Wait until you see the NMR spectra I got of my “cubane”….. mmm yeah that’s good tar

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

Finally! The Chem-tuber community is becoming more mature and professional, as it should be. Great proposal.

Oh dear, chemistry drama

The chemistry between all of the chem-tubers is becoming heated, but I'm here to see it. 😂

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 KZfaq Chemistry Community by making an impossible to deny suggestion, which everyone benefits from. This is the sort of "Um, Actually" I love.

KZfaq 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

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

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!

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.

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

Now NileRed should make "Should you trust ThatChemist?" For circle to be complete :p

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

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

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 😂

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?

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.

New video at 4am? Okay, I’ll take it.

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)

I love the checks between all of the chemistry channels. Keep up the good work!

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’m so glad you said “petrichor.” That made my night.

Nice video frfr, also CHEMISTRY DRAMA SERIES WHEN

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.

Hell yes, i know nothing about chemistry but im here for it

This is fantastic. While the formal criteria proposed here are expensive for some KZfaq 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.

This was a really good video! Happy i started following both of you and some more chemistry utubers

Great way to introduce people to how many steps there are in just proving you made a specific compound. Awesome video!

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 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.

Great video. Thank you for taking the time to make this, it was well thought out, and addresses an important point a lot of chem-tubers don't talk about.

Great analysis. Thanks!

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

Thanks a lot for these efforts ! As much as I like watching your videos, the lack of analysis is always frustrating. Maybe it's the teacher speaking though as I teach synthesis to future lab technicians ! I'm always telling them I won't accept their results if they can't prove that they made what the intended to make. Or at least provide IR, NMR (low res), HPLC, GC or TLC results. Keep up the good work !

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 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.

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.

Interesting. I like the idea, especially if colleagues who have access to the resources are willing to help get the analyses done.

Great video. Would love to see another one about molecule structure identifieng over the years since ancient times

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.

Ah yes, it’s 3am where I live…and there’s a new Chemist Video? Hell yeah!

Great video. Love to see analytical chemistry get its due praise on KZfaq

Nice work on setting up the chemistry youtuber discord. Something like that is just helpful for you guys. And in the end we get more and better videos, so that's a win-win in my books.

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.

I like all the information your videos provide.

15:00 You are a great person for covering the cost of the NMR test!

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 KZfaq 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…

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 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

You know what? Subbed! That was a really cool bit of analytical chem geekery.

I feel like Chemistry KZfaq™ has kind of evolved with this series, there's now like,,, straight-up direct peer review and replication studies being carried out

I'd like to thank you for the effort you are putting into making KZfaq a more serious and reliable source of knowledge for chemistry, I think it would be great if videos included analysis + having a community of creators that can help with it sounds great. Loved the video!

Well done, this is a good thing that KZfaq chemistry is getting a bit more structured with itself. BTW, what are you doing for Halloween? That Alchemist? That would be really cool!

WOW!!! Well the proposal for some standards for verification is already an awesome peek behind the curtain for viewers who don't know how we do science but I am blown away by the clear and straightforward demonstration you made of showing a result is incorrect. I know it's usually the stuff nobody wants to show off. Hell, I'm five years into a review of a hopefully major discovery; it's brutal but I respect the high standards of evidence we are being held to. But it's also the thing the public needs to see more of in order to regain some trust.

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?

Nice video! Really enjoyed it

First time I've been so early to one of your videos, I love learning more about chemistry as I'm finishing up college like this

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.

This rules. I would love it if this became standard practice for KZfaq chemistry.

I'm taking ochem 1 lab right now and I'm suffering (I'm not great at chemistry or math but need it for my Enviro. Bio major) but watching youtube chemistry makes me actually enjoy chemistry. We've used IR spectroscopy instead of NMR, but it seems similar. Super interesting stuff!

great educational video. i spose sam will be on board as with most of us products has to be tested properly to be sure if it’s correct 😊

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.

Yeah, you guys should totally form a 'Guild of KZfaq Chemists' of sorts, where everyone of different capability levels can play and help each other, establish paths of assistance for relevant testing/analysis, etc. This could *really* help you guys elevate each other, give the little guys a leg-up and encouragement; at the very least - get rid of shit-talking or even *assumptions* of shit-talking that seem to have to be regularly dispelled at the moment. I'm here for this. 😊

I'm happy to see other people care about the quality of science being done on this platform. It's always frustrating when somebody makes a claim for a synthesis and doesn't provide any proof other than "I obtained something." I do think NMR, MS, EA, and XRD are amazingly powerful techniques that should be employed in all peer reviewed synthetic work, as appropriate. For the youtube chemist, I think it may be too cost prohibitive. The cheapest characterization techniques out there are probably TLC, melting point, and boiling point. While these are a bit crude for peer reviewed journal articles, they are immensely useful for the home chemist. You did a really good job of covering TLC, but if you have a reference standard I would also suggest doing a co-spot with a mixture of your material and the reference next to the pure reference and your mixture. This prevents misinterpretation of the plate due to solvent moving asymmetrically through the silica. It also costs zero additional dollars if you're already doing TLC. Melting points of purified material can be compared to literature values and, in addition to TLC, are probably sufficient to assess purity and identity of a reported compound even in the absence of a reference standard.

Nice video. Improving the scientific rigour of yt chem is a great thing o7

16:58 There is a name for that mechanism. I have seen this being called semi-benzilic acid rearrangement in an organic chemistry book.

What a well-thought out analysis on the credibility of chem-content online. It's really great to see some awareness, especially on such an important field of study. It is definitely cursed to see so many chem youtubers extrapolate godly yields. I've always questioned the credibility of many KZfaqrs since a lot of people take the internet at face value. What a nice video.

I would argue about elemental analysis and HRMS, as both give you at the end (after proper calculations) the empirical formula of a compound, so both would be in the first characterization category, not in the purity one. It is just that HRMS is often coupled with some kind of chromatography separation (like HPLC). EA is horrible for purity checks, there was lately paper about it's error when analyzing the same sample multiple times, and it is often bigger than the error threshold given for data by journals. On TLC animation, the starting line is BELOW the level of eluent, which would destroy any separation. maybe it is just perspective, but it suggests that you do it as such, with is rookie error. As for TLC analysis, I completely agree! You just forgot to mention that such comparison should be done ON THE SAME PLATE, so separation would be done in ideally the same conditions. Also, the cross spot is important, if standard and unknown compounds are spotted in the same place if they are the same they develop as one, different compounds most often interact on silica together enough that it is visible that something is not right (so-called "snowman" where you have slight shift and it is possible to see those are two spots). Taking into account how easy is historical version of Elemental Analysis (with is wonderful piece of glassware that is a logo of ACS) I am surprised no one made a video about it yet doing such an analysis, it should be perfectly viable in a home chem environment. Besides that, great video. I also miss some analytical data in chemistry videos, sometimes boiling point or melting point is given, but boiling point should be given together with atmospheric pressure (for correction). And sometimes even those old-school spot tests would be a great addition to be able to say that yes, we made what we should.

The tlc animation is a little cursed, putting the intial spot under the solvent 🧐

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.

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

Should I be studying for my biochem exam on Monday? Yes, but I’d rather watch this video first

I am a stockroom manager at a university. That is, I prepare the experiments for the teaching labs for undergrads. I also order consumables and chemicals for same and for the research labs. The costs of videos definitely add up. For example I've found TLC plates anywhere from $0.25 - $2.25 per plate each. One of our undergrad labs uses minimum 6 plates per student IF they don't repeat the experiment because they messed up. That is a buck fifty on the cheap end to 13.50 on the high end. So, yeah, the lab fees are necessary and add up FAST.

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.

As an undergrad my Inorganic professor gave us a minor challenge assignment. I took him upon it. It was a simple chelation of a metal halide with urea. The challenge was to try to make a ring compound. I chose uranyl hexachloride. Why? Because I knew our stockroom had it .. and I’d get to play with uranium. I was confident that if the synthesis worked I’d get a thick non polar oil. Unfortunately I had to work with a lab partner. He grabbed the wrong separating solvent. It took 6 months of rotovapping to finally get a pure enough sample to analyze. But I had succeeded. My professor ended up writing up an article on the synthesis. Apparently no one had ever tried before. I just thought it would be fun.

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

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.

Personally I watch synthesis videos because it's relaxing with an extra bonus of maybe learning something. I only have high-school level chemistry, and haven't touched a reagent since I last used a dilute sodium bicarbonate solution to (maybe?) saponify / dissolve the wax in a clogged ear last year. But I definitely wouldn't mind having analysis in the videos too. Haven't seen much of that. Tom did some stains I remember, and I've seen some kind of analysis in maybe a handful videos. Ps: If someone would comment on my theory about the ear wax, that'd be great. I've no idea if the NaHCO3 helps or if it's just the warm water 😅.

When you're a KZfaqr and "eh, good enough" is all the proof you need

We need to go full circle. NileRed needs to review That Chemist's work now

nile red should post "would you trust explosions & fire?" and its just a 5 second clip of Tom looking coy

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...

Explosions and Fire synthesis validation: It detonates, great success! Extractions and Ire synthesis validation: Novel tar nr. 27, never described before...

This is AWESOME!

what software did you use to make the 3D model of cubane at 3:28, looks very interesting

My favorite thing was you showing the discord server & I see Explosions & Fire's pfp is upside down.

How much of the position of those absorption bands is calculated from theory using numeric integration or whatever, versus having been catalogued experimentally from samples with known structures?

I love the puns you can make with these TLC stains. polymolyb *dic* acid? *p-Anis* aldehyde? And if you don't have any sulfuric acid, you can get some by dissolving sulfuri *cox* ide in water.

Lucky the p-Tolyl disulfide isn't too hazardous. I actually have one of those samples, but it's still sitting in my chem fridge and I never opened it. 😅

The fact that geosmin doesn't even show up in the nmr but you can still smell it just shows the potency of the chemical. (or another chemical that somehow smell the same?)

How about establishing a ChemKZfaqr journal with the guidelines you proposed here? Seeing the ochem lab work done as a video might help a lot of students in the lab and even more with you well proposed conditions. Greetings from a german PhD student suffering from bad ESIs

Wait that tiny thing does proton NMR? The NMR machine I trained on almost required its own building!

The dramatic part is 24k Gold

I'd guess that the 0.1 ppm peak in the cubane NMR is joint grease

I normally avoid videos with clickbatey titles ending in question marks. I'm really glad I made an exception here.

In the NMR of the diketone, that impurity is probably ethyl ester. The quartet for diethyl ether is around 3.4 ppm.

This is an important video. Today, we easily take the atomic theory of matter for granted, but it is actually quite sophisticated. It is totally philosophically legitimate to question the validity of the entire theory (from a student's perspective) because the theory is guaranteeing that the objects of inquiry are too small to be directly measurable. Without naming any other specific hypotheses, there are many other candidate explanations of natural phenomena that conveniently also rely on unobservables, so why should we believe the atomic theory? The reason we should, at its philosophical basis, is the congruence of evidence produced by repetitious observations under controlled conditions, where the style, manner, and interpretation of observations, as well as the conditions, have criteria that can either be met or fail to be met, and are agreed-upon beforehand. We then simply watch what happens, which can either support a hypothesis or fail or support it. May one day, some future humanity look back on our Periodic Table, and say "How could they possibly understand anything, with such primitive understanding?" Perhaps. Maybe they will discover that what we perceive as atoms are some sort of excitation of mathematical fields that weave together physical reality, or some other such thing. But what we're showing here is that this is not "just a guess" or "just a theory". I understand we are studying models or approximations of reality, but the purpose of this entire exercise is not to prove that reality must be some way or another. It is to become personally convinced of the veracity of a statement regarding the nature of reality, and this is not provided by what we think ought to happen or what we expect to happen. The truth of claims about the nature of reality is established upon the basis, as ever, of evidence. Proton NMR, GCMS-MS, and a couple of others are indeed the gold standards in the field of research chemistry. Modern analysis is now of such sensitivity that characterization by any of these analytical methods, or a combination of them, is considered definitive.

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