Saturday, May 30, 2015
from Geochemistry News -- ScienceDaily http://ift.tt/1cpDbzH
Friday, May 29, 2015
from Geochemistry News -- ScienceDaily http://ift.tt/1K066I9
from Geochemistry News -- ScienceDaily http://ift.tt/1AD2SIv
from Geochemistry News -- ScienceDaily http://ift.tt/1HRWhN6
Thursday, May 28, 2015
Using recovery methods, oil production in Mexico would increase by nearly 800 thousand barrels per day
from Geochemistry News -- ScienceDaily http://ift.tt/1FQ0sXo
Wednesday, May 27, 2015
from Geochemistry News -- ScienceDaily http://ift.tt/1J2q7yE
from Geochemistry News -- ScienceDaily http://ift.tt/1Fh73q4
There’s something interesting brewing over at the Royal Society of Chemistry.
They’ve been beavering away trying to figure out what the (UK) public thinks for chemistry, chemicals and chemists.
And of course we’ll have all the analysis right here.
from Chemistry Blog http://ift.tt/1KoHKpL
from Geochemistry News -- ScienceDaily http://ift.tt/1GDJnk5
Tuesday, May 26, 2015
from Geochemistry News -- ScienceDaily http://ift.tt/1AsKUIW
from Geochemistry News -- ScienceDaily http://ift.tt/1GBto6k
from Geochemistry News -- ScienceDaily http://ift.tt/1dvtG3k
from Geochemistry News -- ScienceDaily http://ift.tt/1FBgVgS
Monday, May 25, 2015
from Geochemistry News -- ScienceDaily http://ift.tt/1ApGBhH
from Geochemistry News -- ScienceDaily http://ift.tt/1Kv0O8Q
Friday, May 22, 2015
from Geochemistry News -- ScienceDaily http://ift.tt/1ITHxvK
Thursday, May 21, 2015
from Geochemistry News -- ScienceDaily http://ift.tt/1PzjmbF
from Geochemistry News -- ScienceDaily http://ift.tt/1Lg2pfB
from Geochemistry News -- ScienceDaily http://ift.tt/1cQnrGz
from Geochemistry News -- ScienceDaily http://ift.tt/1Lg2pfB
When traveling, I always make a point to explore local science museums. I look for engaging exhibits that explain scientific concepts in informative and fun ways. One such exhibit at the Science Museum of Minnesota asks participants to create carbon nanotubes using foam connectors. A few friends and I used our advanced degrees to produce the example shown below (sorry for the potato quality).
The exhibit engaged people of all ages in different ways. Just behind the exhibit you can see the little guy who, moments after the picture was taken, learned all about tearing carbon nanotubes apart while deploying a rather impressive Godzilla impression.
Since becoming a teacher I have a new appreciation for science museum exhibits. They are a literal manifestation of Einstein’s philosophy: “If you can’t explain it to a six year old, you don’t understand it yourself.” The best exhibits make the explanation entertaining too.
So, towards the end of this spring semester when my general chemistry students requested an extra credit assignment, I knew exactly what to assign. I asked them to take one of the concepts they learned in general chemistry and create a science museum exhibit to explain it.
The assignment allowed unlimited space and budget. I was less concerned about reality and much more interested in seeing their knowledge and creativity. In the end I was blown away by their creations and would like to share a few.
The above exhibit, created by Taylor Trammell, showcases intermolecular dipole-dipole interactions. Her display contains many magnets–representing molecules–with two opposing sides, one positively charged (north pole) and one negatively charged (south pole). All of the magnets/molecules are free to rotate, except for one. Museum visitors can press a button and control the orientation of that one ‘molecule’. As it’s orientation changes, the other ‘molecules’ will reorientation to maximize dipole-dipole interactions and minimize the energy within the solvent.
A visitor could also walk up to the board with a strong bar magnet and introduce only it’s north or south pole of the magnet-filled board. That would represent the solvation of cations or anions through ion-dipole interactions. Taylor may not know it, but she found a fun way to introduce the solvent reorganization associated with Marcus Electron Transfer Theory.
Collision Theory Booth-
According to the Collision Theory of Reactivity, for a chemical reaction to occur the molecules must: 1) collide, 2) have enough energy to make and break bonds, and 3) have the correct orientation when they collide. Emily Nabong demonstrates these rules of engagement through a museum exhibit that repurposes an amusement park throwing booth. Instead of milk jugs or balloons, the target is a Velcro-covered molecule. And instead of baseballs or darts, visitors throw ‘molecules’ with different geometries and Velcro coverage at the target.
If the molecule is thrown with too little momentum or too little accuracy it will not hit the board (collide). Also, if the molecule hits the board with the wrong Velcro alignment it won’t ‘stick’ (correct orientation). The ‘reaction’ will only occur if the molecule is thrown hard enough and with the right orientation.
Amorphous vs Crystalline Solids
Miranda Ave introduced an interactive “build your own solid” exhibit that demonstrates the difference between amorphous and crystalline solids. It’s comprised of two building stations. The first station offers Magnetix (below left), which have curved connectors representing bonds and metal spheres representing atoms. The second station offers Tinker Toys (below right) with only one rod length (bonds) and wood circles that connect at 90° positions (atoms).
Any structure built with the Magnetix will lack long-range order like in an amorphous solid. In contrast, a structure built with the restricted connectivity of the Tinker Toys will have a continuous, repeating pattern like those observed in crystalline solids.
Tearing apart these structures will also help demonstrate differences between amorphous and crystalline solids. Tinker Toys break apart in a ridged manner along cleavage lines while Magnetix structures break in random places.
The building station will also be accompanied by a display with both crystalline and amorphous solids as well as an atomic picture of their structures.
Both Gabby Vega (below left) and Erum Kidwai (below right) proposed races between liquids to demonstrate differences in viscosity. They envisioned racetracks with several lanes, each labeled with a molecular structure. Museum goers would pick their ‘horse’ or lane and then watch as liquids ‘race’ down the track. Afterwards, each solution would be unveiled and the intermolecular forces dictating the viscosity and flow rates of the liquids would be explained.
Boyle, Lussac and Avogadro -
Jessica Metzger’s museum exhibit set out to teach people about the relationship between temperature, volume, number of moles of a gas, and pressure. She proposed three different interactive stations. The first (left) contains a cylinder connected to a pressure gauge with a plunger that can be pushed or pulled. When the plunger is pushed (or pulled) and the pressure increases (or decreases), the reading on the pressure gauge will increase (or decrease) just as predicted by Boyle’s law.
The second cylinder (middle) is completely enclosed and placed on top of a heating element. When the visitors press the button a red light will turn on indicating that the chamber is being heated. As the temperature increases, the pressure will increase in accordance with Lussac’s law.
The third cylinder (right) will be taller than the other two with a lid that can move up or down without allowing gas molecules to escape. The station will be equipped with a button that, when pushed, releases compressed air into the cylinder. So, when the button is pressed, the metal lid will move up and increase the cylinder’s volume to accommodate the newly introduced gas molecules (Avogadro’s Law).
Electronegativity and polarity -
Carolin Hoeflich proposed an exhibit to introduce the concept of electronegativity and polarity. The exhibit includes a table with a soft foam cover and blocks representing the elements. The blocks are weighted so that electronegative elements are heavier. Museum-goers can arrange the blocks into molecular structures before dumping marbles–representing electrons–onto the table’s surface. The heavier elements will sink deeper into the foam and therefore ‘attract’ a larger number of marbles. When stepping back and looking at the structure as a whole, museum-goers will see that more marbles = more electronegativity. It’s also a fun way to visualize the dipole moment of a structure.
Osmosis touch screen-
Hunter Hamilton introduced a touch screen exhibit to demonstrate the principles of osmosis and osmotic pressure. Visitors will use the screen to create an environment with more or less ions (red spheres) and one of three possible ‘membrane’ options: 1) no membrane, 2) permeable to water but not ions, and 3) permeable to water and ions. Once all selections are made, the visitors presses GO and observes which direction water and ions move in their environment.
Le Châtelier’s Principle-
Another touch screen exhibit, by Kelly Wyland, covers Le Châtelier’s Principle. Her screen displays an equilibrium with colors assigned to the reactants and products. It then asks users to predict the color change upon perturbation. After a prediction is made, the screen will show an animation that adds or removes reagents from the reaction mixture’s beaker. The color change of the solution will coincide with the concentration shifts to reach equilibrium.
Reaction Coordinate Slide -
I’ve saved the largest and most interactive exhibit for last. Nathan Horvat designed an exhibit with two slides that represent an exothermic and endothermic reaction coordinate diagrams. Children (maybe adults?) would start on the platform in the middle (as reactants) and climb one of two ladders representing the activation energy to the transition state before sliding down to the landing pads (products).
The ladder/slide to the left (or right) is for an endothermic (or exothermic) reaction because the end point is higher (or lower) in energy than the starting point. One thing that I found fun about this exhibit is that, while viewing it in action, you’d likely notice more children choosing the exothermic slide because the endothermic one requires more work for less return. In a statistical fashion, the children would find the product that’s more thermodynamically favorable.
from Chemistry Blog http://ift.tt/1F3xyiL
Wednesday, May 20, 2015
from Geochemistry News -- ScienceDaily http://ift.tt/1FD08ND
from Geochemistry News -- ScienceDaily http://ift.tt/1dl4i0l
from Geochemistry News -- ScienceDaily http://ift.tt/1c5qHNB
from Geochemistry News -- ScienceDaily http://ift.tt/1ILuUEo
from Geochemistry News -- ScienceDaily http://ift.tt/1F1Koy4
from Geochemistry News -- ScienceDaily http://ift.tt/1HtbpgK
Tuesday, May 19, 2015
from Geochemistry News -- ScienceDaily http://ift.tt/1L7a2VH
from Geochemistry News -- ScienceDaily http://ift.tt/1L7a2VB
from Geochemistry News -- ScienceDaily http://ift.tt/1IJyYVM
It dawned on me that no one cared. The proteins that I found so fascinating just didn’t seem to intrigue them as much as they did me. I thought the video of water molecules flipping as they passed through the channel of aquaporin was marvellous. But it hardly gleaned a reaction from the sea of faces staring blankly out at me.
I left the lecture theatre and trudged back to my office. Wondering what was to be done with the course I’d tinkered with for years and never been happy with. Maybe it was time to just stop tinkering, throw it all away and start afresh?
The thought drifted away as I flicked through the, not insignificant, pile of emails that had dropped into my mail box during my brief absence from my desk. Top of the list was request to review a grant proposal.
And then inspiration struck, I could get my students to write grant proposals! That way they could explore the ideas and material that they are interested in without having my predilection for Major Intrinsic Proteins foisted on them.
So I set about a total revamping of the course.
- The lectures slides went in the bin.
Well actually they got turned into screencasts. But they might as well have gone in the bin, because the students don’t watch them.
- I gave the students examples of grant proposals that I’d written (ones that had got good reviews, even if they hadn’t been funded ).
- I supplied them with a load of references to papers that contained neat ideas.
- And I gave a lecture with avenues of research that I thought were intriguing.
- Then I provided them with a slightly altered version of a research council’s form and told them to complete it i.e they had to write a case for support, lay summary, justification for resources etc.
- They worked in groups of 6-7 and set about their tasks.
- The rest of the lectures I turned up to check on how things were going, guide the projects, tell them what I thought might work or not etc.
- And come the end of the course I marked the proposals based on genuine research council criteria AND each group peer reviewed 3 other proposals using the same criteria. Group members also gave an effort mark to each other (so free loaders didn’t get an easy ride). And the final mark was made up from an amalgamation of my mark, the peer review and the inter-group mark.
The results were great. Some really fabulous ideas sprung up. I’ve had students ask me if they can actually work on their research projects during their final year dissertations, and I bet some of proposals would have made the quality cut off in real funding rounds.
Right, enough from me, I’ve just come across a great idea for a project I need to get into the next funding round.
from Chemistry Blog http://ift.tt/1HsauQF
Monday, May 18, 2015
from Geochemistry News -- ScienceDaily http://ift.tt/1HqsdIf
from Geochemistry News -- ScienceDaily http://ift.tt/1LdRkwe
from Geochemistry News -- ScienceDaily http://ift.tt/1LdRmUN
from Geochemistry News -- ScienceDaily http://ift.tt/1PQTq5S
Friday, May 15, 2015
from Geochemistry News -- ScienceDaily http://ift.tt/1HlzRDu