no heat, no glass and no chemicals' . . .they might as well promote
it as 'no chemistry'. To be technically correct, their advertising should indicate a complete vacuum inside a box. It is this downturn that I feel
pushes kids away from science, and it has got to the extent where I am now considering making my own chemistry sets for family friends etc. A few test
tubes, a pipette or two, a beaker, a flask, a stir rod and plenty of chemicals in 35mm film cans should work . . .I would also have a bit of a bash at
writing my own instruction booklet for it as well, illustrated of course.
These days, there is therefore only one answer; make your own big-boy chemistry set and gather all the glassware, equipment and chemicals yourself.
"Success is going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm." Winston Churchill
|
|
|
weiming1998
National Hazard
Posts: 616
Registered: 13-1-2012
Location: Western Australia
Member Is Offline
Mood: Amphoteric
|
|
I agree with the previous posts on how modern-day chemistry sets are useless. Where I am now, even a few years ago, the chemistry sets (most are not
even called chemistry sets and are instead called something along the lines of "super stinky science kit" for boys and "your first perfume kit" for
girls, even though it's mainly chemistry (albeit neutered chemistry) in those kits. Of those that do call themselves "chemistry kits" they proudly
brandish the label "no chemicals") are extremely and horribly neutered. I have got one of those when I was 8 and lost interest in about a day because
of the ridiculously bland experiments (the explanations for the mechanisms behind the experiment is horrible, extremely dumbed down and short, no
chemical names or even mentioning of any chemical compounds at all (apart from carbon dioxide in an yeast and sugar experiment).
Not only chemistry kits, even the primary school that I went to is extremely careless about science in general. Science lessons were very frequently
skipped (I did not have one science lesson for the rest of year 7 since term 2). And of them that do, they were so crazy about the safety factor that
I have to laugh (Once a teacher told a student off for touching the residues of a baking soda-vinegar volcano, claiming that toxic chemicals might be
produced!)
Surprisingly, I got interested in chemistry not from a kit, but from a chemistry textbook that I've got from back in China. I read the book, then
proceeded to do some experiments (first one was the production of hydrogen and oxygen from electrolysis of water). Then I was hooked, and basically
self-taught myself everything I know about chemistry right now, with the aid of the internet and a few books.
Nowadays, even making the old chemistry kits wouldn't be so profitable, nor would many people buy it. I know there are exceptions, but most kids today
is more interested in sport, video games, celebrity, TV and music to even care about chemistry (but buying one for a kid at a young age might still
encourage them to have an interest). I know that because out of about 200 people in my grade at school, probably the other grades as well, none was
interested in the slightest in chemistry, and I go to a school with fairly high marks on average. Not only kids, but adults are becoming fearful as
well. My mum, for example, said once that "all chemical reactions are dangerous" and "everything related to chemistry is potentially toxic". And
because of this fear, people raise kids that becomes uninterested and fearful as well, and there's a vicious cycle that goes on and on. So I agree
about the "letting old chemistry kits become more available" part, but also educating the public about chemistry.
Sorry if this post seems like a long rant, and sorry if I got off topic on certain parts.
|
|
|
watson.fawkes
International Hazard
Posts: 2793
Registered: 16-8-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I had a Skilcraft set very similar to that in Fig. 28 of the second article Polverone cited. I remember those little blue cone-shaped bottles with
enormous nostalgia. The one reagent I remember clearly, oddly, is a ferrocyanide, and I don't even remember the counter-ion. I remember I did not have
a silicate, because I really wanted to do the crystal garden experiment and couldn't. Amusingly, I still haven't done it, nor do I feel any particular
urge to do so.
I do recall that the set came with some flint glass tubing and an alcohol burner. The instruction booklet had some basic glassblowing in it: drawing
pipettes, bends, butt and tee joints. They expected that you'd make some of your own adapters for the gas experiments.
The instruction manual for these sets is, to my eye, of paramount importance. The reagents and apparatus are worthless to a youngster without knowing
what to do with them. A good manual must not only explain what to do, but also explain why it's interesting to do them. That's not the same as
explaining the theory behind the experiment. Interest in theory gets generated by doing the experiment, not vice-versa (at least for children).
Motivation for the experiment can include what it can be used for as an ingredient or in manufacturing, its historical significance, etc., all stories
that connect the chemistry to the outside world.
|
|
|
Magpie
lab constructor
Posts: 5939
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Chemistry: the subtle science.
|
|
I had a Gilbert chemistry set, circa 1957. It came in a blue metal case and had an alcohol lamp and a blowpipe. The chemicals were in brown glass
bottles, or tall narrow clear glass tubes with a cork. It had powdered magnesium (fun to burn!)*, potassium ferrocyanide, ferrous ammonium sulfate,
and sulfur, among others. It also had logwood, but I can't remember its purpose. This was the only Christmas gift I ever asked for as I wanted it
badly.
As jamit says, the chemical names were magical. I loved playing with the set, but I'm doubtful that I learned much chemistry.
*probably discouraged now due to possible retinal damage.
The single most important condition for a successful synthesis is good mixing - Nicodem
|
|
|
Hexavalent
International Hazard
Posts: 1564
Registered: 29-12-2011
Location: Wales, UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: Pericyclic
|
|
Ahem?
Magpie, is it possible that the Logwood was either a stain or a simple pH indicator . . .this is what it mentioned in the Wikipedia article;
"Logwood was used for a long time as a natural source of dye, and still remains an important source of haematoxylin, which is used in histology for
staining. The bark and leaves are also used in various medical applications. In its time, logwood was considered a versatile dye, and was widely used
on textiles but also for paper. The dye's colour depends on the mordant used as well as the pH. It is reddish in an acidic environments but bluish in
alkaline ones"
****
My first chemistry set also came with a short length of glass tubing and an alcohol burner . . .but alas I lost the latter. So, there I was at the age
of eight trying to bend a red-hot piece of glass on the kitchen gas stove with my father in the next room asking '[Insert my real name here], what are
you doing on that cooker . . .?'
[Edited on 13-4-2012 by Hexavalent]
"Success is going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm." Winston Churchill
|
|
|
Pyridinium
Hazard to Others
Posts: 258
Registered: 18-5-2005
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: cupric
|
|
chemistry sets
I, too, had the Skil Craft set with the conical blue containers.
The manual was pretty good, maybe still have it somewhere. I do remember doing an off-manual experiment involving a solution of pink manganese ions
and a bit of exothermy - a 500 mL boiling flask (supplementary parts, you know) got a bit hot to the touch.
The set greatly expanded its capabilities with the discovery of a not-too-nearby hobby shop that had 1 oz containers of several chemicals. Also I
obtained an old Porter manual that had a lot of good experiments.
At the time I had no idea what Logwood was, either, but I sure wanted some. A lot of the Porter experiments called for it.
The biggest disappointment, though, was that book Magic with Chemistry from the 1960's. It had so many cool experiments, but I had just about none of
the ingredients (pharmacies didn't carry most of the stuff anymore, and if they did, they wouldn't sell it to a kid for chemistry like they did in the
60's). I noticed that book kept calling for this chemical known as potassium chlorate. How I wanted that chemical! I have to say, though, I came
pretty close to doing a Cold Light experiment at age eleven or twelve, but my mom decided the big ol' bottle of Formalin had to go back to the
pharmacist without being opened.
[Edited on 14-4-2012 by Pyridinium]
|
|
|
jamit
Hazard to Others
Posts: 375
Registered: 18-6-2010
Location: Midwest USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Magpie's comment, hits it on the nose -- there's something magical about those chemicals names and the promise of possible "danger" and of "discovery"
associated with doing chemistry. I felt like those secret alchemist of the past seeking the philosopher's stone!!!
Yes, there's not much chemistry (academically speaking) learning but, I believe all good scientific learning begins with a sense of wonder!!! And
that's what is lacking in so many modern day chemistry or science kits.
Kids today have video games and endless stupid movies to dumb down their sense of wonder. What they need is encouragement from parents and teachers.
Take your kids on a camping trip, go and see the skies and wonder, how did this all happen? What makes the world go around? What or who created
life? I feel that doing chemistry, is in a small scale, like answering such questions.
As for our society changing its attitude towards home chemistry and all, I don't see any hope. If you guys have kids, get them interested in science,
get them involved in your experiments.
|
|
|
Magpie
lab constructor
Posts: 5939
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Chemistry: the subtle science.
|
|
Yes..I'm sorry...the term "magical" is yours. And a very good choice of words it is!
Quote: Originally posted by Hexavalent  |
Magpie, is it possible that the Logwood was either a stain or a simple pH indicator . . .this is what it mentioned in the Wikipedia article;
|
Maybe that was it...a pH indicator... seems likely. It looked like redwood and when boiled it dyed the water red.
I wasn't very good at using the instruction book. I didn't know any chemistry so the experiments seemed uninteresting. I think I was more kewl than
chemist.
The single most important condition for a successful synthesis is good mixing - Nicodem
|
|
|
Rosco Bodine
Banned
Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: analytical
|
|
I had the 1950's vintage Gilbert and later most of the Perfect Parts Company assortments that were sold in hobby shops. My father had an interest in
photography so there were Kodak chemicals and Merck and Mallinckrodt too.
|
|
|
AJKOER
Radically Dubious
Posts: 3026
Registered: 7-5-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by jamit |
Kids today have video games and endless stupid movies to dumb down their sense of wonder. What they need is encouragement from parents and teachers.
......
As for our society changing its attitude towards home chemistry and all, I don't see any hope. If you guys have kids, get them interested in science,
get them involved in your experiments. |
On a related topic, I have an idea (usually, by this time, whatever it is, someone has already done it, marketed it, etc.). A virtual Chemistry set.
There would be potentially unlimited experiments (available as add ons to the existing set). An educational app to explain in increasing depth what is
occurring. And, of also, heavy use of videos to demonstrate. The experiments could be constructed as interactive and if the experiment fails, an
optional selection of an educational tutorial on why. If a success, it would be like winning at an online game. This is a step beyond some chemistry
online video sites.
The major upside in additional to the large variety of experiments, no worries about children (or adults) eating chemicals, spilling or setting
things on fire. Potential liability issues is probably a major issue for modern chemistry sets limiting their scope and enjoyment level.
As I am interested promoting a positive spin on chemistry and educational aspects, I am not promoting solely a private endeavor, but a collective open
source approach. But, in the end, whatever works, perhaps with the use of advertising, educational grants and/or sale of add ons.
Strangely, this product may increase the sales of 'real' Chemistry sets.
Comments welcomed.
[Edited on 14-4-2012 by AJKOER]
|
|
|
watson.fawkes
International Hazard
Posts: 2793
Registered: 16-8-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I have to think this is the generic case, and I am not judgemental
about it. What chemistry sets (and other such science toys) really teach is curiosity about the subject. That's what persists far more into adulthood.
Curiosity can spur study and experiment. It can create knowledge and talent. Not so much vice-versa.
|
|
|
watson.fawkes
International Hazard
Posts: 2793
Registered: 16-8-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Well, you asked.
It's a completely misguided, wrong-headed, and damaging idea. There's no engagement with the real world in a video game, nothing to drive curiosity.
It displaces real activity, with relevance, to virtual activity, which while it may have supplementary value, does not substitute for it.
If you'd like, I have more negative things to say, and if I continue, I'll find it hard not to extend my screeds against awful idea to the people I
would consider stupid to promote it.
Also, you must not have read the second article Polverone posted, since it addresses this issue.
|
|
|
adamsium
Hazard to Others
Posts: 180
Registered: 9-4-2012
Location: \ƚooɿ\
Member Is Offline
Mood: uprooting
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by AJKOER | | Quote: Originally posted by jamit |
Kids today have video games and endless stupid movies to dumb down their sense of wonder. What they need is encouragement from parents and teachers.
......
As for our society changing its attitude towards home chemistry and all, I don't see any hope. If you guys have kids, get them interested in science,
get them involved in your experiments. |
On a related topic, I have an idea (usually, by this time, whatever it is, someone has already done it, marketed it, etc.). A virtual Chemistry set.
There would be potentially unlimited experiments (available as add ons to the existing set). An educational app to explain in increasing depth what is
occurring. And, of also, heavy use of videos to demonstrate. The experiments could be constructed as interactive and if the experiment fails, an
optional selection of an educational tutorial on why. If a success, it would be like winning at an online game. This is a step beyond some chemistry
online video sites.
The major upside in additional to the large variety of experiments, no worries about children (or adults) eating chemicals, spilling or setting
things on fire. Potential liability issues is probably a major issue for modern chemistry sets limiting their scope and enjoyment level.
As I am interested promoting a positive spin on chemistry and educational aspects, I am not promoting solely a private endeavor, but a collective open
source approach. But, in the end, whatever works, perhaps with the use of advertising, educational grants and/or sale of add ons.
Strangely, this product may increase the sales of 'real' Chemistry sets.
Comments welcomed.
[Edited on 14-4-2012 by AJKOER] |
I, like watson.fawkes am strongly against such an idea. In fact, it's something I have feared will become a reality for a few years now. People are
becoming increasingly afraid of anything involving the term 'chemistry' or 'chemical' - don't even think about mentioning 'radioactive' or the like. A
program like this would reinforce these excessive fears, as well as, at least in the mind of many, removing any need whatsoever to expose people,
particularly young students, to the apparent horror that is real, practical chemistry.
'Doing chemistry' on a computer screen is not 'doing chemistry'. It is so far removed from actual chemistry that it would likely misguide the user, as
well as throughly boring them and deterring them from ever pursuing any study of chemistry that they are not forced to do. There are just too many
variables and nuances, including those that are unexpected / unknown, that make chemistry the fascinating and enjoyable pursuit that it is. Not to
mention that it would not teach any lab technique whatsoever - reading about / watching how to work in the lab is one thing - doing it is an entirely
different thing and the only way to successfully learn and master proper, safe technique.
A couple of weeks ago, a guest lecturer presented a lecture to interested members of the chemistry department of my university (where I'm majoring in
chemistry) about improving the laboratory components of tertiary science courses. The key point throughout his talk was that there needs to be a sense
of inquiry (the phrase he repeated many times was 'inquiry oriented') - students need to feel like they 'discovering' something. He promoted doing
open-ended experiments where the lab instructors may themselves be uncertain of the outcome to an extent and there is no prescribed way to find the
answer. There is no way that software can emulate this, and I hope it never attempts to.
[Edited on 14-4-2012 by adamsium]
|
|
|
weiming1998
National Hazard
Posts: 616
Registered: 13-1-2012
Location: Western Australia
Member Is Offline
Mood: Amphoteric
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by AJKOER | | Quote: Originally posted by jamit |
Kids today have video games and endless stupid movies to dumb down their sense of wonder. What they need is encouragement from parents and teachers.
......
As for our society changing its attitude towards home chemistry and all, I don't see any hope. If you guys have kids, get them interested in science,
get them involved in your experiments. |
On a related topic, I have an idea (usually, by this time, whatever it is, someone has already done it, marketed it, etc.). A virtual Chemistry set.
There would be potentially unlimited experiments (available as add ons to the existing set). An educational app to explain in increasing depth what is
occurring. And, of also, heavy use of videos to demonstrate. The experiments could be constructed as interactive and if the experiment fails, an
optional selection of an educational tutorial on why. If a success, it would be like winning at an online game. This is a step beyond some chemistry
online video sites.
The major upside in additional to the large variety of experiments, no worries about children (or adults) eating chemicals, spilling or setting
things on fire. Potential liability issues is probably a major issue for modern chemistry sets limiting their scope and enjoyment level.
As I am interested promoting a positive spin on chemistry and educational aspects, I am not promoting solely a private endeavor, but a collective open
source approach. But, in the end, whatever works, perhaps with the use of advertising, educational grants and/or sale of add ons.
Strangely, this product may increase the sales of 'real' Chemistry sets.
Comments welcomed.
[Edited on 14-4-2012 by AJKOER] |
I somewhat agree with the post above. Although your idea of a virtual chemistry kit is better than just letting kids watch TV every day, it probably
won't really work to stimulate kids' interests. For them, no matter how realistic and interactive you may make the virtual kit to be, a real one is
still much better, as you can develop the ability to use common glassware, the ability to judge risks (instead of simply reading off a MSDS saying
that NaCl is dangerous) and the ability to know what to do in an accident/emergency situation . Learning that simply cannot be achieved by plugging
into a computer, and working in a virtual lab.
Also, a virtual lab is uninteresting except for people who already knows a bit and enjoys chemistry (after all, why would kids be interested to watch
a bunch of people mixing stuff up when they could play
the latest video game or watch a celebrity's concert on a music TV channel?)
No, I think the resolution is not to create virtual labs, but to re-make some of the old chemistry kits, albeit wrapped in disclaimers so that an
idiot does not file lawsuits for the death of their son thinking potassium cyanide was sherbet and eating all of the supplied potassium cyanide in the
kit (just to make a point). Also, as I said before, the education of the public about chemistry and attempting to wipe out "chemophobia" is even more
important than supplying children with un-neutered chemistry kits (well, at least for now. That can go later, after the fear of chemistry the public
has has been diminished or at least reduced.)
This is just my personal opinion only.
|
|
|
woelen
Super Administrator
Posts: 7977
Registered: 20-8-2005
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline
Mood: interested
|
|
My first encounter with chemistry was when I was a boy of around 10 years old and found a book from the 1960's in the library about the miracles of
chemistry. It had many experiments, which could be done with ordinary household stuff and hardware store materials. It had experiments with
electrolysis, fire, making hydrogen from acids and metals, maiking crystals. It even described making detonating gas from battery acid and graphite
rods. The extremely loud bang when a small volume of this gas is ignited was one of the greater wonders. I was hooked at once. I never had a real
chemistry set, but soon when I had some pocket money (from the age of 12 or so), I bought chemicals from pharmacies (copper sulfate, potassium
permanganate, potassium dichromate, sulphur, potassium nitrate). Yes, I could buy them all as a young boy, and we're talking about around 1980. Many
other kids of my age spent their money on chips, sweets and that kind of stuff, but I bought chemicals and electrical stuff.
The feeling about chemistry (and science in general) I had at those moments I still use as my signature. A life without wondering is a dull and empty
life and I agree with many people that current western society has lost its wondering and becomes dumbed down more and more.
|
|
|
AJKOER
Radically Dubious
Posts: 3026
Registered: 7-5-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Watson.fawkes:
Yes, I read the article. Here is the relevant extract:
"In 1990 we could find only one chemistry set for sale at the peak of the annual Christmas toy saturnalia. Why? One obvious reason is the growing
obsession with so-called safety in our litigation-mad society, which makes the manufacture of chemistry sets a risky business, and which makes those
that are produced increasingly boring. However, a more important reason may be found in the advertisement shown in figure 31 – namely a major change
in the public’s image of what science is and how it is done, brought about by the advent of the home computer. More and more the public, not to
mention many so-called chemical educators, are of the opinion that science can be done solely on a computer without actual experimentation, without
any contact with real phenomena, without messy chemicals or stinks. As the ad says, “experiment on your own, without the worry of blowing up the
house or dissolving yourself” – a parent’s dream, no doubt, but I ask you, would there have been any point to wanting a chemistry set as a kid
if there hadn’t been the slim possibility of blowing up the house or dissolving yourself?
This change also permeates the image of science presented in movies and on television and is best illustrated by the Walt Disney movies “The Absent
Minded Professor” and “The Son of Flubber.” In the original movie versions which I saw as a kid, Fred McMurry creates his antigravity polymer
using experimental chemistry – wonderful arrays of boiling flasks and distillation columns. In the recent television remake, on the other hand,
flubber is created by a talking McIntosh Computer."
However, I am suggesting a more interactive format. Here is an actual example, but I thinking about expanding the reagents interaction list.
http://www.syngentaperiodictable.co.uk/reaction-zone.php
|
|
|
Pyridinium
Hazard to Others
Posts: 258
Registered: 18-5-2005
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: cupric
|
|
I agree with the sentiments so far. It would be kind of humorous to make a pretend chemistry set, along the lines of what Hexavalent described:
"Some advertise as using 'no heat, no glass and no chemicals' . . .they might as well promote it as 'no chemistry'."
You know how they had advertisements, where the word "New" was inside a stylized explosion or many-pointed star design? Our empty-box chemistry set
could replace the word "New!" with "Useless!".
Trying to look at the bright side, though, I dug out a couple treasures from childhood. I don't have them all, but these survived.
|
|
|
AJKOER
Radically Dubious
Posts: 3026
Registered: 7-5-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
OK, good feedback on what makes the chemistry experience real. Uncertainty as to results, wonder on experiencing the results and the possibility of
side trips into emergency medicine relating to poison, burns, explosions,...
But isn't a video of a real episode of the latter (with real immediate counter measures or lack thereof) a better teaching approach for safety?
Perhaps a system of points (gamers, I have witnessed, take their points/rankings very seriously) would be a good idea to instill pride and fear of
lose (as opposed to a real trip to the ER).
By the way, I finally got a Chemistry set for Christmas, but I didn't get it the 1st time I asked because I wasn't old enough per the box
instructions. If only.....
[Edited on 14-4-2012 by AJKOER]
|
|
|
Pyridinium
Hazard to Others
Posts: 258
Registered: 18-5-2005
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: cupric
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by AJKOER |
But isn't a video of a real episode of the latter (with real immediate counter measures or lack thereof) a better teaching approach for safety?
Perhaps a system of points (gamers, I have witnessed, take their points/rankings very seriously) would be a good idea to instill pride and fear of
lose (as opposed to a real trip to the ER).
|
I can see how that might have some appeal, but I think there is no substitute for reality when it comes to science. It is possible with reality to
learn subtleties that aren't programmed into a game or present in a video. There are a lot of people on here who have specialized knowledge about
various compounds and reactions, gained only by working closely with them.
Come to think of it, one of the biggest flaws of computers and simulations is that they're only as good as the present knowledge of the programmers.
If the experiments are done on a small scale and with safety equipment, there would be no trip to the ER. Besides, I remember the real penny in HNO3
experiment better because I saw it for real, than I would if I saw it in a video game.
By the way, if I can find it, I think I may have one of those conical blue plastic containers from the old Skil Craft set. Hopefully.
|
|
|
adamsium
Hazard to Others
Posts: 180
Registered: 9-4-2012
Location: \ƚooɿ\
Member Is Offline
Mood: uprooting
|
|
One of the other issues I would have with this is that of making it a 'game' in which a 'player' would attempt to score points by some means. The aim
thus becomes solely about earning points rather than learning about and enjoying chemistry. To get people interested in learning about chemistry, we
need to get them interested in chemistry, not obsessed with who has the highest score.
Also, as has already been pointed out, there are plenty of ways to do practical chemistry, including with young children, that are perfectly safe.
I looked at the link provided as an example and found it quite dull, in all honesty. I don't really see how it could be made more interactive.
Regardless of what is done, it is still going to be about clicking and dragging things around a screen, and this is not chemistry, it's clicking and
dragging, and the outcome is absolutely predetermined, as already mentioned.
Beside all this, I think much of the appeal for many chemists is the actual act of performing chemistry in the lab. I personally enjoy it (as I expect
anyone on this forum does, also) and this element would be completely removed in a simulation. I doubt I'd find chemistry nearly as enjoyable without
the practical aspect.
|
|
|
watson.fawkes
International Hazard
Posts: 2793
Registered: 16-8-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by AJKOER | | But isn't a video of a real episode of the latter (with real immediate counter measures or lack thereof) a better teaching approach for safety?
|
No, not at all. Video is just another virtual experience.
Exposure to hazard is the foundational way to teach safety. Unless there's something at risk, the mind does not become focused. For children, it's the
responsibility of the parents to ensure that those hazards are not too great, that the possible downsides are worth the character growth that results.
|
|
|
Magpie
lab constructor
Posts: 5939
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Chemistry: the subtle science.
|
|
I wholeheartedly agree. How much adrenaline and diarrhea do you think one would experience in preparing to make virtual postassium cyanide, or even
distill virtual diethyl ether?
The single most important condition for a successful synthesis is good mixing - Nicodem
|
|
|
AJKOER
Radically Dubious
Posts: 3026
Registered: 7-5-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Well, if it is drama we need, some of the experiments of the day could be broadcast live. First, we introduce the hapless rodent (and his family?)
who, by the chance of the draw, is our subject (gladiator) of the moment. Next into the pit (the fume hood), so we can see if any leaking toxic fumes
can render the poor animal unconscious. Then, Dr. Animal House (no relation to that TV guy) can race to the rescue with the anti-dote, but will the
rat live? (I can't look)....
Really.
[Edited on 15-4-2012 by AJKOER]
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2 |
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
