Sciencemadness Discussion Board - chemistry set appreciation

chemistry set appreciation

Polverone - 12-4-2012 at 16:45

When I was a child I had one complete chemistry set and several half-sets scavenged from garage sales by helpful relatives. These sets provided me with many hours of satisfaction, especially in my younger years before I could afford to buy chemicals from vendors.

I recently came across a fascinating history of chemistry sets:

Three Centuries of the Chemistry Set: the 18th and 19th Centuries
Three Centuries of the Chemistry Set: the 20th Century

Some of the best posts here are effectively writing a new volume, telling the story of chemistry sets in the 21st century.

I recognize several of the chemistry sets in the second document from my second-hand finds. Did you ever have a chemistry set, either now or before you started equipping yourself à la carte?

jamit - 12-4-2012 at 20:37

Nostalgic about those days when chemistry as a hobby was a right of passage for many children. I remember those days in the 70's doing chemistry in my garage -- this was the decade when chemistry set's were on the way out. It was the sense of wonder and the possibility of discovering the 'secret' inner workings of the natural world that got me exciting about doing chemistry and science in general.

I agree with you Polverone, that forums like Sciencemadness and others, as telling the story of hobby chemistry in the 21st century. And although we can't buy some of the chemicals we once did in the past, the collaborative effort to share our experiments and discoveries - which existed in a very very limited way in the past -- will make the future of home chemistry very bright! Take the potassium synthesis as an example. wow! i never thought to make potassium.

The only negative thing about 21st home chemistry is the need to keep it 'low key' -- I can't tell other about it except those who i can really trust. I'm with Magpie on this -- only my wife and kids know what i do in the garage. and like Woelen, if it's dangerous, I do it on a micro scale.

I do all the research online and glean as much information on a given subject/experiment and then make a plan and execute it in the garage. This forum is so invaluable to future home chemists and I hope all the young people (ie teens and beginners) do their experiments responsibly and safely. You young people are so lucky... i wish I had this forum when I was young!!!

Anyway, I've bought chemistry sets -- CHEM 3000, made in Germany -- for my kids they love it.

Hexavalent - 13-4-2012 at 03:16

I am very similar to jamit . . . the first touch I had with the chemical world was an old chemistry set that I was given when I was about six. The names of the chemicals seemed magical, and I was fascinated by the range of colours and reactions that could be performed. A small, 30cm^2 table followed in the garage, where I kept all my supplies (back then about 10 vials of chemicals, 3 test tubes and a 100ml beaker), then a larger table, and then finally my present workbench.

The chemistry sets these days almost seem useless IMHO. Some advertise as using 'no heat, no glass and no chemicals' . . .they might as well promote it as 'no chemistry'. To be technically correct, their advertising should indicate a complete vacuum inside a box. It is this downturn that I feel pushes kids away from science, and it has got to the extent where I am now considering making my own chemistry sets for family friends etc. A few test tubes, a pipette or two, a beaker, a flask, a stir rod and plenty of chemicals in 35mm film cans should work . . .I would also have a bit of a bash at writing my own instruction booklet for it as well, illustrated of course.

These days, there is therefore only one answer; make your own big-boy chemistry set and gather all the glassware, equipment and chemicals yourself.

weiming1998 - 13-4-2012 at 05:25

I agree with the previous posts on how modern-day chemistry sets are useless. Where I am now, even a few years ago, the chemistry sets (most are not even called chemistry sets and are instead called something along the lines of "super stinky science kit" for boys and "your first perfume kit" for girls, even though it's mainly chemistry (albeit neutered chemistry) in those kits. Of those that do call themselves "chemistry kits" they proudly brandish the label "no chemicals") are extremely and horribly neutered. I have got one of those when I was 8 and lost interest in about a day because of the ridiculously bland experiments (the explanations for the mechanisms behind the experiment is horrible, extremely dumbed down and short, no chemical names or even mentioning of any chemical compounds at all (apart from carbon dioxide in an yeast and sugar experiment).

Not only chemistry kits, even the primary school that I went to is extremely careless about science in general. Science lessons were very frequently skipped (I did not have one science lesson for the rest of year 7 since term 2). And of them that do, they were so crazy about the safety factor that I have to laugh (Once a teacher told a student off for touching the residues of a baking soda-vinegar volcano, claiming that toxic chemicals might be produced!)

Surprisingly, I got interested in chemistry not from a kit, but from a chemistry textbook that I've got from back in China. I read the book, then proceeded to do some experiments (first one was the production of hydrogen and oxygen from electrolysis of water). Then I was hooked, and basically self-taught myself everything I know about chemistry right now, with the aid of the internet and a few books.

Nowadays, even making the old chemistry kits wouldn't be so profitable, nor would many people buy it. I know there are exceptions, but most kids today is more interested in sport, video games, celebrity, TV and music to even care about chemistry (but buying one for a kid at a young age might still encourage them to have an interest). I know that because out of about 200 people in my grade at school, probably the other grades as well, none was interested in the slightest in chemistry, and I go to a school with fairly high marks on average. Not only kids, but adults are becoming fearful as well. My mum, for example, said once that "all chemical reactions are dangerous" and "everything related to chemistry is potentially toxic". And because of this fear, people raise kids that becomes uninterested and fearful as well, and there's a vicious cycle that goes on and on. So I agree about the "letting old chemistry kits become more available" part, but also educating the public about chemistry.

Sorry if this post seems like a long rant, and sorry if I got off topic on certain parts.

watson.fawkes - 13-4-2012 at 06:15

I had a Skilcraft set very similar to that in Fig. 28 of the second article Polverone cited. I remember those little blue cone-shaped bottles with enormous nostalgia. The one reagent I remember clearly, oddly, is a ferrocyanide, and I don't even remember the counter-ion. I remember I did not have a silicate, because I really wanted to do the crystal garden experiment and couldn't. Amusingly, I still haven't done it, nor do I feel any particular urge to do so.

I do recall that the set came with some flint glass tubing and an alcohol burner. The instruction booklet had some basic glassblowing in it: drawing pipettes, bends, butt and tee joints. They expected that you'd make some of your own adapters for the gas experiments.

The instruction manual for these sets is, to my eye, of paramount importance. The reagents and apparatus are worthless to a youngster without knowing what to do with them. A good manual must not only explain what to do, but also explain why it's interesting to do them. That's not the same as explaining the theory behind the experiment. Interest in theory gets generated by doing the experiment, not vice-versa (at least for children). Motivation for the experiment can include what it can be used for as an ingredient or in manufacturing, its historical significance, etc., all stories that connect the chemistry to the outside world.

Magpie - 13-4-2012 at 13:50

I had a Gilbert chemistry set, circa 1957. It came in a blue metal case and had an alcohol lamp and a blowpipe. The chemicals were in brown glass bottles, or tall narrow clear glass tubes with a cork. It had powdered magnesium (fun to burn!)*, potassium ferrocyanide, ferrous ammonium sulfate, and sulfur, among others. It also had logwood, but I can't remember its purpose. This was the only Christmas gift I ever asked for as I wanted it badly.

As jamit says, the chemical names were magical. I loved playing with the set, but I'm doubtful that I learned much chemistry.

*probably discouraged now due to possible retinal damage.

Hexavalent - 13-4-2012 at 14:17

Quote: Originally posted by Magpie

As jamit says, the chemical names were magical

Ahem?

Magpie, is it possible that the Logwood was either a stain or a simple pH indicator . . .this is what it mentioned in the Wikipedia article;

"Logwood was used for a long time as a natural source of dye, and still remains an important source of haematoxylin, which is used in histology for staining. The bark and leaves are also used in various medical applications. In its time, logwood was considered a versatile dye, and was widely used on textiles but also for paper. The dye's colour depends on the mordant used as well as the pH. It is reddish in an acidic environments but bluish in alkaline ones"

****

My first chemistry set also came with a short length of glass tubing and an alcohol burner . . .but alas I lost the latter. So, there I was at the age of eight trying to bend a red-hot piece of glass on the kitchen gas stove with my father in the next room asking '[Insert my real name here], what are you doing on that cooker . . .?'

[Edited on 13-4-2012 by Hexavalent]

chemistry sets

Pyridinium - 13-4-2012 at 14:41

I, too, had the Skil Craft set with the conical blue containers.
The manual was pretty good, maybe still have it somewhere. I do remember doing an off-manual experiment involving a solution of pink manganese ions and a bit of exothermy - a 500 mL boiling flask (supplementary parts, you know) got a bit hot to the touch.

The set greatly expanded its capabilities with the discovery of a not-too-nearby hobby shop that had 1 oz containers of several chemicals. Also I obtained an old Porter manual that had a lot of good experiments.

At the time I had no idea what Logwood was, either, but I sure wanted some. A lot of the Porter experiments called for it.

The biggest disappointment, though, was that book Magic with Chemistry from the 1960's. It had so many cool experiments, but I had just about none of the ingredients (pharmacies didn't carry most of the stuff anymore, and if they did, they wouldn't sell it to a kid for chemistry like they did in the 60's). I noticed that book kept calling for this chemical known as potassium chlorate. How I wanted that chemical! I have to say, though, I came pretty close to doing a Cold Light experiment at age eleven or twelve, but my mom decided the big ol' bottle of Formalin had to go back to the pharmacist without being opened.

[Edited on 14-4-2012 by Pyridinium]

jamit - 13-4-2012 at 20:43

Magpie's comment, hits it on the nose -- there's something magical about those chemicals names and the promise of possible "danger" and of "discovery" associated with doing chemistry. I felt like those secret alchemist of the past seeking the philosopher's stone!!!

Yes, there's not much chemistry (academically speaking) learning but, I believe all good scientific learning begins with a sense of wonder!!! And that's what is lacking in so many modern day chemistry or science kits.

Kids today have video games and endless stupid movies to dumb down their sense of wonder. What they need is encouragement from parents and teachers. Take your kids on a camping trip, go and see the skies and wonder, how did this all happen? What makes the world go around? What or who created life? I feel that doing chemistry, is in a small scale, like answering such questions.

As for our society changing its attitude towards home chemistry and all, I don't see any hope. If you guys have kids, get them interested in science, get them involved in your experiments.

Magpie - 13-4-2012 at 22:23

Quote: Originally posted by Hexavalent

Quote: Originally posted by Magpie

As jamit says, the chemical names were magical

Ahem?

Yes..I'm sorry...the term "magical" is yours. And a very good choice of words it is!

Quote: Originally posted by Hexavalent

Magpie, is it possible that the Logwood was either a stain or a simple pH indicator . . .this is what it mentioned in the Wikipedia article;

Maybe that was it...a pH indicator... seems likely. It looked like redwood and when boiled it dyed the water red.

I wasn't very good at using the instruction book. I didn't know any chemistry so the experiments seemed uninteresting. I think I was more kewl than chemist.

Rosco Bodine - 14-4-2012 at 00:10

I had the 1950's vintage Gilbert and later most of the Perfect Parts Company assortments that were sold in hobby shops. My father had an interest in photography so there were Kodak chemicals and Merck and Mallinckrodt too.

AJKOER - 14-4-2012 at 06:23

Quote: Originally posted by jamit

Kids today have video games and endless stupid movies to dumb down their sense of wonder. What they need is encouragement from parents and teachers. ......
As for our society changing its attitude towards home chemistry and all, I don't see any hope. If you guys have kids, get them interested in science, get them involved in your experiments.

On a related topic, I have an idea (usually, by this time, whatever it is, someone has already done it, marketed it, etc.). A virtual Chemistry set. There would be potentially unlimited experiments (available as add ons to the existing set). An educational app to explain in increasing depth what is occurring. And, of also, heavy use of videos to demonstrate. The experiments could be constructed as interactive and if the experiment fails, an optional selection of an educational tutorial on why. If a success, it would be like winning at an online game. This is a step beyond some chemistry online video sites.

The major upside in additional to the large variety of experiments, no worries about children (or adults) eating chemicals, spilling or setting things on fire. Potential liability issues is probably a major issue for modern chemistry sets limiting their scope and enjoyment level.

As I am interested promoting a positive spin on chemistry and educational aspects, I am not promoting solely a private endeavor, but a collective open source approach. But, in the end, whatever works, perhaps with the use of advertising, educational grants and/or sale of add ons.

Strangely, this product may increase the sales of 'real' Chemistry sets.

Comments welcomed.

[Edited on 14-4-2012 by AJKOER]

watson.fawkes - 14-4-2012 at 06:35

Quote: Originally posted by Magpie

I think I was more kewl than chemist.

I have to think this is the generic case, and I am not judgemental about it. What chemistry sets (and other such science toys) really teach is curiosity about the subject. That's what persists far more into adulthood. Curiosity can spur study and experiment. It can create knowledge and talent. Not so much vice-versa.

watson.fawkes - 14-4-2012 at 06:42

Quote: Originally posted by AJKOER

A virtual Chemistry set. [...] Comments welcomed.

Well, you asked.

It's a completely misguided, wrong-headed, and damaging idea. There's no engagement with the real world in a video game, nothing to drive curiosity. It displaces real activity, with relevance, to virtual activity, which while it may have supplementary value, does not substitute for it.

If you'd like, I have more negative things to say, and if I continue, I'll find it hard not to extend my screeds against awful idea to the people I would consider stupid to promote it.

Also, you must not have read the second article Polverone posted, since it addresses this issue.

adamsium - 14-4-2012 at 07:10

Quote: Originally posted by AJKOER

Quote: Originally posted by jamit

I, like watson.fawkes am strongly against such an idea. In fact, it's something I have feared will become a reality for a few years now. People are becoming increasingly afraid of anything involving the term 'chemistry' or 'chemical' - don't even think about mentioning 'radioactive' or the like. A program like this would reinforce these excessive fears, as well as, at least in the mind of many, removing any need whatsoever to expose people, particularly young students, to the apparent horror that is real, practical chemistry.

'Doing chemistry' on a computer screen is not 'doing chemistry'. It is so far removed from actual chemistry that it would likely misguide the user, as well as throughly boring them and deterring them from ever pursuing any study of chemistry that they are not forced to do. There are just too many variables and nuances, including those that are unexpected / unknown, that make chemistry the fascinating and enjoyable pursuit that it is. Not to mention that it would not teach any lab technique whatsoever - reading about / watching how to work in the lab is one thing - doing it is an entirely different thing and the only way to successfully learn and master proper, safe technique.

A couple of weeks ago, a guest lecturer presented a lecture to interested members of the chemistry department of my university (where I'm majoring in chemistry) about improving the laboratory components of tertiary science courses. The key point throughout his talk was that there needs to be a sense of inquiry (the phrase he repeated many times was 'inquiry oriented') - students need to feel like they 'discovering' something. He promoted doing open-ended experiments where the lab instructors may themselves be uncertain of the outcome to an extent and there is no prescribed way to find the answer. There is no way that software can emulate this, and I hope it never attempts to.

[Edited on 14-4-2012 by adamsium]

weiming1998 - 14-4-2012 at 07:11

Quote: Originally posted by AJKOER

Quote: Originally posted by jamit

I somewhat agree with the post above. Although your idea of a virtual chemistry kit is better than just letting kids watch TV every day, it probably won't really work to stimulate kids' interests. For them, no matter how realistic and interactive you may make the virtual kit to be, a real one is still much better, as you can develop the ability to use common glassware, the ability to judge risks (instead of simply reading off a MSDS saying that NaCl is dangerous) and the ability to know what to do in an accident/emergency situation . Learning that simply cannot be achieved by plugging into a computer, and working in a virtual lab.

Also, a virtual lab is uninteresting except for people who already knows a bit and enjoys chemistry (after all, why would kids be interested to watch a bunch of people mixing stuff up when they could play
the latest video game or watch a celebrity's concert on a music TV channel?)

No, I think the resolution is not to create virtual labs, but to re-make some of the old chemistry kits, albeit wrapped in disclaimers so that an idiot does not file lawsuits for the death of their son thinking potassium cyanide was sherbet and eating all of the supplied potassium cyanide in the kit (just to make a point). Also, as I said before, the education of the public about chemistry and attempting to wipe out "chemophobia" is even more important than supplying children with un-neutered chemistry kits (well, at least for now. That can go later, after the fear of chemistry the public has has been diminished or at least reduced.)

This is just my personal opinion only.

woelen - 14-4-2012 at 10:42

My first encounter with chemistry was when I was a boy of around 10 years old and found a book from the 1960's in the library about the miracles of chemistry. It had many experiments, which could be done with ordinary household stuff and hardware store materials. It had experiments with electrolysis, fire, making hydrogen from acids and metals, maiking crystals. It even described making detonating gas from battery acid and graphite rods. The extremely loud bang when a small volume of this gas is ignited was one of the greater wonders. I was hooked at once. I never had a real chemistry set, but soon when I had some pocket money (from the age of 12 or so), I bought chemicals from pharmacies (copper sulfate, potassium permanganate, potassium dichromate, sulphur, potassium nitrate). Yes, I could buy them all as a young boy, and we're talking about around 1980. Many other kids of my age spent their money on chips, sweets and that kind of stuff, but I bought chemicals and electrical stuff.

The feeling about chemistry (and science in general) I had at those moments I still use as my signature. A life without wondering is a dull and empty life and I agree with many people that current western society has lost its wondering and becomes dumbed down more and more.

AJKOER - 14-4-2012 at 12:18

Watson.fawkes:

Yes, I read the article. Here is the relevant extract:

"In 1990 we could find only one chemistry set for sale at the peak of the annual Christmas toy saturnalia. Why? One obvious reason is the growing obsession with so-called safety in our litigation-mad society, which makes the manufacture of chemistry sets a risky business, and which makes those that are produced increasingly boring. However, a more important reason may be found in the advertisement shown in figure 31 – namely a major change in the public’s image of what science is and how it is done, brought about by the advent of the home computer. More and more the public, not to mention many so-called chemical educators, are of the opinion that science can be done solely on a computer without actual experimentation, without any contact with real phenomena, without messy chemicals or stinks. As the ad says, “experiment on your own, without the worry of blowing up the house or dissolving yourself” – a parent’s dream, no doubt, but I ask you, would there have been any point to wanting a chemistry set as a kid if there hadn’t been the slim possibility of blowing up the house or dissolving yourself?
This change also permeates the image of science presented in movies and on television and is best illustrated by the Walt Disney movies “The Absent Minded Professor” and “The Son of Flubber.” In the original movie versions which I saw as a kid, Fred McMurry creates his antigravity polymer using experimental chemistry – wonderful arrays of boiling flasks and distillation columns. In the recent television remake, on the other hand, flubber is created by a talking McIntosh Computer."

However, I am suggesting a more interactive format. Here is an actual example, but I thinking about expanding the reagents interaction list.

http://www.syngentaperiodictable.co.uk/reaction-zone.php

Pyridinium - 14-4-2012 at 12:30

I agree with the sentiments so far. It would be kind of humorous to make a pretend chemistry set, along the lines of what Hexavalent described: "Some advertise as using 'no heat, no glass and no chemicals' . . .they might as well promote it as 'no chemistry'."

You know how they had advertisements, where the word "New" was inside a stylized explosion or many-pointed star design? Our empty-box chemistry set could replace the word "New!" with "Useless!".

Trying to look at the bright side, though, I dug out a couple treasures from childhood. I don't have them all, but these survived.

AJKOER - 14-4-2012 at 15:18

OK, good feedback on what makes the chemistry experience real. Uncertainty as to results, wonder on experiencing the results and the possibility of side trips into emergency medicine relating to poison, burns, explosions,...

But isn't a video of a real episode of the latter (with real immediate counter measures or lack thereof) a better teaching approach for safety?

Perhaps a system of points (gamers, I have witnessed, take their points/rankings very seriously) would be a good idea to instill pride and fear of lose (as opposed to a real trip to the ER).

By the way, I finally got a Chemistry set for Christmas, but I didn't get it the 1st time I asked because I wasn't old enough per the box instructions. If only.....

[Edited on 14-4-2012 by AJKOER]

Pyridinium - 14-4-2012 at 15:55

Quote: Originally posted by AJKOER

But isn't a video of a real episode of the latter (with real immediate counter measures or lack thereof) a better teaching approach for safety?

Perhaps a system of points (gamers, I have witnessed, take their points/rankings very seriously) would be a good idea to instill pride and fear of lose (as opposed to a real trip to the ER).

I can see how that might have some appeal, but I think there is no substitute for reality when it comes to science. It is possible with reality to learn subtleties that aren't programmed into a game or present in a video. There are a lot of people on here who have specialized knowledge about various compounds and reactions, gained only by working closely with them.

Come to think of it, one of the biggest flaws of computers and simulations is that they're only as good as the present knowledge of the programmers.

If the experiments are done on a small scale and with safety equipment, there would be no trip to the ER. Besides, I remember the real penny in HNO3 experiment better because I saw it for real, than I would if I saw it in a video game.

By the way, if I can find it, I think I may have one of those conical blue plastic containers from the old Skil Craft set. Hopefully.

adamsium - 14-4-2012 at 16:43

One of the other issues I would have with this is that of making it a 'game' in which a 'player' would attempt to score points by some means. The aim thus becomes solely about earning points rather than learning about and enjoying chemistry. To get people interested in learning about chemistry, we need to get them interested in chemistry, not obsessed with who has the highest score.

Also, as has already been pointed out, there are plenty of ways to do practical chemistry, including with young children, that are perfectly safe.

I looked at the link provided as an example and found it quite dull, in all honesty. I don't really see how it could be made more interactive. Regardless of what is done, it is still going to be about clicking and dragging things around a screen, and this is not chemistry, it's clicking and dragging, and the outcome is absolutely predetermined, as already mentioned.

Beside all this, I think much of the appeal for many chemists is the actual act of performing chemistry in the lab. I personally enjoy it (as I expect anyone on this forum does, also) and this element would be completely removed in a simulation. I doubt I'd find chemistry nearly as enjoyable without the practical aspect.

watson.fawkes - 14-4-2012 at 17:59

Quote: Originally posted by AJKOER

But isn't a video of a real episode of the latter (with real immediate counter measures or lack thereof) a better teaching approach for safety?

No, not at all. Video is just another virtual experience.

Exposure to hazard is the foundational way to teach safety. Unless there's something at risk, the mind does not become focused. For children, it's the responsibility of the parents to ensure that those hazards are not too great, that the possible downsides are worth the character growth that results.

Magpie - 14-4-2012 at 18:57

Quote: Originally posted by watson.fawkes

Unless there's something at risk, the mind does not become focused.

I wholeheartedly agree. How much adrenaline and diarrhea do you think one would experience in preparing to make virtual postassium cyanide, or even distill virtual diethyl ether?

AJKOER - 15-4-2012 at 05:14

Well, if it is drama we need, some of the experiments of the day could be broadcast live. First, we introduce the hapless rodent (and his family?) who, by the chance of the draw, is our subject (gladiator) of the moment. Next into the pit (the fume hood), so we can see if any leaking toxic fumes can render the poor animal unconscious. Then, Dr. Animal House (no relation to that TV guy) can race to the rescue with the anti-dote, but will the rat live? (I can't look)....

Really.

[Edited on 15-4-2012 by AJKOER]

weiming1998 - 15-4-2012 at 05:40

Quote: Originally posted by AJKOER

Well, if it is drama we need, some of the experiments of the day could be broadcast live. First, we introduce the hapless rodent (and his family?) who, by the chance of the draw, is our subject (gladiator) of the moment. Next into the pit (the fume hood), so we can see if any leaking toxic fumes can render the poor animal unconscious. Then, Dr. Animal House (no relation to that TV guy) can race to the rescue with the anti-dote, but will the rat live? (I can't look)....

Really.

[Edited on 15-4-2012 by AJKOER]

At the start, that might work, but eventually the kids are going to get bored of the mouse in the fumehood. The kids are not actually exploring the vast subject on their own, they have to follow the linear passages of textbook chemistry.

Imagine being in a 5kmX5km forest. You have no problem getting lost because you can teleport back home (imaginary situation just to make a point). You have a whole day of getting to look inside the forest, which is filled very interesting animals, plants and natural features. Would you like a person to guide you through all the (assumed) fun and major points of the forest, without you wandering anywhere, or would you like to explore on your own?

Even if this does manage to capture kids' attention, what about animal rights supporters who condemns of the mouse getting knocked out by the chemical vapours? Also, how much is this show/game going to cost if it is made realistically enough. They are all issues, and because we live in a society that already has their entertainment that the majority is hooked in, some realistic chemistry game/TV show might work to get kids interested in the past, (where entertainment for kids was much rarer and consists of kicking a ball around and playing with toys), it isn't going to work now, simply because there are better (by their reckoning) things to do.

chemistry set manuals and etc.

Alchemist - 15-4-2012 at 14:15

Hello all,

If anyone is interested in some chemistry set manuals to go along with this. Check out;

http://keeline.com/chem/

for some Gilbert and Chemcraft chemistry set manuals, and more.

Later, the Alchemist.....

AndersHoveland - 15-4-2012 at 15:11

I was playing with concentrated HNO3, magnesium powder, and CaC2 when I was 12 years old. I hope future generations of children are as lucky.

woelen - 16-4-2012 at 00:20

I do not believe that all kinds of virtual stuff helps getting people interested. Just collect a set of really nice and surprising experiments and synthesis reactions and present those to the people. If people see such reactions (e.g. described in books, or presented in a video), then they might get interested. That is the reason why I have my website about science. It does get people interested, I sometimes receive emails from people, who ask more about the reactions and want to learn how to do such things themselves.

Reading books with entertaining experiments, presenting remarkable phenomena, that was what hooked me. Some virtual chemistry 'game' does not sound interesting, the information density is too low and people hardly are encouraged to get into the chemistry behind the game.

malcolmf - 16-4-2012 at 02:47

Quote: Originally posted by Alchemist

Hello all,

If anyone is interested in some chemistry set manuals to go along with this. Check out;

http://keeline.com/chem/

for some Gilbert and Chemcraft chemistry set manuals, and more.

Thanks for that. Nice collection there. One book about scientific toys has an interesting quote from an early Gilbert chemistry manual:

Quote:

There was a time when Chemistry was regarded as sorcery. It was supposed that all chemicals were deadly poisons, that every chemical reaction resulted in an explosion. The men who practiced chemistry had to do so in secret, because they were regarded by the people with superstition and dread as related to the devil.... Today, matters are entirely altered. The Chemist is looked on with respect and there is a general desire to know more about chemistry.

mr.crow - 16-4-2012 at 09:11

Anyone ever hear of The Wild Goose Company?

When I was a little kid there use to be chemistry kits you could get at the toy store with actual bottles of chemicals. When I went to Disney World in Florida I bought a huge box set from the Epcot store that I proudly displayed on my desk. This was the 1990s!

Oh how far we have fallen

But honestly I don't think a little kid is mature or resourceful enough to do any real experiments. I really liked the pH indicators and sodium polyacrylate but the rest was kind of intimidating

Alchemist - 16-4-2012 at 11:42

Hello again,

If anyone has anymore CHEMISTRY set manuals from any year,
Please post them here. Thanks the Alchemist.....

Eddygp - 16-4-2012 at 11:47

Ahhh, the past...

paulr1234 - 16-4-2012 at 12:11

Look at this dirty little meth cook - lol

Thanks Polverone - this is great.

I've been patiently rebuilding both the Merit and Thomas Salter sets I had as a kid back in the UK. The more I spend shipping parts over from the UK, the more furious my wife gets.

Screen shot 2012-04-16 at 12.54.15 PM.png - 434kB

Pyridinium - 16-4-2012 at 13:45

Quote: Originally posted by paulr1234

Look at this dirty little meth cook - lol

Yes, clearly that youth can't be doing anything but making drugs, because anyone knows there's no other possible use for chemicals or science. I say we make a press release to the media, so they can do an item-by-item listing of everything in his house. That way everyone will know just how bad, nefarious, and evil he is.

And what is he, some kind of Thomas Edison with that lightbulb hovering over his head, like a good idea? It's probably a ruse.

Quote: Originally posted by mr.crow

But honestly I don't think a little kid is mature or resourceful enough to do any real experiments.

Depends on what you mean by little. I think the first time I did
S + O2 ------> SO2 was at age seven. But I could have been six.

[Edited on 16-4-2012 by Pyridinium]

White Yeti - 17-4-2012 at 17:52

Interesting...

I never had a chemistry set, I was always expected to figure things out on my own. My father always told me that it's more fulfilling to make things from stuff around the house instead of using things from the hardware store. There was one catch, things that are common in normal people's homes were not as common in mine (bleach, isopropyl alcohol, hydrogen peroxide, ammonia, drain opener, acetone etcetera). It was aggravating because I could never try anything, because I was missing all the rudimentary chemicals. Now that I look back, if I had all these things at my disposal, I might have gotten injured if not worse.

The payoff was that I got very resourceful, a skill you don't really acquire when everything is served on a silver platter.

tetrahedron - 5-10-2012 at 01:09

science, 2012 edition

http://www.ebay.com/itm/320947342191

Mailinmypocket - 5-10-2012 at 05:24

Quote: Originally posted by tetrahedron

science, 2012 edition

http://www.ebay.com/itm/320947342191

Ohhhhhhh! Finally kids can study bathtub redox reactions between green pellets and red pellets. Thank god for the sturdy safety googles too, you certainly don't want to mess with bubble bath without proper protection

tetrahedron - 5-10-2012 at 06:47

actually they are

Quote:

not to be used as safety protective goggles

Mailinmypocket - 5-10-2012 at 07:23

Quote: Originally posted by tetrahedron

actually they are

Quote:

not to be used as safety protective goggles

Oh for eff sakes... I need a drink.

Why would you even give safety equipment that isn't actually safety equipment for a kit that doesn't require it? A waste of plastic, which also seems to be one of society's favorite pass-times; another topic entirely...

elementcollector1 - 5-10-2012 at 10:42

Quote: Originally posted by Mailinmypocket

Quote: Originally posted by tetrahedron

actually they are

Quote:

not to be used as safety protective goggles

In this day and age, science for kids has become some unheard-of thing, because meth and drugs are bad, kids.
(Did we learn nothing from Prohibition? But I suppose that's for another topic as well.)

Mailinmypocket - 21-11-2012 at 20:34

Some neat pictures from a time long forgotten: Tracey

Pyro - 23-11-2012 at 14:40

lol,
my seeing glasses are more protective than those things, i use them instead of goggles

may as well pay once for two functions.
but they dare call that science? what's next?

PirateDocBrown - 6-5-2017 at 02:51

I'd do anything to have my old childhood chemistry set back. It was a 60's era Skil-craft, with the blue-and-white plastic bottles and steel table top. I set it up in the basement, on an old kitchen table we no longer used, because we had gotten a new one. Later, I added a partial Porter kit from a garage sale, and glassware from when a discount store had a clearance. A local department store carried Perfect chemicals to restock it, and I still could get some chemicals from the pharmacy, too. At some point, I got the 50's era Gilbert Master Manual, used and damaged, and read it through. My father bought me an old high school chemistry text, too, from a clearance table.

I feel bittersweet about such memories, because I know such times cannot happen again.

It definitely prepped me for good performance in Jr High physical science, and I was fortunate to go to a high school with a good science program, there were actually 2 years of chemistry available, and I was allowed to take them simultaneously! The text of the high school Organic was Morrison and Boyd's 3rd edition, and it so happened when I got to University, they used the same text! I still have it, to this day.

I was perhaps 10 when I got that first set, and maybe 13 when we moved to a new house that didn't have room for me to set it back up again. I was 15 when I took HS chemistry. I finished college Ochem when I was 16, and had most of the chem coursework done for my Bachelor's the following year.

It's just not right that kids can't learn like this today.

[Edited on 5/6/17 by PirateDocBrown]

[Edited on 5/6/17 by PirateDocBrown]

JJay - 6-5-2017 at 03:26

My high school was pretty small... there was a full classroom of organic chemistry I students, but there were only four of us in organic chemistry II. My lab partner was this socialist jewish hippie with a great sense of humor... I still talk to him once in a while.

At some point growing up, I remember having some kind of of dollar store crystal growing set that contained a few chemicals but that was probably my only formal set, though I had some books with experiments in them and checked even more out of the library... I never saw real chemicals or glassware outside of a classroom until I bought some of my own in college.

Booze - 6-5-2017 at 10:21

I thought those were links to buy some good sets. Oh well