Ask a chemistry graduate student anything.

File: 17 KB, 444x441, CuTPP.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymuos Fri Jun 11 22:52:57 2010 No.1164685 [Reply] [Original]

Ask a chemistry graduate student anything.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 11 22:53:57 2010 No.1164690 That's a cool molecule

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 11 22:53:57 2010 No.1164693 how do i cook crystal meth

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 11 22:53:57 2010 No.1164695 fuckin magnets, how do they work?!

>>	Anonymuos Fri Jun 11 22:53:57 2010 No.1164697 >>1164690 thanks, I made it myself.

>>	Anonymuos Fri Jun 11 22:55:57 2010 No.1164707 >>1164693 take methylphenidate and reduce the benzylic alcohol to an alkane. >>1164695 photon is a guage boson that acts as a force carrying particle for electromagnetism.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 11 22:55:57 2010 No.1164710 File: 22 KB, 517x307, 1245595686595.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1164693 Why the fuck didn't you pay attention in high school chemistry?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 11 22:56:57 2010 No.1164711 does that even exist?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 11 22:56:57 2010 No.1164716 What happens if I cover my roommate's door frame with fulminate of mercury, and he slams it closed?

>>	Anonymuos Fri Jun 11 22:57:57 2010 No.1164721 >>1164711 It is a tetraphenyl porphyrine with a copper(II) metal at its center.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 11 22:58:57 2010 No.1164724 >>1164716 EXPLOSION

>>	Anonymuos Fri Jun 11 22:58:57 2010 No.1164725 >>1164716 you get to live alone

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 11 22:59:57 2010 No.1164727 >>1164721 I fucking love organometallic compounds. That's what I'm currently doing research on as an undergrad.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 11 23:00:57 2010 No.1164730 >>1164724 How severe of an explosion? Like, just a noise, or frame-blown-across-hallway-with-burns-to-face explosion?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 11 23:00:57 2010 No.1164733 is the molecule depicted in OP's picture aromatic?

>>	Anonymuos Fri Jun 11 23:00:57 2010 No.1164735 >>1164711 >>1164721 actually is a very nice red color. had a hint of purple that may or may not have been from uncomplexed TPP.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 11 23:00:57 2010 No.1164738 Organic chemistry is hard. Discuss.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 11 23:01:57 2010 No.1164739 when do you graduate? never?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 11 23:02:57 2010 No.1164743 >>1164738 Physical chemistry is harder. Discuss.

>>	Anonymuos Fri Jun 11 23:02:57 2010 No.1164744 >>1164730 depends on how much you use, but I would imagine that you two would no longer be friends in any case >>1164733 yes. it is Hukle aromatic.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 11 23:02:57 2010 No.1164745 >>1164743 True story.

>>	Anonymuos Fri Jun 11 23:03:57 2010 No.1164747 >>1164738 >>1164743 Physical organic is fun Discuss >>1164739 I should be done in the next 3 years.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 11 23:03:57 2010 No.1164750 chemistry is physics' retarded half brother

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 11 23:04:57 2010 No.1164752 >>1164685 What do you want to do with your degree?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 11 23:05:57 2010 No.1164755 File: 9 KB, 526x757, figure1.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] OP, your compound reminds me of the glorious corrin in cobalamin.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 11 23:05:57 2010 No.1164756 >>1164750 Chemistry is 1/4 of physics

>>	Anonymuos Fri Jun 11 23:06:57 2010 No.1164758 >>1164750 Physics is the crazy old aunt that keeps hanging around long after it served its purpose. Much like Helen Thomas. Are you antisemitic too?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 11 23:07:57 2010 No.1164760 >>1164758 served its purpose?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 11 23:08:57 2010 No.1164767 >>1164685 why does metal powder dissolve in toluene???

Anonymuos Fri Jun 11 23:08:57 2010 No.1164768

>>1164755
your porphyrine ring is missing a carbon
>>1164752
I currently am researching organic synthesis and surface science. I'm doing a fair amount of analytical too. I will eventually get a job in industry until I make enough to retire. then I will teach.

Anonymuos Fri Jun 11 23:12:57 2010 No.1164787

>>1164760
The only place physics is really breaking new ground is in high energy particles that serve no purpose in the real world. all the useful bits that physics ever discovered has been taken over by other sciences and engineers. modern physics has no practical applications and is just a waste of scientific funding.
>>1164767
does it? I have never observed that. I can think of no reason that it should happen either.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 11 23:15:57 2010 No.1164797 >>1164685 Have you ever synthesized anything...illegal with the knowledge you posses? Have you ever thought about it?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 11 23:15:57 2010 No.1164800 >>1164787 >a waste of scientific funding I'm not a physicist, so don't start thinking I am saying this out of spite. But I hope you get hit by a car. You are the problem with world, and the reason why scientists are ignored.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 11 23:16:57 2010 No.1164805 >>1164787 That's what they said circa 1900, too.

Anonymous Fri Jun 11 23:16:57 2010 No.1164806

>>1164787
you clearly dont know shit about physics
what about nano technology faggot
quantum dot transistors?
advanced superconductors leading to better ways of transportation and medical uses?
we dont even know what kind of technologies the research about higgs boson will bring up

and these are just from the top of my head with 20 hours of no sleep

Anonymuos Fri Jun 11 23:17:57 2010 No.1164811

>>1164797
I could, but I wont because the penalties are increased for me since I am trained. I may do some molecular imprinting for sensor development soon and I will have to order some target molecules. all I need is 2 signatures and I can get the active ingredients in almost any drug.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 11 23:18:57 2010 No.1164814 >>1164806 oh thought of another one: quantum teleportation (in the scientific sense of the word)

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 11 23:20:57 2010 No.1164822 What do you have OP?....B.S. or M.S. in Chem? think it would be too hard for someone who never took Chem in HS?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 11 23:20:57 2010 No.1164828 >>1164787 only because i bound it with phthalate.

Anonymuos Fri Jun 11 23:23:57 2010 No.1164847

>>1164806
superconductors are materials science (chemistry/engineering)
quantum dots are made and studied by chemists
and the vast majority of scientists that publish in nanotech journals are chemists

hell, the only reason physical chemistry exists is because physicist are too damn lazy to work with condensed matter.

>>1164800
with the money that was wasted on the LHC, just imagine how much basic chemistry and biology research could have been done. funding is a precious resource and it needs to go to projects that will actually produce usable results.

Anonymous Fri Jun 11 23:23:57 2010 No.1164848

Are you a master or PhD student? Quite frankly, I do not place much value on a master degree at all, and by extension, most of its students. Often, the degree seems to push a fraction of the scientific training but sold at 110% of its value. That and I am heavily critical of my school's master program a.k.a. undergrad + 1 semester research--pity.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 11 23:24:57 2010 No.1164853 >>1164847 >hey guys let's divert money to some shit high school chemistry project instead of discovering the origins of the universe

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 11 23:25:57 2010 No.1164860 Could you synthesize LSD with equipment and reagents you have access to on a daily basis?

Anonymous Fri Jun 11 23:26:57 2010 No.1164865

>>1164822
Not OP

But i found high school chemistry nothing but balls out easy. I practically slept though the class with an A.

It went over nothing but crap that you could learn out of textbook in a day with a little 7th grade math.

FENCEPOST FENCEPOST FENCEPOST.

Anonymuos Fri Jun 11 23:27:57 2010 No.1164871

>>1164828
well then it was chelated into solution
>>1164814
yes, teleporting photons. very useful. that merits a unanimous who cares.
>>1164848
Ph.D. most chemists don't bother getting a maters as it is really less than useless.
>>1164822
B.S. I don't think there is anyone in my program that got a M.S.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 11 23:28:57 2010 No.1164872 >>1164860 I'd assume not. LSD requires ergot to be made.

Anonymous Fri Jun 11 23:29:57 2010 No.1164876

>>1164847
do you seriously believe that you are well educated and knowledgeable enough to come to the conclusion that physics is a waste of funds?

have you ever even talked to a real physicist about this? how the fuck did you come to there conclusions? you have 3 years left to graduate in you own field, what makes you think you know enough about physics to sprout this bullshit?

let me take a wild guess, one of your EDGY professors probably talked about how physics is a dead field and as a dim-witted wishy washy uneducated faggot you immediately 'took up his cause'

>>	Anonymuos Fri Jun 11 23:29:57 2010 No.1164879 >>1164860 almost. I don't have any ergotamine

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 11 23:29:57 2010 No.1164880 >>1164871 >yes, teleporting photons. very useful. that merits a unanimous who cares. not photons, atoms faster communication, faster computers etc etc

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 11 23:31:57 2010 No.1164885 Are you going for Masters or Ph.D.? What is your thesis going to be?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 11 23:32:57 2010 No.1164888 >>1164685 Is this used for anything, or does it just look pretty?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 11 23:32:57 2010 No.1164890 >>1164847 You have NO idea how things work. NONE. I'm not even going to explain to you how deeply you err because I want you to go through life completely ignorant.

Anonymuos Fri Jun 11 23:32:57 2010 No.1164893

>>1164876
At least I don't try to justify my field's existence with false promises of 'origin of the universe' and attempts to steal the research of other disciplines. Do you honestly think that society will benefit from learning what happened before the first plank-time of the universe was over?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 11 23:34:57 2010 No.1164898 >>1164847 So you laugh at the physicists, the physicists laugh at the mathematicians, and the engineers laugh at everybody. But if any of those fields disappeared, the others would be fucked faster than you can say "I didn't mean it!"

Anonymous Fri Jun 11 23:35:57 2010 No.1164906

>>1164893
>plank-time
Stop talking, you know nothing about science clearly.

Anyway, if your school wasn't shit tier, you'd be required to take at least one physics course for your Bachelor's, and you'd at least be informed about the field and how much more useful it is than chemistry.

>>	Anonymuos Fri Jun 11 23:35:57 2010 No.1164908 >>1164888 Hit it with the right UV light in the presence of oxygen and it will generate singlet oxygen that chews up damn near every biological molecule. a lot of cancer research uses similar molecules. I just made it for fun though.

Anonymous Fri Jun 11 23:37:57 2010 No.1164911

>>1164893
again back to my question retard: what do you base your accusations on?
how the hell do you know that knowing what causes mass will have no significance in our daily lives? how the fuck can you just assume that it wont lead to new technologies when you dont know SHIT about the field.
how do you even know that they are false promises?
seriously, who do you think you are? some kind of revolutionary genius who will save the world of science from the tyranny of physicists?

Anonymuos Fri Jun 11 23:38:57 2010 No.1164913

>>1164906
I did take physics. it is required to get an ACS certified degree. my physics teacher told the class that all the useful physics had been taken over by engineers. I disagree because there is still some use for it in computational chemistry, but the point remains.

Anonymous Fri Jun 11 23:38:57 2010 No.1164914

>>1164906
Don't start a dick fight with him saying physics is superior. That's not the fucking issue. He is ignoring the how all scientific theories are structured, the way the entire modern fucking process works. He is slime and deserves to be bottom of the barrel where no one will notice him. Just leave him to rot. Stupid piece of shit.

>>	Anonymuos Fri Jun 11 23:40:57 2010 No.1164918 >>1164911 you physicists are so cute when you rage about the insignificance of your field.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 11 23:42:57 2010 No.1164924 >>1164918 yes because electricity is completely useless. and so are newtons laws.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 11 23:43:57 2010 No.1164927 >>1164918 im assuming you have no answers to any of my questions? so you ARE a retarded butthurt nobody, what a surprise

>>	Anonymuos Fri Jun 11 23:44:57 2010 No.1164929 >>1164924 I never said they weren't. They are very useful. Now name something from the last 40 years.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 11 23:45:57 2010 No.1164931 File: 62 KB, 857x643, 1276114698591.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Hey guys, I have to find the molecular mass of this chemical compound. What field of science defines the mass of every object in the universe again?

Anonymous Fri Jun 11 23:45:57 2010 No.1164932

OP, I think that your remarks are unfounded. While it's true that it seems that theoretical physics reasearch is at a dead-end (inb4 string theory--theory without experiment is just hypothesis), scientific knowledge should not be limited by how "applicable" is to some socially relevant end--scientific achievement often blossoms with siencere scientific curiosity, which is science for science sake. Physics is that that point this time it seems, but it is unknown where its developments will take us (although that's not the main point at all).

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 11 23:46:57 2010 No.1164934 >>1164929 Maybe the bunch of quantum effects used in CCD chips and such?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 11 23:46:57 2010 No.1164940 >>1164929 Just all electronic devices and circuits. No big deal.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 11 23:47:57 2010 No.1164942 >>1164932 don't bother, OPs not a scientist you should have realized that from his comments

Anonymuos Fri Jun 11 23:49:57 2010 No.1164950

>>1164911
I base my accusations on my reading of scientific literature as well as my observations of all recent developments in physics that have impacted society in any appreciable way.

I know that finding your 'god particle' will not some how negate its existence. objects will still have mass and gravity will still work. and there will still be a big ring under Switzerland that is wasting a lot of helium.

I am a chemist. I work with condensed matter under ordinary conditions. I contribute to society through my research.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 11 23:49:57 2010 No.1164953 >>1164929 >>1164929 ? Just because physics isnt shitting out major applcable breakthroughs every x years doesn't mean we should give up on it..

Anonymous Fri Jun 11 23:51:57 2010 No.1164955
File: 16 KB, 356x421, hazmat.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

We just had a level-5 faggotry breach. A new super strain of engineering seems to me making it way around /sci/. Engineering is very contagious, and if not treated properly, victums could remain homosexuals forever.

I'm gonna have to check all of you out...
Do anyone of you fell dizzy? upset stomach? A sudden craving for gay sex?

>>	Anonymuos Fri Jun 11 23:51:57 2010 No.1164960 >>1164940 sorry, circuits and electronics are the product of EE's and philosophers (they developed the logic)

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 11 23:52:57 2010 No.1164964 >>1164960 >implying philosophers developed Boolean algebra >implying electricity has nothing to do with electronics

Anonymuos Fri Jun 11 23:55:57 2010 No.1164974

>>1164932
And discovery for discovery sake has its place, but it should not be pursued at the expense of applicable research. The money wasted on physics research would be better spent on developing more sophisticated methods for detecting cancer or preventing the transmission of HIV.

Anonymous Fri Jun 11 23:56:57 2010 No.1164977

>>1164950

Of course not--we had no idea what a molecule was for thousands of years and no scientific knowledge at all for hundreds of years and yet the Earth didn't fall out of orbit, or the sun stopped emitting in the visible range. Science offers models of nature along with the explination behind the model, but the model is impotent against nature and can never impose its will on her or do anything at all, in fact. The "god particle" or by whatever other bullcrap they sensationalize it will not cure cancer, or make the sun blow apart, but it will pave the way for the refinement of a model of the universe, whether it fails or not. The abandonment of science for the sake of science is the real threat to progress.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 11 23:56:57 2010 No.1164980 What does an Analytical chemist do?

Anonymous Fri Jun 11 23:58:57 2010 No.1164989

>>1164950
>I know that finding your 'god particle' will not some how negate its existence. objects will still have mass and gravity will still work.
wow ok it's pointless to argue with you since you don't even know how scientific and technological breakthroughs are obtained.
fyi, newton didn't know that his physics laws could lead to the invention of airplanes, advanced mechanics or tall buildings, though he kept on going even though he knew gravity wouldnt change

wow youre talking like a 12 yo

>>	Anonymuos Fri Jun 11 23:58:57 2010 No.1164993 >>1164964 >implying that electricity was developed in the last 40 years >>1164953 I gave you a 40 year window. That is an entire career. When you can't give one useful development over that time scale then you are just wasting resources.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 11 23:59:57 2010 No.1164996 >>1164980 Something you won't even get to do to your wife after years of marriage.

>>	Anonymuos Sat Jun 12 00:01:57 2010 No.1165002 >>1164980 analyze stuff. they get to play with some cool instruments. my friends are synthesizing mixed metal nanoparticles and looking at them with AFM (one is inorganic) >>1164989 you mad?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 12 00:02:57 2010 No.1165006 >>1165002 not mad at all fag though seeing as that's your only defense against logical arguments, ill humor you yes i mad hurr durr

>>	Anonymuos Sat Jun 12 00:05:57 2010 No.1165016 >>1165006 newton studied macro scale effects. unless you are looking to build a sky scraper that is femptometers tall, you are barking up the wrong apple tree.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 12 00:07:57 2010 No.1165022 File: 43 KB, 550x412, 1229346978566.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1165016 yes that was my whole point and now you've proven me wrong

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 12 00:08:57 2010 No.1165029 What school are you in OP? Do you have any friends? Is your school fillled with chinese graduate students?

Anonymous Sat Jun 12 00:09:57 2010 No.1165033

>>1164993
Whew. Sorry, that took a bit. These are summaries from the wikipedia page on Nobel laureates in physics. Any of them sound familiar?

>for their experimental discoveries regarding tunneling phenomena in semiconductors and superconductors, respectively
>for his basic inventions and discoveries in the area of low-temperature physics
>for their contribution to the development of laser spectroscopy
>for his contribution to the development of high-resolution electron spectroscopy
>for his theory for critical phenomena in connection with phase transitions
>for his fundamental work in electron optics, and for the design of the first electron microscope
>for their design of the scanning tunneling microscope
>for the invention of the separated oscillatory fields method and its use in the hydrogen maser and other atomic clocks
>for the development of the ion trap technique
>for discovering that methods developed for studying order phenomena in simple systems can be generalized to more complex forms of matter, in particular to liquid crystals and polymers
>for development of methods to cool and trap atoms with laser light
(BTW this is being worked on right now in the physics lab where I work--so that biochemists, of all people, can use it! Funny how that goes...)
>for developing semiconductor heterostructures used in high-speed- and optoelectronics
>for his part in the invention of the integrated circuit
>for his contribution to the quantum theory of optical coherence
>for their contributions to the development of laser-based precision spectroscopy, including the optical frequency comb technique
>for groundbreaking achievements concerning the transmission of light in fibers for optical communication
>for the invention of an imaging semiconductor circuit -- the CCD sensor

All of these were awarded after 1971. I realize that some of them were developed before that time, but I figured it was a good cutoff point just for the sake of argument.

>>	Anonymuos Sat Jun 12 00:09:57 2010 No.1165034 >>1165029 GT. Yes. Yes.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 12 00:11:57 2010 No.1165047 >>1165033 PS in case anybody's confused I picked out those with the closest relationship to an easily recognizable, widely used technology... or to something that OP will probably use in his lab as a chem grad student.

Anonymous Sat Jun 12 00:11:57 2010 No.1165048

>>1165002
Ever heard of reductionism? For example, human system physiology is based on cell biology which is based on chemistry, and chemistry is based on particle physics. This is how people form solid theories in all sciences, and it is how we generally try to apply Occam's razor to the observable world.

Everything you know about chemistry is absolutely dependent on particle physics theories being correct. If it turns out that through extensive research (like that being done at the LHC) turns over previously held theories, it would implicate not only chemistry, but all the sciences that depend on chemistry because physics is at the absolute bottom of the reductionist pyramid. Think theory of relativity and what that did. The repercussions of discoveries in physics are enormous. To say physics is not important shows great ignorance in how science works.

Anonymous Sat Jun 12 00:14:57 2010 No.1165067

>>1165048

Not OP, but sorry to say that my ethene hydrogenation will occur and salt will dissolve in water whether particle physics has the right model or not. Empirical evidence is not dependent on subsequent models--I already stated this somewhere back on this thread.

Anonymous Sat Jun 12 00:15:57 2010 No.1165072

hey guys op thinks technological advancement can only be achieved through things we ALREADY KNOW, we know nothing about the higgs boson yet so that means we wont be using it in the future for developing new technologies

cause as we all know scientific research should only be done on stuff we already are well informed on. i mean what could we possibly do with the information on the origin of mass? i can't imagine anything so there must be zero uses for it!!

science is fun!

>>	Anonymuos Sat Jun 12 00:16:57 2010 No.1165076 >>1165033 seems to me all that was around before I was born.

>>	‮ suomynonA‪‪‪‮‪‪‬‬‬‬‬ Sat Jun 12 00:17:57 2010 No.1165080 >>1164685 Does mixing synthetic oil and pure oxygen present the same spontaneous combustion danger as does hydrocarbon based oils and pure oxygen?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 12 00:18:57 2010 No.1165089 >>1165076 You're 40 years old? And with 3 years of grad school left to go? Man, that seems like a bad investment...

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 12 00:18:57 2010 No.1165090 >>1165076 last ones were after 2005 faggot

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 12 00:18:57 2010 No.1165093 what happens if anhydrous copper sulphate and hydrated copper sulphate are dissolved in water?

Anonymuos Sat Jun 12 00:19:57 2010 No.1165099

>>1165048
see this is where you lose the rest of the scientific community. when I tosylate an alcohol it does not matter if physics managed to get the standard model right. physics at this point is only learning about things that don't matter. and if it doesn't matter it is a waste.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 12 00:19:57 2010 No.1165100 >>1165067 Don't be a FUCKING idiot. Think about what you just posted. Think fucking really fucking hard. Did you know I could throw a fucking rock and measure shit with Newton's laws? I give up on this shit fucking board.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 12 00:21:57 2010 No.1165105 >>1165100 u mad

>>	Anonymuos Sat Jun 12 00:21:57 2010 No.1165106 >>1165080 probably. It would likely depend on the pressures involved. >>1165093 they dissolve so long as they don't exceed the Ksp for the salt

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 12 00:23:57 2010 No.1165114 >>1165106 so you stopped responding to people with legitimate claims that youre a faggot?

Anonymous Sat Jun 12 00:24:57 2010 No.1165120

>>1165099
Also retarded. That's like saying I live in a cup of water and I am completely oblivious to that fact, but that is fine with me because current models estimate shit just fine. I will continue to progress in my fucking cup, without acknowledging that my standards are based on horse semen.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 12 00:25:57 2010 No.1165124 >>1165105 yea i mad.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 12 00:25:57 2010 No.1165127 >>1165099 by the logic if u dint know that earth didn't revolve around the sun but visa versa you wouldve been completely fine with it? sure are alot of kids here

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 12 00:25:57 2010 No.1165131 1.Rate the difficulty of LSD synthesis 2. If you were given the right equipment & materials, would you be able to pull it off? 3. Same questions but for DMT

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 12 00:26:57 2010 No.1165134 >>1165127 did* sorry

Anonymous Sat Jun 12 00:26:57 2010 No.1165136

>>1165099
Quite so. However, when you contemplate synthesizing a new organic molecule for use in optoelectronic devices, you better know some fucking QM. And not just the old stuff, but the new details as well.

In fact, you'll probably find a promising material, send it off to the physicists to characterize its electronic properties, and get back some suggestions on how it could be made better. You'll do more experiments and provide them with feedback (and the synthesized molecules) in exchange. The cycle will repeat until you have something viable, at which point it will start getting shuffled around to the engineers as well.

Welcome to science, where things are connected.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 12 00:27:57 2010 No.1165140 File: 97 KB, 800x446, Motexafin_lutetium.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1164685 So just Chemistry OP, or did you focus on organic or inorganic? also, I present you some Motexafin lutetium. just cause

>>	Anonymuos Sat Jun 12 00:28:57 2010 No.1165146 >>1165120 and your the guy who wants to use 10,000 digits of Pi to find the surface area of a beach ball. One of us has the time to enjoy a beer because we finished our work.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 12 00:31:57 2010 No.1165163 >>1165146 >implying chemists have more free time What planet do you live on?

Anonymous Sat Jun 12 00:32:57 2010 No.1165172

>>1165146
I don't want to do shit other than fuck whores, I leave it to the physicists to be physicists and chemists to be chemists and so on. I want them to do their job right, understand the scientific process and better our understanding of the world. I want you to get hit by a large truck.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 12 00:32:57 2010 No.1165176 >>1165146 >look at me i can oversimplify things to make them sound retarded

Anonymuos Sat Jun 12 00:35:57 2010 No.1165183

>>1165136
The lab next to me works with modified fluorcien dyes and polythiophenes for solar cell research. they characterize their own materials. They never bother to consult with physics because all the math is well known. plus QM calculations are getting better, but it is easier and more accurate to just make a compound and test it than to compute it.
>>1165140
nominally I am an organic chemist.
>>1165131
LSD is easy. I have all the equipment, I would only need the precursor. Same goes for DMT.

>>	Anonymuos Sat Jun 12 00:37:57 2010 No.1165189 >>1165163 We have more free time than those who waste their lives trying to perfect a model that the rest of the world will never care about because it will never affect them.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 12 00:37:57 2010 No.1165191 >>1165183 so op, wheres your response to the list of nobel laureates?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 12 00:39:57 2010 No.1165200 >>1165189 >stars are not just shiny dots but they are giant balls of gas and plasma fueled by fusion of hydrogen and some heavier elements? >oh i dont give a fuck it doesn't effect me

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 12 00:40:57 2010 No.1165206 >>1165183 What if you came here (Aruba) on vacation, and you eh, made some for me? :3

>>	Anonymuos Sat Jun 12 00:40:57 2010 No.1165208 >>1165191 Well they had to give the prize to someone.

>>	Anonymuos Sat Jun 12 00:41:57 2010 No.1165211 >>1165206 is it legal to make it there?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 12 00:42:57 2010 No.1165213 >>1165208 no you fucktard im talking about the technological advancements so much for "research in physics doesn't effect shit hurrdurr"

Anonymous Sat Jun 12 00:42:57 2010 No.1165215

>>1165189
I disproved the existence of god! I kept praying, but you're not dead yet.

Look
_
___
________
____________

That works
__________________
_______________
___________

The above does not. The base does not extend to provide for the crap above it. So then there's something plus something = more than something plus something. You know what else is more than something plus something? Religion. I'm trying to lower everything a toddler level so you can better understand, but that's hopeless. So I'm done, wikipedia the rest.

>>	Anonymuos Sat Jun 12 00:43:57 2010 No.1165219 >>1165200 At least astronomy serves a useful purpose. It is nice to know when asteroids are going to buzz us. or when sun spots will kill the power grid.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 12 00:44:57 2010 No.1165225 I suspect the OP is not what he says he is. I can tell from reading replies and having been a chemistry graduate student in my day.

Anonymous Sat Jun 12 00:45:57 2010 No.1165230

>>1165183
Good for them to be self-sufficient! That lab probably has people in it who have a decent physics background along with their chemistry. Either that, or they're working on refining things that aren't at the most basic level of research right now (at which point yes, it does often make sense to experiment rather than calculate). My assumption would be that they publish in both chemistry and physics journals (just like the lab where I work publishes in both physics and chem, depending on the exact topic).

tl;dr Just because a chemist happens to do it doesn't mean it's not physics.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 12 00:46:57 2010 No.1165233 >>1165219 neither of those have anything to do with the stars former can be observed with a telescope and latter is about the sun not the other stars, we dont "need" to know that the sun is just like those shiny dots do we?

>>	Anonymuos Sat Jun 12 00:46:57 2010 No.1165234 >>1165215 >has anyone really be far as decided to use even go want to do look more like

>>	Anonymuos Sat Jun 12 00:47:57 2010 No.1165242 >>1165230 they don't waste time publishing in physics journals. they want people to read their work.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 12 00:48:57 2010 No.1165249 still no response about those physics nobels eh? seriously op just admit youre a faggot so we can all go home

Anonymuos Sat Jun 12 00:49:57 2010 No.1165254

>>1165230
>>1165242
And it is physical organic chemistry. If physicist knew shit all about condensed matter then they could do it themselves. The whole lab is chemists who make fun of physicists. at least that is what they do when we go out drinking (among other things).

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 12 00:49:57 2010 No.1165255 >>1165208 >Well they had to give the prize to someone. I don't know how I can express my response to this in words.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 12 00:52:57 2010 No.1165264 >>1165211 No it's not, but the control is really loose on any drug; I doubt they know what LSD even is, let alone their precursors.

Anonymous Sat Jun 12 00:52:57 2010 No.1165268

>>1165254
>The whole lab is chemists who make fun of physicists
Meet
>>1164876
>let me take a wild guess, one of your EDGY professors probably talked about how physics is a dead field and as a dim-witted wishy washy uneducated faggot you immediately 'took up his cause'
Now I understand.

Anonymuos Sat Jun 12 00:53:57 2010 No.1165273

>>1165249
fine, if only to get you to shut up about it, those are tools that some chemists and engineers use. congrats on being the designers of glorified screw drivers. But most of those inventions happened in the first half of the 20th century. The nobels were awarded because engineers had managed to make the theories useful enough that Stockholm noticed them.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 12 00:55:57 2010 No.1165282 >>1165249 >>1165191 As the person who posted the list, I'd like to know this too. And no, "they had to give the prize to someone" isn't an answer.

Anonymous Sat Jun 12 00:56:57 2010 No.1165293

>>1165273
physics has come to the point where there is no everyday use tool can be invented ofcourse theyre going to make tools for engineers chemists biologists etc faggot
no branch of science advances on its own what the fuck do you think this is, a race?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 12 01:01:57 2010 No.1165315 OP the gigantic faggot status: [ ]Not told [x]Told

Anonymous Sat Jun 12 01:03:57 2010 No.1165324

>>1165273
>those are tools that some chemists and engineers use

YES, THAT WAS THE ENTIRE POINT. THANK YOU FOR FOLLOWING ALONG. The Nobel list was meant to illustrate that physics develops things with actual uses. Your response is that things with actual uses are "just tools" and that they didn't revolutionize anything. From this follows a couple of things:
1) to make you happy, physicists would need to wake up in the morning and create fully formed theories with a built-in implementation already in mind, rather than theories which lead to technologies which lead to benefits for everyone.
2) Apparently fiber optics is not revolutionary.
3) The entirety of chemistry is victim to the exact same problem--they too create tools. This is why it's idiocy for one pure science to bitch about another pure science. It takes time and luck for any idea to find a viable practical use, including your precious chemistry.

tl;dr: first you want proof that physics leads to viable technologies, then you scoff that physics only leads to viable technologies.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 12 01:06:57 2010 No.1165336 >>1165324 ill just report the latest state of the thread OP the gigantic faggot status: [ ]Not told [x]Told oh it hasnt changed

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 12 01:10:57 2010 No.1165359 >>1164685 What do you like the most about chem?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 12 01:10:57 2010 No.1165363 >>1165336 Sorry sir, I was busy writing while you were posting.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 12 01:10:57 2010 No.1165366 >giant faggot appeared! >faggot uses logical fallacies! >it's not very effective... >anon uses logic! >it's super effective! >faggot ran away

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 12 01:18:57 2010 No.1165394 fucking fanboys! get a life, your fields are equally vag lacking. enjoy your worthless research no one will ever read about.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 12 01:22:57 2010 No.1165408 >>1165394 almost, not quite.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 12 01:23:57 2010 No.1165411 >>1165394 >fanboys the only fanboy here is op and one or two other fags rest of us are neutral, we were defending physics because op is an asshole not because were fanboys

Anonymous Sat Jun 12 01:28:57 2010 No.1165440

>>1165411
ok bro i feel you.

im going to be in chemistry grad school soon concentrating on org chem but i love all chemistry and physics. my ChE roommate does some incredible research and has a lot more interesting classes than I've had in chem.

we need one of those images like /v/ has, uniting all /sci/ fields.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 12 01:33:57 2010 No.1165463 Hey OP, what does a capacitor do?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 12 01:39:57 2010 No.1165481 Is Nickel metal hydride an acceptable substitute for Lithium Aluminium Hydride?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 12 02:34:57 2010 No.1165770 >>1165481 well done

>>	Skunkworks !e1337Hykks Sat Jun 12 02:38:57 2010 No.1165795 File: 60 KB, 533x594, 1273441117338.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1165463 troll'd hard

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 12 10:04:57 2010 No.1167225 File: 32 KB, 740x308, purity.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] discuss

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 12 10:05:57 2010 No.1167233 >>1167225 god damn it faggot this thread died hours ago why the fuck did you bump it

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 12 10:13:57 2010 No.1167263 also,OP claims he invented this molecule, which is completed bullshit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 12 16:23:57 2010 No.1169125 >>1167233 lolbump

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math