Unfortunately I haven't had the chance to work in a (amateur) chemistry lab for a long time now. However, I have had the chance to learn about
scientific reading and writing.
Although a lot of nice write-ups find their way into the pre-publicaton section, I have the feeling a lot of work gets buried under a heap of sense
and nonsense.
The reason I'm telling this is because I see a lot of knowledge getting lost in long treads. May I quote T.S. Eliot?;
"Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
Where is the knowledge we have lost in infomation".
I believe proper documentation is key in both informing fellow scientists, as in leaving a legacy in science.
I know most people here work with a very limited set of resources. However, in the setting of amateur experimentalism a limited set of resources does
not have to be a limitation when it comes to reporting the science done.
In amateur science proper documentation of preformed work is a benefit for other amateur scientists, especially because work was preformed with a
limited set of resources.
Documenting your work can and will help fellow scientists. Especially when work is done in an amateur setting, details can be given about how to solve
"amateur setting" problems. I therefore want to start this topic about how to report science.
As far as I know there is no description of how to properly describe your work within this board(there are some really nice descriptions though!).
My question to you is; is there need for an out-line (possibly a thread?), explaining how to write up work done, in order to publish on this board? I
would be more than happy to put my two cents on paper.
[Edited on 13-4-2016 by Tsjerk]
[Edited on 13-4-2016 by Tsjerk]
[Edited on 13-4-2016 by Tsjerk]aga - 13-4-2016 at 13:32
Yes. Most certainly Yes.
So, a Template is required.
Begin by proposing a hypothetical synthesis/procedure/experiment and write it up.blogfast25 - 13-4-2016 at 14:13
@Tsjerk:
I agree that the way experiments are written up on this site often leaves much to be desired to.
Some recommendations would not go amiss (if they don't already exist) in that area.
But this is a free forum and unless moderators are willing (and have time) to try and enforce higher write-up standards, individual members will
always report the way they see fit, not the way the forum rules suggest.aga - 13-4-2016 at 14:17
If a Template were available it would useful for new writer-uppers to refer to ...Oscilllator - 13-4-2016 at 15:10
If a Template were available it would useful for new writer-uppers to refer to ...
I remember in high school when we did experiments we always filled out a sheet with 5 basic steps on it:
Aim, hypothesis, method, results, conclusion
If members could follow these basic steps when doing a writeup, I'm sure the quality could be improved. The "hypothesis" step could perhaps be omitted
in the more well-known syntheses, though.j_sum1 - 13-4-2016 at 15:36
I get my students to do abstract, theory, method, discussion, conclusion.
Part of the reasoning is that it enables students to display and me to assess the criteria that are required in education circles.
Although it is part of the scientific method I am not sure that a hypothesis really applies for much of the work we do round here. Take len1's
excellent piece on making sodium. There is an aim. There is some chemical theory behind it. There is definitely an experimental procedure. There
are plenty of things that require some discussion. But there is no hypothesis in the classical sense. Nor is there for most of the experimentation
that I do. JJay - 13-4-2016 at 16:10
The experiment should be reproducible. There is always a hypothesis of some sort (e.g.: I can make sodium.), but often there is little reason to
actually formulate it as a Neyman-Pearson lemma.
Edit: Corrected typo.
[Edited on 14-4-2016 by JJay]Deathunter88 - 13-4-2016 at 16:23
Yeah, I've always learned in my school that there needs to be a hypothesis in every experiment. Furthermore, a hypothesis should be composed of If,
Then, Because. So for the sodium example it would be: If a current of xV yA is passed through molten sodium hydroxide,
then sodium would be liberated at the cathode because the electrical current is able to reduce the sodium ions to
sodium metal. Magpie - 13-4-2016 at 16:29
Yeah, I've always learned in my school that there needs to be a hypothesis in every experiment. Furthermore, a hypothesis should be composed of If,
Then, Because. So for the sodium example it would be: If a current of xV yA is passed through molten sodium hydroxide,
then sodium would be liberated at the cathode because the electrical current is able to reduce the sodium ions to
sodium metal.
Sure but when a hypothesis has been proved over and over again, there's no need to formulate it one more time. We KNOW that when current is passed
through molten sodium hydroxide, then sodium will be liberated at the cathode. len1's wonderful experiments are corroborative and
that's important too.
Do we have to, every time we see an apple hanging from a tree, formulate the hypothesis that it will fall to the ground at some time?
[Edited on 14-4-2016 by blogfast25]j_sum1 - 13-4-2016 at 18:55
But this is a free forum and unless moderators are willing (and have time) to try and enforce higher write-up standards, individual members will
always report the way they see fit, not the way the forum rules suggest.
Please don't get me wrong, I'm not in favor of enforcing anything. I hope that, after some discussion, a guideline could be written and this guideline
turns out to be so good people will use it voluntarily.
I could write up a draft next Saturday and post it here, putting the topic up for debat. I would be more than happy with any feedback as I'm not the
expert on the field either. arkoma - 14-4-2016 at 11:44
I'm sloppy as hell; I could see how some sort of template could darn sure be of use to me.j_sum1 - 14-4-2016 at 14:29
I saw your lab journal notes for your ethanol distillation, arkoma. I thought that was rather good work actually. My notes are seldom that detailed.
[edit] at least for a distillation.
[Edited on 14-4-2016 by j_sum1]Tsjerk - 16-4-2016 at 10:49
I made a draft for designing an experiment and the writing up of that. Although I introduce the writing up part I didn't get to the actual writing up
part. I would appreciate any feedback on what I wrote till now though.
[Edited on 16-4-2016 by Tsjerk]morganbw - 16-4-2016 at 11:18
I think that for me.
Tell the audience what you are going to say.
Say it.
Tell them what you said.
The end.Tsjerk - 17-4-2016 at 07:54
I some compounds in the write up described, namely nitrite to acetate and isopropyl to isoamyl. Although the experimental conditions are a bit less
exiting; both introduction discussing and ethics are easier to write about for the final compound made in this write-up.
As these guidelines are far more useful to beginners than seasoned experimenters/veteran scientists, what to me is lacking in your document are
explanations of:
