The New Chemistry

danny writes: "The New Chemistry is a survey of the science behind many of Slashdot's technology stories - read on for my review. (An older title of related interest is Chemical Evolution: Origin of the Elements, Molecules, and Living Systems )." Read on for the rest of Danny's review. The New Chemistry author Nina Hall, ed. pages 500 publisher Cambridge University Press rating 8.5 reviewer Danny Yee ISBN 0-521-45224-4 summary an overview of modern chemistry and its applications.

The New Chemistry provides an overview of modern chemistry and its applications, with seventeen review articles by specialists. Though commissioned for this volume, these take different approaches and are pitched at different levels: some are quite broadly accessible, while others assume the reader has studied chemistry at university (I found my physics and biology background helped a lot). Apart from multiple explanations of semiconduction, there is little repetition and an immense range of material is covered. The result is a fascinating picture of the science underpinning much modern technology.

The first five articles involve a fair bit of physics. "The Search for New Elements" looks at the synthesis of elements beyond uranium. "Bonding and the Theory of Atoms and Molecules" touches on a mix of theory: chemical bonds, reaction dynamics, simulation of liquids, and mathematical chemistry. "Chemistry in a New Light" and "Novel Energy Sources for Reactions" look at new tools for controlling reactions: lasers, electrosynthesis, microwaves, and ultrasound. And "What, Why and When is a Metal?" explains how the well-known criteria for distinguishing metals and insulators don't always work; this is one of the more accessible chapters, with a good selection of colour illustrations and historical "boxes."

The more "pure chemistry" chapters were the ones I had the most trouble following. These include "The Clothing of Metal Ions: Coordination Chemistry at the Turn of the Millenium," "Surface Chemistry", and "New Roads to Molecular Complexity." Other chapters connect more with biology. "Medicines from Nature" illustrates the search for new medicines through a case study of Erythromycin biosynthesis. "From Pharms to Farms" has two parts, one surveying major drugs and fragrances and the other pesticides. And "The Inorganic Chemistry of Life" is an unusual abstract overview of life from the point of view of an inorganic chemist.

A range of chapters are oriented towards engineering applications; these will be of particular interest to those following new computing technologies. "Supramolecular Chemistry" is an accessible look at the building of structures, at the chemical approach to nanotechnology. "Advanced Materials" focuses on applications to electronics - alternatives to silicon, packaging materials, liquid crystals, plastic batteries, and more - while "Molecular Electronics" focuses on actual circuits, on conductors and switches and molecular computing. "Electrochemical and Photoelectrochemical Energy Conversion" looks in detail at a range of traditional and experimental battery and fuel cell systems, and more briefly at photoelectrochemical cells and photochemical waste disposal.

"Chemistry Far from Equilibrium: Thermodynamics, Order and Chaos" is the most mathematical chapter, presenting some dynamical theory with a few examples. And a final chapter "Chemistry in Society" outlines the contributions of chemistry back to the Industrial Revolution, and urges better research both to avoid environmental problems and to correct popular misconceptions.

Purchase The New Chemistry from FatBrain or check out Danny's 600 other reviews. Want to see your own review here? Just read the book review guidelines, then use Slashdot's handy submission form.

Comments

bitterness...

[supernova87a]

It may be just my opinion (as a former chemist turned physicist), but I think that chemists are rather limited. They're (in general) not very well versed in technological issues and the hard science -- I've found that they're usually an "end-user" of other disciplines' accomplishments.

For example, organic chemists probably have no idea what a fast fourier transform is, although it powers one of their most important instruments, namely the NMR. And don't ever try to ask a chemist to explain quantum mechanics to you. They're taught a completely hand-waving version of it in school, and pass it on from generation to generation.

That said, sometimes it's pretty frustrating because while they don't seem to have as good a fundamental knowledge of the physics or math, they get a damn lot more money in grants etc. I guess practical things, like medicines, are important in that sense.

Look at any large organic chemistry group around the country, and I guarantee they'll have power macs up the wazoo, origin 3000 machines configured as mail servers, stereoscopic visualization goggles, etc. And they generally have no idea what to do with them....

Re:bitterness...

[didjit]

I know you do have experience as a former chemist, but the way you speak of chemists, it sounds as if all chemist are simpleton organic chemist. I agree that most organic labs get way more funding and most of the people don't understand the technology behind NMR, but ... there are hoards of chemists out there that buck your stereotype. Chemists that don't understand quantum? Try physical chemists. Chemists that wouldn't understand Fourier transforms? How about theoretical chemists. As someone who has worked in an organic lab before, as well as seen the "other side," I'd have to say that chemistry is a lot more than running an organic synthesis and then looking at its NMR spectra. Thus the point of this book, to show people like yourself the frontiers of chemistry. I don't mean to start a chemist vs. physicist flame war (I'm an engineer anyway) but don't be bitter if the chemists get some respect once in a while.

Re:bitterness...

[Masem]

Coming from a chemical engineering background, I would argue that chemists ARE well-versed in hard sciences, more than you expect.

You use the NMR as an example. The NMR was developed by chemists (and I believe the inventors got the Nobel a few years ago for it). Some of the technology is end-use developed from other fields (for example, spinning magnets I would expect from friends in physics), but the fundamental science that NMR uses (looking at spin coorelations between neighboring atoms in a molecule) is pure chemistry, and putting together those end-use systems as well as unique elements together in such a way to be able to capture that is what makes the NMR invention unique. This is typically the way with most chemical instrumentation.

Now, just because NMR or other equipment that a chemist uses has a FFT in it, does it mean they need to know it? Typically not: they should be aware that the time-based signal they are collecting is being converted to frequency, which is the data of most interest, but they don't need to know all the mathematical computations that go into the FFT. That's not to say that chemists don't know it; there is a large body of chemists that overlap with mathematicians and comp scis to develop new and improve existing algorithms common in analysis. Even typical organic chemists that work mostly in a lab will know what the FFT transform is, though not necessarily being able to fully describe it.

And I would argue heavily with chemists not knowing quantum mechanics. There's typically 4 (recently 5) unofficial divisions of chemistry: organic, inorganic, analytical, theorhetical, and of late, bio-organic; the division is heavily weighted with organcis and bio, but the other 3 divisions are about equal in terms of distribution. I'd estimate that between 5 and 10% of chemists are in theorhetical, based on my experiences at grad schools and paper outputs. And theorhetical chemists spend most of their time working with molecular simulations, quantum mechanics, and other computer tools to develop models and predictions for how matter interacts. These models certainly aren't perfect, but they do know quantum theory quite well since most of these simulations account for quantum-type effects. As for other chemists, there is a need to know what quantum theory is, but in the typical lab reaction that most chemists do, it doesn't make a big difference. So therefore, they know the quantum theory, but they never need to apply it at large.

So I completely disagree that chemists hand-wave. A poor chemist will, but those that are trained at good graduate schools know that they can't get through doing that. But there is a point that you need to assume that the instrument or reading is correct and you don't need to understand the underlying principle in order to proceed forward; a good chemist knows how to test and calibrate an instrument to the point of being satisfied that the reading is as what should be predicted, and then will 'question' everything else beyond that.

(And the reason for macs is that much of the best chemical structure drawing and professional graphing (!Excel) software was developed on Macs first, and while PC versions have come out to equate those versions, its hard to get academics to spend the money to switch over when what they have *works* for their needs. Also, a lot of older equipment only has software that works on specific versions of an OS, and so they are limited by that as well.)

Re:bitterness...

[loydcc]

The original poster complains that chemists don't understand physics and then uses a math trick to illustrate his point. All the sciences stem from some mathematical model or another. I do agree with you that not all the mathematical models are needed for good chemistry.

It comes down to Physics gets diddly, Chemistry gets some but don't forget that hands down Biology is where the grant money is. As for money it seems the further away from math you get the more the grant money.

So, um, is it good?

[iiii]

This is supposed to be a review, right? He tells us some objective facts about the book, but there are no conclusions or recommendations here. Does Danny recommend the book or not? If all you have to do for a book review is give the table of contents, I need to get into that industry.