Christian Forums Chemistry Society!!!

[Supreme]

For those of us who love chemistry, here's the chemistry society!

I'm not sure who on here is as enthusiastic about chemistry as I am. Most of the talk on here seems to be limited to evolution or the Big Bang- topics which I find to be tediously boring.

Chemistry is where it's at. Chemistry is the most important topic in the world. It affects everything. From the formation of stars, to the decisions we make in our brains- it's all determined by chemical reactions.

I'll start with a chemistry topic: atoms and ions.

The first ionisation enthalpy is the energy needed to remove one electron from one mole of gaseous atoms. Now, of course it increases the further right you go across a period- that's because the protons in the elements increases, so the nuclear attraction between electron and nucleus also increases.

As you down a period, the enthalpy decreases, as the electron is further away from the nucleus and is 'shielded' by more filled electron shells.

The general equation is: X(g)- X+(g) + e-
Second ionisation enthalpy: X+(g)- X2+(g) + e-

 

[GitRDunn]

Don't worry, you're not the only one interested in chemistry. I am currently finishing my second of five years that will be required to earn my degree. My main major is ACS certified Chemistry, but I am also double majoring with physics and I have a minor in Astronomy and a concentration in education (I am studying to get my chemistry and physics teaching license so I can teach high school).

I find it interesting that you bring up the evolution thing. I find those discussions interesting and I believe evolution occurred, but maybe not for the same reasons as a biologist. The kicker for me is the age of the Earth. A purely literal reading of the Bible would lead to an Earth that is approximately 6000 years old. The chemistry of radiometric dating (as well as many other, more short term dating methods that lead to a 10,000+ year old earth) is quite sound to me, and thus I believe the Earth is more than 6000 years old. Once this decision is reached, it is obvious the entire Bible is not meant to be read literally, so I feel the best thing to do is follow the evidence found in God's creation as to how it was formed. Evolution is the best theory we have right now to explain the evidence we have found. A reading of the Bible that is not entirely literal detracts nothing from the true meaning of the words, though, and that is as a religious book, not a science book.

 

[Supreme]

Don't worry, you're not the only one interested in chemistry. I am currently finishing my second of five years that will be required to earn my degree. My main major is ACS certified Chemistry, but I am also double majoring with physics and I have a minor in Astronomy and a concentration in education (I am studying to get my chemistry and physics teaching license so I can teach high school).

I find it interesting that you bring up the evolution thing. I find those discussions interesting and I believe evolution occurred, but maybe not for the same reasons as a biologist. The kicker for me is the age of the Earth. A purely literal reading of the Bible would lead to an Earth that is approximately 6000 years old. The chemistry of radiometric dating (as well as many other, more short term dating methods that lead to a 10,000+ year old earth) is quite sound to me, and thus I believe the Earth is more than 6000 years old. Once this decision is reached, it is obvious the entire Bible is not meant to be read literally, so I feel the best thing to do is follow the evidence found in God's creation as to how it was formed. Evolution is the best theory we have right now to explain the evidence we have found. A reading of the Bible that is not entirely literal detracts nothing from the true meaning of the words, though, and that is as a religious book, not a science book.

Fantastic!

I have only done A level chemistry, which would seem pretty basic by university means- I hear chemistry at university involves a lot of maths, and I cannot stand maths!

 

[knowledgeIsPower]

I did a fair amount of chemistry at university. I majored in biochemistry though. I still find raw chemistry fascinating though I doubt I am as clued up on it as you guys are.

 

[GitRDunn]

Fantastic!

I have only done A level chemistry, which would seem pretty basic by university means- I hear chemistry at university involves a lot of maths, and I cannot stand maths!

Actually, it depends on which branch of chemistry you focus on. Physical Chemistry, which is my main focus, involves the most math. Organic chemistry, on the other hand, involves almost none at all. Analytical chemistry also involves a fair bit of math, while inorganic chemistry and biochemistry are somewhere in between with some math, but not a ton.

 

[Supreme]

I did a fair amount of chemistry at university. I majored in biochemistry though. I still find raw chemistry fascinating though I doubt I am as clued up on it as you guys are.

I'm genuinely considering biochemistry- either that, or biology.

That's if I fail to get into medical school.

Actually, it depends on which branch of chemistry you focus on. Physical Chemistry, which is my main focus, involves the most math. Organic chemistry, on the other hand, involves almost none at all. Analytical chemistry also involves a fair bit of math, while inorganic chemistry and biochemistry are somewhere in between with some math, but not a ton.

Ohh, I LOVE organic chemistry!!

Physical chemistry- not so muc.

 

[bigbadwilf]

Another stray chemist (amongst other things) here. I'm half a credit (i.e. my dissertation) short of a part time chemistry degree.
That, and I work with/for an awful lot of really high-powered chemists, most of whom are far more reasonable (and sane) than the biologists I used to work with).

I'm torn as to what to do it on, between fuel cells, biopolymers and transactinides, bearing in mind that it's got to be literature based rather than experimentally based (because their insurance won't cover it and the health and safety people would probably start having kittens at the thought of it).

 

[GitRDunn]

Another stray chemist (amongst other things) here. I'm half a credit (i.e. my dissertation) short of a part time chemistry degree.
That, and I work with/for an awful lot of really high-powered chemists, most of whom are far more reasonable (and sane) than the biologists I used to work with).

I'm torn as to what to do it on, between fuel cells, biopolymers and transactinides, bearing in mind that it's got to be literature based rather than experimentally based (because their insurance won't cover it and the health and safety people would probably start having kittens at the thought of it).

Do you have access to SciFinder? If so, I would suggest spending twenty minutes on each and seeing how much you get results-wise. It would depend on how long the dissertation has to be, but I would guess you would be able to find enough on any of them (although I would imagine you would find the most, especially very recent, articles on the polymers).

 

[metherion]

I'm in my second semester of studying for a Master's degree in chemical, doing mostly physical and inorganic. I HATE biochemistry and I'm not a big fan of organic.

My thesis will be a cross between inorganic chemistry/geochemistry/organic chemistry, as I'm using clays for physical enantiomer separations in amino acids. Wooooo.

So, yeah. it's fun stuff, and organic doesn't have MUCH math. Neither does biochem. Not compared to physical, anyways. Kinetics, thermo, and quantum mechanics are some of the really math heavy parts. Of course, there's always organic kinetics and all, so... pick your poison. ^^

Metherion

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

Organic chemist - Currently doing a postdoc but will probably be leaving the lab to become a teacher in a few months.