#1,923 in Science & math books

Reddit mentions of The Development of Modern Chemistry (Dover Books on Chemistry)

Sentiment score: 1
Reddit mentions: 3

We found 3 Reddit mentions of The Development of Modern Chemistry (Dover Books on Chemistry). Here are the top ones.

The Development of Modern Chemistry (Dover Books on Chemistry)
Buying options
View on Amazon.com
or
    Features:
  • For Incontinence: Protect and cover furniture, bedding, wheelchairs and car seats.
  • For Home: Place under wet boots and clothing. Protect floors from paint, car leaks and more!
  • For Commercial Use: Great for nurses and EMTs, lab use, antique dealers, etc. to protect investments.
  • For Pets: Use as puppy training pads, under food and water dishes, or as a floormat during baths.
  • For Baby: Keep car seats protected and have a clean diaper changing surface wherever you go.
Specs:
Height8.52 Inches
Length5.44 Inches
Number of items1
Release dateMay 2012
Weight1.97975111276 Pounds
Width1.59 Inches

idea-bulb Interested in what Redditors like? Check out our Shuffle feature

Shuffle: random products popular on Reddit

Found 3 comments on The Development of Modern Chemistry (Dover Books on Chemistry):

u/auntbabe · 10 pointsr/chemistry

I took a grad course on the history of chemistry and we used The Development of Modern Chemistry by Ihde.
Another comprehensive (but style-wise a little hard to read) is
Crucibles:The Story of Chemistry from Ancient Alchemy to Nuclear Fission.

I have yet to read The Disappearing Spoon, a pop-sci read on the history and stories behind discoveries of elements.

u/dusty78 · 6 pointsr/chemistry


Cavendish, when working with 'inflammable air' (H2), noted that it reacted similarly (and had similar density) despite being generated by different acids/metal combos.

Priestley identified O2 as 'dephlogistonated air'.

Marine acid air-HCl
Alkaline air-Ammonia
Fixed air-CO2
vitriolic acid air-SO2

They identified the gasses by what they did and how they were made; it's only retroactively do we see that they were working with discrete gasses.

So, simply, they didn't. They were at the stage then that we are now with particle physics. Just smash stuff together and hope the theory matches the experiment (or if you're a theorist, hope it doesn't). This is one of the major critiques of Priestley's work, that he ignored his own results to steadfastly advance the 'phlogiston' theory of everything.

'Development of Modern Chemistry' Aaron J. Idhe (Dover Press).

This is my favorite book on (well...) the development of modern chemistry, if you're interested in the subject, it's an easy read.