When I saw you celebrating the dark sludge left in your filter at the end of the last video, I was wondering if that was really the product you were looking for. Sad to hear that it didn't turn out to be cubane
If you do end up getting a good sample it'll 100% be more impressive then these needs. You're basically some goblin who broke into a shed to do some chemistry
I was juat watching his "Should you trust NileRed" video yesterday, glad to see the chemtubers bringing a lot of good discussion to the table on what to believe and how to verify All that's missing now is for Nigel to do a "Can we trust That Chemist" and the cycle will be complete
Imagine making chemistry puns… they’re pretty basic if you ask me. I’m glad I didn’t become the kind of person who makes them. I considered it at one point, but in the end I said “Sodium”
Now THIS is what I'm talking about ! Using non-existent Beef as sorta-Ragebait and then actually explaining proper scientific procedures and improving the UA-cam Chemistry Community by making an impossible to deny suggestion, which everyone benefits from. This is the sort of "Um, Actually" I love.
The first part of the video seems like he is mercilessly ripping into him, only to see him be like super kind and look at his results, and find that the cubane is infact cubane, and is not really that harsh at all when he sees that the Geosmin doesn't seem to be present, at least not in significant concentration.
I'm taking my ochem lab right now, and learning more about 1H NMR is awesome! I was given a supposedly "pure" NMR chart to determine a compound, and I noticed that the CH3 peaks didn't exactly align with the supposed correct structure. Now I know it's because of the impurities!
@@LouisTherouxOfficial it helps with splitting and other components that go into NMR analysis, typically they use Pascal's triangle to undergrads to help teach them NMR in chemistry
UA-cam becoming an acceptable source of published literature could be great for the scientific community long-term. Thank you so much for working to standardize systems of practice and providing evidence. You’re both building trust and understanding of science in the public as well as making science literature more freely accessible to everyone
It is crazy to me how research has not yet developed outside of rigid copies of text. We are already seeing AiChats becoming more competent at interpreting research than seasoned researchers, at least at a higher speed. I believe the way of research presentation will surely change in the coming few years, the current form of research is just not adequate with the current technological capabilities.
I feel like it would be a great boon to science communication and science in general if it became the accepted standard practice to do some kind of videography of research posted in a publicly accessible place online. All of the chemistry, biology, medicine, metallurgy, robotics, engineering, materials science, anything even remotely filmable. Rather than only doing research papers and maybe including a few pictures or short videos at best in the paper, and at worst a description of pictures or videos the researchers took but neglected to include. And for the more adventurous researchers do livestreams of your stuff if you wanted to. Like how that one lab livestreamed themselves trying to recreate the LK-99 process a few months back.
Should be marked with the no. of likes, or a notice thats it is real information, since youtube likes to disseminate misinformation / look the other way if it gets millions on views.
@@Deutschebahn Oh, I never noticed that it is Nile - like river, not Neil. Apparently channel name is Nile red - organic dye which is synthesized from Nile blue another dye. It all makes sense now...
Love to see the analytical confirmation of the cubane synthesis. But oh god please don't send any more chemical samples to random patreons before proper analysis
@@gcewing It's Ophthalmic VIS-Spectrophotometry, to be precise. The other methods at the analyst's disposal are Olfactory Gas Chromatography and Gustatory Liquid Chromatography. Oftentimes the results are as follows: off-white substance with a characteristic smell and unpleasant taste.
Personally i would very much like it if there was more analysis in chem youtube video's to confirm the thing synthesized is the actual thing, would be cool to have a section of the video on the discussion of what went wrong in the synthesis. I know my chemistry teachers love scrutinizing my work so why not let the viewers do the same?
Watching this video made me recall my 1st year of PhD. My PI (a postdoc) misassigned the structure because he "made the compound before". I struggled with that project for a whole year. Only when I carefully analyzed the NMR data again, I found that my PI missed one crucial peak in 13C-NMR. Thanks to my senior, I could obtain the XRD and confirmed that my PI was wrong and changed the project's direction. After that, my PI quitted immediately, left me be in deep sh*t. It took me 2 more years (3 years in total) to finish that project which could have been done in much shorter time. I was still mad when I had to include his name in the published manuscript because my advisor want to "recognize his contribution". So, I am totally agree with you about the importance of characterizing your compounds.
I think reporting like this for "big" results (meme molecules like cubane) is a good idea, but I wouldn't want extra cost, labor, and time to discourage chemtubers from making entertaining content that gets most of the facts right. Like I don't think Tom really needs to be mailing nitrotetrazoles across the ocean to be considered legitimate.
In this case I feel like as its a fairly tricky molecule to synthesise and the data given was virtually nothing its fair to expect actual analysis if we're to take the results seriously in any way
I had an absolutely horrible AP Chem teacher in high school and i thought that had ruined chem for me, but the youtube chemistry community has been reviving the fascination i had when i was super young. Thank you for explaining things so thoroughly, and prioritizing building community ❤
I'm happy to see these NMR's. Chemiolis sometimes report yields greater than literature, which always makes me suspicous regarding purity/"dryness" of his samples. But it's still cool that he made cubane. It's a molecule that will always fascinate me :D
It’s pretty rare for me to have yields better than literature, but some synths in the cubane did, which I all thoroughly dried unlike many other intermediate products. If the yield is higher and I didn’t dry, I do say that it is still wet.
Okay I literally had this idea a few months back that as institutional science becomes more and more about acquiring grants, the amount of new interesting science that can get done becomes limited. But as individual hobbyist scientists are more supported and motivated by popular audiences it may be the case that eventually interesting research science is partially done in the hobbyist community. But this is a step extra than I expected. It’s very interesting cause it’s very much a return to the pre-institutional era of people inventing chemistry in their home labs. Implementing peer review into this process makes it so real. Maybe that discord server is the beginning of a new academy of sciences 😂
The establishment keeps most of the most used organic chem basic ingredients list out of the reach of the people. Unis, labs for big pharma, with big lobbying budgets, and "gubmint research facilities"! This is the reason we got Tom. Try to make stuff with otc ingredients, not having to show your papers........😮😊
This has nothing to do with peer review. Whatever criticism you can make about journals, the incentives on youtube are 1000x more perverse. Also, grants are very good. It's a direct funding of fundamental science that wouldn't otherwise happen. It takes a special kind of ignorance to suggest that trivial pop-science could replace that research.
In what world can a hobbyist afford to do the science that supposedly the ''institutes'' are 24/7 needing to acquire research grants for? That makes no sense at all. And which hobbyist is gonna work at this 40h a week?
I'm all for improving the rigor of chemtuber experiments, however we have to be careful we don't raise the bar so high that it intimidates beginners and new entrants. Last I checked it was $80 for a local lab to run a single 1H-NMR. That expense might be worth it for bigger channels or for big projects like cubane. But most of the time, chemtubers are following well-trodden syntheses, and as long as rough properties and TLC check out, that's probably good enough for most things. Unless you want to start a That Analyst channel where all you do is analyse samples sent in by other tubers (and playfully trash talk their sample purity)
Yeah. Also don't forget there are chemists from other countries which wouldn't have access to such things (like Ukraine these days). This "we need analysis for a Yt video" sounds like filtering on the newcomers and the ones don't have money to do such analysis, and the starting of some chemist royal monopoly to me.
@@hyoenmadan I mean, it's obviously nowhere as necessary for the very well known synthesis routes most novices would use. If something is already proven to work ad nauseam and maybe even rather simple I think everyone is very OK with lesser proof. Not to forget - A more or less surefire way to confirm the success of a hard/novel/etc synthesis with high level evidence isn't just important in context of the community, but of high importance for the performing chemists themselves after all. If you don't know if you were successful you don't know you were successful ...
I think the key is in what you are claiming vs the evidence you have. If you don't have the evidence, you shouldn't make the claim. That doesn't mean you shouldn't try the process, though. Just say, "I tried making substance A according to the recipe from paper D. I did steps K, L, M, and N, and saw X, Y, and Z." I believe I stumbled across Chemiolis' video (though I'm not really into Chemistry and don't care about cubane at all) and it just screamed "unverified claims" to me. It's good to have some confirmation through the test in this video, though it also shows the other synthesis failed, thus emphasizing the need for the confirmation.
Damn this was a whole-ass journal in a video. I agree we should assess the validity, and I appreciate that you were willing to put forth the money to help this creator get it done. I don't even do chemistry, and I barely understand it, but I never thought of the idea that you guys could just completely be bullshitting us and the thought of that makes this video just that much more important. Also, the entire time I was watching this I was like "so is this all because the guy didn't do it right?" You had me at the edge of my fucking seat, dude. NEVER thought I would see a ChemTuber video that had so much tension and drama. It's almost like watching a Thriller.
I feel like Chemistry UA-cam™ has kind of evolved with this series, there's now like,,, straight-up direct peer review and replication studies being carried out
As a pharmacist that's a bit nuts for orgchem and have been through some organic synthesis before, I can say that it's so satisfying to see what I studied and also experienced being revalidated in a video (also can say I'm a big fan of the 3 chemists that were mentioned in this video), and I hope y'all keep up with this great quality work!
I used to work in academic and then pharma laboratories, and we had all of these analytic techniques (NMR, Mass-Spec, HPLC) available to us. But what is an amateur chemist to do? The history of amateur chemistry is rich with people who made great discoveries despite not having access to modern analytical methods. I watch Chemiolis, and applaud him for his attempts even while I know his results are not firm.
Yeah.. With the whole list might just as well publish the vid as an academic paper. It should really depend on what it is you're claiming you have made and how and if you can demonstrate it reacting like its supposed to. Say if you make acetone does it do stuff acetone does..
I'm just waiting for Applied Science to release a tutorial vid on how someone can make their own NMR tester at home using off the shelf components and things you can buy from "totally not sketchy" Ebay sellers.
@@theKashConnoisseur There was a project in the April 1959 edition of the Scientific American, "How amateurs can build a simple magnetic-resonance spectrometer". The electronics need an update, of course.
I'm fully on board with all of this. I'd love to join your discord for guidance. I finally started posting my projects I've been doing for the past 6yr and I'm just figuring out how to film things properly. Maybe when I get my views over 5k I'll be invited into the club
@@That_Chemist Great video, it often bugged me when people said they made something without evidence. I had a project in my undergrad where I made a fluorescent derivative and was fully convinced that I had the right product, after 1H NMR it turned out that it was just hydrolyzed reagent which had the same color and fluorescence 🥲
You briefly touched on this, but I'll hit it a little harder because it's kinda important: cost. If you're making 300 Hz NMR available for free to all, that's awesome, and kudos! To accomplish this, you have several instruments staffed and cooled* full time. If you're not, you kinda need to explain how people are going to get access to this at a cost that doesn't dwarf the cost they're already incurring to do the thing. NMR is the most egregiously costly of the things you named, but the prices of a hyphenated mass spec instruments are also eye-watering, even if their upkeep isn't. Is this a thing like time on telescopes that astronomers arrange? * using liquid nitrogen, at a cost per liter about like milk, and liquid helium, at a cost per liter about like good scotch. That's quite a grocery bill, even assuming you got the working instruments for free.
I'd love to do amateur chemistry myself, but: 1.) Cost (as stated in the vid): it can be hella expensive. For some reagents, you can't just cheap out on them. Also, some reagents... not that easy to get, and you gotta jump through some hoops. 2.) Space (not sure if stated): You need a little bit more room than a... meth shed to do some good chemistry. I'm kinda tight on space. I tell ya though, that TLC/CC brought back nightmares when I was doing protein synthesis in college for my degree. It was always a sigh of relief when things worked, but, when they didn't work, it killed your spirit/soul to start over.
This is fantastic. While the formal criteria proposed here are expensive for some UA-cam chemists, there are simpler things one can also do, such as melting point for crystalline solids, that are cheap and easy. Even a simple TLC from before and after, showing the starting materials having reacted away is useful. In the end it's about the effort to at least do some validation that is important.
I think this is very a very important video and that the chemist community on YT should adopt some advices you gave. And I dont think so because of trust issues or for being confident on nature of the product obtain as I’m not an organician chemist and I only watch these videos for entertainment. BUT, as a chemist, I still feel like there is a huge issue on the serious of other chemists at some point. Even for published articles. So, for educational purposes I think adding full analysis spectrum and identification would be great.
I watch Tom because he is completely unhinged and yells obscenities at yellow things. Since everything he does on Extractions&Ire are related to Explosions&Fire the analysis method "it blew up!" is good enough for me..... But I guess that's just what happens when old artillerymen watch chemistry youtube.
Fun fact: an Aussie may instead receive a Sydney Award, Melbourne Award, Adelaide Award or Perth Award if they don't happen to be from the Northern Territory.
@@GameboygeniusA Perth Award may also be given to someone from Scotland as well as, say, an Edinburgh Award, a Glasgow Award, an Inverness Award, or a Stirling Award.
Doing my algorithms homework while watching this. the perks of staying up all night! QUESTION FOR MR CHEMIST: I was looking into cubane substituted for benzene in various medicinal products. Is cubanes potential benefit overstated or is it really something to be more common place in the future of drug design?
I think there are places for cubanes in drug design. If you have a molecule that sucks, swapping a benzene for a cubane is unlikely to give a huge benefit. However, including cubanes in early stages of drug development (i.e. having cubane building blocks in fragment/screening libraries) is where I think the biggest benefit comes from. If you're more interested, I suggest looking up a series of papers called "Escaping Flatland"
I honestly was along for the ride that Explosions&Fire/Extractions&Ire was on to synthesize cubane for the entertainment, I barely have any knowledge in basic chemistry, I just find the process to figure out the steps interesting to listen to. This peer review is also pretty interesting.
An home lab cannot afford the expenses of NMR, MS and elemental analysis. For this reason, the home chemist should calibrate his research according to his personal situation, both economic and instrumental. Ergo, in an homelab, you cannot prepare new products.
One small complaint: HPLC itself is just the separation technique. That doesnt really tell you anything about how the sample was analyzed. Sure HPLC-MS is very common, but it could also be HPLC-UV-vis or HPLC-AAS for all we know.
In 20 years of doing analytical chemistry, I’ve never heard anyone use HPLC to imply merely separation, but I have heard and have used countless times HPLC as a generalization for an array of potential analyses which use a liquid mobile phase. For I ran VOCs by Purge & Trap for many years, but when talking about it I didn’t say Volatile Organic Compounds by Purge and Trap Gas Chromatography Quadrupole or Ion Trap Mass Spectrometry or even P&T GCMS. I would simply say VOCs or Purge & Trap. The rest was implied. That’s because you’re either talking to someone who likely already know or you’re putting someone to sleep (or ruining a date… don’t ask me how I know that one). If you really want to split hairs even quadrupoles or ion traps are simply means of separation, so what then? Do we need to specify the type of multiplier or analyzer or maybe the software? The context with which he used HPLC was fine. The content was obviously more about NMR… Not that I think its at all practical to have UA-camrs spending the kind of money that would be charged to have their characterizations done by NMR… Cool? Yes… Practical? Idk… Maybe just get it run by LCMS/MS or GCMS/MS… The results will be more quantitatively accurate while still providing a reasonably high level of certainty. True characterization gets expensive and somewhat an art form as much as a science.
@@alexjensen990 I did not mean it as a separation technique how a synthesis chemist would see it. All I wanted to point out, that what kind of detector you use with our HPLC system is a very important detail I would not leave out.
24:01 So you talk about trust in science and I agree that this is very important, but there are a lot of ways for people to get around this like using NMR spectra directly from the literature, or if they have enough money just buying the chemicals. I like the idea of verifying UA-cam chemistry, but I’m worried it could cause a lot of imbalance based on where people live, what access to advanced technology they have, and also just how rich they are. Since these are all problems that already plague the amateur chemistry community I’m not sure how I would feel about widening that gap with further standards. However if you could come up with a way of rectifying that inequity I would be all for that.
Other chemists: make wild shit That Chemist: stories about safety, tier lists, memes Other chemists: he ain't real chemist! That Chemist: WHAT THE FUCK DID YOU JUST FUCKING SAY ABOUT ME YOU LITTLE UNDERGRAD? I'LL HAVE YOU KNOW I GRADUATED TOP OF MY CLASS IN AN ACTUAL CHEMISTRY UNIVERSITY AND I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN NUMEROUS SYNTHESIS WITH FULL PEER REVIEW....
I'm sorry but that bar is just too high for the home-gamers among us. Let's start out by reporting a *melting point*; and a TLC (perhaps with a few different stains if the molecule has the relevant reactivity) should be feasible, even for the little guy. Anything more is bonus, or showing off depending on your perspective. "Oh yeah I'll just use my buddy John's 600MHz specrometer shall I?"
Fantastic video. It's very distressing to me as an engineer to see what passes for acceptable "proof" that something is what people say it is both in peer review and less formal settings. I don't want to trivialize any kind of injury or loss of life, and t's rare but when an early error is not caught then a process is carried to the point of industrialization the results can go from a lab accident to a major disaster. Thank you so much for advocating for good science. It's impossible to be 100% safe or 100% correct but when you make an honest effort to achieve both it is nothing but upside for science imo.
Incidentally on second thought I remembered a lot of history of things like CCl4, DDT, Pb gasoline, PFOAS etc. just now and I guess the errors and foolish decisions aren't so rare :|
Hi! I’m a smaller chemistry UA-camr who was working on a cubane project a while ago and had gotten decently far before having to take a break for health reasons, but now I’m back building a new space and will be resuming that project as well as others. May I join the discord? Previously I would connect with other chem UA-camrs through the comments or Reddit but being a part of a discord sounds like a fantastic way to connect with each other.
We only invite monetized chemistry creators, typically with 10k+ subscribers. In the meantime, the TC discord has lots of people who you might want to connect with.
I was watching a video of his called "Can You Trust NileRed" and then saw this one on the recommended videos on the sidebar and I now hope to see a video on my recommended saying "Can we trust The Chemist?" and then it turns into an endless loop of chemistry youtubers verifying random videos of other chemistry youtubers
I think your points on how chemistry on youtube should validade their claims is even more significant considering that there might actually be new science made through those videos. Like the recent paper talking about calcium cyanimide that referenced a video from Explosions&Fire, just how the said in their conclusion, in the modern technological age we shouldnt ignore developments made in other mediums. Also susprising to learn how new things can be discovered with help from online videos, like the cyanimide synthesis or the sodium synthesis by NurdRage
Thanks for making this video. After following EAI attempting cubane for years then Chemiolis just magically appear it without even purifying between steps felt _very_ suspicious especially because he wasn't a youtuber I was familiar with.
I recently worked in an orgo research lab for the first time over last coop and honestly it’s not something you consider until you’ve worked in one. It would have been impossible to do my job without an NMR (at least confidently) even when I was making starting material I’ve made before I always NMR’d it to make sure nothing went wrong. Chemistry just hates you sometimes and doesn’t want to work lol
Holy crap, Chemiolis spends 1,000-2000 euros a month on chemistry? Does he have a raging crack habit or something? (that's a joke, obviously). I kitted out my lab with glassware, chemicals and other odd-end things for around $1500. And that was a one-time cost -- my current lab would make my old lab back at university drool with envy. I spend *maybe* $200-$300 USD per month on my lab, but that's only because I'm a clutz and I keep breaking my glass (broke my drying tube last month, this month I broke my 500ml addition funnel). I guess chemicals in Europe are much more expensive... I spend $15 for a gallon of HCL acid, $12 for a liter of sulfuric acid and I just bought some phosphorus pentoxide for $40 for 200 grams (crap is expensive as hell).
You sir, are a gentleman and a scholar. Actually based. Not only do you give a five point plan, but you give suggestions for better analyese; NOT ONLY do you go through these well and make suggestions baseed on the techniques, but you also give in indepth evaluation of wich methods validity and when and HOW to get there. AND THEN YOU EVEN SAY HOW TO DO THIS SPECIFICALLY AN WHAT TO SEE. 11/10 criticaly analysese.
I can understand why it's beneficial to have analysis in videos but for the vast majority of viewers including me, this wouldn't change the viewing experience. Most people just watch chem videos to see the cool setups and mechanisms that they were taught in school.
Lol i love how Chemiolis themselves suggested the click bait name for the video. Edit: should you trust Chemiolis? No. Should you like Chemiolis? Absolutely.
Seeing Dr Cutress in that discord server is wild, I usually just associate him with the IT and tech ends of things, forgetting that semiconductor manufacturing obviously includes a massive chemical component.
You are a great chemist! My first paper I followed was wrong... I repeated the synthesis and always got a yield of 120 %... The proton NMR seemed fine though. Even the C13 APT. Turned out that the reaction happened on the other side of a carbonyl group. So the paper was trash and I needed a C13 analysis which also shows quaternary carbons, which C13 APT doesn't. That teached me early to not trust publications without evidence. Because in our times, universities are a joke, just money for a diploma but no knowledge transfer anymore... Which also made the hiring process way more complicated...
You think academia is bad?! LOL! You would believe how much corporate time and money is spent to re-do the re-do, which itself was a re-do… Typically a symptom of a couple of things. Pride, ignorance, stubbornness, laziness, cronyism, or flat out unscrupulousness.
So because some paper was wrong according to you, universities are a joke? That makes very little sense. And it taught you to not trust publications without evidence? The evidence is in the publication, that's the point, unless it is literally fraudulent.
Bruh I'm a physics (engineering/experimental) and the stuff that can be done to verify chemistry is wild. This is a great video and is great to see the crap we do in class like calcuating mass spectrometry velocities used in practice
But dude they waste so much of your time in university, like 99% of what they teach you won’t be useful or relevant, and often times they are so ignorant that they miss the application for almost every single thing they teach you
It’s interesting that you bring the topic of analytical chemistry because I have been thinking about the fact that there isn’t a single analytical chemistry channel on UA-cam for some time. I’ve thought about picking up an old HPLC and GC just to test stuff around the house, neighborhood, etc. I spent roughly 20 years doing analytical chemistry (GCMS/MS, LCMS/MS, ToF, amongst technics & technologies) in several regions of the US in several different sectors ranging from environmental remediation & waste characterization to drinking water & waste water characterization. My last position was doing research at a much-hated American “Agriculture” company that was sold to a German company that may be an even more hated (for good reason IMHO) company. Good luck getting an NMR in someone’s garage though… I don’t think you can find those on LabX. Now a ToF or some other highly selective instrument you could probably find. That said, I was part of a team that purchased new equipment at one the larger companies I worked for. We purchased a used Waters LC-QToF (mid height) in 2014 and it was half a million dollars, so… I wonder what depreciation is like on those things. I could only imagine what a decent NMR would cost…
There is MooreAnalytical on youtube who has an 82 MHz benchtop nmr and a GCMS. He hasn't posted many videos though. I also know a hackerspace that has an old 60MHz nmr.
One trick I've just learned this year (how did I not get this idea earlier???): before measuring an NMR just evaporate your product several times with the NMR solvent (like chloroform for CDCl3). That way you won't have trace solvent impurities, but just a higher solvent peak.
For less complex compounds there should be some qualitative analysis. Melting points are a good start after a tlc. For ketones and aldehydes, the various DNP and other melting point tests are pretty definitive and provide a purity test as well since the melting points are sensitive to impurities. I live at altitude so textbook boiling points are useless. And the reduced presure can even throw of melting points a degree or so. I would like to see an easy to build standard spectroscope which would be a lot cheaper than an nmr which for me costs $100 or more. I have been thinking about a youtube channel dedicated to product purity, purifications and qualitative tests for functional groups and specific impurities. The non youtube home chemist tends to do a lot simpler experiments and converting technical grade chemicals to reagent grade would be helpful for that group. As an example. There are a ton of videos on chloroform. But very little on determining if it still contains acetone or how dry it really is or how to detect phosgene.
Yeah i’m all for this, it would be a good example of how a group of chemists could review each other’s standardized results; which itself could be more content.
Wait until you see the NMR spectra I got of my “cubane”….. mmm yeah that’s good tar
Kurt Cubane making me want to die
When I saw you celebrating the dark sludge left in your filter at the end of the last video, I was wondering if that was really the product you were looking for. Sad to hear that it didn't turn out to be cubane
If you do end up getting a good sample it'll 100% be more impressive then these needs. You're basically some goblin who broke into a shed to do some chemistry
hi tom i knew you'd be here
Now I'm expecting an NMR spectrum that looks like the Lyman Alpha Forest
Oh dear, chemistry drama
lmaoooo
🍿
No youtube community is mature until they've had at least one drama
@@ianirwin9480 To be fair, that is true
All chemistry is drama anyway, chemical reactions are sometimes quite dramatic.
Finally! The Chem-tuber community is becoming more mature and professional, as it should be. Great proposal.
>mature and professional
> pepes on every slide
Actually it’s pogners
@@That_Chemist my apologies
Go back to mailing each other chemical bombs.
like every research paper should have@@pakijetli
I was juat watching his "Should you trust NileRed" video yesterday, glad to see the chemtubers bringing a lot of good discussion to the table on what to believe and how to verify
All that's missing now is for Nigel to do a "Can we trust That Chemist" and the cycle will be complete
Really, he should continue the circle: "Can we trust Explosions&Fire?" And the answer shall, obviously, be a "no." 😂
perfect
The chemistry between all of the chem-tubers is becoming heated, but I'm here to see it. 😂
Imagine making chemistry puns… they’re pretty basic if you ask me. I’m glad I didn’t become the kind of person who makes them. I considered it at one point, but in the end I said “Sodium”
It would be better if someone else shed some light on it...
@@syedramizulkabirThat would be exciting.
releasing al their heat… you could say… exothermic
War only dilutes
Now THIS is what I'm talking about !
Using non-existent Beef as sorta-Ragebait and then actually explaining proper scientific procedures and improving the UA-cam Chemistry Community by making an impossible to deny suggestion, which everyone benefits from.
This is the sort of "Um, Actually" I love.
Word
The first part of the video seems like he is mercilessly ripping into him, only to see him be like super kind and look at his results, and find that the cubane is infact cubane, and is not really that harsh at all when he sees that the Geosmin doesn't seem to be present, at least not in significant concentration.
I'm taking my ochem lab right now, and learning more about 1H NMR is awesome! I was given a supposedly "pure" NMR chart to determine a compound, and I noticed that the CH3 peaks didn't exactly align with the supposed correct structure. Now I know it's because of the impurities!
Pascals triangle
@@VKHSD?
@@LouisTherouxOfficial it helps with splitting and other components that go into NMR analysis, typically they use Pascal's triangle to undergrads to help teach them NMR in chemistry
@@necroversegames cool, ty for explaining
@@necroversegamespascal wasnt even a chemist that makes no sense
I’m just gonna add “this could be it idk tho” at the end of every video so I don’t get flamed either💀Checkmate
20:04 it looks more like ethyl acetate. You can check by integrating the 3 peaks and they should have the ratio 2:3:3
Ah EA. Aka the biggest bitch to remove on the rotavap.
UA-cam becoming an acceptable source of published literature could be great for the scientific community long-term. Thank you so much for working to standardize systems of practice and providing evidence. You’re both building trust and understanding of science in the public as well as making science literature more freely accessible to everyone
It is crazy to me how research has not yet developed outside of rigid copies of text. We are already seeing AiChats becoming more competent at interpreting research than seasoned researchers, at least at a higher speed.
I believe the way of research presentation will surely change in the coming few years, the current form of research is just not adequate with the current technological capabilities.
I feel like it would be a great boon to science communication and science in general if it became the accepted standard practice to do some kind of videography of research posted in a publicly accessible place online.
All of the chemistry, biology, medicine, metallurgy, robotics, engineering, materials science, anything even remotely filmable.
Rather than only doing research papers and maybe including a few pictures or short videos at best in the paper, and at worst a description of pictures or videos the researchers took but neglected to include.
And for the more adventurous researchers do livestreams of your stuff if you wanted to. Like how that one lab livestreamed themselves trying to recreate the LK-99 process a few months back.
Inb4 youtube punishes/ tries to monetize scientific research on youtube
Should be marked with the no. of likes, or a notice thats it is real information, since youtube likes to disseminate misinformation / look the other way if it gets millions on views.
tbh a detailed paper on top of video i consider is a decent bound of mixed current and wanted.
Now NileRed should make "Should you trust ThatChemist?" For circle to be complete :p
How did I miss that Nile is an anagram of Neil
@@Deutschebahn Oh, I never noticed that it is Nile - like river, not Neil. Apparently channel name is Nile red - organic dye which is synthesized from Nile blue another dye. It all makes sense now...
@@MrHubert1710we cracked the code!
His real name is Nigel
Love to see the analytical confirmation of the cubane synthesis. But oh god please don't send any more chemical samples to random patreons before proper analysis
"The powder is off white like in the literature, therefore it is the chemical" meanwhile in the lab half the things synthesized are off white
walter white: you're goddamn right
Calibrated Eyeball Analysis.
@@gcewing It's Ophthalmic VIS-Spectrophotometry, to be precise. The other methods at the analyst's disposal are Olfactory Gas Chromatography and Gustatory Liquid Chromatography.
Oftentimes the results are as follows: off-white substance with a characteristic smell and unpleasant taste.
off white? Everything is either yellowish brown or yellowish brown. That, or yellowish brown.
@@FrenkieWest32You forgot slightly brownish yellow and also tar.
Personally i would very much like it if there was more analysis in chem youtube video's to confirm the thing synthesized is the actual thing, would be cool to have a section of the video on the discussion of what went wrong in the synthesis.
I know my chemistry teachers love scrutinizing my work so why not let the viewers do the same?
Tutorials on how to detect simple molecules or groups might be a good start.
Watching this video made me recall my 1st year of PhD. My PI (a postdoc) misassigned the structure because he "made the compound before". I struggled with that project for a whole year. Only when I carefully analyzed the NMR data again, I found that my PI missed one crucial peak in 13C-NMR. Thanks to my senior, I could obtain the XRD and confirmed that my PI was wrong and changed the project's direction. After that, my PI quitted immediately, left me be in deep sh*t. It took me 2 more years (3 years in total) to finish that project which could have been done in much shorter time. I was still mad when I had to include his name in the published manuscript because my advisor want to "recognize his contribution".
So, I am totally agree with you about the importance of characterizing your compounds.
I think reporting like this for "big" results (meme molecules like cubane) is a good idea, but I wouldn't want extra cost, labor, and time to discourage chemtubers from making entertaining content that gets most of the facts right. Like I don't think Tom really needs to be mailing nitrotetrazoles across the ocean to be considered legitimate.
There is no veto power from TC and other pedants.
In this case I feel like as its a fairly tricky molecule to synthesise and the data given was virtually nothing its fair to expect actual analysis if we're to take the results seriously in any way
@@harryparr4879 as long as it tastes the same then you should be fine
I had an absolutely horrible AP Chem teacher in high school and i thought that had ruined chem for me, but the youtube chemistry community has been reviving the fascination i had when i was super young. Thank you for explaining things so thoroughly, and prioritizing building community ❤
I'm happy to see these NMR's. Chemiolis sometimes report yields greater than literature, which always makes me suspicous regarding purity/"dryness" of his samples. But it's still cool that he made cubane. It's a molecule that will always fascinate me :D
It’s pretty rare for me to have yields better than literature, but some synths in the cubane did, which I all thoroughly dried unlike many other intermediate products. If the yield is higher and I didn’t dry, I do say that it is still wet.
What do you mean? In Ochem 1 I always got greater yields that then literature. Sometimes even more than the total mass of my starting reagents 🤓
@@Chemiolisyo I don't mean to insult but everytime you say 100+ % yield I burst into laughter😂 great vids btw
@@DJ-jq8ifthat’s not possible, you sure you passed?
@@natetheavali784 it's not a battlefield, no need to get all worked up.
Okay I literally had this idea a few months back that as institutional science becomes more and more about acquiring grants, the amount of new interesting science that can get done becomes limited. But as individual hobbyist scientists are more supported and motivated by popular audiences it may be the case that eventually interesting research science is partially done in the hobbyist community. But this is a step extra than I expected. It’s very interesting cause it’s very much a return to the pre-institutional era of people inventing chemistry in their home labs. Implementing peer review into this process makes it so real. Maybe that discord server is the beginning of a new academy of sciences 😂
I honestly think it’s a simpler system than relying on the government complexity and invalid expertise during review for grant funding
The establishment keeps most of the most used organic chem basic ingredients list out of the reach of the people. Unis, labs for big pharma, with big lobbying budgets, and "gubmint research facilities"! This is the reason we got Tom. Try to make stuff with otc ingredients, not having to show your papers........😮😊
This has nothing to do with peer review. Whatever criticism you can make about journals, the incentives on youtube are 1000x more perverse. Also, grants are very good. It's a direct funding of fundamental science that wouldn't otherwise happen. It takes a special kind of ignorance to suggest that trivial pop-science could replace that research.
In what world can a hobbyist afford to do the science that supposedly the ''institutes'' are 24/7 needing to acquire research grants for? That makes no sense at all. And which hobbyist is gonna work at this 40h a week?
New video at 4am? Okay, I’ll take it.
David and I also stayed up so we could finish the video :)
lmao it's 3 pm for me
Lol for my timezone the video came out at 10 am
Nice video frfr, also CHEMISTRY DRAMA SERIES WHEN
I'm all for improving the rigor of chemtuber experiments, however we have to be careful we don't raise the bar so high that it intimidates beginners and new entrants. Last I checked it was $80 for a local lab to run a single 1H-NMR. That expense might be worth it for bigger channels or for big projects like cubane. But most of the time, chemtubers are following well-trodden syntheses, and as long as rough properties and TLC check out, that's probably good enough for most things.
Unless you want to start a That Analyst channel where all you do is analyse samples sent in by other tubers (and playfully trash talk their sample purity)
Yeah. Also don't forget there are chemists from other countries which wouldn't have access to such things (like Ukraine these days).
This "we need analysis for a Yt video" sounds like filtering on the newcomers and the ones don't have money to do such analysis, and the starting of some chemist royal monopoly to me.
@@hyoenmadan
I mean, it's obviously nowhere as necessary for the very well known synthesis routes most novices would use. If something is already proven to work ad nauseam and maybe even rather simple I think everyone is very OK with lesser proof.
Not to forget - A more or less surefire way to confirm the success of a hard/novel/etc synthesis with high level evidence isn't just important in context of the community, but of high importance for the performing chemists themselves after all.
If you don't know if you were successful you don't know you were successful ...
When did it ever discourage anyone to do what they want to do? :J
I think the key is in what you are claiming vs the evidence you have. If you don't have the evidence, you shouldn't make the claim. That doesn't mean you shouldn't try the process, though. Just say, "I tried making substance A according to the recipe from paper D. I did steps K, L, M, and N, and saw X, Y, and Z." I believe I stumbled across Chemiolis' video (though I'm not really into Chemistry and don't care about cubane at all) and it just screamed "unverified claims" to me. It's good to have some confirmation through the test in this video, though it also shows the other synthesis failed, thus emphasizing the need for the confirmation.
@@heinzhaupthaar5590 there is no actual separation between ''easy'' or ''hard'' syntheses and it is often not so clear what you're looking at.
I’m so glad you said “petrichor.” That made my night.
Damn this was a whole-ass journal in a video. I agree we should assess the validity, and I appreciate that you were willing to put forth the money to help this creator get it done. I don't even do chemistry, and I barely understand it, but I never thought of the idea that you guys could just completely be bullshitting us and the thought of that makes this video just that much more important.
Also, the entire time I was watching this I was like "so is this all because the guy didn't do it right?" You had me at the edge of my fucking seat, dude. NEVER thought I would see a ChemTuber video that had so much tension and drama. It's almost like watching a Thriller.
I read that as "chem lolis" and got very concerned
💀
I know a couple ochem types who fall in that category - full cosplay / gothic lolita when not in the lab.
I feel like Chemistry UA-cam™ has kind of evolved with this series, there's now like,,, straight-up direct peer review and replication studies being carried out
As a pharmacist that's a bit nuts for orgchem and have been through some organic synthesis before, I can say that it's so satisfying to see what I studied and also experienced being revalidated in a video (also can say I'm a big fan of the 3 chemists that were mentioned in this video), and I hope y'all keep up with this great quality work!
I used to work in academic and then pharma laboratories, and we had all of these analytic techniques (NMR, Mass-Spec, HPLC) available to us. But what is an amateur chemist to do?
The history of amateur chemistry is rich with people who made great discoveries despite not having access to modern analytical methods. I watch Chemiolis, and applaud him for his attempts even while I know his results are not firm.
Yeah.. With the whole list might just as well publish the vid as an academic paper.
It should really depend on what it is you're claiming you have made and how and if you can demonstrate it reacting like its supposed to.
Say if you make acetone does it do stuff acetone does..
I'm just waiting for Applied Science to release a tutorial vid on how someone can make their own NMR tester at home using off the shelf components and things you can buy from "totally not sketchy" Ebay sellers.
@@theKashConnoisseur There was a project in the April 1959 edition of the Scientific American, "How amateurs can build a simple magnetic-resonance spectrometer". The electronics need an update, of course.
I'm fully on board with all of this. I'd love to join your discord for guidance. I finally started posting my projects I've been doing for the past 6yr and I'm just figuring out how to film things properly. Maybe when I get my views over 5k I'll be invited into the club
I believe in your bro, live out your chemist dreams!
The tlc animation is a little cursed, putting the intial spot under the solvent 🧐
we knew you would catch us 😳👉👈
I like you
@@That_Chemist Great video, it often bugged me when people said they made something without evidence. I had a project in my undergrad where I made a fluorescent derivative and was fully convinced that I had the right product, after 1H NMR it turned out that it was just hydrolyzed reagent which had the same color and fluorescence 🥲
How did this earn you a Covid warning label, lmao?
Thank you for the video!
The label is gone, though. I don't see it anymore.
@@notthatcreativewithnames Yeah it's gone for me, too. The weirdest things happen on chemtube.
Hell yes, i know nothing about chemistry but im here for it
😊
You briefly touched on this, but I'll hit it a little harder because it's kinda important: cost.
If you're making 300 Hz NMR available for free to all, that's awesome, and kudos! To accomplish this, you have several instruments staffed and cooled* full time. If you're not, you kinda need to explain how people are going to get access to this at a cost that doesn't dwarf the cost they're already incurring to do the thing.
NMR is the most egregiously costly of the things you named, but the prices of a hyphenated mass spec instruments are also eye-watering, even if their upkeep isn't.
Is this a thing like time on telescopes that astronomers arrange?
* using liquid nitrogen, at a cost per liter about like milk, and liquid helium, at a cost per liter about like good scotch. That's quite a grocery bill, even assuming you got the working instruments for free.
I'd love to do amateur chemistry myself, but:
1.) Cost (as stated in the vid): it can be hella expensive. For some reagents, you can't just cheap out on them. Also, some reagents... not that easy to get, and you gotta jump through some hoops.
2.) Space (not sure if stated): You need a little bit more room than a... meth shed to do some good chemistry. I'm kinda tight on space.
I tell ya though, that TLC/CC brought back nightmares when I was doing protein synthesis in college for my degree. It was always a sigh of relief when things worked, but, when they didn't work, it killed your spirit/soul to start over.
And space can be bought, so in the end it all boils down to cost. Such an annoying impurity!
I love the checks between all of the chemistry channels. Keep up the good work!
Did I just witness chemist beef in the wild?
Jeeeeez. You want chemistry to be backed up by PROOF? 😊😊😊
This is fantastic. While the formal criteria proposed here are expensive for some UA-cam chemists, there are simpler things one can also do, such as melting point for crystalline solids, that are cheap and easy. Even a simple TLC from before and after, showing the starting materials having reacted away is useful. In the end it's about the effort to at least do some validation that is important.
Yeah, I think melting point gets overlooked, but it is cheap and was heavily used before modern instruments.
@@OmegaPaladin144 same with refractive index for liquid products
Should I be studying for my biochem exam on Monday? Yes, but I’d rather watch this video first
I think this is very a very important video and that the chemist community on YT should adopt some advices you gave. And I dont think so because of trust issues or for being confident on nature of the product obtain as I’m not an organician chemist and I only watch these videos for entertainment. BUT, as a chemist, I still feel like there is a huge issue on the serious of other chemists at some point. Even for published articles. So, for educational purposes I think adding full analysis spectrum and identification would be great.
My samples like their privacy and don't want to be analysed with NMR, why do you have to be so NOESY?
I watch Tom because he is completely unhinged and yells obscenities at yellow things. Since everything he does on Extractions&Ire are related to Explosions&Fire the analysis method "it blew up!" is good enough for me..... But I guess that's just what happens when old artillerymen watch chemistry youtube.
When you're a UA-camr and "eh, good enough" is all the proof you need
Jokes aside that's the recipe for success... at receiving a Darwin Award in the near unexpected future.
Fun fact: an Aussie may instead receive a Sydney Award, Melbourne Award, Adelaide Award or Perth Award if they don't happen to be from the Northern Territory.
@@GameboygeniusA Perth Award may also be given to someone from Scotland as well as, say, an Edinburgh Award, a Glasgow Award, an Inverness Award, or a Stirling Award.
Ah yes, it’s 3am where I live…and there’s a new Chemist Video? Hell yeah!
Nice video. Improving the scientific rigour of yt chem is a great thing o7
Doing my algorithms homework while watching this. the perks of staying up all night!
QUESTION FOR MR CHEMIST: I was looking into cubane substituted for benzene in various medicinal products. Is cubanes potential benefit overstated or is it really something to be more common place in the future of drug design?
I think we'll have to see tbh
we talk more about cubanes in this video ua-cam.com/video/9_vcu93jLL0/v-deo.html
I think there are places for cubanes in drug design. If you have a molecule that sucks, swapping a benzene for a cubane is unlikely to give a huge benefit. However, including cubanes in early stages of drug development (i.e. having cubane building blocks in fragment/screening libraries) is where I think the biggest benefit comes from. If you're more interested, I suggest looking up a series of papers called "Escaping Flatland"
I honestly was along for the ride that Explosions&Fire/Extractions&Ire was on to synthesize cubane for the entertainment, I barely have any knowledge in basic chemistry, I just find the process to figure out the steps interesting to listen to. This peer review is also pretty interesting.
An home lab cannot afford the expenses of NMR, MS and elemental analysis. For this reason, the home chemist should calibrate his research according to his personal situation, both economic and instrumental. Ergo, in an homelab, you cannot prepare new products.
Nilered needs to make about video "Can you trust The Chemist?"
One small complaint: HPLC itself is just the separation technique. That doesnt really tell you anything about how the sample was analyzed. Sure HPLC-MS is very common, but it could also be HPLC-UV-vis or HPLC-AAS for all we know.
In 20 years of doing analytical chemistry, I’ve never heard anyone use HPLC to imply merely separation, but I have heard and have used countless times HPLC as a generalization for an array of potential analyses which use a liquid mobile phase. For I ran VOCs by Purge & Trap for many years, but when talking about it I didn’t say Volatile Organic Compounds by Purge and Trap Gas Chromatography Quadrupole or Ion Trap Mass Spectrometry or even P&T GCMS. I would simply say VOCs or Purge & Trap. The rest was implied. That’s because you’re either talking to someone who likely already know or you’re putting someone to sleep (or ruining a date… don’t ask me how I know that one). If you really want to split hairs even quadrupoles or ion traps are simply means of separation, so what then? Do we need to specify the type of multiplier or analyzer or maybe the software? The context with which he used HPLC was fine. The content was obviously more about NMR… Not that I think its at all practical to have UA-camrs spending the kind of money that would be charged to have their characterizations done by NMR… Cool? Yes… Practical? Idk… Maybe just get it run by LCMS/MS or GCMS/MS… The results will be more quantitatively accurate while still providing a reasonably high level of certainty. True characterization gets expensive and somewhat an art form as much as a science.
@@alexjensen990 I did not mean it as a separation technique how a synthesis chemist would see it. All I wanted to point out, that what kind of detector you use with our HPLC system is a very important detail I would not leave out.
@@alexjensen990 I used it in my masters for merely separation.
24:01 So you talk about trust in science and I agree that this is very important, but there are a lot of ways for people to get around this like using NMR spectra directly from the literature, or if they have enough money just buying the chemicals. I like the idea of verifying UA-cam chemistry, but I’m worried it could cause a lot of imbalance based on where people live, what access to advanced technology they have, and also just how rich they are. Since these are all problems that already plague the amateur chemistry community I’m not sure how I would feel about widening that gap with further standards. However if you could come up with a way of rectifying that inequity I would be all for that.
You'd be so good at traumatising high school students, I think you should become a teacher.
Other chemists: make wild shit
That Chemist: stories about safety, tier lists, memes
Other chemists: he ain't real chemist!
That Chemist: WHAT THE FUCK DID YOU JUST FUCKING SAY ABOUT ME YOU LITTLE UNDERGRAD? I'LL HAVE YOU KNOW I GRADUATED TOP OF MY CLASS IN AN ACTUAL CHEMISTRY UNIVERSITY AND I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN NUMEROUS SYNTHESIS WITH FULL PEER REVIEW....
I'm sorry but that bar is just too high for the home-gamers among us.
Let's start out by reporting a *melting point*; and a TLC (perhaps with a few different stains if the molecule has the relevant reactivity) should be feasible, even for the little guy.
Anything more is bonus, or showing off depending on your perspective.
"Oh yeah I'll just use my buddy John's 600MHz specrometer shall I?"
Fantastic video. It's very distressing to me as an engineer to see what passes for acceptable "proof" that something is what people say it is both in peer review and less formal settings. I don't want to trivialize any kind of injury or loss of life, and t's rare but when an early error is not caught then a process is carried to the point of industrialization the results can go from a lab accident to a major disaster. Thank you so much for advocating for good science. It's impossible to be 100% safe or 100% correct but when you make an honest effort to achieve both it is nothing but upside for science imo.
Incidentally on second thought I remembered a lot of history of things like CCl4, DDT, Pb gasoline, PFOAS etc. just now and I guess the errors and foolish decisions aren't so rare :|
yeah, I'm sure industry copies a youtuber's protocol without checking later down the line...
Hi! I’m a smaller chemistry UA-camr who was working on a cubane project a while ago and had gotten decently far before having to take a break for health reasons, but now I’m back building a new space and will be resuming that project as well as others. May I join the discord? Previously I would connect with other chem UA-camrs through the comments or Reddit but being a part of a discord sounds like a fantastic way to connect with each other.
We only invite monetized chemistry creators, typically with 10k+ subscribers. In the meantime, the TC discord has lots of people who you might want to connect with.
its probably possible to build a machine who invents chemicals, for a purpose on command, and from the stuff you currently have.
like a banking tower but chemestrys
I was watching a video of his called "Can You Trust NileRed" and then saw this one on the recommended videos on the sidebar and I now hope to see a video on my recommended saying "Can we trust The Chemist?" and then it turns into an endless loop of chemistry youtubers verifying random videos of other chemistry youtubers
I think your points on how chemistry on youtube should validade their claims is even more significant considering that there might actually be new science made through those videos. Like the recent paper talking about calcium cyanimide that referenced a video from Explosions&Fire, just how the said in their conclusion, in the modern technological age we shouldnt ignore developments made in other mediums.
Also susprising to learn how new things can be discovered with help from online videos, like the cyanimide synthesis or the sodium synthesis by NurdRage
Let me say the unspoken... Sam is a wayyy better chemist than that Australian dude. The Aussie is more entertaining though. We all know what's up
me and my non-chemist ass fully thought you maybe meant the plural of "chemioli" -- from the words "chemical" and "ravioli" 💀
Thanks for making this video. After following EAI attempting cubane for years then Chemiolis just magically appear it without even purifying between steps felt _very_ suspicious especially because he wasn't a youtuber I was familiar with.
Get the popcorn everybody
Meant to expose him for his videos ended up exposing him for being a furry... Wtf is up with that cat emoji he used lmaoo
6:20 vaush refrence
Glad I'm not the only one
My favorite thing was you showing the discord server & I see Explosions & Fire's pfp is upside down.
nile red should post "would you trust explosions & fire?" and its just a 5 second clip of Tom looking coy
This rules. I would love it if this became standard practice for UA-cam chemistry.
chemiolis pretending to replicate nilered's video to seem more credible? 🧐
Gotcha all😍
I recently worked in an orgo research lab for the first time over last coop and honestly it’s not something you consider until you’ve worked in one. It would have been impossible to do my job without an NMR (at least confidently) even when I was making starting material I’ve made before I always NMR’d it to make sure nothing went wrong. Chemistry just hates you sometimes and doesn’t want to work lol
Holy crap, Chemiolis spends 1,000-2000 euros a month on chemistry? Does he have a raging crack habit or something? (that's a joke, obviously). I kitted out my lab with glassware, chemicals and other odd-end things for around $1500. And that was a one-time cost -- my current lab would make my old lab back at university drool with envy. I spend *maybe* $200-$300 USD per month on my lab, but that's only because I'm a clutz and I keep breaking my glass (broke my drying tube last month, this month I broke my 500ml addition funnel). I guess chemicals in Europe are much more expensive... I spend $15 for a gallon of HCL acid, $12 for a liter of sulfuric acid and I just bought some phosphorus pentoxide for $40 for 200 grams (crap is expensive as hell).
Chemiolis did to Nile Red, You did to Chemiolis. Now who will do "Should You Trust That Chemist"
Great way to introduce people to how many steps there are in just proving you made a specific compound. Awesome video!
You sir, are a gentleman and a scholar.
Actually based.
Not only do you give a five point plan, but you give suggestions for better analyese; NOT ONLY do you go through these well and make suggestions baseed on the techniques, but you also give in indepth evaluation of wich methods validity and when and HOW to get there.
AND THEN YOU EVEN SAY HOW TO DO THIS SPECIFICALLY AN WHAT TO SEE.
11/10 criticaly analysese.
"Trust me bro... this is water"
Dr. Sam is no more, for what he thought was H two oh, was H two ess oh four
I can understand why it's beneficial to have analysis in videos but for the vast majority of viewers including me, this wouldn't change the viewing experience. Most people just watch chem videos to see the cool setups and mechanisms that they were taught in school.
CHEMISTRY TUBE TEA????? COUNT ME IN
I'm okay with whatever that chemist guy said.
I'd guess that the 0.1 ppm peak in the cubane NMR is joint grease
Lol i love how Chemiolis themselves suggested the click bait name for the video.
Edit: should you trust Chemiolis? No. Should you like Chemiolis? Absolutely.
Seeing Dr Cutress in that discord server is wild, I usually just associate him with the IT and tech ends of things, forgetting that semiconductor manufacturing obviously includes a massive chemical component.
why does this have the covid-19 vaccine tag thingy
I just tweeted at the YT team lmao
Because real science is too based for the UA-cam algorithm 😉
they still haven't been able to categorize my channel yet
Wait that tiny thing does proton NMR? The NMR machine I trained on almost required its own building!
Damn! Finally a good video explaining HOW chemists distinguish a off-white compound from another white-off compound 😂
what software did you use to make the 3D model of cubane at 3:28, looks very interesting
Yeahhh, i want to know aswell!!!
Why do i always read it as "chem-ee-oh-lees" like ravioli lol
You are a great chemist!
My first paper I followed was wrong... I repeated the synthesis and always got a yield of 120 %... The proton NMR seemed fine though. Even the C13 APT. Turned out that the reaction happened on the other side of a carbonyl group. So the paper was trash and I needed a C13 analysis which also shows quaternary carbons, which C13 APT doesn't. That teached me early to not trust publications without evidence. Because in our times, universities are a joke, just money for a diploma but no knowledge transfer anymore... Which also made the hiring process way more complicated...
You think academia is bad?! LOL! You would believe how much corporate time and money is spent to re-do the re-do, which itself was a re-do… Typically a symptom of a couple of things. Pride, ignorance, stubbornness, laziness, cronyism, or flat out unscrupulousness.
So because some paper was wrong according to you, universities are a joke? That makes very little sense. And it taught you to not trust publications without evidence? The evidence is in the publication, that's the point, unless it is literally fraudulent.
Just send the sample to Nile so he can taste it like a true chemist.
Bruh I'm a physics (engineering/experimental) and the stuff that can be done to verify chemistry is wild.
This is a great video and is great to see the crap we do in class like calcuating mass spectrometry velocities used in practice
But dude they waste so much of your time in university, like 99% of what they teach you won’t be useful or relevant, and often times they are so ignorant that they miss the application for almost every single thing they teach you
This drama better have an NFPA 704 rating for our own safety
It’s interesting that you bring the topic of analytical chemistry because I have been thinking about the fact that there isn’t a single analytical chemistry channel on UA-cam for some time. I’ve thought about picking up an old HPLC and GC just to test stuff around the house, neighborhood, etc. I spent roughly 20 years doing analytical chemistry (GCMS/MS, LCMS/MS, ToF, amongst technics & technologies) in several regions of the US in several different sectors ranging from environmental remediation & waste characterization to drinking water & waste water characterization. My last position was doing research at a much-hated American “Agriculture” company that was sold to a German company that may be an even more hated (for good reason IMHO) company.
Good luck getting an NMR in someone’s garage though… I don’t think you can find those on LabX. Now a ToF or some other highly selective instrument you could probably find. That said, I was part of a team that purchased new equipment at one the larger companies I worked for. We purchased a used Waters LC-QToF (mid height) in 2014 and it was half a million dollars, so… I wonder what depreciation is like on those things. I could only imagine what a decent NMR would cost…
China is bringing costs waaaay down
There is MooreAnalytical on youtube who has an 82 MHz benchtop nmr and a GCMS. He hasn't posted many videos though. I also know a hackerspace that has an old 60MHz nmr.
One trick I've just learned this year (how did I not get this idea earlier???): before measuring an NMR just evaporate your product several times with the NMR solvent (like chloroform for CDCl3). That way you won't have trace solvent impurities, but just a higher solvent peak.
Chemist community stepping up that peer review huh
For less complex compounds there should be some qualitative analysis. Melting points are a good start after a tlc. For ketones and aldehydes, the various DNP and other melting point tests are pretty definitive and provide a purity test as well since the melting points are sensitive to impurities. I live at altitude so textbook boiling points are useless. And the reduced presure can even throw of melting points a degree or so. I would like to see an easy to build standard spectroscope which would be a lot cheaper than an nmr which for me costs $100 or more. I have been thinking about a youtube channel dedicated to product purity, purifications and qualitative tests for functional groups and specific impurities.
The non youtube home chemist tends to do a lot simpler experiments and converting technical grade chemicals to reagent grade would be helpful for that group.
As an example. There are a ton of videos on chloroform. But very little on determining if it still contains acetone or how dry it really is or how to detect phosgene.
Wait are there only 11 members of ChemTube?
Yeah i’m all for this, it would be a good example of how a group of chemists could review each other’s standardized results; which itself could be more content.
Is this the largest UA-cam among us game?
NurdRage needs to step in and sort all you out.
The nerds are fighting come see everyone !
Telomir 1 ❤❤❤🎉❤❤❤ live forever ❤😅