| Pages:
1
2
3
..
7 |
microcosmicus
Hazard to Others
Posts: 287
Registered: 31-12-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: spin up
|
|
Home Chemistry Society
In the HF synthesis thread, MagicJigPipe said
| Quote: |
Wait, I thought F2 synthesis was frowned upon by the "home chemistry society". I got flamed for even mentioning that I wanted to try it some day.
Now that I think about it, the "Home Chemistry Society" sounds like an organization that should exsist. That would be GREEEEAAT!!! In the words of
Tony the Tiger.
|
Of course, there already is Sean Carlson's "Society for Amateur Scientists" but I suppose it wouldn't
hurt to have another one, especially so given that SAS seems to be more about subjects like meteorology
than chemistry. I suppose that the membership of this putative organization would be roughly the same as
that of Science Madness, but such a society could serve as a more dignified front for interfacing with the
public at large and stuffy academic types as well as social and and political advocacy. Carrying HBrO3's
analogy of his book to the ARRL handbook a step backwards, the HCS could be some sort of ARRL for
ham chemists.
[Edited on 17-3-2008 by microcosmicus]
|
|
|
CyrusGrey
Hazard to Others
Posts: 123
Registered: 20-1-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Oooh! Shiny!
|
|
I think it would be a great idea if some of the members here tried to make a hobby chemistry organization. I would be willing to contribute in what
meager ways I can (I have little money but I can say... make videos of demonstraitions you can do at home).
If we could get a website, youtube videos, etc. centered more on introducing new people to chemistry then we might be able to remove some of the
public fear and resentment of this art.
I have never seen more than small personal websites and a very few places like sciencemadness devoted to chemistry not done in a lab.
|
|
|
ScienceGeek
Hazard to Others
Posts: 151
Registered: 22-1-2008
Location: Norway
Member Is Offline
|
|
The problem lies in advertising!
Over the last years I have encountered several extremely interesting chemistry- sites, ranging from proffessional to amateur, but no- one knows where
to find these.
YouTube is close to saturated with interesting Chemistry videos, but the problem here lies in the fact that YouTube is infested with bad and
downright stupid videos, making us chemists look bad.
An ideal solution would be to create a "place" to gather all the "good stuff". That is: like this Forum, only with pictures, videos and articles
sorted after Topic, Science etc.
I love this Forum, but you got to admit: For a guest just "popping in" on this site, it can be very confusing.
To sum it up: We need an interesting, simple and easy to follow web- site, placing us amateur chemists in the spotlight.
We don't need a place where people can search for information, but rather get a new understanding of things.
|
|
|
The_Davster
A pnictogen
Posts: 2861
Registered: 18-11-2003
Member Is Offline
Mood: .
|
|
I have thought along these lines as well. What I would do is revive the types of journals from the 40s and 50s.
Journal of Home Chemistry and the like.
Offer subscriptions for physical copies, and have it all available online to attract the uninitiated. Make it a home chemistry journal by,for and
reviewed by, home chemists, and the fact that it is in print makes it even more legitimate. I am sure the author of SAS's "Dont Scale These Up"
chemistry article, as well as many others in the online chemistry community(outside of the obvious group here) would be willing to write.
SAS is great and all to introduce the concept, but their chemistry section is sparse, and I do not think they really have much interest in it.
Moved to legal& societal
EDIT: I mean produce a journal in the style of the old ones, not just republish their material, as there was confusion in further posts.
[Edited on 17-3-2008 by The_Davster]
[Edited on 17-3-2008 by The_Davster]
|
|
|
Al Koholic
Hazard to Self
Posts: 98
Registered: 2-12-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: Seeking ligand
|
|
Spotlight or not, I agree with parts of this idea.
I actually think that starting something of the sort would best be done smaller scale as well. The forum functions well for those who like this
material well enough to put in the time to learn to use it. I suppose it would be nice to have videos and professional looking picture-filled project
descriptions but we do already have the seeds of all that here in the library, prepublication, etc.
What I would like to see would be "chapters" of people that are geographically close enough to be able to collaborate in person.
Perhaps with meet-ups and semi-regular socialization. For a U.S. example - The New York State Mad Science chapter!
I think this is the sort of thing that is best taken by someone who participates here and is associated, or near to, a university. I'm semi-thinking
about putting up fliers and doing it through a chemistry department when I start school as it would give some legitimate backing even if you weren't
"officially" associated with the university. It would A) be a way to organize something yourself and B) get more people involved.
|
|
|
ScienceGeek
Hazard to Others
Posts: 151
Registered: 22-1-2008
Location: Norway
Member Is Offline
|
|
I agree!
But taken the geography into consideration of the members of this Forum, establishing a physical location for this to happen seems difficult!
|
|
|
MagicJigPipe
International Hazard
Posts: 1554
Registered: 19-9-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suspicious
|
|
I believe everyone here has good ideas but I have a more "unified" theory. A perfect "HCS" would act as a medium for home chemists to do everything
from donating to the organization and maintaining public forums, like this one, to developing physical "chapters" that work together at tasks like
obtaining hard to find chemicals/glassware and performing experiments (and doing write-ups) that would benefit from having multiple people conduct
them.
HCS would also act to represent home chemists to governments and politicians of nations, states, counties, provinces and municipalities in support of
advancing home chemistry. A lobbyist group of sorts.
We would have to safeguard against the possibility of the organization becoming exactly opposite of what was initially intended (as is often what
happens with organizations) by ultimately turning towards "professional" chemistry conducted in a lab by trained chemists. One thing I thought about
is if the organization should specifically exclude professional labs and chemists. These are points that could be discussed further.
I am thinking about righting an essay on this as I am so inspired. Basically, the main obstacle is money, after that all others I would consider just
a matter of will power. Please, let me know what you guys think about this. I'm dead serious about this. If I had money I would start on that part
RIGHT NOW.
We can at least start discussions.
PS I know I'm getting ahead of myself but all great organizations need a set of rules that can't be changed without a majority vote. A constitution
if you will.
"There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry ... There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any
question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. ... We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and
that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think,
free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
|
|
|
12AX7
Post Harlot
Posts: 4803
Registered: 8-3-2005
Location: oscillating
Member Is Offline
Mood: informative
|
|
Wisconsin! It's got me, Bromic Acid, it's north of Theodore Gray, it's full of cheese -- who doesn't love cheese? -- what else need I say? 
|
|
|
7he3ngineer
Harmless
Posts: 33
Registered: 13-1-2008
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Member Is Offline
Mood: above average
|
|
Perhaps the answer is, rather then looking to expand somewhere else, trying and build up the community here. The fact that our members are dispersed
throughout the world is a good thing and shouldn't be looked upon as a hindrance.
| Quote: |
What I would do is revive the types of journals from the 40s and 50s.
|
Well that's great... do that. But don't forget that we have the member's publication section here. If your idea is to simply create a place where
actual 40s and 50s journals (as oposed to new articles written in the older (amature?)style)are accumulated and distributed, I'm sure, providing that
there are no problems with copyright, etc, that if you (a few of you) ask Polverone very nicely that all these things are achievable.
Additionally, whose to say that a 'members of the sciencemadness discussion forum' youtube account can't be created for demonstration videos/ lab
tours, etc can't be created... just protected by seniour members/ moderators/ Polverone for obvious reasons.
Josh
Engineers aren\'t boring people, we\'re just interested in boring things!
|
|
|
ScienceGeek
Hazard to Others
Posts: 151
Registered: 22-1-2008
Location: Norway
Member Is Offline
|
|
MagicJigPipe:
The idea is intriguing! Chapters spread around the world (literally) sounds like a very feasible idea!
Your point on excluding proffessional chemists, though, I disagree upon. Maybe I'm not "reading it right", if so excuse me, but the focus can be on
the amateur chemist, even though chemists were to be members of this organization.
7he3ngineer:
I agree with you as well, but: If we were to form a physical organization spread around the world, we would still have access to the publications in
the library and by the members of this forum. No use to get into copyright issues yet.
And one more thing: what's that you're saying about YouTube videos by sciencemadness memebers? Have I missed out on something?
|
|
|
The_Davster
A pnictogen
Posts: 2861
Registered: 18-11-2003
Member Is Offline
Mood: .
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by MagicJigPipe
exclude professional labs and chemists.
|
Some, like myself, consider amateur chemistry their hobby, and are actively working to eventually become a professional chemist. It would make no
sense to prevent those who do both from this theoretical organization.
SG: There is no Sciencemadness Youtube channel, although individual members have posted links to their videos here and there.
Also, my journal idea was aimed at producing one in the style of those, not just making their old material re-available.
[Edited on 17-3-2008 by The_Davster]
|
|
|
ScienceGeek
Hazard to Others
Posts: 151
Registered: 22-1-2008
Location: Norway
Member Is Offline
|
|
Thank you Davster!
And for your comment on professional chemists: my thoughts exactly!
As for myself, I am merely an Upper Secondary school student with chemistry as one of my subjects.
Although us non- chemists chemists ( ) could provide some useful contributions,
there's nothing wrong with including someone studying the subject!
As long as the focus is in fact on the amateur chemist!
|
|
|
7he3ngineer
Harmless
Posts: 33
Registered: 13-1-2008
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Member Is Offline
Mood: above average
|
|
ScienceGeek, I've seen your youtube account and some of your vids, and I applaud that, but what I mentioned is a suggestion for a single semi-official
sciencemadness Youtube account that all members could post to, if of a high enough quality (not physical video quality!!) and approved by moderators
(would have to be posted by moderators to presumably stop the crap that would otherwise result).
This was a suggestion, not some 'I've got this brilliant idea so let's all get involved' type comment.
Josh
Engineers aren\'t boring people, we\'re just interested in boring things!
|
|
|
ScienceGeek
Hazard to Others
Posts: 151
Registered: 22-1-2008
Location: Norway
Member Is Offline
|
|
As mentioned earlier, the problem is advertising! This could provide some of just that!
But I don't think it's a wise idea to publish the videos under sciencemadness, as this could attract unwanted attention
|
|
|
CyrusGrey
Hazard to Others
Posts: 123
Registered: 20-1-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Oooh! Shiny!
|
|
I agree with ScienceGeek. I have never heard of this forum in any place other than our member's websites, I think it might be off the radar of the
kind of people that would want to give this site trouble.
I think the best thing to start out with would be to have a website specifically dedicated to introducing new people to chemistry. Members that want
to post videos on YouTube can get them approved by the moderators and then they could advertise that site in their video. The videos, sciencemadness,
and maybe websites of our members would be linked to from this new site.
We could have a way to donate to that site. If we get enough volunteers we could write an email newsletter, or publish experiments on that website
that people inexperienced in chemistry could try. With enough donations/funding we could probably move on to printing something on paper. If its
successful we could move on to bigger things after that.
[Edited on 18-3-2008 by CyrusGrey]
|
|
|
MagicJigPipe
International Hazard
Posts: 1554
Registered: 19-9-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suspicious
|
|
It was a question of whether or not to exclude say, Pfizer's R&D Dept's Lab Manager from "signing up" his lab and himself under that title. After
all if it were full of "pro labs" then it wouldn't be the "HCS" but merely "CS". My thought was that, if done democratically, the "pros" could just
ignore the home chemistry section like they do now.
Of course the chemists in the lab would be able to join as individuals and have a chapter called Pfizer Home Chemists or something of that nature.
Like I said, just something to ponder.
I also agree that starting off small with the videos and whatnot would be good as long as there was a plan or ultimate goal. I'm usually an optimist
and I think that with enough dedicated people this dream could be realized. I know I'm being ambitious but is that a bad thing?
I'm glad that at least people are discussing it instead of pessimistically dismissing it. Thanks for bringing this up microcosmicus.
"There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry ... There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any
question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. ... We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and
that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think,
free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
|
|
|
CyrusGrey
Hazard to Others
Posts: 123
Registered: 20-1-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Oooh! Shiny!
|
|
Perhaps to restrict the amount of professional stuff we could have some kind of requirement for the equipment or reagents used for the experiments
published. Perhaps an emphisis on over the counter reagents, such as using atleast 50% OTC goods, or there could be a requirement that all advanced
equipment (fume hoods, magnetic stirrers, distillation apperatus, etc.) be do-it-yourself made.
I think that with those kinds of requirements, it would allow professionals to participate, but not allow them to overwhelm the home chemists.
[Edited on 18-3-2008 by CyrusGrey]
|
|
|
MagicJigPipe
International Hazard
Posts: 1554
Registered: 19-9-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suspicious
|
|
It would be difficult to enforce things like that, though. Maybe there would be "chapters" that do nothing but chemistry "from scratch" and make all
their own equipment and chemicals. Indeed, this is the kind of diversity that interests me.
I think the only requirement for it being "home chemistry" should be that it's done at home or at a place not generally recognized as a lab, like at
ones place of business (ie a mechanic does experiments in his garage/"office" after hours).
Helping other members obtain chemicals through influence and other means would help with that aspect IMO. Remember, alone we can't do much but united
we may actually be able to change the way things are headed. That really is one of the main points.
Let's keep the ideas and discussions coming!
"There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry ... There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any
question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. ... We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and
that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think,
free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
|
|
|
microcosmicus
Hazard to Others
Posts: 287
Registered: 31-12-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: spin up
|
|
| Quote: |
I am thinking about righting an essay on this as I am so inspired.
Basically, the main obstacle is money, after that all others I would
consider just a matter of will power.
|
Based on my experience, the most important thing is having a
committed group of people who are willing to keep the thing
going on a long-term basis. It is important that it be a group and
that the load gets distributed since otherwise one or two people
trying to keep everything going will burn out,
I would say that, if you have that, the money will come --- some way
or another, the group will find a way to raise funds and grow. So now
that a number of people have expressed interest in seeing this happen
the next question is what sorts of commitments people are willing
and able to make towards such a project.
| Quote: |
I am thinking about righting an essay on this as I am so inspired.
|
If you do write the essay, I would be sure to read it.
|
|
|
woelen
Super Administrator
Posts: 7977
Registered: 20-8-2005
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline
Mood: interested
|
|
The idea of a home chemistry society sounds VERY good to me. What is most important is that the society must have a good and professional look, with a
number of good write-ups on experiments, syntheses and also a lot of general info.
We should not impose restrictions on the membership. I would welcome the 13-year old starter with only KNO3, S and C as his chemicals and the
professional chemist, who also does a lot of nice work at home. The only, but also very important, criterion must be that people are actively doing
things at home in a non-professional lab. So, the professional chemist, who also has a nice lab at home and really uses that for experiments is more
than welcome.
We also should not impose restrictions on what chemicals and apparatus are used. Instead we must add different levels marks to each write-up. I even
would promote multiple level marks
1) overall difficulty of performing the experiment
2) the need for rare/specialist chemicals
3) the use of complex/expensive equipment.
An experiment can have e.g. a low score on (1) and (3), while having a high score on (2). E.g. I have some experiments with NbCl5, which are as simple
as heating some of the solid in a test tube, so it has a low score on (1) and (3), but a fairly high score on (2), because NbCl5 is not a reagent
which is common for home chemists.
It is important to add write-ups in all score-levels. The society must be interesting for the starters, but also for advanced persons, who have a lot
of equipment and a $$$$$-lab.
The site must have a professional high-end look. The choice of template, font, and general appearance is important. We definitely must not use some
murky underground look and feel. Keep in mind that home chemistry must not be something looking dark, obscure and creepy. E.g. the sciencemadness logo
is not one of the things I would use as a leading logo in the presentation layer of the society. It does remind me too much of bomb-making and being
geared to energetics only.
Also, all kinds of chemistry should be allowed, including energetics and all kinds of organics. I think that some form of (peer-)reviewing would be
nice, before articles, write-ups for synths, etc. are placed on the site. One mechanism, which could work is to use a submission mechanism, and if
e.g. at least 5 members accept the write-up and no more than 2 member reject the write-up, then it is made available for the general public online. In
the initial phase I would choose to use a small group of members, who can accept/reject write-ups, but in the long run this group should become larger
quickly. Criterion for being added to the group of people who can accept/reject write-ups could be a number of accepted write-ups (e.g. two or three
nice write-ups automatically put the person in the group of persons who can accept/reject).
These are just some things as a result of brainstorming. Think about it and improve them  .
I have a domainname www.homescience.net. Could that be a nice name for the society?
|
|
|
MagicJigPipe
International Hazard
Posts: 1554
Registered: 19-9-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suspicious
|
|
Very good ideas woelen. Thanks for the interest and input. Also, I didn't mean to imply a set name either, of course that could be subject of debate
as well. Maybe focusing on chemistry at first would have it's advantages over trying to cover all aspects of science in the beginning. I agree that
everyone should be welcome, I was merely suggesting that we should think about whether or not professional labs would be beneficial or possibly
detrimental to the cause considering some of their viewpoints. I suppose if they don't like the idea they won't join. Anyway, it is something to
think about.
I also agree with no restrictions on the chemicals and apparatus used unless they are flat out illegal in that person's locallity. If we start
letting that happen it might do damage to the cause. Instead, we could push for less restrictions and regulations on chemicals that are currently
controlled. Also, supporting home chemists that get in trouble for simply looking suspicious or having a certain set of chemicals provided they truly
weren't synthesizing illegal explosives, drugs or chemical weapons. In a large society, lawyers could be sent to help these people win cases like
this. I believe that with enough support like this we would be able to influence and pressure governments enough to make some changes in laws and
regulations affecting home chemistry.
Also, I agree that the organization should have a professional look. The image conveyed is important and must represent true home chemistry (not uber
1337 kewl) in it's design. We would need to find a way to prevent the organization from being overrun with "kewls". I tend to believe that that
would happen on it's own as "kewls" probably wouldn't want to join a professional and open society that frowns upon "recipe based" (a dash of this a
pinch of that and voila! Nitroglycerin! That's a spicy meata ball!) and downright reckless chemistry.
Thanks again for your input and enthusiasm woelen.
"There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry ... There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any
question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. ... We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and
that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think,
free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
|
|
|
ScienceGeek
Hazard to Others
Posts: 151
Registered: 22-1-2008
Location: Norway
Member Is Offline
|
|
Both woelen and MagicJigPipe:
I couldn't agree more! You seen to have completed each others ideas here 
The outlook of this, to me, looks very good, as the ideas are flowing, decisions are made and we are handling this very professionally.
If we keep this up, I think we can create a darn- good consept!
But please, let the discussions continue...
|
|
|
CyrusGrey
Hazard to Others
Posts: 123
Registered: 20-1-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Oooh! Shiny!
|
|
How is this idea for a logo? I just doodled it on a piece of paper. Perhaps somone with good photoshop skills could make a better version of it if
everyone likes it.
To make sure people dont immediatly think of drug manufacture in a garage I carefully chose what was in the picture:
The sun and the lamps on the sides of the garage suggest that this is in the light, not clandestine, not hidden.
The sunflowers and shrub suggest that this is a well kept yard, not at all like the steriotypical meth lab yard.
I chose a test tube instead of a flask/beaker. Flasks and beakers are now more associated with drug manufacture than legitiment chemistry. Test tubes,
however, are too small scale for drugs, so they are still associated either with chemistry sets (Fun) or chemistry class (Boring, but not drugs).
One more thing. I would like to nominate Woelen as our Website Quality Control Manager.
[Edited on 18-3-2008 by CyrusGrey]
|
|
|
ScienceGeek
Hazard to Others
Posts: 151
Registered: 22-1-2008
Location: Norway
Member Is Offline
|
|
Hehe! Fantastic! This is definately in the lines of my thoughts!
Simplistic and realistic. Only one thing: might be a little bit childish! Of course we want to attract young chemists, but with this logo, some of
them might reject the idea of even entering the site. I personally liked it very much, though
We should have a logo- competition, with board- members to assess the submissions, and for Woelen as Website Quality Control Manager: here here
|
|
|
CyrusGrey
Hazard to Others
Posts: 123
Registered: 20-1-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Oooh! Shiny!
|
|
A couple more ideas:
Perhaps we should split up the experiments into beginner, intermediate, and advanced:
Beginner experiments would be experiments where all you have to do is swing by a couple of local stores and then you can do the experiment. No
chemistry experience required.
Intermediate experiments would use basic labware like beakers/flasks or DIY labware. Might require basic chemicals purchased online or found OTC (Like
sulfuric acid, or hydrogen peroxide etc.) A basic understanding of chemistry would be good for this.
Advanced experiments would be the kind of projects we are working on the forums here. For example: The lead chamber process, hot electrochemical
sodium, etc.
I think it would be good to link to an actual demonstraition of the experiment on YouTube instead of a writeup for the beginner level experiments. I
have a camera that records video, and I already have some beginner level experiments I would like to tape.
Also, I think one nice thing would be if we had a template for fliers that people can print out from the website. If this gets started I would like to
hand out fliers to the chemistry teachers at my college and try to get them to give the fliers to their students.
We should also have a section with news that affects hobby chemistry. Hopefully not emphisis on the negative side of chemistry. We might talk about
increasing liability in schools, dissapearence of good OTC chemicals etc.
Maybe we could have a section devoted to trading chemicals between hobbiests.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3
..
7 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
