I would love a wiki associated with this discussion board. It would make it enormously easier to read back into various topics (once summary pages
were collated, obviously). Generally, since a wiki acts as a reference, it would complement the discussions.
I have basically no idea of the IT infrastructure for this board, but my request is about function, not implementation.Polverone - 20-8-2008 at 11:59
The Home Chemistry Society has a wiki that I think can complement the discussion that takes place here: Wiki
If you want to compile summary pages on the wiki from posts here, I'm sure they would be appreciated by the HCS and other SM members.watson.fawkes - 20-8-2008 at 12:29
The advantage of a wiki tied to this board would be common user names and single sign-on.watson.fawkes - 20-8-2008 at 19:51
I have taken Polverone's advice. I picked (semi-randomly) sulfuric acid to begin with. See HCS:Synthesis of Sulfuric Acid for the first draft.Aurus - 5-1-2009 at 08:42
I agree with watson. fawkes. I am a new member but I have been observing this forum for some time now, and searching the internet for home chemistry.
The lack of dedicated resources on serious experiments was appaling. In fact, I came across sciencemadness in one of my searches. If members started
working on a wiki, then that would be a highly useful resource. I recommend that members are alerted about it.kclo4 - 5-1-2009 at 16:47
I don't really see a need for a wiki here when we have the HCS wiki. The inconvenience of having to sign in twice really isn't that big of a deal. It
is also more work for people here to add to the wiki, and it scatters the information that could all be at the HCS wikiAurus - 6-1-2009 at 08:47
The HCS wiki does not have much information in itPolverone - 6-1-2009 at 09:43
Quote:
Originally posted by Aurus
The HCS wiki does not have much information in it
A brand new Sciencemadness wiki would have no information in it to start. I like wikis. I was considering adding a wiki here before the HCS wiki
appeared. But if there isn't enough content for the HCS wiki alone I really doubt there will be enough to fill two wikis addressing very similar
topics.woelen - 6-1-2009 at 12:12
Quote:
Originally posted by Aurus
The HCS wiki does not have much information in it
If you have good ideas and nice experiments, feel free to add more useful information to it. Keep in mind that the group of home chemists who is
active and really does experimentation at home is not that large.MagicJigPipe - 12-1-2009 at 19:06
Which reminds me... Oh I'm such a dumbass. I did a few experiments the other day and completely forgot to take pictures or even record detailed
information.
However, I will have about 5 days starting Wednesday to perform all kinds of experiments that I can post on the HCS wiki. It can't be anything
extremely "toxic" or hazardous as I will have to do it in a connected garage and I have a girlfriend and daughter that will be in the adjacent living
area.
I haven't yet decided if something like Cl2 would be too much of a risk in this situation, what do you guys think?woelen - 13-1-2009 at 04:20
I myself do quite some experiments with Cl2, in the attic of my house. Cl2 and Br2 are very toxic, so avoid inhalation, but they do not stay around.
If you have good ventilation, then they have disappeared within minutes and are gone with the wind. So, I do not think it is too dangerous, as long as
you don't make so much that there is an acute danger.
I strongly distinguish between toxics which can stay around (non-volatiles, e.g. toxic metal salts which can get dispersed in the air in tiny droplets
of liquid) and toxics which quickly disappear when the wind is going through the house.Jor - 13-1-2009 at 04:29
I can add some experiments as well. I think I will use the ones on my website, as not much people look at it anyway, because it is not really known
yet:
sites.google.com/site/chemlabchemistry
About chlorine, I have never considered it really dangerous, like many people do. Same for bromine. Concentrations from 5-10ppm and up are unbearable,
and unless you are trapped in an area and cannot escape, I think not much will happen. BUT, you can get pulmonary oedema, also when breathing low
concentrations.
The big advantage over NO2 is that you get a really good warning, as it irritates as hell. When it irritates, it is time to get out.
Corrosive gasses wich cause immediate irritation do not scare me to much (except HF, and other real nasties), I'm very scared of things like H2S, HCN,
NO2 to some extent, etc. And working with things like H2Se, COCl2 and AsH3 is a no-no, as these are extremely toxic. H2Se is one of the most toxic
gasses known, being fatal at 2ppm in 1 hour.
[Edited on 13-1-2009 by Jor]MagicJigPipe - 27-7-2010 at 16:13
Sorry to zombify this thread but, what's up with homechemistry.org? How can I help get it back up?JohnWW - 27-7-2010 at 18:24
What about roguesci.org and phrixus.org and todoquimica.net , then? Are they showing any signs of coming back to life?quicksilver - 28-7-2010 at 07:57
What about roguesci.org and phrixus.org and todoquimica.net , then? Are they showing any signs of coming back to life?
iDefense smacked the E&W forum long before the final push against the "ISP of the ISP". A great deal of money, time, & effort went into
keeping that site alive. iDefense has been active toward certain web hosts that feature certain content. I have my own opinions that are not
appropriate to discuss here about why they were so damn adamant but the result is still the same.
If anyone has a burning desire to discuss this please PM me rather than post.
However, there is reason to believe there are some other sides to the story:
Sorry to zombify this thread but, what's up with homechemistry.org? How can I help get it back up?
It's offline since a few months. The hosting provider did an upgrade of the PHP engine and since then it does not work anymore. I however did not yet
have a look into the cause of the trouble. The data still is there, it simply does not run anymore. Probably I'll have to upgrade the wiki-software.
My available time at the moment is very limited, hence the lack of research in this direction
I'll try to investigate what is going on and whether it can be revived again. If someone has some suggestions or experience with upgrading the
software, then please let me know.kclo4 - 29-7-2010 at 21:34
Since it was using Media Wiki, and probably had cpanel on for the admin of the host -- do you think it can just be updated via the fantasico deluxe
thing? Assuming it was installed via fantasico deluxe?
If not, I don't know.. I assume the php database could be upgraded somehow without to much difficulty.
Credits should go to our member 'denatured' who took the time to analyse and fix the problem!
Linking from wiki at homechemistry.org to discussion board at sciencemadness.org
watson.fawkes - 6-9-2010 at 07:36
Many months ago I made a WikiMedia template to make it easier to refer to threads on this board from homechemistry.org. I never did document it here,
though, and now seems as good a time as any. An incomplete example of what I wanted to accomplish is a page on the Synthesis of Sulfuric Acid. At the bottom of that page is a section called "Discussion Threads". Here's the wiki code used to generate one of
those links:
Code:
{{Board/SM|727|oleum & SO3}}
To use it, do the following:
Leave the braces and vertical bars in place.
"<code>Board/SM</code>" is the name of the template. Leave that as is. The other two items afterward are the parameters for the
template.
"<code>727</code>" is the topic identifier in the SmDB board software. Look in a URL for an SmDB thread. It's the number following
<code>&tid=</code> in the URL. You can copy-paste it from the URL.
"<code>oleum & SO3</code>" is the title of the SmDB thread. You can copy/paste it from the title of the first post in the
thread.
I did this because there's a persistent drumbeat of "UTFSE" and "been discussed here before". The problem is that forum software is bad at
creating reference material, and a wiki is good at it. The template above gives a way of linking from there to here. What remains is a way of linking
from here to there. Therefore, I propose a sticky thread in the section "Chemistry in General" named something like "References to Important
Chemicals". Each post in this thread would use a standard format:
The title is the full name of the chemical, with any common
abbreviations in parentheses.
A link to a page at homechemistry.org on the chemical.
A link to the Wikipedia article on the chemical.
Whatever other well-known, reliable, and general references might be appropriate.
A similar thread might used in "Energetic Materials" for the substances frequently discussed there.
The main benefit is that as new discussion threads about some aspect of a reagent occur here, they can be added to the reference page at
homechemistry.org.woelen - 6-9-2010 at 09:35
@watson: This is one of the good uses of homechemistry.org. Indeed this is the way to make all kinds of interesting information from sciencemadness
(or even other relevant forums or papers) available from one place.peach - 10-10-2010 at 00:17
I wrote a reply to this, then deleted it and had a think.
The conclusion of my thoughts were, yes, I'd quite like that as well.
As there is a gap in the information available. Wikipedia states that it is not a guide. It less clearly states that it's not a good reference source
or that much different to an actual book given the first statement.
I spoke to one of the 'higher ups' on wikipedia about the idea of having two articles for each bit of science or engineering, e.g. laying bricks. One
would be the way it is now, the other would be more like a wiki compiled guide and linked to the main article through a tag. They weren't having that.
A problem with wikipedia is it attracts EVERYONE, so the guides and warnings are a fairly scrambled mess. Whereas here, it attracts people who have
hands on experience.
The gap is defined by two extremes.
On one side, the journals. Way beyond what a lot of people are capable of in terms of some of the science and, more often, the reagents and equipment
being used. I've had subscriptions to journals, paid for with my own pocket money, and I've paid for specific articles. At £20 a go, that can be a
painful experience when the method and results turn out to the be inapplicable.
On the otherside, bomb cookery with terribly poor levels of science involved and using equipment that is below what's acceptable, and with better
choices being in the possession of, or affordable to, the more devote home experiments (or... botherers of the universe, as I think of them).
I had a look at homechemistry.org, but it doesn't look that busy or up to speed.
There are lots, and lots of sites trying to do this kind of thing, but usually focusing too much on one particular element, because there's only a few
guys working on them and gravitating towards that topic. E.g. how to make pyrotechnics. The UK has a pyroguide wiki, and it's not all that great due
to the low numbers of participants and that they're mainly interested in one thing, getting the rockets into the air using one or two different
methods.
I think science madness is at a significant advantage. There are numerous guys here who are actual degree trained chemists, or who've worked for 40
years as a lab or industrial chemist. And who have a vast level of experience, up to the journal standard, but who also don't mind publishing it for
free or just mucking around at home and finding ways to do it at home. With some fairly extreme things or levels of care and accuracy.
For that reason, I think SM is a suitable candidate to make an at home chemistry wiki really work.
Some of the more committed members will NEED to moderate the wiki, or it'll go to bits and end up a scrambled mess of conflicting ideas and opinions.
It can't be a fully open wiki, or at least someone will need to be able to lock topics or roll back the edits.
It shouldn't just look like wikipedia, or normal site either. We should have a starting article about say, making sodium and the rough methods, then
lots of links from that to more detailed descriptions of each method. Preferably with some table of links to other peoples runs of it and results, as
sub pages. That is essentially the forum, but condensing down all the thinking and discussion in between.
It also conflicts somewhat with the publications idea already on the forum. I do like those. The single posts full of pictures and finished
descriptions. But I think, rather than going alongside it, we should simply move those publications to a wiki format, with the original poster being
in charge of that particular article and only them being able to edit that specific article; so they the people doing the publishing get the lock
privilege for their write ups.
I would like to see it, but it needs people to oversee it and it needs good control of the editing; which needs to be free for some articles, but not
for others.
[Edited on 10-10-2010 by peach]watson.fawkes - 10-10-2010 at 06:53
Some of the more committed members will NEED to moderate the wiki, or it'll go to bits and end up a scrambled mess of conflicting ideas and opinions.
[... etc.]
All of these problems are problems of success of too much attention, which always includes some
amount of undesirable attention. It would be good if we had those kinds of problems. Alas.peach - 10-10-2010 at 09:49
Well, if you're willing to input some time Mr Watson, I'll help as well.
Now it just needs Polverone to download the code and host it.
I suspect ours may be more successful than the others. If not, no problems, just delete it.quicksilver - 11-10-2010 at 09:13
Yes, this has been said before but it's very true. It would be a great deal of work to simply delete and "Wiki" has a large collection of both utter
BS and factual materiel; the biggest issue would be the blurring of the BS with the factual.
What would become of pre-existing articles that over-lap? Confusion would reign as there would be only listed references to dispel the idea that
someone wrote off the 'top of his head" & occasionally those who don't know to look for sited references may make a serious error by assumption of
truth, etc. I don't want to be a spoiler with this idea as it is geared in such a positive direction but the outcome may be toward confusion of fact
with crap-book existing notes.
In other areas of science-hobby this has cropped up. I can think of the problems with High Voltage (Tesla Coils, etc) and lasers. A great deal of work
was stopped in mid-stream because of pre-existing junk.
It may be a good idea to look at similar hobby-scholastic interest entries & determine where problems occurred & IF they could be stopped
before a great deal of hard work was done.
In both chemistry and electrical engineering there is some very important math to be understood before the lab becomes a trial & error (or
"recipe" fest).
In EE there is some calculus that needs understanding prior to building; especially high energy designs. In Chemistry there needs to be some
mathematics understood prior to a lab being a learning experience.
What became a problem was that few folks wanted to write a (sometimes lengthy) introduction to the need mathematics & theory. It wasn't fun and it
took some real fore-thought and time to keep it contextual & consistent.
One of the biggest problems is that the same math EXISTS (in Wiki)! But it isn't written in a complimentary style so that the individual could simply
jump to that section and understand it in reference to the science at hand. It would need to be re-phrased or a (possibly large) preface written for
it.
The same length would be needed to go from scratch (IMO).
[Edited on 11-10-2010 by quicksilver]peach - 11-10-2010 at 09:36
The pre-existing articles, in the archive, could just be dumped into the wiki and then tagged to.
So far say sodium, you'd have one page explaining the practical uses of it, e.g. how it can be used for solvent drying, what happens when it's used,
how to increase it's solubility and so on. Or something similar, I mean, a general outline of it's uses to someone at home, then a section titled
"Method of production", with links to the finished articles.
It shouldn't just be all the properties of sodium relisted, that's already in wikipedia.
Standard wikipedia is not all that useful to at home science. Firstly, they have very little explaining the kinds of uses home guys are going to want
things for, they outright say, it's not to be used as a guide and they simply reference the MSDS, which in my opinion, are not all that helpful at
all.
Both pedia and the MSDS, for example, go into ZERO detail about how to actually handle materials or what to do if something gets out of control. Or
the economics and ease of producing one thing by different routes.
Pedia also assumes you have a Sigma account.
Like I've said, the forum is already far ahead of the others in terms of moderation and dealing with the absolute BS. And a number of the people here
have significantly more experience than a lot of people editing the wikis. I'm confident there are a lot of people editing the science wiki's who have
very little actual experience of what they're providing a reference on. They're just rehashing textbooks or MSDS.
The glassware articles are a good example. The condenser article is (or was) a fucking mess, written by someone who couldn't tell the difference
between a coil, a Friedrich, Inland Revenue, Dimroth, Grahams... which has then spilled over into this forum, where I've seen people arguing over
condensers and it's due to that article convincing them they're all the same thing.
[Edited on 11-10-2010 by peach]quicksilver - 12-10-2010 at 09:20
The pre-existing articles, in the archive, could just be dumped into the wiki and then tagged to.
(snipped for brevity)
Both pedia and the MSDS, for example, go into ZERO detail about how to actually handle materials or what to do if something gets out of control. Or
the economics and ease of producing one thing by different routes.
[Edited on 11-10-2010 by peach]
Just to play Devil's advocate for a moment; wouldn't that put some pressure to outline the same (handling care & concerns, etc) on an awful lot of
other materials - opening up a huge amount of "back-log editing"?
Don't get me wrong here; I think it's a very useful, ethical, & needed thing. It just seems like seriously long-term agenda.peach - 12-10-2010 at 14:36
You're thinking too perfect.
The goal wouldn't be to provide THE source of information straight off, it'd just be to start condensing threads and work forwards, as opposed to
reverse editing every single discussion of potentially harmful suggestions.
The latter is a pedia type idea, perfection. Unfortunately, they fail, DRASTICALLY, on the perfection when it comes to the real world at home
experimenter or the real world health and safety. E.g. "Here's an MSDS, look at that", and that is very little help. E.g. none of the
reactive gas MSDS I've seen have mentioned that they can be knocked out of the air with a fine mist of water. And, again, they have ZERO, information
on compatibility and the other real world problems. Beyond, "this is an oxidizer", or "drink milk, seek medical help".
Great, so I know what dripping sulphuric on salt will do, now how do I actually do that at home? What matters and what doesn't? Is it okay to reverse
fill a propane tank given the pressures stated in the MSDS?
That kind of bothers me about pedia. They're supposed to be an encyclopedia for the people, yet the material is geared towards someone working in a
university lab. That kind of person will also have a free, universal, journal account, and won't need to read Wikipedia (like I did at university).
And, they poo poo'ed my idea of having a theory / practical linking method. So what's the point? The target audience don't need it. Try using
Wikipedia anywhere in a university paper and you'll get told off or laugh at.
It's like going to a homebrew fair with a piece of semi-broken professional gear. They're trying to be an ultimate reference, yet are entirely
unacceptable in universities and straight out say they're not a guide for at homers. So what does that make them? An unquotable, not very helpful,
source of links?
Pedia also fails at a lot of other points, as much as I dislike saying it.
MSDS defeat their own point to me a lot of the time. Someone trying to put out a fire doesn't give a shit about most of the stuff on there. The
majority of the data seems more related to designing a process than dealing with a problem that's already started. E.g. there's a big cloud of a base
or acid gas heading towards lots of people. What do you do? Give them all respirators with acid gas cartridges? Throw them through the wall of rubble?
I had this idea when I started making those vacuum pump posts. First of all, find something people KEEP asking about. Then, it doesn't matter if I
make one or two mistakes. What matters is cover most of what people want to know and then list what seems like a good idea but doesn't work, so other
people won't have to think about it or repeat it. Then move forwards.
Going back to the sodium example, Len has already covered a good 90% of what needs to be said.
[Edited on 12-10-2010 by peach]watson.fawkes - 13-10-2010 at 05:34
The goal wouldn't be to provide THE source of information straight off, it'd just be to start condensing threads and work forwards, as opposed to
reverse editing every single discussion of potentially harmful suggestions.
Right. And this can begin right
away at the HCS wiki, to which Polverone originally steered this conversation.peach - 13-10-2010 at 06:22
I would suggest starting it linked to this site, or hosted on this site, so people only need one login and it's all in one place. And so one of the
owners, who's handy with the real world ban hammer, can step in if need be.
Some of the articles on the HCS are just a photo of a bag of chemicals.
[Edited on 13-10-2010 by peach]watson.fawkes - 13-10-2010 at 06:45
I would suggest starting it linked to this site, or hosted on this site, so people only need one login and it's all in one place. And so one of the
owners, who's handy with the real world ban hammer, can step in if need be.
Yes, that's what I initially
suggested, and Polverone steered me over to HCS. He's the one that has the ability to do it, and he's declined to do it. Very simple, really.Polverone - 13-10-2010 at 08:44
I steered people to the HCS wiki because it is already running and suitable. Imagine that woelen, Magpie, and Nicodem each started their own forums
and started posting there instead of here. I wouldn't be offended. I would however have to make more effort to keep up with what each had to say, and
I imagine that (at least initially) each would have a smaller audience to converse with.
I'm afraid that adding a Sciencemadness wiki would have the same effect. There's not a huge number of people who will spend time on a home science
wiki in the first place, and by starting another I divide audience and attention between the HCS Wiki and the new one. The whole would be less than
the sum of its parts.
I could be wrong, especially if the HCS wiki has limitations that would render it unfit for synthesizing and codifying information gleaned from the
forum here. So far I haven't heard anyone mention such limits. The limitation I've heard so far is that the HCS wiki will require a separate login
from Sciencemadness, but I don't know that a unified login system would necessarily lead to wiki-mania.peach - 13-10-2010 at 10:18
Fair enough.
However, I can say, I won't be adding anything to or editing HCS at any point in the foreseeable future.
There is basically no one watching that site, versus the tens of thousands of replies, let alone hits, per subforum on here.
People know the name of Science Madness on the internet. Until seeing the mention of it here, I'd never even heard of HCS. And it seems no one else
has either. HCS is still way down in it's infancy as well in terms of the articles, as I say, some of the articles are just a photo of the chemical.
So it wouldn't be creating a redundant wiki.
Starting a wiki here wouldn't be dividing the efforts, it'd be starting one that already has a huge viewing audience.
[Edited on 13-10-2010 by peach]MagicJigPipe - 13-10-2010 at 17:15
It will just take time and a "critical mass" of content.
