Subscribe to RSS
on 
Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category:
The Brick Wall of Science (with Aerogel!)
In contrast to the joy of crystallization, there is always that sinking feeling when you can’t get something to work.
In light of recent events, chemists are becoming much more skeptical about the veracity of the results they see in print, and to a large extent, that’s a good thing. In some cases, however, this can be problematic as well. For example, recently I’ve been trying to carry out what should be a simple, routine reaction. I won’t give any details, but the reaction is the very definition of “textbook.” I can’t get it to work worth a damn. I’ve tried everything I can think of, I’m following literature procedures to the T, but it just won’t work out the way it’s reported.
Here’s the real dilemma: this reaction was reported to work, but I can’t reproduce the results. I even know other people who have had trouble reproducing these results. So what is the problem? I have to wonder whether it’s a failing in my abilities as a chemist, but at the same time, at what point do you say “These reported results can’t be right.” I’m definitely not to that point with my chemistry, but if I were working with a reaction that wasn’t so firmly established I would have to seriously consider the possibility that the reported results were false.
So am I jumping the gun on this? Did I just miss something in those papers I read? I feel like I may be more likely to accuse falsification just because there have been some high profile reports of such things.
Then try to think of yourself on the other end of things. Any chemistry that I publish will be true to the best of my knowledge, but what if someone questions my results? I know I have evidence to back it up, but how do you tell someone that their inability to reproduce my results must be some fault on their end. Worse yet, what if I made an honest mistake and misidentified something? Is that forgivable, or would my carelessness mar all of my accomplishments. These are serious issues and I think that some of this may have gotten lost in the fray of competing accusations.
So what am I to do, with a textbook reaction that doesn’t behave like it should? How long do I pound my head in to the brick wall of science before I give up on it? And perhaps a more ominous concern is what happens when someone asks why I didn’t just use this obvious textbook reaction instead of my obviously circuitous work around!!
Photos from the recent Symposium on Current Trends in Nuclear Physics at LBNL
This past Saturday was the 80th birthday bash for Wladek Swiatecki. When you become older birthday bashes involve several hours of seminars from people whose research you contributed to. At the recent birthday bash I was able to get some nice photos with Darleane Hoffman and Al Ghiorso one is shown below. If you do not know them they are most famous for their work in the 5f and 6d row of the periodic table. Al is the world record holder for the discoverer of the most elements and I think isotopes too. Picture is below.
You can also make out half of Peter Armbruster’s face in the background (Santa Claus guy). If you don’t know who Peter Armbruster is, who are you? And why are you reading this? 
And for everyone in the audience, please use power point for talks. I promise its not that difficult to learn.
The Office of a Nuclear Chemist
Although the News of the day is the Sames retraction(s):http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/84/i25/8425papers.html
Blogs:http://www.thechemblog.com/?p=52, http://occams.blogspot.com/2006/06/four-more-retractions.html
I thought I would go off topic and show a picture of my office.
.
Please notice the triple multi-headed machine I use to work and play, the bean bag in the corner and the miscellaneous cans of Mountain Dew that I tried to move off to one side.
And just so you don’t think that life as a Nuclear Chemist sucks cubicle walls. Here is a picture of the SF bay from our lunch tables at the 88 inch cyclotron. Eat that any other university/work-place on the planet.
No more Chmoogle!
The forces that be (ie Google) have set their sights on Chmoogle and decided to take Chmoogle to court for trademark infringement. Instead of fighting, Chmoogle has relinquished that name and reverted to eMolecules. C&EN has a nice article here:
http://pubs.acs.org/isubscribe/journals/cen/84/i23/html/8423newscripts.html#2
You can read EMolecules views here:
http://www.emolecules.com/doc/google_vs_chmoogle/index.htm
Allotropes, Polymorphs, and Isomerism oh my
The term allotrope is one of the most vaguely defined chemical terms still in current use. I can understand how one could call the various forms of sulfur (ie. rhombic and monoclinic) as distinct allotropes. But 2 chemical species that can’t be transformed into each other by physical means just don’t seem to garner the right to be called an allotrope. This issue was recently brought up by Fritnat, http://www.chemicalforums.com/index.php?topic=8500.0, when he advocated ozone should be called oxygen since it is an “allotrope” of diatomic oxygen.
At any rate you can read more about the wonderful world of allotropism in a recent article by William B. Jensen, http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/Journal/Issues/2006/Jun/abs838.html. It’s a very short read and packed with a historical perspective on the use of the word allotrope. Eventhough, Mr. Jensen never replied to a comment I sent him, I would still recommend everyone read this article. 
Mitch
Wired Magazine and the fall of citizen chemistry
I’m not a usually a reader of Wired magazine but recently they’ve done an expose on the troubles with citizen chemistry in America. They use the less regal phrase do-it-yourself DIY chemistry and the article can be found here http://wired.com/wired/archive/14.06/chemistry.html .
Trying to do my small part for the citizen science community I created a new forum for individuals to trade chemicals and supplies with each other http://www.chemicalforums.com/index.php?board=53.0, its a sad day when it has to come down to actions like this. But in a hyper-vigilante government era these are the kinds of steps the average citizen has to take.
Mitch
P.S. I know that forum will not be used much, but I’m just doing my small part.
What is up with all these chemistry blogs?
Why does it seem that chemistry related blogging has exploded in the last year. You all know me, if anything is new and novel on the internet about Chemistry, I’m usually the first to know, but this has completely skipped my attention. Since CF is known for looking at how others do stuff and taking that idea and doing it better, I’ll start a Chemical Forums blog too.
At any rate: What chemical related blogs are out there that you visit? How do you think they would feel about linking to us? Can CF handle blogging and keeping our core mission of education of the chemical youth intact. I of course think so, but your comments are more then welcome.
Mitch
