Chemical Forums
Chemistry Forums for Students => Undergraduate General Chemistry Forum => Topic started by: Professor Gaarder on February 04, 2008, 06:43:17 PM
-
basically, I am in 8th grade and have a powerful interest in chemistry. despite my age, I can recite the first 33 elements by heart, and can give you a chemical formula for an atom when given a name.
my purpose is simple: I need to make a web database on everything related to atoms and molecules, as well as scientific basis for folklore, and I need your help.
I have no idea how you guys could help, I figure maybe we could compile a list of all the compounds you can find notes on?
-
basically, I am in 8th grade and have a powerful interest in chemistry.
Greetings to you Dr., and welcome.
despite my age, I can recite the first 33 elements by heart, and can give you a chemical formula for an atom when given a name.
Oh hey, I remember when I used to do that. I was a slower learner than you, I only got up to that when I was 14 or 15. Kudos to you. But, um, not to go harsh on you, but, not a very practical trick. It doesn't really help you with chemistry, is what I mean.
my purpose is simple: I need to make a web database on everything related to atoms and molecules, as well as scientific basis for folklore, and I need your help.
I have no idea how you guys could help, I figure maybe we could compile a list of all the compounds you can find notes on?
OK. You get started, and ask us for the ones you have trouble on. Not to harshen the buzz again, but practicality ... nah, I'm not seeing it.
-
...compile a list of all the compounds you can find notes on?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_compounds
-
basically, I am in 8th grade and have a powerful interest in chemistry. despite my age, I can recite the first 33 elements by heart...
Respect! :)
Just a hint: It makes more sense to learn them by group and not by period and of course it does really help you with chemistry.
-
Just a hint: It makes more sense to learn them by group and not by period and of course it does really help you with chemistry.
Yeah, I now realize that 33 isn't much of a feat. A friend of mine can go to 47.
Alkali Metals, Alkaline Earth Metals, Transitional Metals, Lanthanides, Actinides, NonMetals, Halogens, and Noble Gases.
Basically, even if you can find lists, I need hypothetical compounds. Compounds that properties of smaller versions and alterations tell you exist.
For example, hydrocarbons go up to 12 carbon atoms, but can it hold a 13th?
This is the kind of question I need answered, and I believe that such a large number of chemical experts would be able to help me in this quest. First question on my priority list is:
1. What elements, other than noble gases, do not mix with other elements? If certain combinations don't mix, what are they?
Simple process of elimination to narrow down the hypothetical compounds.
-
Yeah, I now realize that 33 isn't much of a feat. A friend of mine can go to 47.
No, that's not what I meant. I usually go to the periodic table, I haven't memorized them all. It really doesn't have practical value for day to day chemistry. Yes, I've memorized some easy reference values, like the molecular mass of NaOH is 40, the molecular mass of NaCl is 58.44 -- and it is a little bit fun to just spout those off when someone needs them. But it's just a game really, it doesn't really make me a better chemist.
Lots of very naive people think how high their child can count makes them future mathematicians. And they are wrong. Likewise, human calculators, who do long division in their heads, really aren't all that brilliant, compared to people who might use a calculator, and work on more abstract theorems.
Alkali Metals, Alkaline Earth Metals, Transitional Metals, Lanthanides, Actinides, NonMetals, Halogens, and Noble Gases.
Ok, you know their names. But what do the names mean to you. Really. List 'em again, and say what they are.
Basically, even if you can find lists, I need hypothetical compounds. Compounds that properties of smaller versions and alterations tell you exist.
What you're saying here isn't even remotely chemistry. Why for example, "hypothetical compounds"? Bored with real life at age 13 are you? The second statement, say it again, out loud, it means ... what?
For example, hydrocarbons go up to 12 carbon atoms, but can it hold a 13th?
This one is simply not true. Check out some chemistry or science books appropriate for your grade level. They'll tell you, carbon chains go much larger, that is practically the definition of polymers.
This is the kind of question I need answered, and I believe that such a large number of chemical experts would be able to help me in this quest. First question on my priority list is:
1. What elements, other than noble gases, do not mix with other elements? If certain combinations don't mix, what are they?
Simple process of elimination to narrow down the hypothetical compounds.
Are you writing a sci-fi story? Non-scientists writing sci-fi tend to ask questions like this. You want some answers, that don't actually have answers, based on some chemical concepts you've pretty much just made up, that have no bearing on real-life chemistry. Am I headed in the right direction? Because if so, this conversation can take weeks, just to end up nowhere.
-
Since my chemical knowledge is "Prettymuch non-existant", I suppose I should just leave forever?
I can't help but think some of the people here (perhaps just one, but I can't be sure) are very unaccepting of newbies. I want to learn more about chemistry, and I want to share whatever I learn with other people. That's why I decided to create my page about chemistry and research.
Do I still need to prove that I am knowledgable about the same topic I've been studying since fifth grade?
Hypothetical compounds are unseen chemicals that we have neither seen nor used, and therefore do not know the properties of. If a list of all possible combinations gets out, blanks can be filled based on research and logic (don't say logic does nothing, because Mendeleev predicted quite a few of the elements that were not discovered until he was long dead).
-
I can't help but think some of the people here (perhaps just one, but I can't be sure) are very unaccepting of newbies. I want to learn more about chemistry, and I want to share whatever I learn with other people. That's why I decided to create my page about chemistry and research.
We have nothing against newbies, but you are starting from the wrong side. So far you have stated things that clearly show that despite studying the topic since fifth grade (your own words) you still know nothing. Nothing wrong about that - we all at some point were at the same position. However, you are trying to find your own ways to move into unknown land of chemistry - and that won't get you far. Start learning basic concepts, your Chem101, once you will be done with that you will see why the approach you propose is futile.
Hypothetical compounds are unseen chemicals that we have neither seen nor used, and therefore do not know the properties of. If a list of all possible combinations gets out, blanks can be filled based on research and logic (don't say logic does nothing, because Mendeleev predicted quite a few of the elements that were not discovered until he was long dead).
This logic is not faulty, but this approach is unnecessary. We know enough at this point to predict properties of most of the compounds we can imagine. In a way what you propose has already been done. List of all possible combinations is infinite and we know for sure that most of these hypothetical compounds are useless or unstable - and we know thanks to the gigantic amount of data and knowledge we have collected so far. Instead of investing your time into something that doesn't make sense, learn enough to understand why this approach is a waste of time.
-
Thanks Borek: you said what I was thinking very clearly, and probably a lot more politely than I would. ;)
OK, Dr. Gaardner, save this discussion somewhere, and after a year's worth of High School chemistry (get a book from the public library if you can't wait) revisit your position and see if what we've said doesn't make sense.
In the meantime, to build up useful skills for your future chemistry studies, lets start with what you know about the groups of elements you've quoted above.
blanks can be filled based on research and logic (don't say logic does nothing, because Mendeleev predicted quite a few of the elements that were not discovered until he was long dead).
"Quite a few", nah, only "just a few" and not very well. The periodicy of the early early periodic table, which Mendeleev was based on atomic mass, and not atomic number, tends to be a little overstated in beginner chemistry courses. Now there's a project, research that point and see which statement has more support. You can work it into a high school chemistry essay question, and really show what you know.
Since my chemical knowledge is "Prettymuch non-existant", I suppose I should just leave forever?
Ouch, harsh there guy, who said that to you? I mean, besides you.
-
I apologise.. I've been a bit demanding, and I realize that I've got a bit of a temper. I am a bit on edge after my experience at Pixeltendo. I realize the two forums are entirely different, but they are nonetheless both forums.
So let's just start from ground zero, disregarding the elements as I have about 20 copies of the periodic table laying around my house and I have the most reactive elements comitted to memory.
You're not the group of fat-headed group of nerds I usually have to deal with. You guys are cool. If you understand that I'm not completely starting from scratch in learning about chemistry, I would enjoy learning more from people who don't stop at the minimum the way teachers do.
What all can you tell me, without citing wikipedia?
PS I have two chemistry books, one of which is college prep. I understand it completely.
-
PS I have two chemistry books, one of which is college prep. I understand it completely.
I used to read college prep text books back in the day. They're crap, in some cases even more dumbed down than high school texts, which you've seemed to have had some bad experiences with as well. Hit the public library for some real college textbooks, the older the copyright the better, and see what you can find out about how compounds form. There are quite a few threads on this board lately on the subject.
-
What all can you tell me, without citing wikipedia?
It doesn't work this way. We can help you on fine details, but you have to know where you are lost and you have to ask specific questions.
I can tell you that for the diprotic acids if the difference between dissocation constants is large enough so that only first dissociation step is responsible for pH, concentration of fully dissociated form is numerically identical with Ka2 regardless of the acid concentration. Is it in any way helpfull?
-
Read Pauling's General Chemistry. If you have trouble understanding something then post a specific question. I don't understand all of this hypothetical stuff.
-
I used to read college prep text books back in the day. They're crap, in some cases even more dumbed down than high school texts, which you've seemed to have had some bad experiences with as well. Hit the public library for some real college textbooks, the older the copyright the better, and see what you can find out about how compounds form. There are quite a few threads on this board lately on the subject.
I realize this as well. Also, the older books may be better for info about compounds, but the farther back you go, the less elements there were. I have a pamphlet that I got in 1999, with an ancient periodic table in it. Rutherfordium hadn't been named yet, and Tungsten was still called Wolfram. The only accurate part was the atomic weight.
But yes, I will check more books for older copyright dates.
Also, I have a new objective. I have a small desk set up in the corner of my dad's garage, which I use to do minor chemistry experiments (not out of a book). My new objective is to collect all the elements that are safe to have. No mercury, no Technetium, no lanthanides or actinides, no arsenic, and no halogens unless they are bonded with another element. I will be using electrolysis/hydrochloric acid/boiling liquids/other chemical reactions to get as many pure elements as possible. When I am satisfied, I will proceed to collect, confirm, and label containers full of known compounds. Assume that I will learn something new every day about chemistry, because I probably do. Tomorrow, I will be using hydrochloric acid to clean a piece of copper ore I bought a couple of years back.
And just remember that my knowledge is not entirely non-existant, it just lacks some important details that could very well spare me some embarassment.
-
What all can you tell me, without citing wikipedia?
It doesn't work this way. We can help you on fine details, but you have to know where you are lost and you have to ask specific questions.
I can tell you that for the diprotic acids if the difference between dissocation constants is large enough so that only first dissociation step is responsible for pH, concentration of fully dissociated form is numerically identical with Ka2 regardless of the acid concentration. Is it in any way helpfull?
Well, then, question 1-is there a type of hydrocarbon formulated C13H28?
This is what has been plaguing me ever since my google searches turned up nothing past C12H26.
-
Yes. Hydrocarbons can be any length with any branching as long as formulae follow CnH2n+2. Different lengths are found in natural as well, but they are often functionalized by unsaturation, rings and/or oxygen/nitrogen containing moeties.
-
Seriously, go buy yourself this book: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0486656225/thechemicalfo-20?creative=327641&camp=14573&link_code=as1
It covers everything you've asked here already. You can find it at most book stores, or have them order it for you through your parents or something. It is less than $15.
-
I realize this as well. Also, the older books may be better for info about compounds, but the farther back you go, the less elements there were. I have a pamphlet that I got in 1999, with an ancient periodic table in it. Rutherfordium hadn't been named yet, and Tungsten was still called Wolfram. The only accurate part was the atomic weight.
These are minor details. You may safely assume General Chemistry books from the last 30 years to be up to date. Perhaps even form the last 50 years. Sure, some of them can be bad, weak, or unreadable, but the basics have not changed.
And while these older books may not contain some of the new elements it doesn't matter - element that has been observed three times, all eight atoms of it, is - to say the least - esoteric. Sure, it is an interesting area of research, but it doesn't change Chem101. You see - it is like Route 66 sticker on the Plymouth Cuda. Remove the sticker and you still have a muscle car :)
Oh, and go check this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_alkanes
You sure have a lot to learn, including how to efficiently use Google :P
-
Sorry it took me so long to reply.
Holy crap that's a lot of alkanes.
Anyway, my website is just about up, I just have to wait until monday because freewebs sites under 7 days old can't have files over 750 kb. On tuesday, if you get a chance, you can check
http://mgchemdb.webs.com/
Web layout and information by me.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_compounds
finally took a look at this-thx a lot!!!
-
also I'm going to http://www.thenakedscientists.com/ forum as well with this idea, and they are being just as productive and helpful with this idea. I must thank all of you for your advice, as well as your convincing words. You are all right. I am not (or was not) very knowledgeable in chemistry when I came here, but after a three-week break from this forum, I now completely understand covalent bonds, as well as what gives hydrogen it's pop.
-
after a three-week break from this forum, I now completely understand covalent bonds
Fantastic. A friend of mine have spent last 30 years researching covalent bonds and he still dosn't know everything. And you have understood everything in three weeks. You must be a real genius.
-
I don't understand ALL of the covalent bonds theory, but I find single bonds pretty simple:
Atom 1: I'll give you one of my electrons if you give me one of yours!
Atom 2: Okay!
hence, they bond. just not in so few words.
each atom puts up an equal amount of electrons between 1 and 3. the point for each atom is to fill the outermost orbital. I find that fairly simple. everyone complains about covalent bond (OH NO, LEARNING!!) but you can summarize it easily.
-
I think that you still need to mature a little and develop your skills in comprehensive reading, and critical thinking. It seems that you are more in love with the idea of being a chemist then actually doing the work that it takes to get there. For example
"This is what has been plaguing me ever since my google searches turned up nothing past C12H26."
If you had read a book you would have known that you should have been able to figure this out on your own. Its as clear as day in the books I own.
-
yeah, kind of
it's not that I don't want to do the work, it's just that my skill in searching is lacking
I'm on a tight budget, so all I can get for books on chemistry are rejects from a school supply donation center. plus what the library has, and the closest library to me doesn't have very many options.
but I'm still saving for a chemistry set! :D
I don't know if I've already said this, but I'm also recording lectures about what I do know and posting them on my website. They're not up yet because my internet is slow, but I'm going to my friend's house tomorrow and they have lightning fast internet.
-
but I'm still saving for a chemistry set! :D
Modern chemistry sets are so lame, they have none of the excitingly hazardous chemicals I used to play with, all those years ago. Some of the kitchen chemistry books you can find will teach you some useful concepts though, safely and cheaply. So look into those.
-
^^What is your website?
-
Looks like http://mgchemdb.webs.com is the place.
No comment.
-
Modern chemistry sets are so lame, they have none of the excitingly hazardous chemicals I used to play with, all those years ago. Some of the kitchen chemistry books you can find will teach you some useful concepts though, safely and cheaply. So look into those.
The chemistry kit I have my eye on just has beakers, test tubes, goggles and a booklet on how to safely use the set. From there, it's all up to a) what chemicals you can afford, and b) your immagination.
mainly the latter of the two.
I still want to make a battery out of an orange
-
Yeah, it can be a little hard for a layman to get a hold of, but do you really need them? Pyrex canning jars are as good as Pyrex beakers. Maybe a few graduated cylinders are a good idea, if you think you experiments call for accurate volume measurements. Have you heard of Edmund Scientific -- http://scientificsonline.com/ , they are a little over priced, but they have a nice selection of small laboratory pieces.
-
Yeah, it can be a little hard for a layman to get a hold of, but do you really need them? Pyrex canning jars are as good as Pyrex beakers. Maybe a few graduated cylinders are a good idea, if you think you experiments call for accurate volume measurements. Have you heard of Edmund Scientific -- http://scientificsonline.com/ , they are a little over priced, but they have a nice selection of small laboratory pieces.
But that's the problem-if you say they're a bit pricy, I know I shouldn't even try because let me tell you-if I had a summer job and twice my weekly allowance, I could recite, right now, the densities of copper, rock crystal, peacock ore, and bloodstone simultaniously. But I can't, because it takes me so long to save for stuff.
-
http://www.mikegardnersfishing.com/
-
?
-
FYI, even if the library close to you does not have much options, not a problem. Just look at their catalog for the entire library collection (all libraries in the system) and then ask the librarian if they will get the book you want for you. Every day 100's of books go from and to the library close to you, upon request, most likely.
Please do not take this as an insult; because it is a great book. I would ask for The Cartoon Guide to Chemistry. And while you are at it, get the Cartoon Guide to Physics.
They are excellent books. I think they should both be introductry books for both material.
http://www.larrygonick.com/html/pub/pub.html
The statistics one is excellent as well, not that you need it. They really are wonderful books, great at explaining concepts while not getting to down and dirty. Some of the favorite books in my collection.