[Only registered users see links. ] (SNUMBER6) wrote in message news:<[Only registered users see links. ].com>...
Yeah, used by chemical engineers for efficient
design of the industrial-sized run.
Have I got this right, you seem to discount knowing
except in passing the mechanism. Couldn't you use that
insight to, say, consider tweaking the reactants
(say swap ethanol for isoproponal) without wet-bench
trial-and-error, or to ruminate about the possible
use of a catalyst based upon, say, a known
affinity of the highest order (i.e. slower?) reactant
in the transition state for, say, a finely divided metal?
[Only registered users see links. ] (Mike Darrett) wrote in message
Ummm...two. You get the average, the deviation, and the range
without too much effort. You can use Linear Least Squares (I
think), and in my own humble opinion, the Kalman Filter
function, as well (each step of the Kalman math is a
simple two-point LLS calculation, reconfigured to make
it look original :-)
FWIW, this oozed out of the gray matter some time
ago: one data point gives you something you can
sit and rotate on; two allows for a line so you
can pace back and forth while you worry if you
got the right answer; three provides for a plane
on which you can jitter-bug, lay about and muse
about arcana, in other words.... All this may
have come from the old Gen. Chem. lab titration
exercise...the one with certified unknown samples,
guaranteeing, what, five decimal place compositions?
In the late 70's, certainly before 1981 I was
in a community college in Eugene, Oregon. IIRC
I was taking a first-year psych class as an
elective and had to choose a title from a list for
a report. The book -- _The_Game_of_Science_. The
title is all I can recall. The author painstakingly
drew for the reader a picture of the hard scientist
taking measurments, doing statistical analysis,
drawing conclusions, and making predictions. In the
middle of the book he began to advance the position
that these same methods could be applied to the
social _sciences_, making _them_ as rigorous as the
traditional ones. Anyone able to go on with this
idea and state whether or not psychology, sociology,
etc., have been as successful using mathematical
methods as the hard sciences (Bayesian statistics
comes to mind, something I've heard about, but of
it know nothing)?
Mark (Considering the decline in the abilities of grads,
maybe the Ed. Psych. honchos looked at the data
and decided training was more cost effective than
>From: [Only registered users see links. ] (Mohammed Farooq)
Moore was the undergraduate bible in P.Chem. ... which I felt prepared me very
well for advanced classes in quantum mechanics( I forget the text ... relied on
notes from an excellent teacher) and nuclear chemistry (also a forgetful text)
as an undergraduate ... and statistical thermodynamics (Terrell Hill) ...in
graduate school ... Though I remember using Atkins unofficially at times for
some slightly different viewpoints as an undergrad ...
And Van Wylen for an engineering course in thermodynamics as an undergrad ...
Showed those engineers that some chemists at least could outdo them in math ...
Kinetics work was mostly self study ... doing undergraduate research for 2
years in the field ... and reading many books on my own ... some of which were
used in grad school kinetics ... (which I got credit for)
Eyring for theory ... Ed King's book for basics ... along with Frost and
Pearson ... of course Basolo and Pearson ...
I forget the books used in crystallography ... the other physical chem course
I could have had a P.Chem. doctorate had I decided to take and give the seminar
courses there instead of in the inorganic series ...
Reminiscing about those days ... brings up the importance of undergrads doing
research ... and knowing what interests they have there ...
Then by picking a professor (and not so much the school) based on his work in
that area that you know thoroughly ... allows one to get such a jump into ones
thesis ... and for grad school to proceed without feeling it is a form of
>From: [Only registered users see links. ] (Mark Tarka)
The engineering design was not efficient ... amazing how square cube
relationships can screw up a scale-up ...
Hence ... panic by them to get the throughput required ... so panicky that this
project was dumped on a wet behind the ears newly hired senior research chemist
I hope not ... I spent the first week of the project reviewing all the old
research and production data ... painfully plotting (pre computer days) ... to
determine the rate law ... and then a mechanism consistent with that rate law
Not too well in an aqueous system ...
Some of the constraints in industry is the cost associated both with equipment
and raw materials ...
After the project was built, and the square/cube problem (which should have
been caught when designed) arose ... it was too late really to change anything
You can't keep a couple of million dollars of equipment waiting to spend
another million to do the job the design was originally supposed to do ...
Which was even impractical (How many 1000 horsepower motors you see turning an
More surface area does equal faster reaction ... but at a cost of more than you
can sell the stuff for ...