Now that the academic semester has ended and the gift giving holiday has passed (Christmas Day), the New Year is upon us. During these times, a little bit of reflection is in order with the following questions:
Where am I at in my life? Where am I headed?
If you are a student, the answers are immediately based on the current academic classes (most likely) -- which are based on the successes of the previous classes completed. This is a normal process for each student during their academic journey. Unfortunately, there exists "outliers" who never learn to perform this introspection during this part of the year. The last statement begs the following questions:
Who are these people? Where do they end up in life?
I do not pretend to have all of the answers to the world. I can supply an example from the recent news which will shed light on the last question -- which is where they will end up. Below is the example.
Own Your Failure
One of the critical lessons to learn in life for anyone is to 'own your own failure.' Which is to say, instead of blaming others for your failure, take ownership of the failure and move on with success. I imagine a few readers might be thinking the following: Easier said than done! Yes, in some cases that is true. Although, the daily practice of ownership is important and could serve each of us quite well.
Siddiqui, 38, who trained as a solicitor after university, says his life and career have been blighted by his failure to obtain a first when he graduated in June 2000. He said he underachieved in a course on Indian imperial history during his degree because of “negligent” teaching which pulled down his overall grade.
More specifically, he is claiming that the error occurred as a result of the University's inability to properly staff the classes. Again, the specifics are fuzzy, but here is an excerpt from the article:
Siddiqui has said the standard of tuition he received from Dr David Washbrook declined as a result of the “intolerable” pressure the historian was placed under. In the academic year 1999-2000, four of the seven faculty staff were on sabbaticals and the court heard from Siddiqui’s barrister that it was a “clear and undisputed fact” that the university knew of the situation in advance. He told the judge that of the 15 students who received the same teaching and sat the same exam as Siddiqui, 13 received their “lowest or joint lowest mark” in the subject.
Mallalieu told the court: “This is a large percentage who got their lowest mark in the specialist subject papers. There is a statistical anomaly that matches our case that there was a specific problem with the teaching in this year having a knock-on effect on the performance of students.” He added: “The standard of teaching was objectively unacceptable.”
Mr. Siddiqui is one of several students who received a bad grade during that exam and course -- for that matter. Where are the other disgruntled students? Further, the problem resides around Mr. Siddiqui's inability to accept the 'contract' that each student agrees to when enrolling in a course at a University.
In a blog post that I wrote for another site (professional - LinkedIn), I highlighted in the beginning that each student enters an informal contract with the university when enrolling in a course. The agreement of the contract is centered around the following two principles stated below:
1) Students agree to follow the university rules (attendance, assignments, etc.).
2) Faculty and Staff agree to uphold their part and provide a quality education to each student.
As I stated in that blog: Do we live in a perfect world? No! But each of us need to do our agreed upon part in the educational process. Students tend to forget that each of them hired the university to teach them a certain skill set. That is an agreement. Not a pay and take all (meaning I pay and receive the degree with no work) process. School is not easy.
The largest problem with blaming teachers in the educational process is that data speaks volume in the teachers favor. What do I mean by this? Not every teacher is wonderful. But most teachers have a track record with a large amount of students over the course of many years. How often do students return decades later and thank their instructor for teaching them properly? No more needs to be said regarding placing the blame on the teacher. Lets focus on the student in this case.
In the article above, the obvious fall-out from such a lawsuit is the 'flood gates' that can be opened for future lawsuits that are obviously flawed and based on failure (on the students part) to take ownership. Additionally, if low grades were given to 13 other students, in order to rule in favor of him the following questions would have to be answered:
1) How was he professionally impacted by the low grade? 2) Why did he wait such a long time to bring the lawsuit against the university? 3) Why have other students not stepped up and joined the lawsuit? 4) Why have other students not spoken out about the low grades? 5) How can a court prove that there is a link between a grade and professional failure? 6) How does the court rule out psychological problems at play in the lawsuit?
I was fascinated to read that there were no other students speaking out about the incident. I imagine each of them have moved on and attributed the low grade to 'bump in the road.' Regardless, the length of time in between the course and the lawsuit is extremely suspicious among other factors in the case. In time, more might be revealed about Mr. Siddiqui.
Each of us need to take ownership of both our progress and failures.
Conclusion...
What is disappointing about the article and the lawsuit is that the student has now grown up to be a professional who has not learned to take ownership for his failures. Which is extremely sad. Imaging what his life is like? Living day to day with 'bad grade' hanging over his head and affecting his current progress.
There will be many failures in life along our professional development. The time is now to accept them and move on. As I tell people constantly about the potential failure of dwelling on the past to such a large degree -- think of the process as driving a car. Ask yourself the following question:
Would I drive forward while looking in the 'rear-view' mirror?
Of course not! You would hit some object (car, human, etc.) by not looking forward but focusing on the past. Each of us should do the same with our success and failure. Move forward accepting the past.
I was reading last weeks editorial from the journal of 'Science' -- a prestigious science journal very widely respected by the entire world science community. The editorial titled "Life For Refugees Scholars" detailed the emerging problem of refugee scientists leaving battle zones such as Syria. What caught my attention was the closing paragraph shown below:
Displaced scholars, whether refugees or in exile, need the support of institutions large and small, in countries large and small, to break through the barriers that prevent them from academic engagement and employment—fears that they will take jobs away, require more help than they give, or not make the transition to teaching students in the host country. In succumbing to this backlash, we forget that the world's great universities became great because they welcomed refugees, exiles, and thinkers in distress. With support from the international academic community, threatened scholars and scientists can be saved. Let us all ensure that academic training is not wasted, knowledge for present and future generations is preserved, and that the next Albert Einstein or Felix Bloch is not lost in the painful currents of forced emigration.
In the paragraphs below, I would like to briefly discuss the benefits of having international students here in America to elevate science in the United States.
Graduate School in the United States
Upon entering graduate school in the United States two observations became very apparent to me:
1) The graduate class is small compared to an incoming freshman class at the undergraduate level.
2) Foreign students make up a sizable portion of the class
The first remark is based on the observation that one encounters when entering a graduate school class in the physical sciences. This could be the case, since compared to say a graduate law or graduate medicine class, the research class is rather small. Although, when you consider the available position (research laboratory positions available), then the class size makes sense.
Given that the class size is small, the second observation was rather surprising to me at first. When I entered graduate school at University of California at Riverside, the total class size was around 15 students. At least 50% of the class was made up of international students. I did not understand the reason at first. As I will explain, the reason became apparent in my second quarter of class near the end of my first year in graduate school.
Classes and Exams!
Part of every class was an exam component. Educational institutions still use the written exam as a critical measure of learning success. Although, after leaving graduate school, UCR was in the process of changing around the steps (tests -- written and oral) which made up a 'graduate degree' from the department -- which was surprising.
During the first year of a Ph.D. program, the major component of the graduate educational process is to take all required classes for the degree. The remainder of the time spent in graduate school will be devoted to research and giving updates on your research project. Upon hearing this, students are usually quite amazed and happy. The thought of only taking around 6 classes for your Ph.D. -- is exciting.
With that being said, the classes are different from undergraduate courses. The material is slightly different in the treatment of problems. Fundamentally, in chemistry, one would start to explore more difficult aspects of the same problems encountered in the undergraduate education process.
How is that possible?
Take for example, the assumption of an "ideal gas" which is grounded in two basic assumptions:
1) The atoms are treated as point particles
2) The point particles do not interact with each other
These two assumptions simplify the types of chemistry problems that can be entertained. Based on the two assumptions, atoms or molecules will be treated as independent entities and not interact with each other. When the break down of the assumptions occur, the incorporation of math becomes more prominent in the problem solution. More math -- oh no!
Math is not a problem generally speaking. But not all chemists are going to enter a field of research that requires a heavy math background. This is a point of debate for a later post.
At the point you might be wondering why I am talking about this?
What happened to international students?
Well, during classes, a student from the United States cannot help but notice that the international students are able to solve problems rather easily. A common assumption is that they are trained in math better than students in the United States. This might or might not be true -- again, a point for debate for a later post. What is true about their presence is that "political rules" have been put into place to accept the student into the United States graduate education programs.
One is that the student must have already completed the equivalent of a "Master's Degree" from their country or origin.
The above requirement turns out to benefit a United States student to a large extent in the long run. Even though, in the short run, this is counter-intuitive to the feeling a person gets when competing with an international student. Let me explain below.
International Students Inspire U.S. Students
As I mentioned above, each international student entering the United States for graduate education has the equivalent of a "Master's Degree" from their country of origin. Note: what this means overall is that the courses that every American graduate student takes in graduate school have already been completed by each international graduate student. The comparison would be for be for a student to take the same course twice -- have two times to complete a course. Of course, during the second time around your grade should increase.
I learned this fact from taking a class in "thermodynamics" in graduate school. In the class, which was considered large, there were 6 students total. Normally, a graduate course might have 4 students or maybe 5. Six or above is considered very large.
Therefore, the classes in graduate school are intimate and like a "meeting" rather than a traditional lecture. Nonetheless, the classes are still classes in which a professor lectures and students learn through listening and then completing assignments. My thermodynamics course was no different. What amazed me at the time were the scoring of the international students on a given exam.
The students would score very high on the exam -- perfect or "nearly perfect" -- meaning like 98/100. If there was extra credit offered, the students would score on the order of 110/100. Imagine, what the American students (myself) were feeling comparing ourselves to these students. Plus, the grades were on a "curve" which meant, we would be graded against these students -- Oh My!
On the first couple of exams, we felt disappointed scoring 85/100, 90/100, 95/100. While the international students were scoring: 98/100, 100/100, 105/100. When the last midterm exam came in our class, the professor stated the following to the class:
Tomorrow's test will be extremely difficult. I want to see if the international students can still score in the high 90's. Therefore, I will be writing the test for them. For the American students, take the exam and try your best.
What?
What is the meaning of the statements emerging from his mouth?
Has he lost his mind?
The tests are already difficult. Needless to say, we showed up the next day and took the exam. I scored in the 70's. I was not the best student to say the least. Furthermore, I am not a great test taker. As the professor explained to me later in my graduate career -- he said:
Mike, if the point of the class was to turn in great homework assignments, you would score perfectly. Your homework scores are great -- given the time to think and solve the work. But unfortunately, life is not always about homework. Sometimes, tests are needed too.
I will never forget him telling me this. We were right outside the chemistry building. He went onto to explain that the feeling of 'feeling not good enough' should either be put aside or dealt with. Further, he suggested that if I felt overwhelmed, I could always drop out of graduate school and get a job earning pretty good money. But, he also stated a theme that I have heard time and time again during my education by other professors -- which inspires me to move forward regardless of the 'local feeling' that I might be harboring.
My observation has been that you like being in school and thinking critically about chemistry. And that if you were to drop out of school, you might find yourself bored without being challenged. Further, in the current situation, you might want to understand why the University of California system accepts international students at all.
International students are required to have an equivalent of a "Master's Degree" from their country of origin. And the process of accepting graduate students is to choose the highest quality of student. The reason why? Because, we want to challenge you (American students) to achieve greater than what you would do had they not been in the class.
If the international students were not in the current class, then the best student would be considered the best and the remainder of you would write them off (he is just really good at math). But with international students present and kicking ass on the exams, you guys are really pushing yourselves to out do them on the exams and homework assignments. This produces a better American graduate student in our experience.
After hearing the above statement, I felt changed. First, I started to understand that bringing in international students to the university should not be viewed as a 'threat' but a challenge. In the sense, to improve the science that American students do. Second, immersing yourself in the study of science problems in research has changed over the years. Let me explain.
In the past, the image of a scientist was one of a single researcher in a laboratory performing research quietly and thinking methodically. That image has changed over the past few decades to be one of a 'research group'. For those people who are not interested in science, the image that is preserved is the former image. Therefore, when a funding issue arises, the thought of giving money to a 'single researcher' is questioned.
The fact of the matter is that science is performed by a 'research group' made up of a diverse amount of scientists. The size of the group can vary from 4 people (3 graduate students + 1 professor) to 60 people (35 graduate students + 20 post doctoral fellows + 4 professional research staff + 1 professor). Yes, large research groups exist like this. Look no further than Professor George Whitesides of Harvard Chemistry Department. His research group is enormous. Of course, the amount of small companies and ideas that come out of his laboratory on an annual basis is huge too.
The point is that science is made up of many critical components. One is the diversity that drives the group (both international + American students). Secondly, the funding of that research group is critical. Third, the production of working scientists needs to happen to fill professional jobs in industry or academia. Chemical industry, Pharmaceutical industry, Aerospace industry, among others to mention a few desirable job employers.
Most of the large industries mentioned in the last paragraph are 'global' industries which mean that there are multiple facilities around the world. This fits in well with the diversity that is seen in the American university setting. Having international students elevate American science as well as science all around the world.
Having a global mindset with regard to funding science is critical if we (as global residents of the Planet Earth) would like to save the planet. Just because science research comes from the United States or Europe, makes either no less important. Hence the need to preserve the ability to have visiting scholars and students mix ideas in with each other to produce 'global science' instead of researching in a small scale private setting with large borders. Diversity is not preserved in such environments.
Conclusion...
The reason why I wrote this blog post is due to the current administration that is about to take office. First, I think having the politicians who fund research understand the importance of having international scholars and students is extremely important. Second, the example that leads currently is the break up of Britain -- known as Brexit.
In an article from the website "Laboratory Equipment" titled "Brexit Uncertainties Threaten Brain Drain for UK Science" the threat of the 'brain drain' from the shifting resources in science funding are discussed along with immigration status. Here is an excerpt detailing real fears of losing critical scientist due to shifts in the political landscape:
"I'm worried that after my current contract finishes, one of the prerequisites could be a permanent residence card," she said. "I'd like to apply for EU grant money, but how much longer will it be available for?"
Britain's top universities have long been among the world's most sought-after destinations for study and research, drawing the brightest minds from all corners of the globe. But since Britons voted in June to leave the 28-nation EU, many in the science community say the U.K. risks losing the money, the international influence — and crucially, the talent — to sustain that enviable position.
More than one-tenth of research funding at British universities has come from the EU in recent years. Some fields — such as nanotechnology and cancer research — are more dependent on EU funding than others, according to a report by technology firm Digital Science. From 2007 to 2013, Britain received 8.8 billion euros ($9.4 billion) in direct EU investment in research.
As you can see, immigration issues are not the only source of fear in the changing science landscape as a result of a political decision. Regardless, when politicians start discussing changing the porosity (openness or closeness) of the national borders, science will be inevitably affected in a negative way. Here is another excerpt to describe such a change:
Scientists and researchers argue that being part of the EU has given British science a huge boost because it allows Britain to recruit the best talent across Europe and take part in important research collaborations and student exchanges without being constrained by national boundaries. The bloc's freedom of movement means its 500 million people can live and work visa-free in any member state.
No one knows yet what form Britain's exit from the EU — commonly known as Brexit — is going to take, but immigration was a key issue for "Leave" voters. Many believe some limit should be put on the number of EU citizens moving to Britain.
Prime Minister Theresa May has vowed to reassert control over British borders. She has offered no firm guarantees for the rights of Europeans already living in Britain, an uncertainty that weighs heavily over the 32,000 Europeans who make up 16 percent of the academic workforce in British universities. Many universities say the rhetoric over immigration control is also jeopardizing recruitment of researchers and students from further afield.
Typically, when we think of immigration issues, we restrict our definition to the "undocumented" (which I do not like to use) people who have crossed our borders for a variety of reasons (asylum, economic, livability, lack of resources, etc.). What we do not consider is that any immigration reform will have an impact on science -- an adverse impact.
Which is why as Americans, we need to think and vote critically on immigration reform. When we see changes start to take shape that are negatively impacting science, we need to take action and contact our local representatives (senators and congressional reps). Otherwise, we are risking losing the status as the leader in science in the world.
In closing, the jobs of the future will revolve around our ability to lead in the scientific field. Ranging from computational to environmental, jobs that are created will undoubtedly involve a higher education in science. Therefore, it is critical to keep the momentum of incorporating international scholars and students into our science system to elevate our standing. Lets make our scientists the best in the world.
When your friends and family members realize that your majoring in Chemistry in college, you instantly become the "ambassador of chemistry." Maybe the motivation behind that is to help motivate the person to really become the best chemist that is possible. The realization that I had a mind that was tuned in to chemistry/physics came to me in high school at lunch time.
In the following paragraphs, I will explain how chemistry followed me into the military. Specifically, I will highlight two separate environments -- high school and the military to illustrate my point -- your passion/interests are constantly intersecting your life. Do you believe me? If not, read more below. If so, read more below.
When Did Chemistry Appeal To Me?
Growing up, my father would always talk to me about chemistry. Part of that is due to that he loved chemistry. He is a true academic in the sense that he could get lost in studying science. If he were to be taken hostage and locked up in a library, given the proper amount of food and clothing, he would live the remainder of his life happy as ever. I remember when I was in Junior High, he put a bumper sticker on his car that read "Honk If You Got an A In P-Chem." Who would have thought that two decades later I would become a "physical chemist."
My first exposure in academia to chemistry was kind of "off the beaten path." I used to "ditch" classes quite a bit. I missed a lot of high school one particular semester. As a result, I was given a punishment. First, I would attend Saturday detention from 8 am - 12 pm. I remember my father proudly dropping me off to attend. He was happy that I received a proper punishment for missing school. Additionally, I had to skip lunch and report to the chemistry/physics teacher's classroom -- Mr. Barth -- now Dr. Barth.
What seemed like a punishment then, turned into a major part of my doctoral work a decade later. I was given the task of building (with a friend) a track of alternating bar magnets. The track was to be two magnets wide (around 4 inches) and around 6 feet long. In total, there were around 250 magnets that we had to glue (opposite polarity) alternating (north to south). At this point, you might ask the following question:
What was the purpose of the experiment?
In short, the object was to build a "magnetic levitation train" to measure the coefficient of friction. Before I answer the question in detail, a visual diagram of the experimental setup would be very useful in interpreting the purpose of the experiment. The experimental setup when completed appeared like the following photograph of the "kit" that sells today online:
Source: www.rainbowresource.com
In the diagram above, there appears to be a block of wood that is floating. On either side of the track, there are plastic rails to hold the block of wood or magnetic car onto the track. Back in the late 80s, our car was simply made out of cardboard with magnets glued onto the bottom. There is a fair amount (a huge) of tedious work involved in building the track. That process too prepared me for research in the physical science area.
The purpose of the track was to elevate one side of the track to form a "triangle." The diagram would appear to be similar in nature to a block of wood sliding down a slanted surface. Additionally, if the relevant forces are outlined, the diagram taken from the "Wikipedia" page emerges:
With a magnetic levitating track, where is the friction? The only source of friction (neglecting wind resistance) is due to the car (cardboard) rubbing up against the plastic rails on the track. By changing the angle of the track relative the the ground and measuring the time of travel, the coefficient of friction is easily determined. That was our challenge.
I say "our" because there was another gentlemen in the room assigned to the project. He did not miss school like me. In fact, he was a straight "A" student. He had a name -- Gil Vitug. We became and remain very good friends. At the time, he was more attracted to the physics side of life. Years later, we both graduated with our doctorate degrees (Ph.D.) from University of California at Riverside. He was working in Astrophysics (working at the Stanford Linear Accelerator) while I was working on developing instrumentation for Nuclear Magnetic Resonance experiments.
From that experience, both of us learned the ability to extract a large amount of information from a low-cost setup. Finding a way with limited funding to measure a quantity is extremely useful. Especially, as science funding is becoming more difficult to receive. That was a valuable experience and served as a springboard to which we became "science ambassadors." Out of our school class, we were the two to work in academia.
After high school, I entered college and majored in chemistry with the intention of becoming a surgeon. I wanted to end up in experimental medicine. I even defined my own field -- experimental medicine. Today, that desire would have translated to obtaining a "Md/Ph.D" degree and working in a government laboratory. I had no clue at the time. In fact, my father sat me down and had a talk with me during my junior year of college. He suggested that I look into graduate school in chemistry rather than medicine based on my responses to his questions regarding experimental medicine. I was at the time and remain extremely grateful for that discussion.
Why did I diverge onto that tangent?
Out of those experiences, came a love for chemistry. The experiences were not traditional to me. Late night discussions with my father over topics such as dropping a penny into a bottle of beer spurred my interests in thinking about chemistry. I was not a good student in school. I did show up every day to class. And, I was able to entertain concepts in science reasonably well. The concepts would be in my head.
What remained to be a delinquency was the patience to sit down and study along with explaining the concepts contained within my head. The process of beginning to tackle that delinquency took up the better part of the next decade. Although, with the help of certain individuals (like my father and Dr. Bath along with Gil -- now Dr. Vitug) and a military sergeant, the path was easier. Each person challenges me to become a better person. Furthermore, optimizing the shortcomings in my life has been a continuous challenge -- still to this day. Let me explain briefly how.
Chemistry In The Military?
How can a soldier study chemistry in the military? As I mentioned in a previous blog post, chemistry is all around us. Everything involves chemistry! What determines whether a soldier studies or utilizes chemistry is their job classification or rank. If an enlisted soldier decides to become an officer, he/she returns to college and majors in science. That could involve returning to a job in the military that involves directly performing research.
Although, the more probable situation would be to assigned a job where the requirements have no direct connection to chemistry. Additionally, as an enlisted soldier, the job is most likely going to entail no direct connection to research in sciences. That is reserved more for a position like an officer or a civilian employee.
I was assigned to work as an electrician on the fighter aircraft F-16. That entailed working on the jet on the "flight line" along with working on the parts in a "back shop" setting. What is the difference between the two: "flight line" and "back shop"? Working on the "flight line" involves removing electrical components (generators, rheostats, controllers, batteries, chargers, etc.) and environmental components (bleed air valves, air condition controllers, water separation units, etc.) along with repairing the associated wiring and ducting to those components.
This is different from working in the "back shop" or the component repair shop. The component repair shop is a The two types of work are very different but have the same mission. The overall mission is to keep aircraft in the air. With that being said, work that arrives in the "back shop" or component repair shop can be from any aircraft -- not just the F-16. Since our base (Shaw AFB, South Carolina) was a predominantly F-16 air base, most of the components that we encountered to repair were from F-16 aircraft.
What does all this have to do with chemistry and being a chemistry ambassador?
When I first arrived at the base, my supervisor -- Master Sergeant Daniel Jonas asked me a series of questions. These included if I had any college or university experience. I answered yes -- I had 4 years in chemistry before dropping out. He scolded me for dropping out and encouraged me to finish my degree in the military (and become an officer). He also sent me to the "Middle East" 18 months out of the 24 months -- due to my popularity (hard work ethics). Even though I did not get to go back to school while serving my country, I had the ability to demonstrate my knowledge of the field of chemistry by an assignment -- which was an interesting and unusual occurrence in the military. Especially for an enlisted soldier in his/her first tour of duty.
Master Sergeant Daniel Jonas was a curious man. In fact, he had an unquenchable thirst for information -- spanning all disciplines from economics through physical sciences. He was a very interesting person to say the least. I have often wondered how I happen to run across people in my life like him -- I am extremely fortunate. My wife says, I attract these people -- who see my potential. Maybe she is correct.
Anyways, Msgt. Jonas realized an issue with a battery and called on my chemistry skills to fix the problem. Specifically, he was concerned about two aspects of recharging (or reconditioning) the F-16 battery. First, the unusually large amount of waste generated in the process of charging the battery. Second, the methodology of charging the battery which degraded the lifetime of the battery -- which was nominally around 3-5 years. Let me explain the situation using science language.
Hazardous Waste Generation
The F-16 battery is a single unit (one case) that houses 24 cells that are linked together in "series." A picture of the battery is shown below:
Source: Public Domain
With the diagram of each "cell" shown below:
Source: By Ransu, Public Domain
In order to understand the problems that Msgt. Jonas recognized, the chemical reactions of the discharging and charging cycle of the battery need to be known. Shown below are the chemical reactions of the two cycles of the Nickel Cadmium battery taken from the patent webpage for the "battery charger":
Upon inspection of the chemical reactions, the hydroxide ions play a critical role in the discharge/charge cycle over the course of the life of the battery. The electrolyte solution must contain a chemical that upon dissociation produces a hydroxide ion. For the battery above, the chemical is a solution of potassium hydroxide in water. This is important in recognizing the problem that needed to be fixed to extend out the life of the battery.
I was tasked to understand the charging/discharging cycle of the battery. Furthermore, I was tasked with explaining the problem to the other members of the back shop working on the batteries. Before I go into that, the charging cycle needs to be understood. Looking at the "Wikipedia" page for the "Nickel-Cadmium Battery" the process proceeds like in the following manner:
Vented cell (wet cell, flooded cell) NiCd batteries are used when large capacities and high discharge rates are required. Traditional NiCd batteries are of the sealed type, which means that charge gas is normally recombined and they release no gas unless severely overcharged or a fault develops. Unlike typical NiCd cells, which are sealed, vented cells have a vent or low pressure release valve that releases any generated oxygen and hydrogen gases when overcharged or discharged rapidly. Since the battery is not a pressure vessel, it is safer, weighs less, and has a simpler and more economical structure. This also means the battery is not normally damaged by excessive rates of overcharge, discharge or even negative charge.
They are used in aviation, rail and mass transit, backup power for telecoms, engine starting for backup turbines etc. Using vented cell NiCd batteries results in reduction in size, weight and maintenance requirements over other types of batteries. Vented cell NiCd batteries have long lives (up to 20 years or more, depending on type) and operate at extreme temperatures (from −40 to 70 °C).
A steel battery box contains the cells connected in series to gain the desired voltage (1.2 V per cell nominal). Cells are usually made of a light and durable polyamide (nylon), with multiple nickel-cadmium plates welded together for each electrode inside. A separator or liner made of silicone rubber acts as an insulator and a gas barrier between the electrodes. Cells are flooded with an electrolyte of 30% aqueous solution of potassium hydroxide (KOH). The specific gravity of the electrolyte does not indicate if the battery is discharged or fully charged but changes mainly with evaporation of water. The top of the cell contains a space for excess electrolyte and a pressure release vent. Large nickel plated copper studs and thick interconnecting links assure minimum effective series resistance for the battery.
The venting of gases means that the battery is either being discharged at a high rate or recharged at a higher than nominal rate. This also means the electrolyte lost during venting must be periodically replaced through routine maintenance. Depending on the charge–discharge cycles and type of battery this can mean a maintenance period of anything from a few months to a year.
Vented cell voltage rises rapidly at the end of charge allowing for very simple charger circuitry to be used. Typically a battery is constant current charged at 1 CA rate until all the cells have reached at least 1.55 V. Another charge cycle follows at 0.1 CA rate, again until all cells have reached 1.55 V. The charge is finished with an equalizing or top-up charge, typically for not less than 4 hours at 0.1 CA rate. The purpose of the over-charge is to expel as much (if not all) of the gases collected on the electrodes, hydrogen on the negative and oxygen on the positive, and some of these gases recombine to form water which in turn will raise the electrolyte level to its highest level after which it is safe to adjust the electrolyte levels. During the over-charge or top-up charge, the cell voltages will go beyond 1.6 V and then slowly start to drop. No cell should rise above 1.71 V (dry cell) or drop below 1.55 V (gas barrier broken).
The take home point was that there was maintenance involved in the discharging/charging process over the course of the life of the battery. My supervisor wondered why the life of the battery was no where near the length that was written by the factory. This is where my job started -- since I had a chemistry background and interest in science.
To accommodate the expansion of the volume of liquid during the charging cycle, each instrument had a "turkey baster" sitting next to it for the easy removal of excess water. During the dynamic charging cycle, the cells would expand due to the hydrogen gas being liberated. The caps would be loosened and set beside the battery. Essentially, the battery sat on the table top hooked up the charger and "open" (vent caps removed) to the environment. Unknown to us at the time, that is where the problems lay the entire time -- the open cells to the atmosphere. Why?
Source: www.rd.com
There were a couple of issues with the charging/disharging cycles that I started to mention above which may be confusing. After the charging cycle, the "electrolyte" level might need to be adjusted (meaning removal or addition of water with the "turkey baster" device shown above) as discussed in the excerpt above.
The problem with this is the removal of the following: 1) electrolyte mixture -- KOH and H20 (Potassium hydroxide and water), and 2) the electrode (which decomposed). Collecting these two chemicals is and disposing them safely (not down the drain) is required. This means that the solution of waste has to be kept in a "hazardous waste" container -- which is picked up each week by a disposal company. Each weak, the shop would generate on the order of 55 gallons of "hazardous waste" -- mostly water, but a little bit of potassium hydroxide, electrode (cadmium, nickel, etc.). As you might imagine, this was a huge motivation to determine how to extend the life of the battery.
During the addition of water or the extraction of the electrolyte after charging, the problem was that the internal concentrations of all components had changed. If the "turkey baster" was used to pull out water/KOH and electrode material, the over the course of the lifecycle of the battery -- each time that the battery was sent to be conditioned in the "back shop" -- the battery would be degraded ever so slightly. Adding this up over time, renders the battery unusable.
Couple this to the competing chemical reaction occurring with the air -- which is shown below:
This reaction was not known to occur at the time of our investigation. If Msgt. Jonas had not been so persistent in understanding all chemical reactions within the F-16 battery, the situation (short lifetime of the battery) would have continued on for decades. What did I learn out of this? Does any of this make sense to you (the reader)? I know that I have been rambling on for a while.
Conclusion....
The point I would like to make with this post is that a persons true passion becomes apparent eventually in one's life -- whether they pursue work within that passion or not. For Master Sergeant Jonas, that passion is an unquenchable thirst for knowledge. He is a power house of knowledge and commands those around him "in directly" to be thirsty as well. Amazing. I have always loved chemistry in one form or another. Dr. Dan Barth has taught chemistry and physics for decades. My father shares a passion for the physical sciences (as well as others too). Put all of us in a room together or have us interact with each other, and these shared interests will become apparent soon. Additionally, each one will show their specific talent or interests over time.
Regardless if a person pursues their interests or not, those interests will become apparent over time. For me, hanging out in the chemistry and physics classroom benefitted me greatly -- since this experience was aligned with my interests. I imagine that the school counselor who assigned me to the room instead of detention saw my interests shine through at some point in our interactions.
Similarly, when I arrived in the US Air Force at Shaw AFB -- I must have exuded the interests in sciences. This later caused me to be chosen to interpret and explain the work of Master Sergeant Jonas and the extension of the F-16 battery. What does this have to do with you?
If you are at a point in your life where you have no idea of where to go in moving forward, just keep moving forward. Eventually, your interests will come to the surface. But, you must be willing to listen to yourself and observe your interests. I will you luck in your adventure pursuing your interests. Have a great day.
I remember being thoroughly confused the first time that I saw the image on the back of a truck's window. Of course, I was equally confused when I saw the word "YOLO" in print the first time too. "YOLO" means "You Only Live Once." "NOTW" means "Not Of This World." There are many of these little shortened statements floating around the internet. Why is "NOTW" important and used in the same title as the chemical elements Hydrogen and Helium? Great question.
Short answer: Read the paragraphs below to find out!
Long answer: The other day I was thinking about the concept of "escape velocity" and these two elements came to mind. If set free, will each of the elements in gaseous form leave "our world" -- the atmosphere around planet Earth? In the answer is yes, then these two elements are "Not Of This World." First, lets focus on the crucial question: Why does the escape occur? What properties allow that to happen? The answers are contained in the paragraphs below.
Escape Velocity?
If you were to go outside onto your yard lawn and jump up into the air, what would happen? You would probably briefly rise up into the air and then begin to descend back onto the lawn. Why? The reason is due to the Earth's gravitational field. As I wrote in an earlier post on force, the gravitational field is exerting a force to accelerate your body onto the surface of the Earth. This is Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation and can be represented by the equation below:
where 'm' is the mass and 'g' is vector representing the acceleration of gravity with a constant magnitude of 9.81 m/s^2 (meters per second squared) toward Earth. Why is this important? Well, you would have to understand the effects of gravity if you were going to launch a spacecraft into space right? You would have to plan to overcome the gravitational field in a safe manner without destroying your spaceship in the process? The general equation for a Force on mass-1 due to the gravitational pull of mass-2 can be represented by the following equation shown below:
Where G is the gravitational constant and the two masses experiencing this pull between one another are represented by m1(mass-1) and m2 (mass-2). Furthermore, the strength of the gravitational force varies by the inverse of the square of the distant between the two masses. Simply stated right. Therefore, to escape this force, energy would be needed.
How does one calculate the escape velocity for an object to leave the atmosphere?
In order to break the gravitational barrier, the proper energy must be obtained. Two questions need to be answered in order to arrive at a escape velocity:
1) How much energy is required to break the gravitational barrier?
2) How much kinetic energy is required to break the gravitational barrier?
A this point you might be slightly confused. I just showed you an equation for the force between two masses with a gravitational pull. Now, I am asking about kinetic energy?Where is the connection between the two? Fair enough.
To start with, the force is holding us on the planet. As a thought experiment, we can think of a rock on top of a mountain. That rock has a large amount of potential energy. If that rock were to roll down the mountain, the potential energy would be converted into kinetic energy. In order to drive the point home, an excerpt from the "Wikipedia" page for "potential energy" might help the reader understand the work (energy) required to break the gravitational field is shown below:
There are various types of potential energy, each associated with a particular type of force. For example, the work of an elastic force is called elastic potential energy; work of the gravitational force is called gravitational potential energy; work of the Coulomb force is called electric potential energy; work of the strong nuclear force or weak nuclear force acting on the baryon charge is called nuclear potential energy; work of intermolecular forces is called intermolecular potential energy. Chemical potential energy, such as the energy stored in fossil fuels, is the work of the Coulomb force during rearrangement of mutual positions of electrons and nuclei in atoms and molecules. Thermal energy usually has two components: the kinetic energy of random motions of particles and the potential energy of their mutual positions.
In equation form, the potential energy is shown as follows:
Again, to launch into space, the potential energy (stored energy) needs to be converted into 100% kinetic energy (the energy of motion). Following this line of reasoning leave us to equate the two energies as shown below:
To determine the escape velocity needed to break the Earth's gravitational pull. Before the above equation is rearranged to solve for "v" -- velocity, one more substitution needs to be made. The substitution is an expression for the gravitational acceleration at the surface of the earth. Below is an expression to substitute for G in the equation above:
If the above expression is substituted into the equation for gravitational potential energy, the expression below is the relation of the energy needed to escape the surface of the Earth:
Now, the above expression is the escape velocity required to leave the Earth's gravitational pull. The remaining task is to plug numbers into the equation and calculate the velocity as shown below:
There you have the answer. In order to break Earth's gravitational pull, an object (i.e., spaceship, molecules, atoms, etc.) needs to travel at minimum escape velocity of 7 miles per second. Take a look at a map. Look for a landmark or geographical point that is 7 miles away from your house. Imagine, traveling that distance in one second. Wow!
That sets the discussion in motion with a definite answer. The space shuttle carries fuel which helps propel it into orbit. Are there any natural objects that might possess enough energy to escape the Earth's atmosphere without fuel? I cannot think of any off the top of my head that travel normally at 7 mile/sec. That is what I would expect to hear from most people. Sub-atomic particles travel quickly. Entertaining this question, I recalled hearing years ago that both chemicals -- Helium and Hydrogen possess enough energy to escape the atmosphere.
A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a blog post about cooking pasta like a chemist. The point of that post was to inspire people to imagine the dynamic environment that is occurring in the boiling water and the headspace just above it. While writing that post, I could not help but to return to the statement that I had heard several years earlier regarding both chemicals -- Helium and Hydrogen -- possessing enough energy to escape Earth's gravitational field. I started narrowing my curiosity down to the following question:
What properties enable the elements hydrogen and helium to escape the Earth's atmosphere?
Are these two chemicals special? Do other chemicals possess enough energy to escape Earth's gravitational field?
The answer is interesting but somewhat complex and still being researched. Below, I start to discuss the parameters which might give both of these chemicals the ability to act special (in the sense of escaping into space). Read on below to find out the answer.
Hydrogen & Helium Are Special!
As I found out, the process is simple yet complicated. How does that figure? Simple yet complicated? In order to understand the statement about these elements, we must take a divergent step for a brief backstory in chemistry. These two elements are gases at room temperature. In order to describe the behavior of the gases at a particular temperature, the "probability distribution" created by James Clerk Maxwell must be shown to illustrate our point. First, lets read the description of the "probability distribution" of molecular speeds devised by him taken from "Wikipedia":
In statistics the Maxwell–Boltzmann distribution is a particular probability distribution named after James Clerk Maxwell and Ludwig Boltzmann. It was first defined and used in physics (in particular in statistical mechanics) for describing particle speeds in idealized gases where the particles move freely inside a stationary container without interacting with one another, except for very brief collisions in which they exchange energy and momentum with each other or with their thermal environment. Particle in this context refers to gaseous particles (atoms or molecules), and the system of particles is assumed to have reached thermodynamic equilibrium.[1] While the distribution was first derived by Maxwell in 1860 on heuristic grounds,[2] Boltzmann later carried out significant investigations into the physical origins of this distribution.
A particle speed probability distribution indicates which speeds are more likely: a particle will have a speed selected randomly from the distribution, and is more likely to be within one range of speeds than another. The distribution depends on the temperature of the system and the mass of the particle.[3] The Maxwell–Boltzmann distribution applies to the classical ideal gas, which is an idealization of real gases. In real gases, there are various effects (e.g., van der Waals interactions, vortical flow, relativistic speed limits, and quantum exchange interactions) that can make their speed distribution different from the Maxwell–Boltzmann form. However, rarefied gases at ordinary temperatures behave very nearly like an ideal gas and the Maxwell speed distribution is an excellent approximation for such gases. Thus, it forms the basis of the Kinetic theory of gases, which provides a simplified explanation of many fundamental gaseous properties, including pressure and diffusion.[4]
The distribution is very useful in describing the behavior of "ideal gases". In this context, helium is considered an "ideal gas" -- why you might ask? Because one of the properties of the helium molecule is "inertness". What does this mean? Typically, that helium does not react with other gases. On a side note, helium is very useful in carrying out chemical reactions that are "air sensitive." Helium gas is "inert" and serves the purpose of providing an "reactive" free environment in which desired chemicals can be introduced to carry out a chemical reaction. What do I mean by this? In the photograph below, there is a picture of a graduate student carrying out a chemical reaction in a "glove box" which is "air sensitive" -- the atmosphere in this case is Argon -- another "inert gas":
Using an environment of helium or nitrogen or argon is common in any chemistry department in the world.
What does this "probability distribution" look like?
Shown below is the general representation of Maxwell's Distribution of molecular/atomic Speeds:
Source: Pdbailey at English Wikipedia
As you can see, the distribution is greatly dependent on molecular weight. A heavier element like Xenon with a molecular mass of 131.293 grams/mole has a narrow range of speeds (0-500 m/s). Whereas the element Argon has a molecular mass of 40 grams/mole and a broader distribution (0-900 m/s). The lightest of the "Noble gases" is helium with a molecular mass of 4 grams/mole and a broad distribution (0-2500 m/s).
From this information, you should be able to compare the highest speed with that of the escape velocity needed to break the gravitational field from the previous calculations above for a space ship. Additionally, the other variable that determines the shape and location (i.e., the speed) is the temperature. After a brief search "online" I was able to find a good representation of the "probability distribution" dependency on temperature. For a given gas at two different temperatures, "OpenStax" has a great diagram shown below:
Notice how the average speed of the molecule changes along with the top speed (determined by the tail of the distribution length) shown in the colors red and green. At higher temperatures, the distribution gets broad and the top speed is much greater. This is important in understanding how the gases act in the upper atmosphere. Naturally, at this point, you are probably asking yourself, how high would the temperature have to be to eject (play a dominant role) in the escape velocity.
What about temperature?
In order to calculate the temperature needed to provide enough thermal energy to eject a molecule of helium or hydrogen, an expression is needed for the speed of molecules at a given temperature. For this, the analysis of the "probability distribution" (breaking down the nature of the distribution curves) yields a "root-mean-square" speed of the following form:
In order to calculate the temperature, the above expression needs to be rearranged to solve for temperature T as follows:
Plugging in the remaining values for the mass of the Earth, M, the "root-mean-square" speed, and the gas constant, R, yields the following:
That is hot! Does the atmospheric temperature ever reach the above temperature? Hopefully, not -- at least in the lower atmosphere. Further, the temperature does not reach this value along the distribution of height with temperature. Therefore, the only way to obtain enough energy to escape is through interacting in the complex upper atmosphere.
There are a number of factors along with the collisional energy that allow both molecules (hydrogen and helium) to escape. For the purposes of this post, we will focus on the dominant factor -- collision energy.
How does a person visualize this complexity within the atmosphere above them?
Look up into the sky. If the weather calls for a storm, then there will be clouds and just by inspection, the situation does not look good. Clouds help us visualize the complexity going on in the sky at any given moment. The shape gives us insight into the various patterns of wind moving around at various heights. Although, we are not able to perceive the depth of various patterns from the ground. Can we do better?
Sure, watch the weather channel with the satellite images. Shown below is a short video of a satellite image of a storm moving through the Southern California region. Watch how the storm moves across the region.
On the screen, the movement appears to be slow. But, if you had a sensor up in the sky, the situation might appear to be much more chaotic. Why is this realization important? Because, according the the explanation above based on the distribution of speeds of gases at a given temperature, even the lightest gases (hydrogen and helium) lack sufficient energy to overcome the barrier to escape the atmosphere. Naturally, this leads up to the following question:
Where does the remainder of the kinetic energy come from?
I was thinking about this while walking through campus over the last few days. Suddenly, I realized that the complexity in the atmosphere might easily be understood (visually) by looking at the state Lottery. Yes, the lottery. If you take a look at the short video (less than 30 seconds)below of the lottery drawing, you will see a container with balls that are being mixed quite rapidly.
As you can see, there is a large amount of kinetic energy in the system to begin with which is being supplied by the air to mix the balls in the container. When the time comes to draw a ball -- which is indicated by one ball being "ejected" up the center column and held by air to be read by the lottery announcer. The balls in the container could be compared to the atoms and molecules that are being mixed by the wind currents (in addition to the Earth's rotational energy contribution). The Earth rotates at a speed of around
The process of "ejecting" the ball could be analogous to a "chaotic current" in the upper atmosphere which would give the helium molecule enough energy to overcome the remainder of the barrier to the appropriate escape velocity of 7 miles/sec.
One classical thermal escape mechanism is Jeans escape.[1] In a quantity of gas, the average velocity of a molecule is determined by temperature, but the velocity of individual molecules change as they collide with one another, gaining and losing kinetic energy. The variation in kinetic energy among the molecules is described by the Maxwell distribution.
The kinetic energy and mass of a molecule determine its velocity by E_{\mathit{kin}}=\frac{1}{2}mv^2.
Individual molecules in the high tail of the distribution may reach escape velocity, at a level in the atmosphere where the mean free path is comparable to the scale height, and leave the atmosphere.
The more massive the molecule of a gas is, the lower the average velocity of molecules of that gas at a given temperature, and the less likely it is that any of them reach escape velocity.
This is why hydrogen escapes from an atmosphere more easily than carbon dioxide. Also, if the planet has a higher mass, the escape velocity is greater, and fewer particles will escape. This is why the gas giant planets still retain significant amounts of hydrogen and helium, which have largely escaped from Earth's atmosphere. The distance a planet orbits from a star also plays a part; a close planet has a hotter atmosphere, with a range of velocities shifted into the higher end of the distribution, hence, a greater likelihood of escape. A distant body has a cooler atmosphere, with a range of lower velocities, and less chance of escape. This helps Titan, which is small compared to Earth but further from the Sun, retain its atmosphere.
An atmosphere with a high enough pressure and temperature can undergo a different escape mechanism - "hydrodynamic escape". In this situation the atmosphere simply flows off like a wind into space, due to pressure gradients initiated by thermal energy deposition. Here it is possible to lose heavier molecules that would not normally be lost. Hydrodynamic escape has been observed for exoplanets close-to their host star, including several hot Jupiters (HD 209458b, HD 189733b) and a hot Neptune (GJ 436b).
Interestingly enough, the variation of the speeds in the Maxwell distribution are similar to the deficit of Professor Jeans idea regarding the loss of gases to space. According to measurements made after he passed, the escape mechanism (based on thermal energy) cannot account for all of the gas that has escaped the orbit. Therefore, we are left with other mechanisms at play that contribute energy -- known and others that are unknown (i.e. still being researched).
As I mentioned at the beginning of the section regarding the elements hydrogen and helium, the dynamics are complex. Amazingly enough, contributions from insightful physicists such as James Clerk Maxwell and James Jean have withstood the test of time and held up as a significant contribution to evaluating molecular speeds based on temperature, molecular mass, and gravitational pull. How the gravitational system contributes to the escape of the distribution (the tail of the distribution without sufficient energy to obtain escape velocities) remains to be discovered?
Conclusion...
The dynamics are complex in the atmosphere above us. I say that not as an excuse, but a challenge to conquer them in the future. Find out what types of collisional energy contribute the escape velocity of a hydrogen atom. Why do other "heavier" molecules escape sometimes? How do other collisional exchanges contribute -- Rotational energy, Translational energy, etc.? How does the Earth's rotation contribute to the escape velocity of these small molecular systems?
One take-away message is concrete among many uncertain. That is, our ability to send a manned space shuttle into space without problems of breaking the gravitational pull is absolutely amazing. Our technological development has led us to understand the atmosphere to a large extent. As you can see, there is still a lot of room to grow intellectually. This is where each of us come in. We need to continue to opt for funding for space programs. As I will discuss in future posts, many technological developments are created as a result of such research. Until then, keep on learning as much as you possibly can about the world. Have a great weekend.
Why should you study chemistry? That is a question that I hear quite frequently since I work in a chemistry department at a university. That is not surprising you might say. But the reasons why every person should have a grasp of chemistry is surprising. The surprising aspect for people comes when I explain the wide range of areas touched by chemistry research. This explanation usually causes their eyes practically jump out of their sockets. Alright, not really, but their interest is peaked. In the paragraphs below, I take a little tour of the wide range of areas covered/touched by chemistry (which is everything). Specifically, I use a textbook that I have been reading to illustrate the range of areas in life which chemistry contributes to.
Why Chemistry?
As I suggested in my last blog post related to chemistry, people often think that chemists "think differently." Yes, typically, there are people who tend to solve and approach problems in the world by using an analytical skill set. Whereas, there are other people who tend to approach problem solving from an abstract sense. We need both to engage in science. In fact, we need everyone to try to study science in order to figure out if they are interested. Why? Because, chemistry and science touches every aspect of our lives. Do you believe me?
If you are a skeptic about the fact that chemistry touches every aspect of our lives on a daily basis, then read on to the paragraphs below. If you are interested in science, read on below. If you are bored with this post, close this webpage please -- save yourself from being further bored. The other day, I was reading the introductory pages (again) of the book titled "General Chemistry" by the authors: Dr. Donald A. McQuarrie, Dr. Peter A. Rock, and Dr. Ethan B. Gallogly.
At this point, you are probably wondering why I am reading a textbook after I have graduated with a Ph.D.?
One of the many fascinations of science (for me) is the ability to communicate science very succinctly. I am working on a daily basis to improve my skill. Technology has progressed greatly over the past few decades and the graphics and images that are contained in general chemistry textbooks today is mind boggling. Add that to the explanation of a distinguished author such as Dr. Donald McQuarrie and you have a very pleasurable read.
Of course, the process of returning to read a textbook takes time. There are mental battles to be fought while reading any textbook -- or any book for that matter. Each of us are human and distinct. Therefore, the commonality that authors of chemistry textbooks have is to teach the fundamentals of chemistry. That is not always completely separable from infusing opinions or explanations that are define us personally. Therefore, reading a wide range of chemistry and science books is critical to engaging with the science community at large. Why?
Different explanations, examples used in textbooks, materials highlighted or skipped is important. By reading books, one gets a sense of how relevant each section in chemistry is by seeing the illustrations, examples, and explanations. Without further ado, why don't we find out the answer to the following question: Why Should You Study Chemistry?
Here is an excerpt from "General Chemistry 4th Edition" by Prof. Donald McQuarrie below:
Chemistry is the study of the properties of substances and how they react with one another. Chemical substances and chemical reactions pervade all aspects of the world around us. The new substances formed in reactions have properties different from those of the substances that reacted with one another, properties that chemists can predict and put to use. Hundreds of materials that we use everyday, directly and indirectly, are products of chemical research (Figure 1.1).
The examples of useful products of chemical reactions are limitless. The development of fertilizers, one of the major focuses of the chemical industry, has profoundly affected agricultural production. Equally important is the pharmaceutical industry. Who among us has not taken an antibiotic to cure an infection or used a drug to alleviate the pain associated with dental work, an accident, or surgery? Modern medicine, which rests firmly upon chemistry, has increased our life expectancy by about 18 years since 1920's. It is hard to believe that, little over a century ago, many people died from simple infections.
Perhaps the chemical products most familiar to us are plastics. About 50% of industrial chemists are involved with the development and production of plastics. The United States alone produces over 50 million metric tons (110 billion pounds) of plastics a year, some 5 billion kilograms (11 billion pounds) of which are synthetic fibers used in bed sheets, clothing, backpacks, shoes, and other woven materials. This corresponds to about 160kg (350 lb) of plastics and 16 kg (35 lb) of synthetic fibers per person living in the United States per year. Names such as nylon, polyethylene, Formica, Saran, Teflon, Hollofil, Gore-Tex, polyester, Nalgene, PVC, and silicone are familiar to us in our homes, our clothing, and the activities of our daily life. Chemistry also underlies the products that make our daily life possible--computer chips, paper, fuels, cement, liquid, crystal displays, detergents, magnetic storage media, refrigerants, batteries, scents, flavorings, preservatives, paint, ceramics, solar cells, and cosmetics, to name only a few. In addition, metals such as steel, lightweight alloys of titanium and aluminum, and materials made from carbon fivers make possible modern ships, automobiles,a aircraft, and satellites.
Chemistry is also needed for a study and understanding of our environment. Unfortunately, a great many people today have a fear of chemicals, owing in part to the legacy of various pesticides such as DDT, chemical contamination of waterways, and air pollution. However, an understanding of these problems and their solutions also comes from the study of the chemistry involved. Biodegradable packing materials, hydrogen fuel cells, recyclable carpeting, and non-ozone-depleting refrigerants are just some of the new environmentally friendly "green" substances being developed by today's chemists.
It is remarkable that all chemicals are built up from only about 100 different basic units, called atoms. Atomic theory pictures substances as atoms, or groups of atoms, joined together into units called molecules and ions. You will start by exploring atomic theory, then go onto study chemical bonding and chemical reactions, and then learn to do calculations involving chemical reactions. You will learn to make predictions about what reactions take place, under what conditions they take place, and how quickly they take place; what substances are produced in these reactions; and what the structure, properties, and behavior of these substances will be. You will learn the chemistry behind many of the materials and processes we have already mentioned. We are confident that you will find your study of chemistry both interesting and enjoyable.
The many reasons contained in the above excerpt could keep you thinking about chemistry for quite a while. Simply thinking critically about the role of chemistry in each of the areas listed would require a large amount of mental space. I will let you think about this for a while. On a parallel thought, I would like to highlight an excerpt out of the above to illustrate the importance of scientific research. Additionally, these excerpts could add to my previous posts regarding the importance of funding science, and contributing to science indirectly by engaging in citizen science.
I really like the above excerpt in whole. Although, certain parts stood out more than others for me. One in particular was the following:
Chemistry is also needed for a study and understanding of our environment. Unfortunately, a great many people today have a fear of chemicals, owing in part to the legacy of various pesticides such as DDT, chemical contamination of waterways, and air pollution. However, an understanding of these problems and their solutions also comes from the study of the chemistry involved.
This illustrates the need for everyone to at least be exposed to chemistry. At the same time, typical exposure times (high school, college, etc.) might not be the correct time to force the subject on people. Therefore, each of us should try to understand our environment. During that process, each of us find the level of technical understanding at which we are comfortable with. Sometimes without knowing any previous information about a subject, a person will find that their interests and "self-guided" research (online, in libraries) has exceeded the requirement for students studying the subject (as a major in college for instance) in college or professionally.
Furthermore, in the process of understanding the problems and possible solutions, more might appear. Is this a bad thing? Not at all -- unless you are a business "research and design" team working on a deadline. What is great about the discovery of new problems and solutions during the process of looking deeply into a research problem is that a tremendous amount of advancement is made. People do not typically regard this as true.
More often than not, students and professional researchers will "huff and puff" around the laboratory in frustration with this new found "barrier" toward progress of moving forward in mind. When in fact, they might have discovered an unknown obstacle for the field at large. In fact, many scientists at that time might be thinking of the same impediment holding up their progress. Instead of beating yourself up, try to find the utility in that result.
That Is Chemistry Research?
People are constantly amazed when they read the above excerpt from "General Chemistry" and typically respond with a comment like ... "That is chemistry research? ... Wow, I had no idea?" All the while I am waiting to ask the question: "What did you think was chemistry related research?" A variety of answers follow and too many to comment on here.
Did you consider this field to be chemistry research? The ability to produce a valuable and durable grinding wheel is difficult. As mentioned in the video, the researchers are coming at the problem from the standpoint of producing a product that has a very predictable degradation rate. That means that once the machinist or operator puts the grinding wheel to use, the product will grind for a long period of time before becoming "dull." Sandpaper is only useful if the "grinding action" is prolonged in order to get the job done -- sand that cabinet or finish the wood on that project in the garage.
This approach is much different than looking at the problem from the standpoint of the operator -- the consumer standpoint. As highlighted in the video, the research does not consider if the grinding wheel vibrates excessively. Although, if the operator has to rest (for an unusually long period of time) or sustains a long term injury, the product has not helped advance the field.
If the product injures the consumer, then the research behind the product needs to include the consumer!
Large corporations have enough capital (cash reserves) to do large scale testing to ensure the quality of their product right? Or our Federally funded Regulatory Agencies should be able to inspect the ingredients inside the product to ensure a high quality and safe product for the consumer -- right?
What if these same consumers knew that chemicals added to their food had not been reviewed for safety by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)? As the Natural Resources Defense Council made clear two years ago, 56 food additive makers chose to avoid FDA’s scrutiny by taking advantage of a loophole in the law for “Generally Recognized as Safe” (GRAS) substances. They purposely chose not to be transparent by keeping secret the safety evaluation conducted by their employees or consultants. These companies appear to make only a few of the estimated 1000 chemicals that FDA has not checked for safety or is aware they exist.
In February, we learned that 51% of consumers think that safety means not only that a product is free of harmful ingredients but that its labeling is clear and accurate. Forty-seven percent want clear information on ingredients and sourcing. With this in mind, it’s fair to assume that consumers also expect that all food chemicals are safe and known to the FDA. Many consumers would likely not buy products where the labeling failed to disclose that the food they serve their families contained ingredients the FDA has admitted it “cannot vouch for their safety".
There is a need for the regulatory agencies to hire more chemists, biologists, physicists, medical doctors to find out solutions to these problems. At least go through and test all of the chemicals that the public feel are "safe" or assume that the regulatory agencies have checked. This issue will not be solved tomorrow. The point is that the range of chemical research is vast. There is a large need for people in the science fields and those closely related to them.
Furthermore, as consumers, we should be demanding that large corporations offer up a greater amount of the toxicology data regarding ingredients that are used in their products. Sourcing of the ingredients in a given product should be a commonplace, not just inside a court room battle where the shield of "proprietary blend" stands between us and safety. Chemists can provide answers along with other areas of science to the problem. Of course, money needs to be flowing to solve this problem, along with others listed above. Money and understanding are the two greatest barriers against progress.
As voters, we should be able to direct money toward projects we deem important. This requires each of us to be "informed" about the matter at hand -- which includes the science behind the problem.
Conclusion...
Where do we go from here? As you can see, chemistry touches every aspect of our lives. From the listing and the video along with the excerpt from the "Environment Defense Fund," some areas touch our daily lives more than others. The need for an informed public is tremendous. The problem cannot be overstated.
At the same time, reading the above excerpts and watching the video should invoke a sense of fascination with chemistry. If not chemistry, science is amazing and is composed up of a wide range of fields. The problems that need to be solved are vast. Which problem are you going to tackle? Do you have a solution to any listed above? If so, tell me in the comments below. Has this article inspired you to read about science? If so, tell me in the comments below.
Regardless, if you have a renewed interest or have grown a new interest after reading this article, I would be super happy. Science is great. I do not have to convince you of this fact. Science attracts those interested. Until next time, have a great day.
