/cg/ – chemistry general

[Anonymous No.14719272]

prev >>14697976

>HOW DO I LEARN CHEMISTRY?
Oxtoby - Principles of Modern Chemistry
Wade or Clayden for organic
Voet and Voet - Biochemistry
McQuarrie for physical chemistry or Anslyn's Modern Physical Organic Chemistry
Landau & Lifshitz's - Statistical Physics, Part I and II, Theory of Elasticity, and Physical Kinetics
Meissler's - Inorganic Chemistry
Fleming's "Frontier Orbitals"
Silverstein's "Spectrometric Identification of Organic Compounds"
Cotton's "Advanced Inorganic Chemistry"
Smythe's Static and Dynamic Electricity
Greene's "Protecting Groups in Organic Synthesis"
Vogel's "Practical Organic Chemistry"
Odian's "Principles of Polymerization"
Rubinstein's "Polymer Physics"
The Francis and Carey texts parts 1 and 2
Crabtree's organometallic book
lecture contents and research papers published by Springer Nature and Elsevier
TMC: springer.com/series/10920/books
Quantum Chemistry: springer.com/series/676/books
History: springer.com/series/10127/books
springer.com/series/128/books
springer.com/series/632/books
**********Please expand this list with more books/links/recommendations/etc.**********

>Guys I'm a future doctor taking organic next year. Tell me how to get a good grade!
Just make sure you memorize everything. Don't bother trying to understand the concepts, that's a waste of time and is meant for actual chemistry students who'll need it later on. It's a lot easier if you just brute force your way through it and memorize all the mechanisms.

>I'm a pissant undergrad, how do I into synthesis research?
Go walk up to a professor and tell them you want to work in their lab. Most are glad to take on a new student, provided you aren't completely retarded - you're basically free labor. Note that if your school has a lot of future doctors then you might have to compete with them on grades, some of them might also be bumming the prof so they could pad up their applications. Also, note that if you're at a big fancy school you're gonna need good grades regardless bud

[Anonymous No.14719899]

bump

[Anonymous No.14720469]

When using the ICE method to calculate equilibrium concentrations, when is the "x" variable negligible?

[Anonymous No.14720519]

sad thread as always =( https://youtu.be/FskL-2jrgF0

[Anonymous No.14721313]

>>14720519
why does this board hate chemistry so much

[Anonymous No.14721320]

>>14721313
Boring field, not stimulating for creative types, strongly inundated with women, bad pay, the good parts are all quantum mechanics, chemistry attracts schizos and would-be drug manufacturers, chem lab work is both dangerous and pure drudgery.

[Anonymous No.14721428]

>>14721313
Because actual chemists don't waste time on this shithole.

[Anonymous No.14721439]

>>14721428
Actual chemist here. I rarely find someone to talk to in these threads, the usually die quickly because of the stupid jannies. Rarely any stimulating discussion, although occasionally get a nice org synthesis troubleshooting back and forth with some random person

[Anonymous No.14722521]

>>14721313
I'm not a chemist but chemistry destroys all pop-sci delusions so it wouldn't sit well with a lot of the people on this board

[Anonymous No.14722595]

>>14721313
>/pol/shitters and christcucks can't really use it to proselytize their views
>there's little popsci related to it for high schoolers and redditers to talk about
>there isn't much mysticism associated with it for /x/ to latch on to
>discussion of it is generally inscrutable to those unfamiliar with the subject
why do you think

[Anonymous No.14724283]

bump

[Anonymous No.14724871]

>>14720469
<5%

[Anonymous No.14724877]

How do we know atoms have a substructure?

[Anonymous No.14724891]

>>14721313
>why does this board hate chemistry so much
Most people here only care about purely theoretical physics/math. Chemistry is too practical for the armchair pseuds.

[Anonymous No.14725011]

>>14721428
also backyard chemistry is too simple to even ask questions about. (also no nitric acid in backyard chem these days :( )

[Anonymous No.14725416]

>>14725011
birkeland-eyre reactors and molten sodium electrolysis are absolutely worth talking about, that shit's legit
chlorine process too

[Anonymous No.14725953]

>>14721320
>Boring field
nope
>>14721320
>not stimulating for creative types
lmao nope, did you ever try crystal growing?
>strongly inundated with women
yes, and they're very cute and willing to have sex to release tension before exams you incel subhuman
>bad pay
not here in Switzerland, literal 2nd best career you can have after banking
>the good parts are all quantum mechanics
catalysis is great, instrumental analysis is great, crystal science and x-ray crystallography is great, mass analysis and NMR interpretation are great, computer modelling of proteins and molecules is great.
>chemistry attracts schizos
no, schizophrenia prevents you from getting a degree
>and would-be drug manufacturers
true, but the retarded ones usually die before 30.
>chem lab work is dangerous
only if you are a retard, natural selection at work.

[Anonymous No.14726209]

Imagine you have some liquid, powder or whatever. How do you go about determining what it exactly is?

[Anonymous No.14726431]

>>14726209
how much powder do you have?
this is question No. 1 and will define the identification strategy.

[Anonymous No.14726483]

any tips on narrowing down for my masters project, like I want to do computational and since my undergrad project was pharma, kinda want to stick to that and am interested in cheminformatics which is computational in a way
so any tips/suggestions?

[Anonymous No.14726825]

>>14721439
>>14722595
This, and that.
>.t chemist

[Anonymous No.14726843]

>>14726209
If you dont have expensive equipment:
>drop on a heated hotplate
>if it melts its organic, if not its an inorganic salt
At least its a start, if you need detailed information about the molecule you will need equipment. If its organic and relatively low molecular weight, say above 100 amv and below 1000 amv you put it in mass spec and look at the fragmentation patterns in the database.

If its inorganic put it in an atomic emission spec to find its elemental composition and go somewhere from there, if it has only a few elements you could try to put it in xray difractometer and hope to get a crystal structure. if its some polymorphic crap, well i have no idea

[Anonymous No.14726848]

>>14726483
I personally found wet work to be more enjoyable than comp chem only (only did docking and MD so idk) but if you can fuse your wetwork with some computational shit like docking or spectra calculation that will be way more fun in my opinion, Honestly most of the experienced people in my group scoff at computational shit because its never accurate (they are also quite experienced at it)