Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the float Name#Password
A subject is required when posting a new thread
[*]Italic Text[/*]
[**]Bold Text[/**]
[~]Taimapedia Article[/~]
[%]Spoiler Text[/%]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace text[/pre]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists


Netjester is chatting 24/7 on Twitch and channel subscribers can use his emoticon
Science denialist vent/ rant. by James Mother Fucking Randi - Fri, 31 Jul 2015 04:30:23 EST ID:FW3hqiSI No.76865 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1438331423442.png -(547907B / 535.07KB, 451x604) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 547907
I started a thread on /spooky/ asking for any evidence of the paranormal or supernatural.

Instead all I got was a bunch of personal attack and people babbling nonsense and presenting it as truth. Then when shown they are incorrect with verifiable data rather than pseudoscience they resort to personal attacks again. They and pretty much all other magical thinkers take any sort of challenge to their beliefs as a personal attack.

I was at a party a few months back and some girl was talking about how she went to some yoga guy who does "laying on of hands". Which involves doing yoga while a dude puts his hands on your body and makes weird noises. Supposedly doing this achieves any number of effects from healing wounds, curing depression and other supposed boons.
not arguing the therapeutic effects of yoga just the laying on of hands part
I tried to understand what she was explaining to me by asking questions. Like asking her what was actually happening because it made 0 sense to me. Instead she started insulting me for being closed minded and shit.

Also in real life I live in the US south. Where people who think the world is 6000 years old is the norm.

Needless to say I deal with people who use magical thinking on a regular basis.
They are 100% willing to reap the benefits of science and the technology that comes with it until it conflicts with some myth or story about ghosts or some shit some one told them. Then all reason and logic go out the window.

Why do so many people especially in the us reject verifiable facts over what feels good? I went to the same public schools as them, I was also raised in a religious household (jewish, although I'm no longer religious). The only difference is that I chose the rational answer.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
89 posts and 15 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
trypto - Sat, 10 Oct 2015 16:30:23 EST ID:VTEeSGZV No.77276 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Most scientific philosphies or scientifically-oriented epistemology focus on how nothing is ever truly 'proven'. It's a purely skeptical stance, in contrast to mathematics which has actual proofs. This is pretty much the starting point for a deeper understanding of how/why science is successful. Bombastus knows this, which is why he used the quotes here:
> science can "prove" various concrete things.

But he fucked it up with this ambiguous phrase:
>if we're discussing the absolute value of something

Absolute value of something? Who knows what that means. It's just sloppy talk. He's probably talking about the colloquial concept of "proof", but saying shit about "absolute value" gives the opposite impression.

I see what >>77235 is saying, but I also think the phrase "scientifically proven" is acceptable and different from plainly 'proven'. "scientifcally proven" is some confidence past a basic consensus. but the phrase should be avoided for this reason.
Samuel Pittway - Mon, 12 Oct 2015 15:06:58 EST ID:/dGkbVvd No.77281 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Since we all know that nothing can be 100% proven, I think the word "proof" can imply an implicit acknowledgement of that fact.
Reuben Sanderfoot - Tue, 13 Oct 2015 01:26:14 EST ID:uGD5aNS6 No.77282 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Its more appropriate to just say "indicates" or "we hypothesize".

I agree, I just tend to shy away from the word. What happens all the time is the scientific community accepts something in a consensus, only to have that consensus overturned or it falls to more complete models. As you said, just try to keep a healthy dose of skepticism of everything since we are so far away from total understanding of anything, especially in the realm of physiology.
Samuel Nishson - Thu, 29 Oct 2015 03:51:53 EST ID:A6yjNMdA No.77338 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>I was at a party a few months back and some girl was talking about how she went to some yoga guy who does "laying on of hands". Which involves doing yoga while a dude puts his hands on your body and makes weird noises. Supposedly doing this achieves any number of effects from healing wounds, curing depression and other supposed boons.

She was probably just saying that because she wanted you to be sceptical and then invite her to demonstrate or whatever out of "curiosity" and it would all quickly escalate into sex.

I won't believe a girl could genuinely be that ditzy.
Cornelius Sublingham - Fri, 21 Sep 2018 11:43:24 EST ID:H2dReURr No.79233 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>76949 bump for spooky

4fmph by Caroline Hunningsat - Thu, 20 Sep 2018 17:02:33 EST ID:JsuSKLxG No.79232 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1537477353525.png -(109613B / 107.04KB, 680x448) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 109613
Can I turn all this 4F-MPH, this 4fluoro-methylphenidate, into plain old methylphenidate (Ritalin) ? For studying? Assume ive dabbled extensively in kitchen chemistry (assume I'm not as feeble in the lab as I am in the psychiatrist offices)
i know its a long shot and im pretty much asking for my work to be done for me but what the hell. the man is on a mission to go back to school

Naltrexone -> Oxymorphone? by Hamilton Beggleshit - Thu, 17 Mar 2016 18:16:02 EST ID:GksK9UMc No.77752 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1458252962747.png -(55460B / 54.16KB, 992x379) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 55460
Dear /chem/,

wikipedia cites that "Naltrexone can be described as a substituted oxymorphone – here the tertiary amine methyl-substituent is replaced with methylcyclopropane. Naltrexone is the N-cyclopropylmethyl derivative of oxymorphone."

Is it possible to revert naltrexone back to oxymorphone? If so, how?

My very limited understanding of organic chemistry leads me to believe that naltrexone could, in proper solution and (probably) with the addition of heat, be broken into oxymorphone and cyclopropylmethylbromide. (pic related)

Any input regarding said (hypothetical) reaction will be greatly appreciated!
7 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Marty Poppenheimer - Sun, 01 Jul 2018 00:46:46 EST ID:D3AAbMyr No.79156 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1530420406530.jpg -(227009B / 221.69KB, 1680x1050) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Would someone mind explaining this process in a way that a significantly more retarded person could understand?

>Treaet Naloxone with Mel in Alcohol, or DMF
What is Mel? What is DMF?

Once you achieve this, you collect what remains from this process, which is Naloxone Methiodide.

>Heat your Naloxone Methiodide in DMF or DMSO
What is DMSO?

>With dodecanethiol qunched with 1 eq base, such as tBuOK
What is Qunched? What is tBuOK?

>t. retarded brainlet with Suboxone Tablets
Any help would be appreciated because I can't get shit out of these. I can follow basic instructions however.
Molly Nadgedale - Sun, 01 Jul 2018 20:46:17 EST ID:OdR7meD+ No.79157 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Google is your friend. Show the minimum effort at least.
Piemaster - Fri, 06 Jul 2018 05:57:39 EST ID:pv6fN59z No.79162 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Would it be possible to turn the cyclopropane into a terminal alkene using aluminum or something? I know cyclopropane's are very unstable.

And then would it possible to attach a carbon to the terminal alkene? You could attach a phenyl or something and make n-phenylpropyl.

Basically to sum up what I'm saying, instead of trying to remove the cyclopropylmethyl group outright, would it be possible to turn it into a 4 carbon chain, the last C=C being a double bond? And then using the reactivity of said double bond to attach something? You'd be able to make a pretty potent agonist that way.
Alice Honeyhall - Mon, 09 Jul 2018 03:51:31 EST ID:mH/x48p3 No.79163 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Cyclopropanes are very unstable but the one pictured with a stabilized alkane group is not. This group shown with an R-cyclopropane is relatively stable.
Carbon-carbon chemistry is very hard. Even harder to do selectively.

Short answer is most likely, no.
Edwin Clarryforth - Tue, 18 Sep 2018 23:44:00 EST ID:y5OCfqyd No.79231 Ignore Report Quick Reply

The cyclopropylmethyl can be turned into isobutyl via palladium under hydrogen. How hard would it be to remove it then?

Candyflip creation by Alice Fezzlefoot - Sun, 28 May 2017 22:51:16 EST ID:eE+IWTWR No.78666 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1496026276961.jpg -(532507B / 520.03KB, 1507x1270) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 532507
I'm looking to start small-scale creation of mdma and lsd. I've got next to no chem. knowledge, and no lab setup yet.

Got any recommendations for reading? Uncle fester and schulgin are the only ones i know of and both are above my pay grade.
What glassware is required? Recommended?
Any recommended materials sources?

21 posts and 3 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Katsuragi !/pe1aKvMmQ - Thu, 24 May 2018 22:10:39 EST ID:4Q6JexVr No.79132 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I like putting tea leaves into ethanol.
I know, I'm SO wacky, such crazes,.
Samuel Turveydock - Wed, 22 Aug 2018 20:45:20 EST ID:zbIVdkqy No.79216 Ignore Report Quick Reply
honestly man you arent gonna be able to pull it off unless you got a lot of money and spare time. no reputable source will sell you their chemicals. best you could do is mdma but mmda would be a better choice and you wouldnt need anything fancy to pull it off. not to mention you can get scheduled starting materials from inconspicuous plants
John Fozzleford - Tue, 04 Sep 2018 01:28:24 EST ID:DpduscwK No.79227 Ignore Report Quick Reply
i dont know about mdma, but i know that an actual lsd synth starting from lysergic acid is actually surprisingly hard. from what i remember, one of the easier ones still required the use of triflouroacetic acid
John Fozzleford - Tue, 04 Sep 2018 01:28:24 EST ID:DpduscwK No.79228 Ignore Report Quick Reply
i dont know about mdma, but i know that an actual lsd synth starting from lysergic acid is actually surprisingly hard. from what i remember, one of the easier ones still required the use of triflouroacetic acid
Barnaby Clondertit - Mon, 17 Sep 2018 16:48:19 EST ID:ggkjpE8I No.79230 Ignore Report Quick Reply

any specific drinks or tea flavors you enjoy? sounds worth a try

bright star tek questions by Ernest Duckson - Thu, 13 Sep 2018 13:45:15 EST ID:HJwBSxjU No.79229 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1536860715304.gif -(1043B / 1.02KB, 512x73) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 1043
One is left with impure methylamine. The stuff includes ammonia chloride.
Is this fine? Is one to assume that when using the adulterated methylamine in later reaction that the ammonia chloride wont matter?

Step 3 says to "flood the reaction contents with 1.5 L of slightly acidic water"
Mix in what container? Largest container called for is 1000ml RBF

Nanome's VR molecular builder by William Murdville - Sat, 01 Sep 2018 20:27:07 EST ID:d9xE4JXm No.79226 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1535848027031.gif -(3760847B / 3.59MB, 600x316) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 3760847
What are you thoughts on this /chem/?


climate change by Frederick Trotson - Tue, 07 Aug 2018 05:17:20 EST ID:qv3Bs+v/ No.79191 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1533633440593.jpg -(96517B / 94.25KB, 1024x576) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 96517
How fucked are we? Are there any viable solutions? How will the world look like in 50 years? 100years?
Forgive me if this isn't the right board but i'm too hot to do a lot of effort.
2 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Martin Drablingville - Thu, 23 Aug 2018 16:04:53 EST ID:quGHpYNb No.79220 Ignore Report Quick Reply
the solution is to first replace all of the GHG-producing crap with non-GHG-producing crap, particularly electricity generation (to solar/wind/nuclear generation with hydro/battery storage) and transportation (to battery electric), but also we need to deal with fertilizer, cement, landfills and cows, roughly in that order. only AFTER that is completed we can start fucking with aerosols or satellites or other weird ideas
Charles Codgefat - Thu, 23 Aug 2018 19:48:08 EST ID:dl9lAnzN No.79221 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Humans are the problem, so let's make 'inverse humans' to balance the equation and reach stability.

Humans are a carbon-based machine that chaotically pollutes the environment by consuming oxygen and organic tissue for energy and expels carbon dioxide and bacterial mats(poo.)

Our robot is therefore a silicon-based (silicon is much more abundant on earth than carbon) machine which runs an organized program to clean its environment, consuming carbon dioxide and bacteria to sustain internal bioreactors that exhale oxygen and produce sugar, which then powers the machine. Then we need 7 billion of them.

We're never going to make humans be better or more responsible, it's utterly futile to try to bet on some 'better angels of our nature' solution. We need to design something that, as it seeks it's own natural path of least resistance, naturally counter-weights our own natural path of least resistance.
trypto - Fri, 24 Aug 2018 17:56:41 EST ID:OdR7meD+ No.79223 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Sounds like you're gonna make photosynthesizing robots that consume humans for nutrients.
Matilda Blinderhun - Sat, 25 Aug 2018 17:16:45 EST ID:dl9lAnzN No.79224 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Well, humans aren't made of bacterial mats, so no, my suggestion was robots that consume human poop for nutrients and breathe human exhale to fix carbon into sucrose. Like all lifeforms, they would only engage in the behaviors they were programmed to do, so if we gave them the instinct to fear and obey humans, they would. However, even if they went out of control and killed off humanity, they would do more for balancing the ecosystem in that than we've ever done. From the standpoint of survival for life on earth, it's a win-win scenario.
Sophie Dreblingstock - Tue, 28 Aug 2018 20:23:45 EST ID:tILXSiV3 No.79225 Ignore Report Quick Reply

I want to see a movie where those things evolve to eat humans.

OTC Nonpolar Solvent by Graham Bunfoot - Thu, 07 Jun 2018 01:15:44 EST ID:3wTRifUB No.79140 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1528348544368.png -(9674B / 9.45KB, 83x80) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 9674
What's something pure and reliable I can use a nonpolar solvent that I can quickly buy?
2 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Bombastus Werrywag - Sun, 10 Jun 2018 22:51:45 EST ID:iycOEdHd No.79143 Ignore Report Quick Reply
what's wrong with gasoline?
press - Mon, 11 Jun 2018 12:50:16 EST ID:MfoZ/ogu No.79144 Ignore Report Quick Reply
dont you north americans have colemans fuel or naptha or something like that? something more like petroleum ether than gasoline.

what kind of compound do you want to extract? perhaps xylene or toluene would be better and almost as easy to source.

nail polish remover is mostly ethyl ethanoate nowadays aint it, well atleast the faggy shit thats aetone free. real man remove their nail polish with acetone containing nail polish remover.
Archie Duckstone - Tue, 21 Aug 2018 23:01:05 EST ID:zbIVdkqy No.79214 Ignore Report Quick Reply
why do you want freebase?
Martin Drablingville - Thu, 23 Aug 2018 15:57:14 EST ID:quGHpYNb No.79218 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I don't know what the fuck you can buy but the standard answers are "acetone", "methyl ethyl ketone", "dichloromethane", "toluene" and "petroleum ether", in decreasing order of polarity. Some distillation may be required.
Martin Drablingville - Thu, 23 Aug 2018 15:58:06 EST ID:quGHpYNb No.79219 Ignore Report Quick Reply
based on your other reply, DCM is the best choice here, or MEK or toluene. pet ether is too weakly solvating and acetone is too polar.

Reducing 3,4,5-trimethoxy-beta-nitrostryrene to mescaline by Matilda Bomblehit - Wed, 13 Jun 2018 11:03:55 EST ID:rajg/xs8 No.79145 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1528902235968.png -(5534B / 5.40KB, 460x300) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 5534
I want to reduce 3,4,5-trimethoxy-beta-nitrostyrene to the amine. What will do this? I've found so much worthless and bullshit information. It seems the main options are:

  1. Zn/HCl or Fe/HCl. I don't know if this goes from the nitrostyrene to the amine or if I need to use NaBH4 to first reduce the double bond. Also, some people say the yields are good and others say the yields are shit.

2. LAH. Not an option.

3. SnCl2 to reduce the nitrostyrene to an oxime and then Zn to reduce the oxime to the amine. I've never found proof of anyone doing this reaction on nitrostyrenes. SnCl2 is good for reducing nitropropenes but who knows if that applies to nitrostyrenes.

4. Al/Hg. Literally toxic. I haven't found any reports of people using the less toxic Al/Ga or Al/Cu amalgam. I also get conflicting information saying Al/Hg reduces directly to the amine, yet others are saying NaBH4 must be used to first reduce the double bond and then the Al/Hg reaction can be run to reduce the nitro group to an amine -- which is it?

Any input would be appreciated, especially from people who have actually run these reactions on this particular substrate.
press - Thu, 14 Jun 2018 15:10:21 EST ID:Hu9hjiL2 No.79146 Ignore Report Quick Reply
whats "literally toxic" as opposed to toxic?
Phoebe Wicklefoot - Wed, 20 Jun 2018 13:34:12 EST ID:f7Wsgp11 No.79148 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Are you planning on making larger quantities? if not, just go with al/hg. use your common sense and everything will be fine. solubility of mercury salts in organic solvents is negligible. when you worry about the organomercury compounds, just give your product (salt) a proper wash with organic solvents and acetone and you are golden
Archie Duckstone - Tue, 21 Aug 2018 22:59:51 EST ID:zbIVdkqy No.79213 Ignore Report Quick Reply
fucking crush it with hot hydrogen
Samuel Turveydock - Wed, 22 Aug 2018 20:39:00 EST ID:zbIVdkqy No.79215 Ignore Report Quick Reply
pushing it through a pad of celite or silica would help but honestly there isnt any reason to go with mg or tin
ochem portal has a page dedicated to conjugated nitro reductions...
Martin Drablingville - Thu, 23 Aug 2018 15:55:31 EST ID:quGHpYNb No.79217 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Zn/HCl is the method of choice for terminal nitrostyrenes, but it fails for nitropropenes. Fe/HCl gives carbonyl compounds which you don't want. Make sure your zinc is good.

What makes atoms do what they do? by Matilda Hassleway - Sat, 10 Mar 2018 11:49:56 EST ID:PTghO7Nx No.79012 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1520700596496.jpg -(161331B / 157.55KB, 639x999) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 161331
Sup /chem/,

There is a fundamental gap in my understanding of the universe. When we look out into the sky and see the sun and stars, measure the Earth orbiting the sun, or see a volcano, it is commonly accepted that eventually, all of these processes will run out of energy and cease to do their thing. However every atom in the universe has positive and negative charges, with the negatively charged particles constantly in motion (and i guess the positive ones too if we count vibration or whatever). How do subatomic particles get a charge in the first place? Will it ever wear off? What makes electrons move? Will an electron ever stop moving and become neutrally charged? Can we apply this seemingly infinite source of subatomic energy to the macro scale to prevent a big freeze or one day generate limitless energy?
34 posts and 4 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
trypto - Sun, 19 Aug 2018 12:24:48 EST ID:OdR7meD+ No.79208 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>why did the universe develop with electrons and protons instead of positrons and positrons?
Should be antiprotons and positrons. Good lord there's a lot of weird typos in that post.
trypto - Sun, 19 Aug 2018 13:06:02 EST ID:OdR7meD+ No.79209 Ignore Report Quick Reply
OK. I'll finally try to follow up. Quickly.

In the last post, I brought us up to the point where physicists saw that light is emitted in packets called 'quanta' at the time. They knew that because of theoretical work following the 'ultraviolet catastrophe'.

But they also knew light acts as a wave, since a single wavelength passing through two slits produces a diffraction pattern (like water waves going through small slits). This is Young's double slit experiement, and was actually an early 19th century experiment (predating most of the experiments I'm talking about here).

They also knew light is a wave because Maxwell's Equations can be used to describe light as an electromagnetic wave very accurately.

But, unlike waves, light didn't appear to travel through any medium. Sound travels through air, ocean waves through water, 'guitar waves' on taught strings, etc. They called the theoretical media that light uses "ether", but attempts to prove its existence failed (the michelson morley experiement).

They also realized that, in many cases, light spectra weren't smooth and continuous. They had very sharp, unexpected lines.

Also at this time, Einstein described the photoelectric effect, where light could be absorbed in quanta
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
trypto - Sun, 19 Aug 2018 13:29:31 EST ID:OdR7meD+ No.79210 Ignore Report Quick Reply
To recap: At this point, the long-held theory that light is a wave was being challenged by a bunch of experiments/models.

And then, while trying to figure that shit out, a bunch of experiments/models suddenly showed that MATTER is a wave.

This is still really only the preamble to quantum mechanics, and it's where the math starts to get more intense. Until this point, the math involved was pretty much calculus and differential equations

The next big experiment would be the one that hippies and armchair philosophers love, which is the variation of the double-slit experiment where observation changes the expected outcome. People try to extrapolate so much metaphysical bullshit with this experiment, and I hate it. Yes, it's an amazing result. yes, the math is deep and profoundly alters how we view reality or truth itself. But at the same time, it's simply a mathematical model that's describing what we see. And then we call it reality. It's boring.

IF I do another post, I'll try to explain this experiment, the math it spawned, and the (legit) philisophical interpretations. This is where linear algebra comes into play, infinite arrays, the schrodinger equation, imaginary numbers, wave equations, and more. IMO, it's the point where "quantum weirdness" becomes solved for the most part. There's some philisophical differences of opinion, but they're not too important.
trypto - Sun, 19 Aug 2018 13:35:45 EST ID:OdR7meD+ No.79211 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>A positive charge interacts with a positive charge differently than a negative charge interacts with a negative charge.
Also, fuck. This should be "A positive charge interacts with a positive charge diferferently than a POSTIVE charge interacts with a negative charge".

Of course, P-P interactions are identical to N-N interactions.
trypto - Sun, 19 Aug 2018 13:48:46 EST ID:OdR7meD+ No.79212 Ignore Report Quick Reply
> IMO, it's the point where "quantum weirdness" becomes solved for the most part. There's some philisophical differences of opinion, but they're not too important.
Oh yeah, and of course special relativity/gravity is still an open question in regards to quantum-scale. Blefht. I'm done. These rambling posts brought to you by Bush. Breakfast of champions.

Your recommended method of extracting DMT? by Matilda Hittingtut - Sat, 18 Aug 2018 10:13:51 EST ID:Udk0Y39+ No.79204 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1534601631648.png -(365367B / 356.80KB, 602x452) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 365367
I was looking up how to extract DMT and apparently it's most commonly done with Mimosa Hostilis root bark. Looking at the guides it's very MacGyver tier. I'm saying I'm wondering if there is a more professional way of doing it. Essentially I'm asking, if you ever looked into extracting DMT and if you have the chemistry background, what methods of extraction do you prefer/recommend and do you have any advice regarding it? Perhaps a mistake that commonly diminishes the quality of the extraction or some deviation from the existing guides to end up with something more pure.
trypto - Sat, 18 Aug 2018 15:30:50 EST ID:OdR7meD+ No.79205 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Rotovaps make chemistry much, much, much easier. That's a device that evaporates solvents very quickly.

Solvent choice is also very helpful. The amateur has to choose between a few commonly available solvents meant for shit like paint-stripping. Professionals can choose a solvent that has analytical standards, and is harder to obtain (can't get at the hardware store).

Pros also have better filtration systems. This is less expensive than the rotovap, and not as much as a time save, but still very helpful.

TLC plates help keep track of whether or not product is there (so you can be more efficient when pulling).

Better ventilation is nice.

Lab freezers are better than home freezers, and usually have safeguards to prevent blowing up.

In the end, if you have white crystals, it's a reasonably pure product. Crystallization is cool like that. However, a well-stocked lab will get higher yields in less time.

Fuckin Minerals by Lydia Bingernudging - Tue, 07 Aug 2018 01:29:22 EST ID:dl9lAnzN No.79190 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1533619762885.jpg -(386783B / 377.72KB, 955x861) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 386783
Need some help guys. So for ???? reasons I'm making a program that models geological systems and mineral formation. Does anyone know of a good source of information on the crustal prevalence of various minerals? I obviously can't simulate every mineral known to science, but I want to get an appropriate swath.

Much appreshes.
5 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
trypto - Wed, 08 Aug 2018 23:15:47 EST ID:OdR7meD+ No.79199 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Oh shit, maybe this?

Here's a visualizer: https://www.clisap.de/fileadmin/B-Research/IA/IA5/LITHOMAP/
The general website:https://www.geo.uni-hamburg.de/geologie/forschung/geochemie/glim.html

Still doesn't seem to include the ocean, which seams kinda important. Maybe I'm missing something.
trypto - Wed, 08 Aug 2018 23:18:00 EST ID:OdR7meD+ No.79200 Ignore Report Quick Reply
NVM. It's still very general, and not really saying what the minerals are. But when you google for "minerals" you pretty much only get exploitable minerals.

I'll stop posting now.
Edward Cittingway - Thu, 09 Aug 2018 20:16:21 EST ID:dl9lAnzN No.79201 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Wow that's a fuckin cool link you found. Unless there's the same data somewhere in table form it's not very useful to me, but I'll probably be dicking around with it anyway, very interesting stuff.

>> You just want to know the total % of minerals, but not the geographical distribution?
Yes, then once I have percentages enough to single out the most significant minerals and soil types (scientifically significant, rather than economically) I will very crudely model what conditions cause the transformations between the different types (elemental composition, heat, pressure, water content, etc.) in order to spit out a world map that is geophysically earth-like but not the actual world If you must know, it's a map generator for a game

>>you pretty much only get exploitable minerals
Yeah that was my frustration which is why I came here in the first place. All lists are either popular/business ones that only list exploitables, or really minor geological papers that go into great minutae about some mineral that only exists in this one crater in BFE. But just by gumshoeing through that I was able to come up with a reasonable middle between the two. 'Rock-forming minerals' was the keyword that seemed to work best for me.

Anywho, thanks for the help guys. I guess we can keep talking about minerals because they are pretty rad, otherwise I will necrobump this thread if it hasn't fallen off by the time my generator is working and show you guys.
Alice Bommlegold - Fri, 10 Aug 2018 09:27:27 EST ID:28EjEn0d No.79202 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I don't know if you are familiar with Dwarf Fortress, but the guy who programmed it knows a lot about geology and has already done the same thing you are trying to do. Maybe if you ask him he will show you where to look or maybe even help you.
Edward Cittingway - Fri, 10 Aug 2018 14:52:56 EST ID:dl9lAnzN No.79203 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1533927176929.gif -(237606B / 232.04KB, 640x622) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Ah thanks but no, those guys are notoriously tight lipped and the complexity of Dwarf Fortress is far beyond the pale of what is necessary or would even be functional for my purposes. Besides, at this point Dwarf Fortress is well studied within the gamedev community and it's easy to get references about how it works without having to bother those two guys.

Definitely though what I am working on has some broad similarities in terms of making a world simulation that leans on emergent properties, but I'm basing it on real world science and chemistry rather than fantasy. Instead of 'mine 5 generic shits and 5 dire poops to craft 1 epic turd' it will be 'collect 75 kg water, 25 kg bacteria, 5 kg protein and 20 kg sugar to make 100 kg of epic turd'

Pages Next>>
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Report Post
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.